Recovery Plan

for Upland Species

of the San Joaquin Valley, California
Recovery Plan

for Upland Species

ofthe

San Joaquin Valley, California

Region 1

U. S Fish and Wildlife Service

Portland, Oregon

Authors:

Daniel F. Williams’, Ellen A. Cypher’, Patrick A. Kelly’, Karen J. Miller2,

Nancy Norvell, Scott F. Phillips’, Cheryl D. Johnson’, and Gary W. Colliver’

Other Contributors:

Sam Fittoni (draft San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher account, review),

Ross L. Goldingay’ (recovery strategy and criteria, review),Heather M. Bell2 (draft kit fox

account), Lawrence Saslaw5 (draft San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher account, review), and

Mary Ann T. Showers 6 (draft palmate-bracted bird’s-beak account)

1998

Approved: Date:

I

Manager” alifornia/Nevada Operations Office

Region I, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

iii
Drawing of a San Joaquin kit fox by

Kristina Boechini (based on photo 0

by B. Moose Peterson)

This Recover,’ Plan is dedicated

to the memory of

Suzanne N. Nelson

Wildlife Biologist

San Joaquin Valley Endangered Species Recovery’ Program

October 1992—Jan uarv 1996

Endangered Species Recovery Program. 1900 N. Gateway Blvd., #101. Fresno, CA 93727

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 3310 El Camino, Ste. 130. Sacramento, CA 95821

L’S. Burcau of Land Management, Hollister Resource Area, POB. 365, Hollister, CA 95024-0365

Faculty ofResource Science and Management. Southern Cross University, Lismore. NSW, Australia 2480

§ U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Bakersfield District Office. 3801 Pegasus, Bakersfield, CA 93308

327 Fiesta Avenue. Davis, CA 95616

iv
GUIDE TO RECOVERY PLAN ORGANIZATION

This recovery plan provides individual species accounts for all of the 34 species covered. Recovery strategies are

organized by geographic area (or ecosystem area) whenever possible, thereby combining recovery tasks for multiple

species. Beeause of the length and complexity of this recovery plan, an appendix is provided listing the common name

and scientific name of all plants and animals mentioned in the plan (Appendix A). Technical terms are italicized and

defined at their first use in the text and included in a glossary of technical terms (Appendix B).

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE’S MISSION IN RECOVERY PLANNING

Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior and

the Secretary of Commerce to develop and implement recovery plans for species of animals and plants listed as endangered or threatened unless such plans will not promote the conservation of the species. The Fish and Wildlife

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have been delegated the responsibility of administering the Act.

Recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and

threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be ensured. The goal of this process

is the maintenance of secure, self-sustaining wild populations of species with the minimum necessary investment of

resources. A recovery plan delineates,justifies, and schedules the research and management actions necessary to

support recovery of a species. Recovery plans do not, of themselves, commit manpower or funds, but are used in

setting regional and national funding priorities and providing direction to local, regional, and State planning efforts.

Means within the Endangered Species Act to achieve recovery goals include the responsibility of all Federal agencies to seek to conser\e endangered and threatened species, and the Secretary’s ability to designate critical habitat,

to enter into cooperative agreements with the states, to provide financial assistance to the respective State agencies,

to acquire land, and to develop Habitat Conservation Plans with applicants.
DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and protect listed

species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared withthe assistance of recovery

teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available

subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the needto address other priorities.

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or

agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official

position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceonly after they have been signed as approved. Approved recovery plans

are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, change in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Permission to use copyrighted illustrations and images in the draft and final version of this recovery plan has

been granted by the copyright holders in return for payment of a fee or commission or other consideration. These

illustrations and images are not placed in the public domain by their appearance herein. They cannot be copied or

otherwise reproduced. except in their printed context within this document, without the written consent of the copyright holder.

Literature Citation should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.

Region 1, Portland, OR. 319 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

301/492-3421 or 1-800-582-3421

The fee for the Plan varies depending on the number of pages of the Plan.

vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The recovery planning process has benefitted from

the collaboration, advice, and assistance of many

individuals, agencic.. and organizations over the past

several years. We thank the following people

(Endaneered Species Rccover) Program staffitalicized)

and apologize to anyone who was omitted from this list

nadyerte ntI v:

Michael Allem,’cr. David Anderson, Richard

Anderson. Carol Ashbrook, Bill Asserson, Glenn E.

Basey. Ron B~itic, Robert Beebler. Bill Berry’.

Roxanne Bittman, Ansel Tupper Blake, Deiza Bos,

Laurie Briden. John Brode. Jody Brown, Karen

n. ‘Vikollc Rro’~’,,, staffof the California State

University Stanislaus Foundation. Susan Carter.

KellyChapin, Andrea Chapman. ThomasCharmlcy,

David Chesemore. Steve Clifton, Johna Cochran,

Charles Convis. Gene Cooley. Lincoln Constance.

Bruce Cotterill.John Cranc, DeborahCraghill, Peter

Cross. .Iame.v (‘urrix. Frank Davis, Mary Davis,

Ncttie DeBili. Carl Dealy. Bruce Delgado, Karen

Doran, Chris Eacock. .‘Vikki Ean,ii, Julie Fliason,

staff of the Endangered Species Prgram at the

Naval Petroleum Reserves in California, Joe Engler.

H. Foote. Kathy Freas. Mike Fris, Nancy Frost, Dan

Fults. L)avid Geroiano. Virginia Getz, Theo Glenn.

Rod Goss. Cay Goude. Elizabeth Scott-Graham,

David Grubbs. John Gustafson, Lauri~sa Hainihon,

Kristic Hatunier. Rob Hansen. Deborah Hillyard,

Grade/a Hinshasi, Jay Hinshaxv, Dale HoffmanFloerke. GAry Holmstead, Tim Holtsford. Mike

Horton. Michael Hoo’~ er, Larry Host, Ann Howald.

Donald. Hovick, Dcnnis Johnson, Charles Johnson,

Heather Johnson. Steve bare,.. Karyn KakibaRussell. Thomas Kato, Joanne Kerbava,. Marti Kie,

James Killen. Sharon Kim, Jan Knight, Gail

Kobetich. Peecie Kohl. Karla Kramer. Amy

Kuritsubo. Kathy Lamb, Alan Launer. Bill Lehman.

Kirk Lenin~’ton. Joshua Lerner, Dick Lewis, Russ

Lewis. Jim Lidberg, Haney Lopez, Bill Luce, Jill

Lujan, Jesus Maldonado. Anthony Mann, Richard

Marovich, Robert May, Shirley May. Susan Mazer.

Mark MeFall, Greg Mensik, Stephen Meyer. Diane

Mitchell. James Morefield, Sandra Morey. Steven

Morcy, TedMurphy, Suzanne Nelson. TonyNelson,

Ivana Noell, Lee O’Brien, Sue Orloff, James L.

Patton. B. Moose Peterson, Dale Pierce. Martin

Potter. Gail Presley. Ted Rado, Galen Rathbun,

Rhonda Reed. Ron Rempel. Rebecca Roth, Mike

Sebbat. Tamra Sandos’al, Paula Schiffman, Jan

Scow, Jerry Scrivner, John Shelton, Jeff Single,

Mark Skinner, EL. Sleeper, David Slibsaeer,

Bronda Smith, Scott Snorer, Pete Sorenson,

Kenneth Spencer, LindaSpiegel. Bill Standley. John

Stebbins, XVendv Stevens, David Stoms, Stephen

Tabor. Dean Taylor. Sherry’ Teresa. Reed Tollefson,

Terrence Trasatti, Robert van de Hoek, Callie

Vanderbilt-White, Gay VerSteeg, Norman Va/ic/i.

Gary’ Waldron. Gregory’ Warrick, Wayne White.

Darrin Williams, Sue Williams . .Scott Wilson,

Georgia Woodward, Sonja Yoerg. Dana York.

Richard York, Gary Zahm. T. Zikratch.

We thank the loilowingcompanies and organizations

for grants and donations;

California Natural Diversity Data Base.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, ERDAS.

GTCO, Hewlett-Packard, Iomega. Microsoft.

Monterey’Fish Company, Recreation on Wheels, the

Smithsonian Institution’s National Zoological Park

Conservation and Research Center. Trimble

Navigation, and the World Wildlife Fund

W’e extend special thanks to Karla Al/red, Brian

Cypher. Hugh Possingham, and Katherine RaIls, to

current and past staff members of the Endangered

Species Recovery Program for their significant

contributions to this recovery plan, and, additionally, to

Rosalie Faubion and Ron Schlorff for championing the

Recovery’ Program and all that that has entailed.

thrasher

vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction: This recovery plan covers 34

species of plants and animals that occur in the San

Joaquin Valley of California. The II 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

kanearoo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San

Joaquin kitfox). In addition, 23 candidates or species of

concern are addressed. The plants include lesser

saltscale, Bakersfield smallscale. Lost Hills saltbush,

Vaseks clarkia. Temblor buckwheat, Tejon p(~ppy’.

diamond-petaled California poppy’, Comanche Point

lavia. Munzs tidy-tips. bared’s peppergrass. Mereed

monardella. Merced phacelia, and oil neststraw: and the

animals include Ciervo aecialian scarab beetle. San

Joaquin dune beetle. Dovens dune weevil, San Joaquin

antelope squirrel, short-nosed kangaroo rat. riparian

woodrat. Tulare grasshopper mouse, Buena Vista Lake

shre\k. riparian brush rabbit. and San Joaquin Le Conte’s

thrasher.

The majority’ of these species occurin arid grasslands

and scrublands of the San Joaquin Valley’ and the

adjacent foothills and valley’s. The riparian woodrat and

riparian brush rabbit inhabit forested river corridors of

the eastern San Joaquin Valley’. Conversion of habitat to

agricultural, industrial, and urban uses has eliminated

these species from the majority’ of their historic ranges.

The remainine natural communities (generally’ less than

5 percent of historical values) are highly’ fragmented. and

many are mareinal habitats in which these species may

not persist during catastrophic events such as drought or

floods. Moreover, natural communities have been

altered permanentl~’ by the introduction of nonnati xc

plants. which noxx dominate in many of the remaining

undeveloped areas.

Recovery Objectives: The ultimate goal of this

recovery plan is to delist the 11 endangered andthreatened

species and ensure the lone-teno conser\ ation of the 23

candidates and species of concern. An interim coal is to

reclassil\ the endangered species to threatened status.

Ecos~ stem Approach and Community-level

Strategy for Recovery: This plan presents both an

ccosv stem approach to recovery’ and a community-level

stratecy for recovery’. The latter is appropriate because

most of the listed and candidate species and species of

concern co-occur in the same natural communities and

are interdependent. By protecting entire communities.

the likelihood ofsuccessful recovery’ for listed species is

increased, and ensuring the long-term conservation of

candidates and species of concern is possible. Of

necessity’. this community-level strategy’ is shaped by the

realities of existing habitats, available information on

biology, distribution, and population statuses offeatured

species: and the current and anticipated biological and

social processes that will affect both remnant natural

communities and areas subject to intensive human use.

within the humati-dotninated landscape (i.e.. ecosystem)

ofthe San Joaquin Valley.

An ecosystem approach to recovery in the San

Joaquin Valley recognizes not only the common origins

and interdependencies of the remnant natural

communities, but also the fact that the entire recion today

is a landscape dominated by human activities. Those

activities, while defining and shaping the current

ecosystem. have often had a fragmenting rather than

unifyine effect. Thus, recovery also is dependent on the

cooperation andcollaboration of thevarious stakeholders,

in the Valley ecusvstem. which include private

landowners, local eovernments and citizens, and State

and Federal agencies.

The six key’ elements that compose this ecosystem

approach and community-level recrrx cry’ strategy are

described below.

1. Recovery criteria

The community —level approach facilitates recovery

bat does not negate the need to consider the

requirements of each species. Thus, individual

recovery criteria are presented for each of the I

listed species cox ered by’ this plan to track their

progress towards recovery’ and to ensure that all of

their recoverx needs arc addressed.

Separate criteria are given in the recovery’ plan for

downlisting 10 species from endangered to

threatened. for delistine those 10 species plus I

threatened species. and tor aehievine lone-term

conservatm’n ~if the 23 species that are not currently’

listed. Elements common to the recovery’ criteria of

most listed species include:

viii
• protection from development and incompatible

uses of the habitat of specified populations

representing the full range of genetic and

geographic variation in the species,

• development andimplementation of appropriate

habitat management plans for each species and

area identified for protection, and

• self-sustaining status of the specified

p pu I ations.

The protection stratecies for most candidates and

species of concern are based on the assumption that

ifpopulations remain in habitatremnantsthroughout

a species’ historical range, are secure from threats.

and are not declining, formal listing may’ not be

nec e 5sary.

the margins oftheValley’. Few Valley floorlinkages

exist at this time; restoration of continuous corridors

or islands of suitable vegetation that can act as

‘stepping stones” will be necessary’ to provide

movement corridors. Natural land remaining along

the fringes of the San Joaquin Valley will provide

both habitat and linkages.

Smaller specialty’ reserves also are a necessary part

of the proposed habitat protection network. They’

are important for recovery of certain species with

highly restricted geographic ranges or specialized

habitat requirements. These reserves may be small

areas surrounded by developed land, orthey’ may be

portions of larger conservation areas that require

special management.

2. Habitat protection 3. Umbrella and keystone species

Considering that habitat loss is the primary cause of

species endangerment in the San Joaquin Valley, a

central component ofspecies recovery’ is to establish

a network of conservation areas and reserves that

represent all of the pertinent terrestrial and riparian

natural communities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Habitat protection does not necessarily require land

acquisition or easement. The n-most important aspect

of habitat protection is that land uses maintaimm or

enhance specieshabitat values. Elements 4-6 ofthe

recovery strategy’ address this issue.

Existing natural lands, occupied by’ the covered

species, are targeted for conservation in preference

to unoccupied natural land or retired farmland. This

greatly’ reduces or eliminates the need for expensive

and untested restoration work to make the land

suitable for habitation by’ these species. Many’ofthe

covered species are concentrated in the natural

communities that persist in the San Joaquin Valley.

The recommended approach is to protect land in

large blocks whenever possible. Large blocks

minimize edee eft~ects. increase the likelihood that

ecosystem functions will remain intact, and

facilitate management.

Another recommendation of the plan is that,

whenever possible. blocks of conservation lands

should be connected by’ natural land or land with

compatible uses to allow for movement of species

between blocks. Linkages are proposed both on the

floor ofthe San Joaquin Valley and in foothills along

In formulating the community-level strategy,

greater emphasis was placed on two groups of

species due to their pivotal roles in either

conservation (umbrella species) or ecosystem

dynamics (keystone species).

The San Joaquin kit fox occurs in nearly all the

natural communities used by’ other species featured

in this plan. but these others are much more

restricted in their choice of habitats. The broad

distribution and requirement for relatively large

areas of habitat means conservation of the kit fox

will provide an umbrella of protection for many’

otherspecies that require less habitat. Therefore, the

San Joaquin kit fox is an umbrella species for

purposes ofthis recovery’ plan. Many of its needs are

given higher priority in recovery actions at the

regional level (i.e., the ecosystem level) than those

of other species because it is one of the species that

will be hardest to recover; fulfilling the fox’s needs

also meets those of many other species.

Protection of keystone species is a high priority’

because they provide important or essential

components of the biological niche of some other

listed and candidate species. The giant kangaroo rat

and, to a lesser extent, the Fresno, short-nosed, and

Tipton kangaroo rats are key’stone species in their

communities. Burrowing by’ giant kangaroo rats

modifies the surface topography of the landscape

and chances the mineral composition of the soil.

Their burrows provide refuges and living places lor

many’ small animals, including blunt-nosed leopard

ix
lizards and San Joaquin antelope squirrels. The

areas over and around their burrows provide a

favored microhabitat for the growth of California

jewelfiower and San Joaquin woolly-threads. Giant

kangaroo rats are the most abundant mammal in

their community’, and are the favored prey of San

Joaquin kit foxes and many’ other predators. The

Fresno, short-nosed, and Tipton kangaroo rats have

similar but less dramatic roles in their communities.

4. Monitoring and research program

This recovery plan has been developed based on the

best scientific information currently’ available.

However, many’ important aspects of species

biology’ and management have not yet been studied.

Thus, continued research, in conjunction with

adaptive nmattagement (element #5), is a crucial

component ofthis plan. Recovery criteria and tasks

must be reevaluated l~or each species as research is

completed.

Primary’ information needs for the species featured

in this plan and the ecosystem as a whole are:

• habitat management research.

• habitat and species restoration trials,

• surveys to determine species distributions,

• biosystematic and population genetics studies,

• reproductive and demographic studies.

• population censusing and monitoring, and

• studies of pesticide effects on the featured

species and their associated species.

5. Adaptive management

In most cases, active management ofthe land is

necessary’ to maintain and enhance species habitat

values. However, management strategies have not

been investigated for most species. Management

research (element #4) may take many years to

complete, while listed species populations comitmnue

to decline. The only’ practical approach is adaptive

management. where some ty’pe of manaeement is

applied, population responses are monitored, the

outcome is evaluated, and management is readjusted

accordingly’. This process should continue until

detmnitive research is completed or self-sustaining

populations are achieved. Unless scientific data or

credible evidence point to the contrary, the

recommended initial management strategy for each

area that is occupied by listed species is to continue

existing land uses at current levels.

6. Economic and social considerations

This plan proposes six tactics to reduce the costs of

recovery, the impact ofrecommended actions on the

local economy’, and the constraints placed on

citizens of the San Joaquin Valley:

• Focusing recovery, to the maximum extent

possible, on lands already’ in public or

conservation ownership.

• Encouraging continuation of traditional land

uses, such as seasonal livestock grazing, oil

production. hunting, and wildland recreation,

when compatible with listed species

management needs,

• Targeting agricultural land that must be retired,

due to drainage problems or lack of irrigation

water, for restoration to provide linkages or

additional habitat for listed species,

• Developing a safe harbor program as an

incentive for landowners to maintain or create

endangered species habitat on their property’,

• Developing other positive incentives, especially’

economic, for conservation, and

• Tying, as closely as possible, the habitat

protection network to local and regional

conservation planning efforts, including habitat

conservation plans.

Implementation Participants: Although the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service has the statutory responsibility’ for

implementing this recovery plan, and only Federal

agencies are mandated to take part in the effort, the

participation of a variety’ of groups, in both initial plan

implementation and thesubsequent adaptive management

process, is important to successful recovery. Thus, the

plan recommends the establishment ot a regional,

cooperative public/private recovery’ plan implementation

team to enlist the participation of all stakeholder groups

and interested parties. This group would develop a

participation plan, coordinate education and outreach

efforts, including community participation in research

and information gathering when appropriate, assist in

developing economic incentives for conservation and

recovery’, ensure that adaptive management is practiced,

and define other recovery and management tasks as

necessary’.

x
Total Estimated Cost of Recoverytm:

Priority 1 tasks: $19,200,500

Priority 2 tasks: $17,253,500

Priority 3 tasks: $3,650,000

There are likely to be additional costs that are yet to be determined.

Date of Recovery: Because recovery is defined in relation to a elimatological cycle for most species covered in this

recovery plan, the date of recovery is anticipated for most listed species to be approximately 20 years.

Priority 1—An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the species from declining irreversibly in

the foreseeable future.

Priority 2—An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population or habitat quality, or

some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

Priority 3—All other actions necessary’ to meet recovery objectives.

xi
CONTENTS

I.INTRODUCTION 1

A. Overview

1. Species Represented and Biotic Communities

2. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Communities 9

3. Conservation Efforts at the Community Level 10

4. Ecosystem-Level Recovery Strategy 20

II. SPECIESACCOUNTS 27

A. California Jewelflower (Caalanthus cahfornicus) 27

1. Description and Taxonomy 27

2. Historical and Current Distribution 27

3. Life History and Habitat 29

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 30

5. Conservation Efforts 30

6. Recovery’ Strategy 31

B. Palmate-Bracted Bird’s-Beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) 32

1. Description and Taxonomy 32

2. Historical and Current Distribution 32

3. Life History and Habitat 33

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 33

5. Conservation Efforts 35

6. Recovery Strategy 35

C. Kern Mallow (Eremalche kernensis) 36

I. Description and Taxonomy 36

2. Historical and Current Distribution 37

3. Life History and Habitat 39

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 39

5. Conservation Efforts 40

6. Recovery Strategy 41

D. Hoover’s Woolly-Star(Eriastrumn hoox’eri) 41

I. Description and Taxonomy 41

2. Historical and Current Distribution 42

3. Life History’ and Habitat 42

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 44

5. Conservation Efforts 44

6. Recovery Strategy’ 45

E. San Joaquin Woolly-Threads (Lemnbertia congdonii) 45

I. Description and Taxonomy’ 45

2. Historical and Current Distribution 46

3. Life History’ and Habitat 46

xiii
4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 48

5. Conservation Efforts 48

6. Recovery Strategy 49

F. Bakersfield Cactus (Opurmtia basilaris var. rreleasei) 49

I. Description and Taxonomy 49

2. Historical and Current Distribution 50

3. Life History and Habitat 50

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 52

5. Conservation Efforts 53

6. Recovery Strategy 53

G. Arid Grassland and Shrubland Plants 54

I. Lesser Saltscale (A triplex nminuscula) 54

2. Bakersfield Smallscale (A triplex tularensis) 56

3. Lost Hills Saltbush (Atriplex vallicola) 59

4. Vasek’s Clarkia (Clarkia tembloriensis ssp. calientensis) 60

5. Temblor Buckwheat (Eriogonunm tentblorense) 64

6. Tejon Poppy (Eschscholzia lenmnionii ssp. kernensis) 66

7. Diamond-petaledCalifornia Poppy (Eschscholzia rhomimbipetala) 68

8. Comanche Point Layia (La via leucopappa) 70

9. Munz’s Tidy-tips (Layia rnunzii) 73

10. Jared’s Peppergrass (Lepidiunmjaredii) 75

11. Merced Monardella (Monardella leucocephala) 78

12. Merced Phacelia (Phacelia ciliata var. opaca) 80

13. Oil Neststraw (Stylocline citroleurn) 82

H. Giant Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ingens) 85

I. Description and Taxonomy 85

2. Historical and Current Distribution 85

3. Life History and Habitat 87

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 92

5. Conservation Efforts 93

6. Recovery Strategy 94

I.Fresno Kangaroo Rat (Dipodonmys nitratoides exilis) 96

1. Description and Taxonomy 96

2. Historical and Current Distribution 97

3. Life History and Habitat 99

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 101

5. Conservation Efforts 102

6. Recovery Strategy 104

J. Tipton Kangaroo Rat (Dipodonmy’s nitratoides nitratoides} 106

1. Description and Taxonomy 106

2. Historical and Current Distribution 107

3. Life History and Habitat 107

xiv
4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 110

5. Conservation Efforts 111

6. Recovery Strategy Ill

K. Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard (Ganmbelia si/a) 113

1. Description and Taxonomy 113

2. Historical and Current Distribution 114

3. Life History and Habitat 114

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 118

5. Conservation Efforts 120

6. Recovery Strategy 121

L. San Joaquin Kit Fox ( Vu/pes macrotis nmutica) 122

1. Description and Taxonomy 122

2. Historical and Current Distribution 124

3. Life History and Habitat 124

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival 129

5. Conservation Efforts 131

6. Recovery Strategy 132

M. State Listed, Federal Candidates and OtherAnimal Species of Concern 136

1. Dune Community Insects 136

a. Ciervo Aegialian Scarab Beetle (Aegialia concinna) 137

b. San Joaquin Dune Beetle (Coelusgracilis) 137

c. Doyen’s Dune Weevil (Trigonoscuta sp.) 139

2. San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel (Antnmospermophi/us nelsoni)..................................................... 142

3. Short-Nosed Kangaroo Rat (Dipodonmys nitratoides brevinasus) 147

4. Riparian Woodrat (Neotomafuscipes riparia) 153

5. Tulare Grasshopper Mouse (Onvchomys torridus tu/arensis) 156

6. Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ormmatus relictus) 160

7. Riparian Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) 164

8. Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei leconrel) 170

III. RECOVERY 177

A. Objectives 177

1. Ecosystem-Level Strategy 177

B. Recovery Criteria 179

C. Recovery Priorities 193

I. General Ranking Categories 193

2. Priority’ Ranking Emphasis 193

IV. STEPDOWN NARRATIVE 195

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 231

xv
VI. REFERENCES 255

A. References Cited 255

B. Personal Communications 284

C. In Litt. References 287

VII. APPENDIX 290

A. List of Scientific andCommon Names of Plants and Animals 290

B. Glossary of Technical Terms 296

C. Priorities for Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species 300

D. Listed and Candidate Species Occurring in the San Joaquin Valley Region Which are Not Featured in

this Recovery Plan 301

E. Safe Harbor Programs 304

F. Retirement of Farmland with Drainage Problems 306

G. Summary of Agency and Public Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for Upland Species of

the San Joaquin Valley, California 309

xvi
TABLES

Table 1. Federally-Listed Species. Candidates and Species of Concern Included in this Recovery Plan,,,,.,...,,..,.2

Table 2. Summary of Larger and Community-level Conservation Efforts in the San Joaquin Valley Planning

Area 13

Table 3. Key to Public and Conservation Land Parcels Shown in Figure 4 23

Table 4. Generalized Recovery Criteria for Federally-Listed Plants and Animals 180

Table 5. Site-Specific Protection Requirements to Meet Delisting Criteria for the Six Federally-Listed Plant

and Five Federally-Listed Animal Species 184

Table 6. Generalized Criteria for Long-Term Conservation of California-Listed and Federal Candidate Species

and Species of Concern 189

Table 7. Large Blocks or Core Areas of Natural Lands Targeted for Protection 197

Table 8. Natural Lands Targeted for Protection as Specialty Reserves 202

Table 9. Survey Needs for Featured Species in Upland and Riparian Communities of the San Joaquin Valley

Planning Area 207

Table 10. Demographic and Other Research and Monitoring Needs for Featured Species in Upland and

Riparian Communities of the San Joaquin Valley Planning Area 210

Table 11. Valley’ Floor Linkage Areas 219

Table 12. Linkage Areas Around the San Joaquin Valley Edge and Elsewhere 223

Table 13. Status Review Requirements for Candidates and Other Species ofConcern Featured in this

Recovery’ Plan 228

xvii
FIGURES

Figure 1. The Great Central Valley of California 5

Figure 2 Map of historical natural vegetation of central California, based on Kuchler (1977) .......,....,..,.....,.,. 7

Figure 3. Map showing recent land uses in three categories 11

Figure 4. Planning area, showing public and conservation lands 21

Figure 5. Illustration ofCalifornia jewelfiower 27

Figure 6. Distribution of California jewelflower (Caulanthus ca/mforimicus) 28

Figure 7. Illustration of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak 32

Figure 8. Distribution of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordy/ahmthuspa/rnatus) 34

Figure 9. Illustration of Kern mallow 37

Figure 10. Distribution of Kern mallow (Erema/che ker;memmsis) 38

Figure 11. Illustration of Hoover’s woolly-star 42

Figure 12. Distribution of Hoover’s woolly-star (Eriastrum hooveri) 43

Figure 13. Illustration of San Joaquin woolly-threads 45

Figure 14. Distribution of San Joaquin woolly-threads (Le,mmbertia congdonii) 47

Figure 15. Illustration ofBakersfield cactus 49

Figure 16. Distribution of Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basi/aris var. tre/easei) 51

Figure 17. Distribution of lesser saltscale (Atrip/ex ,mmimmuscula) 55

Figure 18. Illustration of Bakersfield smallscale 57

Figure 19. Distribution of Bakersfield smallseale (Atriplex tularensis) 58

Figure 20. Distribution of Lost Hills saltbush (A triplex va//icola) 61

Figure 21. Distribution of Vasek’s clarkia (C. tembloriensis ssp. ca/iemmtensis) 63

Figure 22. Distribution of Temblor buckwheat (Eriogonummm temnblorehmse) 65

Figure 23. Illustration of Tejon poppy 66

Figure 24. Distribution of Tejon poppy (Eschscho/zia lenmnmo..mii ssp. kernensis) 67

Figure 25. Distribution of diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscho/zia rhombipetala) 69

Figure 26. Illustration ofComanche Point layia 71

Figure 27. Distribution of Comanche Point layia (Layja leacopappa) 72

Figure 28. Illustration of Munz’s tidy tips 73

Figure 29. Distribution of Munz’s tidy-tips (Lavia munzii) 74

Figure 30. Illustration of Jared’s peppergrass 76

Figure 31. Distribution ofJared’s peppergrass (Lepidiunmjaredii) 77

xviii
Figure 32. Illustration of Merced monardella 78

Figure 33. Distribution of Merced monardella (Monarde/la /eucocepha/a) ~ 79

Figure 34. Illustration of Merced phacelia 80

Figure 35. Distribution of Merced phacelia (Phacelia ciliata var. opaca) 81

Figure 36. Distribution of oil neststraw (Stv/ocline citro/eunm) 83

Figure 37. Illustration of the giant kangaroo rat 85

Figure 38. Distributional records of the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomnvs ingens) 86

Figure 39. Locations of extant populations of giant kangaroo rats (Dipodonmvs ingens) 87

Figure 40. Numbers of giant kangaroo rats captured during August censuses, Elkhorn Plain 89

Figure 41. Distribution of extant colonies of giant kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ingens) in their northern

geographic range 90

Figure 42. Illustration of a San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomvs nitratoides) 96

Figure 43. Distributional records for the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodonmys mmitratoides exi/is) 98

Figure 44. Designated critical habitat for the Fresno kangaroo rat 103

Figure 45. Distributional records for the Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomnvs nim’ratoides nitratoides) 108

Figure 46. Percentage of reproductive female Tipton kangaroo rats 109

Figure 47. Numnber of Tipton kangaroo rats known to be alive each month 109

Figure 48. Illustration of a blunt-nosed leopard lizard 113

Figure 49. Distributional records for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Ganmbe/ia si/a) 115

Figure 50. Illustration of a kit fox 123

Figure 51. Map of distributional records for the San Joaquin kit fox 125

Figure 52. Drawing ofthe Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle (Aegia/ia concinna) 137

Figure 53. Distributional records for three species of sand dune inhabiting beetles in the San Joaquin Valley’,

California 138

Figure 54. Illustration of San Joaquin dune beetle 139

Figure 55. Illustration of Doy’en’s dune weevil 140

Figure 56. Illustration of a San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Aininospermophilus nelsoni) 142

Figure 57. Distributional records for the San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Amnmnospermnophi/us ne/soni) 144

Figure 58. Distributional records for the short-nosed kangaroo rat (Dipodomnvs ,mitratoides brevimmasus) 149

Figure 59. Number of short-nosed kangaroo rats captured during August censuses, Elkhorn Plain 150

Figure 60. tllustration of a riparian woodrat 153

Figure 61. Distributional records for the riparian woodrat (Neotonmajiiscipes riparia) 154

Figure 62. Illustration of a Tulare grasshopper mouse 157

xix
Figure 63. Distributional records for the Tulare grasshopper mouse (Onyclmomys torridus tu/arensis) ~ 158

Figure 64. Illustration of a Buena Vista Lake shrew 161

Figure 65. Recent distributional records for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) ~ 162

Figure 66. Illustration of a riparian brush rabbit 165

Figure 67. Distributional records forthe riparian brush rabbit (Sy/r’i/agus bachmani riparius)........,.,..,.,,,,. 166

Figure 68. Illustration of aLe Conte’s thrasher 170

Figure 69. Distributional records for the San Joaquin Valley population of Le Conte’s thrasher

Toxostomna /econtei ,mmacmnillanorumn) 172

Figure 70. Place locations for Tables 7, 9, and 10 201

Figure 71. Locations of specialty reserves targeted for protection 206

Figure 72. General locations of areas targeted as Valley floor linkages between natural communities .............. 221

Figure 73. San Joaquin Valley conservation and recovery planning overview 225

xx
Recove.-y Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

I. INTRODUCTION

The San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys together

form the greatCentral Valley of California, an enormous

flat-bottomed trench rimmed by’ mountains (Figure 1).

The Valley floor is 690 kilometers (430 miles) long and

covers about 6,000,000 hectares (15 million acres). The

San Joaquin Valley’s watershed encompasses approximately 20 percent ofthe land area ofthe State (Colliver

1993). Its floor below about the 152-meter (500-foot)

contour measures approximately 3.44 million hectares

(8.5 million acres) andextends about415 kilometers(258

miles) north-south. West of the Valley proper, hills

below about 915 meters (3,000 feet) and high plains

support natural communities in common with much of

the Valley’ floor.

The San Joaquin Valley floor is occupied by four

urban areas each with populations numbering from

200,000 to more than 500,000 people—Stockton,

Modesto. Fresno, and Bakersfield—and eight smaller

urban centers each with between 50,000 and 150,000

people: Lodi. Tracy, Manteca, Turlock. Merced,

Madera, Hanford-Lemoore, and Visalia. By 1979, nearly

all the Valley floor and many of the flatter upland areas

were urbanized or converted to cultivated cropland. Less

than 60,700 hectares (150,000 acres), or less than 5

percent, of the Valley floor remains uncultivated. Most

of the remaining undeveloped land is in the foothills on

the Valley’s perimeter. Significant portions of the land

not cultivated or urbanized have been developed for

petroleum extraction, strip-mined for gypsum and clay,

or occupied by’ roads, canals, airstrips, oil-storage

facilities, pipelines, and evaporation and percolation

basins.

A. OvERS’ww

1. Species Represented and Biotic Communities

Listed Species—This recovery plan covers II

species federally-listed as endangered or threatened

(Table I). Five plants endemic to arid shrublands and

grassland communities of the San Joaquin Valley’ are

endangered or threatened. Of the five, the California

jewelfiower occupied a wide range of elevation and

community’ types but is now very restricted in

distribution. Bakersfield cactus is the only desertadapted succulent plant within the San Joaquin Biotic

Region (Williams and Kilburn 1992). A sixth

endangered plant covered in thisrecovery plan,palmatebracted bird’s beak, mostly occupies alkali sink and

chenopod scrub communities; its range extends into

similar communities in the Sacramento Valley.

Of the five federally-listed endangered species of

animals included in this recovery’ plan, two species have

formerly-approved recovery plans. A recovery plan for

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard was approved in 1980

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1980a) and a

revised recovery plan was approved in 1985 (USFWS

1985a). The San Joaquin kit fox recovery plan was

approved in 1983 (USEWS 1983). Thus, this recovery

plan represents a revision of the recovery plans for these

two species.

Of these II federally-listed plant and animal species.

critical habitat has been designated only for the Fresno

kangaroo rat. See the species account for the Fresno

kangaroo rat for a description of its critical habitat.

Associated Candidates and Species of Concern.—

Thirteen plant species of concern that occur in desert

scrub, grassland, and seasonal plava habitats with

existimig geographic ranges within the region are fully

considered in this recovery plan (Table I). Three

mammals that are candidates forFederal listing, and four

mammal species of concern and one avian species of

concern also are featured in this recovery’ plan (Table 1).

The Buena Vista Lake shrew is the only’ species to he

included that was historically most common in wetlands.

It is included here because all of its extant habitat and

potential habitat is included within the habitats of the

listed species that use alkali sink and associated

communities. Two riparian species also are included, the

riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat. Though their

habitats are distinct from those of the other featured

species, they are the only’ two riparian species whose

ranecs are confined to the San Joaquin Valley. It was

expedient to include them here. Three insect species of

concern confined to interior sand dune communities and

loose sandy soils in other grassland and shrubland

communities also are featured in this plan (Table I).

Approximately 61 other plants of concern have

geographic distributions partly or wholly within the San

Joaquin Valley planning region, but either are confined

to wetlands and vernal pools or range into the Sierra

1
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 1. Federally-Listed Species, Candidates and Species of Concern

included in this Recovery Plan.

Species Status ~ Recovery PriorIty

Federal Usting Date

& Reference;

State LIsting Date

CommunIty AssocIations

California Jewelfiower

(Cau/anthus ca/ifornicus) ~ CE 2

19 Jul 1990, 55 Fed.

Reg. 29370; Jan 1987

grasslands, subshrub scrub, chenopod

scrub, juniper woodland

palmate-bracted bird’s-beak

(Cordv/armt/mus pa/nmatus)

FE CE

,

2c 31 Jul 1986, 51 Fed.

Reg. 23765; May 1984

Valley and foothill grasslands,

chenopod scrub

Kern mallow (Erema/che

kernensis)

FE 2 19 Jul 1990, 55 Fed.

Reg. 29370

chenopod scrub, grassland

Hoover’s woolly-star (Eriastrumn

/moov’eri)

H’ 2 19 Jul 1990, 55 Fed.

Reg. 29370

chenopod scrub, grassland

San Joaquin woolly’- threads

(Lembertia congdonii) FE I

19 Jul 1990, 55 Fed.

Reg. 29370

grassland, chenopod scrub, subshrub

scrub

Bakersfield Cactus (Opuntia

basi/aris var. tre/easei) FE, CE 3c

19 Jul 1990, 55 Fed,

Reg. 29370; Jan 1990

sandy soils, arid grassland, chenopod

scrub

giant kangaroo rat (Dipodonmvs

ingens)

FE CE 2 5 Jan 1987, 52 Fed. Reg.

283; 2 Oct 1980

grassland, chenopod scrub, subshrub

scrub

Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomvs

nitratoides exi/is) FE, CE 3c

30 Jan 1985, 50 Fed.

Reg. 4222; 27 June

197 l(rare), 2 Oct 1980

(endangered)

Relictual Interior Dune Grassland,

other grasslands, chenopod scrub,

alkali sink

lipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomvs

nitratoides nitratoides

FE, CE 3c 25608; 8 Jul 1988, II Jun53 Fed. 1989 Reg.

Relictual Interior Dune Grassland, chenopod scrub, alkali sink, other

grasslands

blunt-nosed leopard lizard

(Ganmbe/ia si/a)

FE, CE 2c II Mar 1967, 32 Fed.

Reg. 4001; 27 Jun 1971

grassland, chenopod scrub, alkali

sink, subshrub scrub

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes

,nacrotjs mutica)

FE, CT 3c 11 Mar 1967, 32 Fed.

Reg. 4001; 27 Jun 1971

grasslands, chenopod scrub, alkali sink, subshrub scrub, oak woodland,

agriculture

lesser salmscale (Atrip/ex

nminuscu/a) SC chenopod scrub, grassland, alkalineplayas

Bakersfield smallscale (A triplex SC, CE Jan 1987 alkali sink, chenopod scrub

Lost Hills saltbush (Atriplex SC alkali sink, chenopod scrub

tembloriensis ssp. calientensis) SC

Valley and foothill grassland

Temblor buckwheat (Ericgonum

temblorense)

SC barren clay, shale soils, grassland,

subshrub scrub

Tejon poppy (Eschsc/mo/zia

/emmonii ssp. kernensis)

SC grasslands

diamond-petaled California poppy

(Eschscho/zia rhombipetala)

SC clay soils, grasslands

Comanche Point layia (Layia

leucopappa)

SC chenopod scrub. grasslands

2
Recovery P/an for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 1 (co,ttimmued). Federal/v-Listed Species. candidates ammd Species of Commcermm Included in this Recover,’ P/aim.

Species Status • Recovery

Priority b

Federal Ustlng Date

& Reference;

State Listing Date

Community Associations

Mun,>. tidy-tips Lovio onwzim, SC alkaline day’ soils, grasslands. rhenopod scrub

bared’s peppergrass (Lepidiomn

jaredii)

alkali ~ink. grasslands. vbenopod

s~ rub

Merced monardella Monorde//o

leuoceplmo/a SC sands soils, grasslands

Nlerced phaceIi a (P/move/to ~ ‘~

x ar. oprico)

SC ela\ soils erasslands

oil neststraw lSrr/o/imme

Ci!KO/i’iOfi I

SC e lax’ sails, chenopod scrub

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle

lAegia/ia concitmmma

Relictual Interior Dune Grassland.

ehenopod scrub in sandy soil

.

.——,. ,Lh~k~P~iJ

~ (it 1 ~ . ~land. ehenapod serca. subshrub

jscrub. alkali sink

gras ‘land. chcnopod scrub, subshrub

scrub. alkali sink

San Joaquin dune beetle Coe/us

(,aci/isi

SC Relietual Interior Dune Gmas’.lai-d.

chenonod scrub

Dovens dune ~cevil

Trigonosciao sp.} SC

Pelictuil Interior Dune Grassland,

scrub

Sari ioaquin antelope squirrel

‘.Aooiusperoop/mi/us nelsonm)

SC CT

shun-nosed kangaroo rat

Dipodooivs nitruwides

breitmmasasi

~

riparian woodrat lNeotomna

juacipes riparia I

P

PE riii an an t crest arid ‘.c rub

blare ~rasshopper mouse

fUnvcho,nss tr’rrjdus ndareosis

—

Buena Vista Lake shress Sore.t

ama tus re/ictus)

‘~.

——‘—4

grassland, chenopod scrub, subshrub

scrub, ,dkali sink

~ ripadan

nparian brush rabbit fSy/vi/nyos

bac/i;nn fit ~t/iOruin

PE. CE 29 Apr 1994 riparian forest and scrub

San Joaquin LeConte’s thrasher

Toxosrommma /eco,mtei lecooteij

SC chenopod scrub, subshrub scrub

FE & FT—Federal Endangered and Threatened; CE & CT—California Endangered and Threatened; PE—proposed endangered;

C—Federal candidates for listing: SC—species of concern (species not presently candidates tor listing) (USFWS 1~6).

Recovery Priority—

See Appendix C for how recovery priorities are established for tisted species.

3
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Nevada foothills or Delta and East Bay’ Regions at the

north end ofthe Valley, and are not covered by this plan.

Additionally’, there are other listed andcandidate species

which occurwithin the San Joaquin Valley which are not

covered in this plan. These species are either covered

under existing recovery plans or will be covered by a

recovery’ plan in the future. The federal status, species

distribution, and the availability’ of a recovery’ plan are

listed in Appendix D.

Biotic Communities.—Major types of natural plant

communities in the San Joaquin Valley’ below the 500-

meter (1 .500-foot) contour include herbaceous (grasslands, vernal pools, andmarshes), shrublands, woodlands,

and riparian forests (Figure 2; Kiichler 1977. Holland

1986. Griggs et al. 1992). Above that elevation,

xcge tation grades through woodlands and into evergreen

forests. On the west, grassland and shrub communities

extend to between 600 and 900 meters (2,000 and 3,000

feet).

Although biotic communities comprise both animals

and plants, communities typically are named on the basis

of the dominant plant species or site characteristics.

Several classification systems have been proposed for

biotic communities in California, but none is universally

accepted. Specific community namesthat are capitalized

herein coiTespond to those described by Holland (1986)

and Griggs et al. (1992). The equivalent names under

alternate systems are summarized by Mayer and

Laudenslayer (1988). Many of the natural communities

in the San Joaquin Valley are considered rare (Holland

1986. Griggs et al. 1992), irrespective ofthe presence of

rare species. Certain recovery actions for endangered

and threatened species also will contribute to the

conservation ofthe rare communities they’ inhabit. Plant

communities discussed in this recovery plan are

described below. See Table I forthefeatured species that

occur in these plant communities.

Grasslands are dominated by perennial or annual

grasses, but the associated forbs (broad-leaved herbs)

often are conspicuous because of their showy flowers.

General terms that have been used for grasslands in the

San Joaquin Valley include California prairie (Kdchler

1977) andValley andFoothill Grassland (Holland 1986).

The featured species in this recovery plan occur in the

following grasslandcommunities: NonnativeGrassland,

Pine Bluegrass Grassland, Relictual Interior Dune

Grassland, Valley Needlegrass Grassland, and Valley

Sacaton Grassland. Some of the featured species may

range through areasthat consist of a mosaic of grasslands

and vernal pools, particularly Northern Claypan Vernal

Pools and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools.

A marsh is an herbaceous wetland community. The

dominant plants (sedges, rushes, and cattails) are related

to grasses. A general name for freshwatermarshes ofthe

San Joaquin Valley’ is tule marsh (Kijehler 1977), which

includes Cismontane Alkali Marsh, Valley Freshwater

Marsh, and Vernal Marsh. Valley Freshwater Marsh

intergrades with Coastal Brackish Marsh in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

San JoaquinValley shrublands often are referred to as

scrub because they’ are dominated by shrubs less than 2

meters (6 feet) tall. In scrub communities the actual

cover of shrubs may be dense or sparse, and the ground

cover often consists of grasses and forbs typical of

grassland communities. In the San Joaquin Valley,

scrubs occur in alkali sinks, on alluvial fans, on dune

remnants, in riparian areas, and in arid uplands.

Alkali sinks are drainage basins that have soils high in

soluble salts, which may or may not be alkaline

(Twisselmann 1967). These basins are dominated by

halophvtes, i.e., plants tolerant of alkaline and saline

soils. P/avas (shallow, temporary lakes) may form in

alkali sinks during periods of heavy rainfall. Alkali sinks

in the San Joaquin Valley typically support scrub plant

communities such as Alkali Playa. Haplopappus

Shrubland. and Valley Sink Scrub.

Alluvia/fans arefan-shaped areas ofsoil deposited by

mountain streams where they enter valleys or plains. In

the San Joaquin Valley, alluvial fans typically support

saltbush scrub, which is one ofseveral plant assemblages

dominated by common saltbush (A triplex polycarpa) or

spiny saltbush (A. spiimmfera). These include Interior

Coast Range Saltbush Scrub, Sierra-Tehachapi Saltbush

Scrub, and Valley Saltbush Scrub. A type of saltbush

scrub also may occur on sandy deposits surrounding

historical lake beds, where it is termed the Relictual

Interior Dunes community. Chenopod scrub is a general

term for shrublands that are dominated by plants in the

goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae); in the San Joaquin

Valley this includes the various saltbush scrubs, Alkali

Playa, and Valley Sink Scrub. Alkali Meadow is a

transitional community that occurs at the bottom of

alluvial fans; it comprises a mixture of species

characteristic of alkali sinks, grasslands, marshes, and

riparian forests.

4
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

9

9

Iq~

4-

9

4~~

0

9

4

0

5, 0

10 20 30 40MIles50 50 70 80 90 1

20 4.0 50 80 100 120 140

Kilometers

Figure 1. The Great Central Valley of California.

5
Recomery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

6
Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

Figure 2. Map qf historical natural vegetation of central California, based on Kuchbr Q 977).
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

8
Recovery Plan for tjpland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Riparian scrubs occur along ri\ers and streams and

may intergrade xs ith riparian torests. The general name

Great Valley Riparian Scrub includcs sexeral COttilijOnity types dominated by different shrub species.

includine Buttonbush Scrub. Elderberry Savanna, Great

Valley Mesquite Scrub, and Grea! Valley Wdlow Scrub.

Intermittent Stream Channels also arc riparian but have a

different shrub composition than do the channels ot

permanent streams.

Otherscrubs that occur in arid upland areas of the San

toaquin Valley and adjacent high plains include Upper

Sonoran Subshrub Scruband chaparrais. Snbshrnbs are

perennial plants that are woody only at the base, such as

California buckwheat (Eriogonnni jascic olalo,o) and

matchxxeed Gotierrecia colifornico). However, Upper

Sonoran Subshrub Scrub also in~udes true shrubs such

as California ephedra (Ephedra caiiJdrnico, and

bI adderpod (isonieris a rl)orea Chaparrals are

characterized byev ergreen shrubs and occur trust often

in the outer coast ranges. Small patches have been

mapped in the hills surroundine the San Joaquin Valley

(Kachler 1977), but none provide habitat for the teatured

species in this recovery plan.

Both woodlands and forests are dominated by trees.

However, trees are spaced more distantly in woodlands

than in forests and do not form a solid canopy.

Woodlands are characteristic of the foothills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley and also occur in the

transition iones between riparian forest and grassland.

Woodlands may be named on the basis of the most

corrimon trees (e.g oak woodland,juniper woodland) or

on their location (e.g., foothill woodlands. riparian

woodlands). Cisozontatcc woodlands arc those that occur

\~est of the Sierra Nevuda crest. Woodlands in the reeton

oxered by this recovery plan include Blue Oak

Woodland, Cismontane Juniper Woodland and Scrub,

and Valley Oak Woodland.

Forests in the Great Central Valley consist of broadleaved, deciduous trees and oceur along rivers and

streams. Shrubs, vines, and tree seedlings typically

create a dense understory. A general term for this forest

type is Valley riparian forest. Specific community

names include Great Valley’ Cottonwood Riparian

Forest, Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, and Great

Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest.

Any division of vegetation into community types

must be somewhat arbitrary because communities often

intergrade. rather than having identifiable boundaries.

The intereradation of plant communities leads to some

discrepancies regarding their proper classification.

‘fhus. Holland (1986) included Alkali Meadow and

Alkali Playa with the herbaceous communities exen

thoueh both include shrubs. He classified Great Valley

Mesquite Scrub as a riparian plant community. but

~lxvisselmann (1967) considered it to be characteristic ot

alkali sinks. Communities also may occur in mosaics,

x~ hich are interspersed patches of vegetation dominated

b\ different species. Plants andanimals may be restricted

to particular ;oicrohobitats. which are localized areas

with unique conditions due to small-scale variations in

topography. soil characteristics, drainage patterns, and

other physical leatures of the landscape. Thus, habitat

descriptions for the rare and endangered species in this

recoxery plan are to some extent ceneralizations. which

take oto account therange of cotitmunities in xx hich each

species occurs.

The San Joaquin Valley shares much of its unique

bica with the Sacramento Valley. Most of the Central

Vallex s code,ois,n (species restricted in occurrence) is

associated, in order of numbers, with extreme aridity.

ernal pools. and wetlands. Among vascular plants.

endemism is mostly associated with vernal pools (14

species), extreme aridity (8 species), and alkaline soils t6

or more species). Ofthe 44 endemic plants ofthe Central

Valley. 26 are shared by the 2 regions, 14 are San Joaquin

Valley endetoics. and only 4 are confined to the

Sacramento Valley. Ofthe 28 species and subspecies of

endemic mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in the

Central Valley, 16 are associated with arid grassland and

shrubland communities in the San Joaquin Valley. and

only 3 are confined to the Sacramento Valley (Bradford

1992, Williams and Kilburn 1992). More endemic

sertebrate speeies co-occur in the San Joaquin Valley

than anywhere comparable in the continental United

States.

2. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Communities

Loss and degradation of natural communities due to

aericulture. urbanization. I ivestock grazing, water

impoundment and diversion, historical predator and pest

control, and other human activities have jeopardited

nearly all the unique biota of the Valley’ below the

woodland belts, and are the major causes of

endangerment of the state and federally listed species

(Fieure 3). The delta freshwatermarshes andthe vast tule

marshes of the Valley are nearly gone. Of the

9
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

approximately’ 2.110.257 hectares (5,214,539 acres) of

land in the southern San Joaquin Valley region (including

the Carrizo Plain Natural Area and most of the Tulare

Basin below the woodland belts) studied by the

California Energy’ Commission, only’ 324 hectares (800

acres(of degradedwetlands were foundby 1989 (Spiegel

and Anderson 1992). Over 40,468 hectares (100,000

acres~ ofseasonal wetlands are found farther northin the

San Joaquin Basin. mostly’ in Fresno and Merced

Counties. The erassland and vernal pool communttnes

have been reduced mostly’ to narrow piedmont strands,

fringnng the Valley floor, and their native species have

been largely displaced by exotic species of weedy annual

erasses and forbs. Of the orieinal 400,00() hectares

(about I million acres) or more of riparian eotnmunities

in the Central Valley’. less than 10 percent existed in

1979. mnostly’ located in the Sacramento Valley (Warner

1979). Water diversions, stream ehannelization. and

clearine and cultivation ofrtparian eommnunities all have

played roles in loss of riparian commnunities. Of those

remaining today’, most are highly degraded in quality’ and

support few or none of their characteristic species.

Extant riparian communities in the San Joaquin Valley

consist of less than 2.800 hectares (7.000 acres) of

narrow, degraded stands along channelized streams.

Only about 269 hectares (665 acres) ofrelatively mature

riparian forest with a well-developed understory of herbs

and shrubs are found in two parks and one preserve in the

San Joaquin Valley’ (Williams and Kilburn 1984).

Loss and deeradation of natural communities in the

region due to conversion to irrigated cropland have

continued at much slower ratessince about 1986. butstill

pose new threats to many’ additional species (Williams

and Kilburn 1992 USFWS 1994a). The greatest new

threats are to the biota of grassland and vernal poo1

communities along theeastern andnorthwestern edges of

the Valley. where urbanization. ranchette developments,

wind energy’ developments, and cultivation are

collectively causing destruction of natural communities

at an increasing pace.

3. Conservation Efforts at the Community Level

Past Conservation Measures—Specific and important general conservation measures for one or a few

species are briefly mentioned in individual species

accounts. Highlighted here and in Table 2 are the most

significant large-scale natural community’ acquisitions

and habitat conservation planning efforts involving the

species covered in this document. The California Energy’

Commission has conducted two important large-scale

natural community and species surveys. The first was

The Southern San Joaquin Valley Ecosystem Protection

Program (Anderson et al. 1991, Spiegel and Anderson

1992), wherein survey’s of quarter-sections of natural

lands in most of the Tulare Basin were made. Later.

California Energy Comtnission conducted quarterseetnon survey’s on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area with

lunditig provided by’ the U.S. Bureau of Land

NIan agem ent (USBLM: Kakiba-Russell et al. 1991).

These two programs have collectively provided more

information on extant biotic communities and habitat

distribution and quality for listed species than all others

combined. The California Energy Commission’s

Southern San Joaquin Ecosystem Protection Plan

(Spiegel and Anderson 1992) has provided the

fratnework on which the resource managennent agencies

have developed their mitigation and conservation

strategies.

Several wide-area multispecies (i.e., community

level involving thousands of acres) Habitat Conservation

Plans are in various stages of development in the San

Joaquin Valley’ as conditions of incidental-take permits

under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Under section

I 0(a)( I)(B) ofthe Endangered Species Act, the USFWS

can authorize the taking of federally listed fish and

wildlife by’ nonfederal entities if such taking occurs

incidentally’ during otherwise legal activities. An

applicant for an incidental take permit submits a Habitat

Conservation Plan that specifies, among other things, the

impacts that are likely to result from the takings andthe

measures the permit applicant will undertake to minimize

aitd mitigate such impacts. Many of these Habitat

Conservation Plans are an important component of

recovery’ strategies.,fro~t protecting specific habitats to

restoration to focusing habitat acquisitions to lands

identified as important for recovery. The Metropolitan

Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has been

implemented. and the Kern Valley Floor, and San

JoaquinCounty Habitat Conservation Plans are in active

development stages. The other large conservation efforts

in the Valley’ include the Carrizo Natural Heritage

Program (USBLM. California Department of Fish and

Game [CDFG], The Nature Conservancy), California

Energy Commission mitigation programs, the CDFG

mitigation program in the Allensworth Natural Area

(Spiegel and Anderson 1992), the endangered species

habitat protection programs in the Elk Hills (Department

of Energy’), Occidental of Elk Hills, Kern and Pixley

10
Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquitr Valley

El DORADO co

<;d, ALPINE CO ) \

TVOllJMNE CO

MONO CO

\

J

MARIPOSA CO /”

e-1

I’ /” -b----

1 , INYO CO

ALAMEDA CO

FRESNO CO ,

r ___----

Agricultural (63%) 0 Natural lands (32%) n Urban (4%)

derived from the California Gap Anal@ Land Co-r Map, draft wrrion 1096,

woducsd by the University of California, Santa Barbara Biogeography Lab.

kmtqr rcqw#m~ the 6.î Jo.quh wq Mîilhpdw R*;ovry mmî .wdy .IU l ld hldda uphd ìan, alonp Ih4 vdlyí, d#a*

Figure 3. Map showing recent Land uses in three categories.

11
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

12
Tutni: 2. Summary of larger and (‘ommunily—level (‘on.~ervatitin Ilioris in the San Joaquin Valley Planmi jug Area.

Project’ Purpose Location

Mgmt.

Agency 2 Target Species

Other

Species

Approx.I

Size

(acres)

Year

Acquired

T & E purchase nonmitigation Alkali Sink ER CDFG bnll tkr pbon hws 945 1978-85

T & E purchase

T & E purchase

T & E purchase

T & E purchase

T& E purchase

T & E purchase

T& E purchase

T & E purchase

Carrizo Plain ER

Big Sandy WA

Corral Hollow ER

Los Banos WA

Mendota WA

North Grasslands WA

Graylodge WA

Elkhorn Plain ER

CaAqueduct

Coalinga Gravel Operation

McKittrick Lateral

Coalinga Cogeneration + Misc.

Fiber-Optic Cable

PGE/PGT Pipeline

Little Panoche Reservoir WA mitigation Panoche Hills CDFG sjkt bnll snkr ~‘828 1976

nonmitigation Kerman ER CDFG bnll fkr sjkf bss lhsb Iss 1,775 1987-88

nonniltigation Panoche Hills ER CDFG bnll gkr sjkf sjas tgm 582 1985

nonmitigation Buttonwillow CDFG bnll sias sjkftkr hws 1,350 1991

nonmitigation Allensworth ER CDFG bnll sjkf tkr 4,310 1980-95

nonmitigation Pixley Conservation Easement CDFG bnll tkr 10 1998

nonmitigation Semitropic Ridge CDFG bnll tkr sjas sjkf hws sjwt lhsb 598 1993

nonmitigation Lokern ER CDFG slkf bnll tkr km hws gkr sjas sjlt snkr 327 1992-98

nonmitigation Stone Corral ER CDFG sjkt ‘~886 1991-93

nonmitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area CDFG bnll gkr sjas sjkt cIt sjwt jpg hws snkr 8,474 1988-89

nonmitigation Big Sandy CDFG slkf ~852 1979

nonmitigation Corral Hollow CDFG sjkt rwr 99 1975

nonmitigadon Los Banos WA CDFG sjkt ~6,215 1994

nonmitigation Mendota WA CDFG sjkt tkr bnll pbbb ~11,794 1952-67

nonmitigation North Grasslands WA CDFG sjkf ~6345 1996

nonmitigation Graylodge WA CDFG Iss ~8,340 1931-74

mitigation Elkhorn Plain CIJFG bnll gkr sjkt sjas hws sjwt tbw 160 1983

mitigation Ca Aqueduct/Region 4 CDFG bnll gkr sjkt tkr bc hws sjwt 124 1975

mitigation Semitropic Ridge CDFG bnll sjkf 200 1993

mitigation Lokern CDFG bnli sjas sjkt 60 1993

mitigation Pleasant Valley CDFG bnll sjkf sjwt sjlt 512 1991

mitigation Lokern CDFG bnll sjas sjkt 267 1993

mitigation Jasper Sears Road CDFG sjkt 160 1992

C-.
TABLE 2. (continued). Summary of Larger and Community-level Conservation Efforts in the San Jonquin Valley Planning Area.

mitigation Palm Tract CDFG sjkf 1,221 1994

mitigation Tracy HilIs—Crites/Connelly Ranch CDFG sjkf 443 1993

mitigation Tracy Hills—Crites/Connelly Ranch COEG sjkf 627 1992

mitigation Allensworth ER CDFG bnll sjkt tkr sjas 126 1991

mitigation Kern County CDFG sjkf bnll gkr sias tkr 4,093 1992-98

mitigation Specialty Preserves CDFG bc 317 1993-97

mitigation Allensworth ER CDFG bnll sjkt tkr sjas 500 1991-95

mitigation Los Banos Creek COEG sjkf 85 1993

mitigation Salt Creek CDFG sjkf 378 1997

on-site mitigation Unimin Property COFO sjkf 50 1994

nonmitigation Caswell Memorial State Park CDPR rbrrwr 260 1950-98

on-site mitigation SJ Field Division, Chrisman

Pumping Plant

DWR bnll sjkf tkr bc 212

mitigation DWR bnll sjas sjkf tkr 118

Project’ Purpose Location

Mgmt.

Agency 2 Target Species

Other

Species

Approx. Size (acres)Year

Acquired

Misc. mitigations mitigation Lokern ER CDFG sjkt bnll tkr km hws sjlt snkr 140 1992-94

gkr sjas

PGE/PGT Pipeline

PGE/PGT Pipeline

Safeway/Patterson Pass

PG&E Stan Pac II & Stockdale Ranch

Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP

Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP

Misc. mitigations

Los Banos Creek Conservation

Easement

Salt Creek Conservation Easement

Unimin

Caswell Memorial State Park

Ca. Aqueduct Em. Op & Mt. ‘93

Ca. Aqueduct Em. Op & Mt. ‘91

Ca. Aqueduct Em. Op & Mt. ‘91 mitigation DWR sjkt bnll tkr 8.8

Coastal Branch Phase II Pipeline mitigation DWR bnll gkr sjas sjkt hws sjwt 1,661

CEC Sycamore Cogeneration mitigation Semitropic Ridge CEC sjkttkr 1,924 1988-92

CEC Midway/Sunset Cogen. mitigation Lokern CEC bnll gkr sjkf snkr 883 1989-92

Misc, mitigations mitigation Lokern CEC bnll gkr sjkf snkr 284 1989-91

Caltrans 33/1 52 Intersection Improvement mitigation Jasper Sears Road Caltrans sjkt 40 1994-95

Misc, mitigations mitigation Semitropic Ridge CDFG/CEC sjkf tkr 311 1984-92

Chowchilla Canal Bypass nonmitigation Chowchilla Canal Bypass CDFG/DWR bnll Iss 549 1977

Clifton Court Forebay nonmitigation Clifton Court Forebay CDFG/DWR sjkf dpcp *~3 000 1972

-I
IABI.E 2. ((ontiflhIcd) Summary of Larger and Community-level Conservation Efforts in the San Joaquin Valley Planning Area.

Cottonwood Creek WA

Project I Purpose Location

Mgmt.

Agency2 Target Species3

Other

Species

Approx. I Size (acres)Year

Acquired

ByronAirport on-site mitigation Byron Airport Habitat

Management Lands

CDFG/

FAA

sjkf dpcp 814 1993

Los Vaqueros Reservoir on-site mitigation Los Vaqueros Watershed CDFG/CCWD sjkf 4,150 1994

San Luis Dam on-site mitigation O’Neill Forebay Wildlife Area CDFG/BOR sjkf **700 1976

San Luis Dam on-site mitigation San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area CDFG/BOR sjkf **901 1976

O’Neill Dam Safety Project on-site mitigation Interstate 5 corridor CDFG/BOR sjkf 171 1964

Springtown Alkali Sink Conservation

Easement

mitigation bank Springtown Alkali Sink CDFG/Private pbbb 53 1998

Pixley NWR nonmitigation Pixley NWR USFWS bnll sjas sjkf tkr 5,200 1960-94

Antioch Dunes NWR nonmiti gation Antioch Dunes NWR USFWS casb sjdb 60 1980

Sacramento NWR Complex nonmitigation Sacramento, Delevan,

and Colusa NWR-Uplands

USFWS pbbb **5 432 1937-98

Merced NWR nonmitigafion Merced NWR USFWS sjkf bnll ~7034 51

San Luis NWR nonmitigation San Luis NWR USFWS SIkf ~7500 66

Kern NWR nonmmitigation Kern NWR USFWS tkrslktbvls *~10,618 1960

Bittercreek NWR nonmitigation Bittercreek NWR USEWS bnll sjkf gkr **1 1,400 1985-98

Caltrans widening of 33!1 66 mitigation Bittercreek NWR USFWS sjkf 40 1998

Tule Vista Farms Conviction plea agreement Pixley NWR USFWS bnll sjkf tkr 160 1994

Buena Vista Valley Panoche Hills

Management Area

nonmitigation Panoche Hills USBLM bnll gkr sjkf hws jpg sjwt

snkr

5,166 1989-96

Griswold/Tumey Hills ManagementArea nonmitigation Griswold/Tumey Hills USBLM gkr sjkf jpg 8,579 1989-95

Ciervo Hills/Joaquin Rocks

Management Area

nonmitigation Ciervo Hills/Joaquin Rocks USBLM bnll gkr sldb sjkf casb jpg 21,127 1990-97

Coalinga ManagementArea nonmitigation Coalinga Mineral Springs USBLM bnll sjkf cjf snkr 956 1989-94

Santa Barbara Canyon Allotment nonmitigation Santa Barbara Canyon

Cottonwood Creek WA nonmitigation CDFG/CDPR sjkf 315 1979

U’

USBLM cjf 1778

a

Public

Domain
TABLE 2. (continued). Summary ofLarger and Community-level Conservation Efforts in the Sati Joaquin Valley Planning Area.

Lokern ACEC nonmitigation Lokern USBLM sjkf bnll km sjltsnkr 3110 1996

Kettleman ACEC nonmitigation Kettleman Hills USBLM sjkf bnll sias hws sjwt 6,730 1996

Carrizo Plain ACEC nonmitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll gkr sjas sjkf snkr cjf hws lhsb

jpg mtt sjwt

103,102 1988-95

Celeron All-American Pipeline mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll, sjkf, gkr snkr 140.08 within

the 103,102

1988

PG&E UltraPower Ogle

Transmission Line

mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll, sjkf snkr 30 within

the 103,102

1990

Project I Purpose Location

Mgmt.

Agency 2 Target Species

Other

Species

Approx. Size

(acres)

Year

Acquired

Kreyenhagen Hills Management Area nonmitigation Kreyenhagen Hills USBLM cjf 1,200 Public

Domain

PSE Sierra, Double C and Kern

Front Cogen

mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM slkf snkr 137.42 within

the 103,102

1991

Valley Waste BV-2 mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll, sjkf, gkr snkr 88.23 within

the 103,102

1991

So Cal Gas North Midway

Sunset Pipeline and Buena Vista

Pipeline

mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll, gkr, sjkt snkr 228.34 within

the 103, 102

1991

Celeron Pentland Pipeline mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll, sjkf snkr 21 .33 within

the 103102

1991

PG&E UltraPower Ogle Gas Line mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM sjkf, bnll snkr 14.86 within

the 103,102

1991

Chalk Cliff mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM sjkf snkr 20.97 within

the 103,102

1991

Mt. Poso Cogen mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll, sjkf snkr 40 within

the 103,102

1993

Mobil Oil Lease Project mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM sjkf, bnll, gkr snkr 1,140 within

the 103,102

1992

PSE Inc. mitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area USBLM bnll sjkf snkr 3,048 within

the 103,102

1991

Concord Naval Weapons Station nonmitigation Concord Naval Weapons

Station - Uplands

DOD sjkf 8,000 1930

a

a

C—C

aa

4—
lABEl’ 2. (u~’iitiiiu(d).Sumrnary ol’ Larger and Uoinmunity-level Conservation Efforts in the San Joaquin Valley Planning Area.

Project’ Purpose Location Mgmt. Agency 2 Target Species3

Other Species

Approx. Size (acres)Year

Acquired

Fort Hunter Licjgett on-site mitigation on-site management DOD sjkf 22500 1940

and nonmitigation

Kern County Landfill on-site mitigation Bena Landfill Kern County sjkf 900 1997

Camp Roberts National Guard

Training Site

on-site mitigation

and nonmitigation

on-site management DOD/CANG sjkf 42,784 1940

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

on-site mitigation Site 300 DOE/University

of California

dpcp sjkf ‘7,000 1953-57

Naval Petroleum Reserve #2 on-site mitigation

and nonmitigation

Elk Hills

on-site management

DOE sjkf bnll gkr sjlt snkr 10,380 1980

North Kern Prison on-site mitigation on-site management DOC bnll sjkf tkr 348 1990

Tracy Hills HCP on-site mitigation Tracy Hills Private/CDFG sjkf 3341 98

Romero/Simon Newman nonmitigation Romero/Simon Newman

Ranches

TNC/USFWS

Private

slkf **61,000 1998

Numerous Kern Co. Developments mitigation bank Coles Levee Ecosystem

Preserve

CLEP bnll gkr sjas sjkf tkr hws snkr 6059 1992

Carrizo Plain Natural Area nonmitigation Carrizo Plain Natural Area TNC bnll gkr sjas sjkf lhsb mU snkr 7428 1987

Sand Ridge nonmitigation Sand Ridge CNLM/TNC bc sjwt tkrsnkr 285 1969-97

Lokern nonmitigation Lokern CNLM bnll gkr sjas sjkf hws km lhsb snkr 2,047 1993-94

Laidlaw Pipeline mitigation Lokern CNLM bnll km sjkf 3 1993

Kettleman HillsWaste Facility mitigation Semitropic Ridge CNLM sjkf 80 1993

Kern Water Bank HCP nonmitigation Kern Fan Element KOWA slkf tkrsjas bnll

sjwt hws

possible bvls

introduction site

19,900 1997

Kern Water Bank Interim Program mitigation Kern Fan Element KCWA sjkf tkr sias bnll

sjwt hws

489 within

the 19,900

1996

Kern Water Bank HCP - Master

Permit

mitigation bank Kern Fan Element KCWA sjkf tkr sjas bnll

sjwt hws

3,267 within

the 19,900

1997

DWR - La Hacienda/Interim Land

Management

mititgation Kern Fan Element KCWA sjkf bnll tkr 530 within

the 19,900

1997

—1

~1

C.,

C-,,

a-
TAttLE 2. (continued). Summary ofLarger and Community-level Conservation Efforts in the San Joaquin Valley Planning Area.

Project Purpose Location

Mgmt.

Agency 2 Target Species ~

Other

Species

Approx.

Size

(acres)

Year

Acquired

Nuevo/Torch HCP on-site mitigation Lokern NuevolTorch sjkf bnll gkf stas

km hws

tgm lhsb 200 1998

East Bay Regional Parks

East Bay Regional Parks

East Bay Regional Parks

East Bay Regional Parks

Brushy Peak Preserve

Wind Wolves Preserve

Occidental of Elk Hills

Occidental of Elk Hills

Springtown Alkali Sink nonmitigation Springtown Alkali Sink City of Livermore pbbb 300 unknown

nonmitigation Black Diamond Mines EBRP sjkf ~5,000 1973-97

nonmitigation Round Valley EBRP sjkt 1,864 1988-96

proposed

mitigation bank

Garaventa Property EBRP sjkf 772 1997

nonmitigation Vasco Caves EBRP/CCWD sjkf 722 1997

nonmitigation Brushy Peak Livermore Area

Recreation and Park

District

sjkf ~525 1990

nonmitigation Wind Wolves Preserve—

Valley floor

The Wildiands

Conservancy

sjkf bnll bc ~34 square

miles

1996

on-site mitigation

and nonmitigation

Elk Hills on-site

management

Occidental sjkf bnll gkr hws ons silt snkr 38,227 1998

on-site mitigation Elk Hills Occidental/USF\NS sjkt bnll gkr hws ons sjlt snkr 7.075 within

the 38,227

-

* currently under negotiations

** No estimates available for listed species hahitat, but significant enough to assist in Recovery ettorts.

ER—Ecological Reserve; NWR—National Wildlife Refuge; WA—Wildlife Area

ACEC—Area of Critical Environmental Concern; HCP—Habitat Conservation t~lan; T&E—Threatened and Endangered Species

2 BOR—US. Bureau of Reclamation; CANG—California Army National Guard; CCWD—ContraCosta Water District; CDFG—California Department of Fish & Game; CDPR—--

California Department of Parks and Recreation; CEC—California Energy Commission; CLEP—Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve; CNLM—Ccnter for Natural Lands Management;

DOC—Department of Corrections; DOD—Department of Defense; DOE—Department of Energy; DWR—Department of Water Resources; EBRP—East Bay Regional Parks;

EAA—Federal Aviation Administration; KCWA—Kern County Water Agency; TNC—The Nature Conservancy; USBLM—U.S. Bureau of Land Management; USEWS—US. Fish

& Wildlife Service

be — Bakersfield cactus; bnll — Blunt-nosed leopard lizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena Vista Lake shrew; cash — Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf— California

jeweltiower; ept —Comanche Point layia; ddw —Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp— Diamond-petaled California poppy; tkr—Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr—Giant kangaroo rat; hws— Hoover’s

woolly-star; jpg — Jared’s peppergrass; km — Kern mallow; lhsb —Lost Hills salthush; Iss — Lesser saltteale; mm — Merced rnonardella; mp — Merced phacelia; mtt — Munz’s tidy-tips;

ons — Oil nesistraw; pbbb — Palmate-bracied bird’s-beak; rhr — Riparian brush rahbit; rwr Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf

— San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San Joaquin kangaroo rat; sjlt — San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher; sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr — Short-nosed kangaroo rat; tbw — Temblor

buckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — lipton kangaroo rat; tp — Tejon poppy; ye — Vasek’s clarkia

a

0

-I

a

0

aa

0

a
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

National Wildlife Refuges (Table 2), and the National

Wildlife Refuge programs (Kern and San Luis refuge

complexes). Several mitigation banks, (i.e., large blocks

of land preserved, restored and enhanced for purposes of

consolidating mitigation for and mitigating inadvanceof

projects that take listed species) are part of existing or

developing Habitat Conservation Plans in the San

Joaquin Valley. These include the ARCO Cole’s Levee,

Kern Water Bank, and Chevron Lokern Habitat

Conservation Plans, all in Kern County.

Appropriations from Congress and money provided

by the CaliforniaWildlife Conservation Board and raised

by The Nature Conservancy have resulted in about 83

percent of the 102,640-hectare (253.628-acre) Carrizo

Plain Natural Area being in public or The Nature

Conservancy ownership. Congressional appropriations

and Federal land exchanges were used to acquire 26,102

hectares (64,500 acres)between 1988 and 1995 to add to

the 54,442 hectares (134,528 acres) already in Federal

ownership. These properties are managed by USBLM.

The CDFG has management responsibility for the 2,574

hectares (6,360 acres) the State has purchased, and The

Nature Conservancy owns and manages another 2.577

hectares(6,369 acres). The CarrizoPlainNaturalArea is

a relatively large area, but thousands of acres were

farmed for decades and a large proportion is steep,

mountainous terrain; less than about 30 percent provided

natural habitat for listed species at the time of

establishment.

Another large scale program of acquisition, directed

by USBLM, is the land purchases and exchange in the

western Fresno and eastern San BenitoCounties, mainly

involving properties known as the Martin or Cantua

Creek and Silver Creek ranches (hereinafter called the

Cicrx’o-Panoche Natural Area). Acquisitions in these

two programs (Carrizo Plain Natural Area and CiervoPanoche Natural Area) collectively have done more to

advance the recovery of the San Joaquin Valley’s listed

species than all others combined. Acquisition will

continue to be a major element of recovery processes,but

will play a lesser role than in the past.

The third large-scale program by the Federal

government has been the acquisition of fee title and

easements to natural and farmlands in Stanislaus and

Merced Counties to add to existing and create new

National Wildlife Refuges. Refuge programs have been

directed at waterfowl and other wetland species though

substantial areas in Merced County are upland

communities. With some change in management

objectives and habitat restoration, upland areas could

support a significantly larger population of kit foxesthan

currently. Easement lands support a small population of

San Joaquin kangaroo rats with a unique genetic

constitution, though its subspecies taxonomy is unclear

(Johnson and Clifton 1992, Endangered Species

Recovery Program unpubl. data). In both counties some

riparian areas on existing and planned refuge lands could

provide habitat for viable populations of riparian brush

rabbits and woodrats.

Additions to the Pixicy National Wildlife Refuge.

blare County, have protected significant habitat for

blunt-nosed leopard lizards, Tipton kangaroo rats, San

Joaquin kit foxes, and mountain plovers (a candidate

species not featured inthis plan, but a large proportion of

its total population winters in the area covered in this

plan). Addition of the Bitter Creek National Wildlife

Refuge (foothills and mountains atsouthwestern edge of

the Valley, mostly in Kern County) to the Hopper

Mountain refuge complex,though targeted forrecovery

of the California condor, also provides protection of

some habitat IP the San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin

antelope squirrel, Tulare grasshopper mouse, and

possibh the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant and shortnosed kangaroo rats, mountain plover, and San Joaquin

Le Conte’s thrasher.

Acquisition of properties inthe Allensworth Natural

Area of Tulare and Kern Counties and the Setnitropic

Ridge and Lokern Natural Areas (natural areas defined

by Spiegel and Anderson [1992]) by CDFG, California

Energy Commission, and Center for Natural Lands

Management have been from a variety of funds, both

public and private (Table 2). To date, the conservation

parcels are relatively small and scattered, but each of the

three areas is critical to the recovery of some species.

Dedicated conservation lands ineach area should expand

as the Habitat Conservation Plans are completed and

implemented. and if the ongoing planning for a

mitigation bank in the Lokern Natural Area by the

agencies and Chevron. Inc., is completed and a

mitigation bank established.

Several agency management plans and management

agreements. which define and commit an agency to

managing property in specified ways. exist or are being

developed to protect listed species habitat in the San

Joaquin Valley. The primary goal of these plans is to

ensure that properties with value as habitat for listed

19
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

species are managed and monitored topreserve, protect,

or enhance populations of those species while protecting

other societal interests. Plans of this sort represent the

principal mechanism for protecting listed species on

public lands. Common shortcomings. however, of these

plans are lack of adequate information on which to base

habitat management actions, and fewor no provisionsfor

obtaining needed information. The exceptions arc

several recently-developed plans that make provisions to

conduct research as high priorities (e.g.. Center for

Natural Lands Management 1993, LTSBLM et al. 1995).

Critical Needs Analysis —The status of32 of the 34

species included in this recovery plan was examined for

critical needs as part of the Friant Biological Opinion

Critical Needs Analysis (Colliver et al. 1995).

Additional species of the Sierra foothills also were

included in the analysis. but are not discussed here. The

other two species of this recovery plan. the San Joaquin

kit fox and the palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, were not

included. by agreement with the USFWS. because they

were dealt with in the critical needs analysis for the

contemporaneous Biological Opinion for Interim

Contract Renewal (USFWS in litt. I 995a). That analysis

found that both the San Joaquin kit fox and palmatebracted bird’s-beak had critical needs.

Of the 34 species examined in the two analyses, 12

have critical needs. These species are: palmate-bracted

bird’s beak. Kern mallow. Bakersfield cactus, Bakersfield

smallscale, Vasek’s clarkia, oil neststraw, Eresno

kangaroo rat. riparian woodrat, Buena Vista Lake shrew.

riparian brush rabbit. San Joaquin kit fox, and Doyen’s

dune weevil. A critical need is defined as any intrinsic

state or external situation that threatens a species with

extinction or preclusion of recovery and requires action

during the next year to improve or avoid a further

deterioration of that species’ chances of survival and

recovery. The critical threats and actions needed for each

of the 12 species are reflected in the recovery tasks and

priorities established in this recovery plan for these

species.

4. Ecosystem-Level Recovery Strategy

Approach to Recovery Planning.—As with many

other Federal land-management agencies, the USFWS

has adopted an ecosystem approach in managing our

Nation’s natural resources(USFWS 1994b, Henne 1995,

USEWS 1995a). Given the increasingly severe

constraints — environmental, financial, temporal,

political, practical, and other — of single-species

conservation efforts, consideration of a broader,

ecosystem approach to conservation has gained much

wider attention in recent years (Salwasser 1991,

Costanza et al. 1992, Grumbine 1992, Franklin 1993,

Jensen et al. 1993, Scott et al. 1993, Slocombe 1993,

Tasse 1993. Wilcove 1993, Alverson et al. 1994,

Bormann et al. 1994. Grumbine 1994a, 1994b, Jensen

and Bourgeron 1994, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Soul~

1994, Alpert 1995, Ecological Society of America

1995a. 1995b. Kerr 1995, Keystone Center 1991,

National ResearchCouncil 1995, Noss et al. 1995, Pastor

1995. Tear et al. 1995, Walker 1995. Yaffee et al. 1996).

The ecosystem approach is not, however, without

problems and critics (LaRoc 1993, Eisner et al. 1995,

Stanley 1995, Wilcove and Blair 1995). Although the

ecosystem approach suggests a more simplistic and

holistic process for conserving listed species, this

approach must still attend to the management and

monitoring requirements of key species in the ecosystem

toensure that the ecosystemmaintains its integrity—- its

constituent species and dynamics — and continues to

support those species that are most vulnerable to

ecosystem change. Though there indeed are many

advantagesto an ecosystem approach, boththe State and

Federal endangered species acts still require recovery of

individually listed species.

In concert with the evolution of the ecosystem

management concept, adaptive management has become

a somewhat common theme inthe conservation literature

(Holling 1978, Lee and Lawrence 1986, Walters 1986,

Walters and Hulling 1990, Boyce 1992 and 1993, Noss

and Cooperrider 1994). Adaptive management is the

process of linking management with monitoring within

a research framework” (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, p.

298). It is learning by doing, and ongoingmonitoring and

research are important to learning how to efficiently and

sensitively manage ecosystems. Such research will

include population v’iabilitx analysesof umbrellaspecies

(listed species with the broadest geographic ranges and

habitat requirements), keystone species (those which by

their numbers or activities have key roles in shaping the

species composition or physical structure of the natural

community), and indicator species (species whose

presence symbolizes certain features of a natural

community). Boyce (1992, 1993, p. 525) considers such

analyses, ifdone properly, a natural extension of adaptive

management. Population viability analyses require that

all available data on a target species be pulled together to

20
Recoverv Plan for Uplund Species of the San Joaquin Valley

,

,

/

“rc

&-JRLSNO CO

q Planning Area 0 Public lands n Conservation Lands

Numbers in red indicate locations of land parcels listed in Table 3

Figure 4. Planning area, showing public and conservation kna!s.

21
Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

22
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 3. KEY TO PUBLIC AND CONSERVATION LAND PARCELS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4. (Names in italics are

those lands which have value to the species covered in this recovery plan. This list is not complete.)

Name Map Number

Acker Island

Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve 2

Allensworth Ecological Reserve 3

Antioch I)unes iVational Wildlife Refuge 4

Banta-Carbona Fish Screen 5

Barker Slough 6

Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge 7

Brannon Island Fishing Access 8

Buttonwillow 9

Calhoun Cut Ecological Reserve 10

Camp Roberts Military Reserve 11

Carrizo Plain Ecological Reserve 12

Caswell Memorial 13

Chum Is/and 14

Chowchi/la Canal Bypass 15

Claus 16

Clifton Coort Forebay Wildhft Area 17

Co/es Levee Ecosystem Preserve 18

Cosunmes River 19

Corral Hollow Ecological Reserve 20

Cottonwood Creek (Upper & Lower,) 21

Creighton Ranch Preserve 22

Delta islands 23

Delta Meadows 24

Duck Creek Conservation Easement 25

Duck Pond 26

East Gallo 27

E/k Hi//s 28

Elklmorn Plains Ecological Reservc 29

Flying M Ranch 30

Ereitas 3 1

Fresno River 32

Goose Lake 33

Grasslands State Park 34

Grayson-San Joaquin River Cone 35

Grizzly Island 36

Hailwood 37

Hill Slough Wildlife Area 38

Hunter Liggett Military Reserve 39

Jepson Prairie 40

Kawcah Oaks Preserve 41

Kelly 42

Kermnan Ecological Reserve 43

Kern A’ationa/ Wildlife Refuge 44

Kern River Parkway 45

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge 46

Kesterson Site 47

23
II

ii

Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 3. (continued). Key to Public and Conservation Land Parcels Shown in Figure 4.

Name Map Number

Le Grand 48

Lemoore Naval Air Station 49

Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area 50

Lakern Preserve 5 1

Las Banos Wildlife ManagementArea 52

Los Vaqueros Reservoir Conservation Easenient 53

Lost Slough 54

Mendota Wildlife Management Area 55

Merced National Wildlife Refuge 56

Merced River Fish Facility 57

Mount Diablo State Park 58

Northern Semi-Tropic Ridge 59

O’Neill Forebav Wildlife Management Area 60

Paine Preserve 61

Panache f/ills Ecologicai Resene 62

Pilibos Mitigation Area 63

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 64

Pixlev National Wildlif~ Refuge 65

Pixicy Vernal Pools Preserve 66

Pleasant Va 11ev 67

Paso Creek Conservation Easementat Semi-Tropic Ridge 68

Rhode Island Delta Riparian Habitat 69

Salt Slough 70

Salt Spring Conservation Easement 71

San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge 72

San Joaquin Ecological Reserve 73

San Luis Canal Mitigation Area 74

San Luis National Wildlife Refuge 75

San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area 76

Sandridge Preserve 77

Schwab 78

Semi-Tropic Ridge 79

Sherman Island Waterfowl Management Area 80

Stan islaus River (Lower) 81

Stone Corral Ecological Reserve 82

Sycamore Island Conservation Easement 83

Tracy Hills 84

Tule Elk State Reserve 85

Vernalis Riparian Habitat Corridor 86

Volta Wildlife Management Area 87

West Gallo 88

White Slough Wildlife Management Area 89

White Slough Wildlife Management Area 90

Woodbridge Ecological Reserve 91

Yaudanchi Ecological Refuge 92

Yolo Basin Conservation Easement 93

24
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

build a simulation model, a model that constitutes a

synthesis of our current understanding of the target

species population. Population viability’ analyses can

then be used to develop hypotheses about how a

particular environmental event (e.g., flood, fire) or a new

management scenario would affect a target species

population. In this way, populationviability analyses can

cuide the direction of management. This approach could

help direct the recovery of some key species in the San

Joaquin Valley.

The planning area addressed in this recover~ plan

(Ficure 4: key to numbered locations is in Table 3)—--the

San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains, and

parts of the Cuvama. Salinas, Sacramento, and other

valleys—is a focus area” in the USFWS Central Valley

ofCalifornia!San Francisco Bay and South Pacific Coast

ecosystem units (USFWS 1995a). However, this focus

area differs in a nutnber of significant ways from lands

addressed in other ecosystem-level conservation efforts.

Those efforts gcnerally involve millions of acres of

publicly-owned lands, often with large expanses of

wilderness (e.g.. Clark and Zaunbrecher 1987, Exerett et

al. 1994).

Of the 45,500 square kilometers (17,500 square

miles) in the planning area, exclusive of the Salinas and

Pajaro watersheds, only about 2,600 square kilometers

1~000 square miles) are in public and conservation

ownership. about 5.7 percent. This contrasts

dramatically with other ecosystemefforts throughoutthe

west and withland ownership in other parts ofCalifornia.

The San Joaquin Valley has much more land in private

ownership than any of California’s nine other bioregions.

Most of the landscape, 95 percent or more, has been

altered from its natural state and replaced by irrigated

agriculture, cities and towns, and industrial developments. Within this human-shaped mosaic are sparsely

scattered remnants of natural communities, all of which

have been severely degraded, altered, and fragmented by’

human activities. One of the most basic and prominent of

ecosystem features on the San Joaquin Valley floor—

seasonal flooding by winter storms and snowmelt in the

towering SierraNevada—has been nearly’ eliminated by’

the dams, reservoirs, pumps, diversion channels, and

canals that capture its waters for use by agriculture and

municipalities, some outside its boundaries. All the

natural communities shaped and maintained by seasonal

runoffno longer function normally. which has led to their

endangerment.

This recovery’ plan acknowledges that if recovery is

lobe achieved, it must take place within the constraints of

the existing human-dominated ecosystem. Trust,

partnership, and common purpose must be established

amongst government agencies, ranchers, farmers,

developers, conservationists, urbanites, and other

citizens of the Valley.

If implemented, the outcome of this planning effort

most probably will retain the advantages of ecosystemlevel conservation: involving all segments of society in

recovery actions; preserving all or most species

simultaneously; saving effort and money; and increasing

the chances that recovery efforts will succeed.

25
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

26
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

II. SPECIES ACCOUNTS

A. CALIFORNIA JEWELFLOWER

(CA L’LANTHLS CALIFORNICUS)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy—The appropriate genus for California

jewelfiower has been debated (Payson 1923, Rollins

1971, AI-Shehbaz 1973), but it has been recognized

consistently as a distinct species. Watson (1880)

originally named the genus Statifordia solely to

accommodate this species. The type specimen (i.e., the

individual plant on which the original description was

based) of Stanfordia californica was collected “near

Tulare” in Tulare County. Greene then transferred the

species to Streptanthus in 1891 (Greene 1891 as cited in

Taylor and Davilla 1986). The currently accepted

scientific name for California jewelfiower, Caulanthus

californicus. was published by Payson (1923). California

jewelfiower is a member of the mustard family

(Brassicaceae).

Description—California jewelfiower has hairless,

usually’ branching stems, which can range from less than

10 centimeters (4 inches) tomore than 50 centimeters(20

inches) tall (Munz and Keck 1959, Mazer and

Hendrickson 1993a. Cypher 1994a). The upper leaves

are egg-shaped and clasp the stem, unlike the leavesatthe

baseof the plant. which are oblong. The maroon buds are

clustered at the tip of the stem and contrast with the

translucent, white flowers below. The fruits of California

jewelfiower are I to 6 centimeters (0.4 to 2.4 inches)

long, and flattened (Buck 1993).

Identification.—California jewelfiower (Figure 5)

differs from all otherspecies of Caulanthus in that it has

flattened, sword-shaped fruits and spherical seeds. Other

jewelfiowers also havemaroon budsand whitish flowers,

but those that overlap in range with California

jewelfiower have narrow, elongated fruits and flattened

seeds (Buck 1993j.

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution .—The historical distribution

of California jewelfiower is known from 40 herbarium

specImens, which were collected in 7 counties between

1880 and 1973. Approximately’ half of the collection

sites were on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley in

Fresno, Kern, and Tulare Counties (Figure 6). Several

other collections came from two smaller valleys

southwest of the San Joaquin Valley: the Carrizo Plain

(San Luis Obispo County) and the Cuyama Valley (Santa

Barbara and Ventura Counties). Three occurrences (i.e.,

collection sites separated by 0.4 kilometer [0.25mile] or

more) were in the Sierra Nevada foothills at the eastern

margin of the San Joaquin Valley in Kern County. The

remainder of the historical sites were in foothills west of

the San Joaquin Valley, in Fresno, Kern, and Kings

Counties (CDFG 1995, Taylor and Davilla 1986).

Current Distribution —By 1986, all the occurrences

on the San Joaquin and Cuyama Valley floors had been

eliminated, and the only’ natural population known lo be

extant (i.e., still in existence) was in Santa Barbara

Canyon, which is adjacentto the Cuyama Valley’ in Santa

Barbara County (Taylor and Davilla 1986). A small,

introduced colony also existed at the Paine Preserve in

Kern County’ at that time. Since then, several more

introductions have been attempted (see Conservation

Efforts). and a number of colonies were rediscovered in

two other areas where the species had been collected

historically. The naturally-occurring populations of

Californiajewelfiower that are known to be extant today

are in three centers of concentration: (I) Santa Barbara

Canyon, (2) the Carrizo Plain in San Luis ObispoCounty,

and (3) the Kreyenhagen Hills in Fresno County (CDFG

1995, Danielsen et al. 1994, B. Delgado pers. comm., R.

Lewis pers. comm.).

Figure 5. Illustration of California jeweltiower (from

Abrams, Vol. 2,1944, with permission).

27
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 6. Distribution of California jeweltiower (Can/anthus californicus%

28
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

The Santa Barbara Canyon inetapopulation (i.e.,

scattered groups of plants that may function as a single

population due to occasional interbreeding) occurs in an

area of approximately 10 by 1 kilometer (6.5 by 0.5 mile)

on the terraces just west of the Cuyama River and

includes approximately 12 hectares (30 acres) of

occupied habitat. The Carrizo Plain metapopulation is

confined to the western side of the Carrizo Plain in a

roughly triangular area measuring approximately 15 by

13 by 10 kilometers(9 by 8 by 6 miles) andencompassing

approximately’ 4 hectares (10 acres) of occupied habitat

(R. Lewis pers. comm.). The Kreyenhagen Hills

metapopulation includes 4 small colonies within a 3 by I

kilometer (2 by’ 0.5 mile) areaofrolling hills (USBLM in

litt. 1994).

Additional populations of California jewelfiower

may persist in the foothills of Fresno, Kern, and Kings

Counties, where potential habitat remains in rangeland.

However, access to historical sites in these areas has been

restricted, so the presence of the species has not been

verified in over 50 years (CDFG 1995, Taylor and

Davilla 1986).

3. Life History and Habitat

California jewelfiower is an annual, meaning that

each plant lives less than 1 year, and the entire life cycle

from seed germination to seedset is completed in asingle

growing season. As is typical of annuals, both plant size

and population size in California jewelfiower can vaiy

dramatically, depending on site and weather conditions

(Tay’lor and Davilla 1986, Mazer and Hendrickson

1993a, Cypher 1994a).

Reproduction and Demography—Seeds of

California jewelfiower begin to germinate in the fall

when the rainy season begins, but additional seedlings

tnay’ continue to emerge for several months. California

jewelfiower seedlings develop into rosettes (clusters of

leaves at ground level) during the winter months, and the

stem elongates as flower buds begin to appear in

February or March. Flowering and seed set (~antinue

until the plants die, which may’ occur as late as May’ in

years of favorable rainfall and temperatures. Seeddispersal agents are not known, but those that have been

suggested for California jewelfiower and related genera

include gravity, seed-eating animals (Cypher 1994a),

wind, and water (AI-Shehbaz 1973).

California jewelfiower probably’ forms a persistent

seed bank. In greenhouse trials, viable seeds did not

germinate even when exposed to a variety of typical

temperature and moisture conditions (Taylor andDavilla

1986). Only conditionssimulating prolonged weathering

induced seed germination (Maser and Hendrickson

1993a). A persistent seed bank ensures that some seeds

will be available to produce plants in succeeding years,

even if no individuals survive to set seed in one

unfavorable growing season (Philippi 1993). The

presence of a seed bank would explain the reappearance

ofCalifornia jewelfiower in uncultivated areas where it

had not been observed for decades.

Pollinator-exclusion experiments indicated that

insects are necessary’ for seed set in California

jewelfiower(Mazer and Hendrickson I 993a). Honeybees

(Apis mellifera) have been observed visiting the flowers

(R. Lewis pers. comm.), but native insects also would be

expected to serve as pollinators. Solitary bees of the

genus Svnha!onia are known to visit Coulter’s

jewelfiower (Caulanthus couteri) (Thorp in liti. 1998).

Closely-related species of the genus Thelvpadium were

visited by’ several species of bees (Bombus sp., Apis sp.,

and Xvlocopa sp.) and butterflies (Pieris sp.) (AlShehbaz 1973). Both cross- and self-pollination resulted

in seed set in greenhouse trials (Maser and Hendrickson

I 993a).

In 1992 and 1993, which were years of aboveaverage rainfall during the growing season, 46 percent to

85 percent of plants in study areas on the Carrizo Plain

survived long enough to produce seed (Maser and

Hendrickson 1993a, Cypher 1994a). However, in years

of below-average precipitation or above-averace

temperatures, all the plants may die before setting seed

(R. van de Hoek pers. coimn.). Seed production in

California jewelfiower may vary greatly’ among

individuals, sites, and years. In 1992. averace seed

production per plant was 711 on the Carrizo Plain and

278 in Santa Barbara Canyon (Maser and Hendrickson

I 993a). In 1993, theestimated number ofseeds per plant

on the Carrizo Plain ranged from 4 to over 11,000 and

averaged 929, compared to 49 in the Kreyenhagen Hills

fE. Cypher unpubl. data).

Habitat and Community Associations—Extant

populations of California jewelfiower occur in

Nonnative Grassland, Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub,

and Cismontane Juniper Woodland and Scrub(E. Cypher

unpubl. data). Historical records suggest that California

jewelfiower also occurred in the Valley’ Saltbush Scrub

community in the past (CDFG 1995).

29
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Herbaceous cover was dense at most California

jewelfiower sites studied in 1993 (Cypher 1994a).

Native plant species, such as annual fescue (Vulpia

microstachys), clovers (Trifolium spp.), red maids

(Calandrinia ciliata), and goldfields (Lasthenia

californica) comprised a high proportion of the

vegetation at many’ of the known locations over several

years. The exotic grass red brome (Bromus madritensis

ssp. rubens) was a significant component of the

vegetation only at the Carrizo Plain sites (Taylor and

Davilla 1986, Lewis in litt. 1993, Cypher 1994a, E.

Cypher unpubl. data). On the Carrizo Plain. California

jewelfiower occurred primarily on the burrow systems of

giant kangaroo rats (Dipodamvs ingens), another

endangered species (Cypher 1994a).

Populations of California jewelfiower have been

reported from elevations of approximately 75 to 900

meters (240 to 2,950 feet) and from level terrain to 25

percent slopes. Soils at known sites are primarily

subalkaline, sandy loams (CDFG 1995, Taylor and

Davilla 1986, Lewis in litI. 1993).

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline—The primary reason for the

decline ofCaliforniajewelfiower was habitat destruction.

All the populations on the San Joaquin and Cuy’ama

Valley’ floors have been eliminated. Conversion to

agriculture accounted for the loss of most sites, butthose

closest to Bakersfield and Fresno were destroyed by

urbanization. Cilfield activity may have eliminated a

fewsites in the foothills at the western margin of the San

Joaquin Valley (Taylor and Davilla 1986).

Threats to Survival—Developmentremains a threat

in Santa Barbara Canyon, where more than 90 percent of

the California jewelfiower metapopulation occurs on

private land. The Californiajewelfiower habitat near the

canyon mouth is for sale; the landowner cleared

California junipers (Juniperus californica) from the site

and planted ornamentals in anticipation of residential

development (Lewis in litt. 1993). California jewelflower on private land in the upper portion of Santa

Barbara Canyon is subject to cattle grazing throughout

the growing season, but the magnitude of threat posed by

livestock is unknown. Grazing in the period between the

rosette stage and seed set is believed to be detrimental to

California jewelfiower because seed set would be

reduced if flowering or fruiting stems were consumed

(Mazer and Hendrickson 1993a, R. Lewis pers. comm.).

Potential threats to one or more of the remaining

populations ofCaliforniajewelfiower include competition

from exotic plants, the effects of certain insecticides on

pollinators, and small population size. In a preliminary

study, seedling mortality was higher in plots that

contained dense vegetation than inplots where all plants

butCalifomniajewelfiower had beenremoved(Mazer and

Hendrickson 1993a). Red brome could be particularly

competitive because some strains are resistant to air

pollution (Westmann et al. 1985 in Taylor and Davilla

1986). Insecticides could present a threat to California

jewelfiower viability’ on the CarrizoPlain by decreasing

pollinator populations. Prior to 1980, the California

Department ofFood and Agriculture sprayed malathion

on the Carrizo Plain to control beet leafhoppers. The

effect of malathion on native insect populations has not

been investigated. Thus, it is unknown whether fall

spraying would affect pollinator populations the

following spring, or how large a buffer zone would be

needed toavoid affecting insects that pollinate California

jewelfiower. Under the current environmental

assessment and pesticide use permit, spraying has been

suspen(led on the Carrizo Plain, at least through the year

2001 (California Department ofFood and Agriculture in

lilt. 1998). Small population size may be another factor

in the continued existence of California jewelfiower.

5. Conservation Efforts

California jewelfiowerwas state listed as endangered

in 1987 and federally listed as endangered in 1990

(USFWS 1990; Table 1). Intensive and extensive survey

efforts were undertaken by biologists from the California

Energy Commission, USBLM, and U.S. Forest Service,

beginning in 1987. Their efforts led to the discovery of

many new occurrences and the rediscovery of several

that were thought to have been eliminated. Surveys for

additional populations are continuing in suitable habitats

on the Los Padres National Forest and USBLM lands in

the Bakersfield District (Danielsen et al. 1994, B.

Delgado pers. comm., R. Lewis pers. comm.).

The known California jewelfiower habitat in two of

the threeconcentration areas is in public ownership. The

Canto Plain merapopulation is entirely within the

CarrizoPlain Natural Area, which is administeredjointly

by USBLM, The Nature Conservancy, and CDFG.

USBLM also administers the Kreyenhagen Hills and a

small part of Santa Barbara Canyon. Populations in each

ofthese areas havebeen monitored annually by USBLM

personnel since 1991. USBLM no longer allows green30
Recovery P/a,, for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

season grazing in California jewelfiower habitats under

its management, which include approximately 40 percent

ofindividuals known to be extant. In 1994, an exelosure

was constructed around the plants on public land in Santa

Barbara Canyon to preclude grazing (R. Lewis pers.

e0mm.).

Several experimental introductions of California

jewelfiower have been attempted in Kern, Santa Barbara.

and Tulare Counties on lands protected by’ The Nature

Conservancy and the Los Padres National Forest (Taylor

1988. CDFG 1995). In all instances, the numberofplants

at each site has declined precipitously following the

initial seeding (Taylor and Davilla in litt. 1986,

Danielsen et al. in lilt. 1994). Possible causes of failure

included unfavorable site conditions, use of seed sources

that were not adapted to the introduction site, lack of

genetic diversity in the introduced populations. and

insufficient numbers of seeds (Taylor and Davilla 1986,

Maser and Hendrickson 1993a. Danielsen et al. 1994).

Considering the variable germination rates in natural

populations, plants may reappear at some of the

reintroduction sites al~ter several years. Future

reintroduction efforts can build on the experience gained

from these earl’s trials.

Preliminary’ research on the reproductive biology’.

demography, and ecology’ of California jewelfiower has

been conducted by Dr. Susan Maser and associates from

the University of Calihwnia. Santa Barbara. and by’ Dr.

Ellen Cypher and a

5sociates from the Endaneered

Species Recovery Program. Funding for these studies

xs as prox ided by CDFG. the National Science

Foundation. USBLM, and EndangeredSpecies Recovery’

Program. The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation

Service is~onsideriog artificial propagation ofCal lornia

iewelflower to aid research and restoration chain ts (D.

Dyer pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

Althauch restoratIon at California jeweltiower to all

us former sites at occurrence is not feasible. the recovery

coal is to maintain self—sustaining populations in

nrotccted areas rcpresentutive of the former geographic

and topographic range of the species and in a variety of

appropriate natural communities. Surveys will he

necessary to determine whether natural populations

remain in all tarcet areas. Where natural populations no

loncer exist, such as the floor ofthe San Joaquin Valley,

reintroduction will be necessary to achieve recovery.

However, reintroduction is expensive and experimental,

and thus the preferable course of action is to locate and

protect the remaining occupied habitat wherever

possible. Unoccupied habitat within metapopulations

also should be protected to facilitate movement of

pollinators and seed dispersers. Thus, additional

elements of the strategy are to protectland in blocks of at

least 65 hectares (160 acres) and to avoid fragmenting

any’ metapopulation into more than two blocks of

contiguous, protected natural land. Finally’, buffer zones

of 150 meters (500 feet) or more should be protected

bey’ond the population margins to reduce external

influences and to allow’ for population expansion.

The top-priority action for recovery of California

jewelfiower is to protect the plants on private land in

Santa Barbara Cany’on. The site could be secured

through fee title acquisition or conservation easements.

Continued pr(ttection and appropriate management of all

occupied habitat on public lands also is important. A

number of additional tasks are required to achieve

recovery goals. These tasks include developing

management plans. surveying for additional populations.

banking seed, conducting research, and modeling

population demographics using matrix projection

modeling. Interim management plans should be

developed for each protected area to ensure that recovery

of California jewelliower and other listed species is the

primary’ goal. Management plans may needto be revised

if populations begin declining or research identifies

limitations to population viability.

Survey’sare particularly’ important in the foothills east

of the San Joaquin Valley’ to determine if historical

populations remain extant. If populations are

rediscovered in that area their protection would be a hiehpriority’ task because they’ are likcly to incorporate

genotx pes not lound elsewhere in the range. Seeds

should be collected from each of the known

metapopulatians and any occurrences discovered in the

future, according to the guidelines established by the

Center for PlartI Conservation (1991). .Seed collections

should be used for two purposes: to conserve the genetic

diversity’ of the species in seed-banking facilities; and to

allow greenhouse propagation of the species, which

would allow experiti~ental introductions and manipulative

studies without jeopardizing ttatural populations or

continuing to deplete natural seed banks (Maser and

Hendrickson 1993a). Continued demographic research

is necessary to determine which stages in the life cycle

are limiting (Schemnske et al. 1994). Limiting factors

31
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

may vary among California jewelfiower populations and

can include pollinator availability, competition from

introduced plants, consumption by kangaroo rats or

livestock, or physical site characteristics (Mazer and

Hendrickson 1993a, Cypher 1994a). Annual monitoring

also is necessary to indicate whether population levels

are increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable (Cypher

1994a, Schemske et al. 1994).

B. PALXI&TE-BRACTED BIRD’S-BEAK

(CORDYL4.vTHL’S PALMATE’S)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy —Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, a member

of the snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae), was first

described as Adenostegia palmata (Ferris 1918). The

rxpe locality (i.e., the site from which the type specimen

was collected) was “at Tule near College City, Colusa

County” (Ferris 1918, p. 420). In a subsequent revision,

Adenostegia was transferred to the genus Cordvlanthus

(Macbride 1919), resulting in the currently-accepted

name Cordylantlius palmatus (Chuang and Heckard

1993). Plants from the southern portion of the range

initially’ were considered by Penneli (1947) to be a

different species. fleshy’ bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus

carnulosus). The type specimen of fleshy bird’s-beak

was collected 6 miles south of Kerman, in Fresno County

(Chuang and Heckard 1973). Cordylanthus carnulosus

later was reduced to a subspecies of C. palniatus (Munz

1958), and finally was merged completely with C.

palmatus (Chuang and Heckard 1973).

Description —Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Figure

7) is a highly branched annual that can reach 30

centimeters (12 inches) in height. The glandular hairs are

short (less than 1 millimeter; less than 0.04 inch) and

excrete salt crystals, making mature plants appear

grayish-green. In all Cordvlanthus species, the corolla

(the set of petals) is club-shaped and is divided

lengthwise into two lips (groups offused petalsthat differ

inappearance). The upperlip is hooked like a bird’s beak

and the lower lip is inflated like a pouch. The flowers are

nearly hidden by bracts, which are leaf-like structures. In

palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, the outer bracts are green;

the inner bracts are lavender and deeply divided into

finger-like segments (i.e., pa/mate). The corolla is hairy,

whitish to lavender on the sides, and has fine purple

stripes on the lower lip. The seeds have distinctive

arching crests.

ldentqi cation —Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak differs

from the closely-related hispid bird’s-beak (C. maI/is

ssp. hispidus) in that the latter has bristly hairs longer

than 1 millimeter (0.04 inch), whitish to yellowish

flowers, and lacks crests on the seeds (Ferris 1918,

Chuang and Heekard 1993). Fleshy bird’s-beak is

distinguished from palmate-bracted bird’s-beak by its

branching pattern and hair characteristics (Chuang and

Heckard 1973).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution—Nine natural populations

of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak were documented

between 1916 and 1982, but only’ two were known to be

extant as of 1985 (USFWS 1986). The historical

occurrences were in the following vicinities: College

City; Livermore (Alameda County); Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve, Kerman, and two near Mendota

(Fresno County); between Firebaugh and Madera

(Madera County’); Stockton (San Joaquin County); and

Woodland (Yolo County) (Chuang and Heekard 1973,

CDFG 1995, Heckard 1977). Hoover (1937) indicated

that palmate-bracted bird’s-beak grew near Bakersfield,

but that locality has not been substantiated.

Current Distribution—As a result of intensive

survey efforts and additional introductions, palmatebracted bird’s-beak now is known to occur in seven

metapopulations: four in the Sacramento Valley, one in

Figure 7. Illustration of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak tfrom

Abrams, Vol. 3, 1951, with permission).

32
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

the Livermore Valley, and two in the San Joaquin Valley

(Figure 8). In approximate order from north to south,

these metapopulations are (1) Sacramento National

Wildlife Refuge in Glenn County, (2) Delevan National

Wildlife Refuge in Colusa County, (3) Colusa National

Wildlife Refuge in Colusa County, (4) the Woodland

area. (5) Springtown Alkali Sink near Livermore. (6)

western Madera County, and (7) the combined Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve and Mendota Wildlife

Management Area. The total occupied surface area over

the seven metapopulations is estimated at less than 300

hectares (741 acres). The Delevan National Wildlife

Refuge and Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

metapopulations account for approximately 80 percent of

the total number of individuals, and the Springtow’n

Alkali Sink metapopulation accounts for another 19

percent (Center for Conservation Biology 1994, CDFG

1995

3. Life History and Habitat

Cordylan thus species are hemiparasitic annuals.

meaning that they manufacture their own food but obtain

water and nutrients from the roots of other plants (i.e.,

host p/ants; Chuang and Heckard 1971). Saltgrass

(Distichlis spicata) is the most likely host plant for

palmate-bracted bird’s-beak. The combination of

hemiparasitism, salt excretion, and a deep root system

allows palmate-bracted bird’s-beak to grow during the

hot, dry months after most other annuals havedied (Coats

et al. 1993).

Reproduction and Demography—This species

flowers from May until October (Skinner and Pavlik

1994). Bumblebees (Boninbus caliJ6rnh us, B. occidentalis.

and B. vosnesenskii) were the primary’ pollinators of

palniate-bracted bird’s-beak at the Springtown Alkali

Sink in 1993. The bees nested in uplands more than 100

meters (328 feet) distant from the population, and each

bee visited only one group of palmate-bracted bird’sbeak plants (Center for Conservation Bioloes 1994i.

Both self- and cross-pollination can contribute to seed-set

(Center for Conservation Biology 1993j, and individual

plants can produce up to 1.000 seeds in a single growing

season tCenter forConservation Biology 1991 . Despite

the formation of a persistent seedhank, the riuniber of

plants in a population varies yearly in response to

environmental conditions, particularly precipitation

~Center for Conservation Biolog\ 1994). Seasonal

overland flooding may disperse seeds and proniote seed

germination by diluting the saline soils ~Coats et al.

1993): in laboratory tests, seed germination rates were

significantly higher in low-salinity than in high-salinity

solutions, regardless ofalkalinity (CenterforConservation

Biology 1991). However, pro]onged flooding would not

be conducive to survival of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak

(A. Howald pers. comm.).

Genetic studies of the Colusa, Delevan, Springtown,

and Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve/Mendota National

Wildlife Refugepopulations indicatedthat the Springtown

metapopulation incorporated almost all the genetic

variability known in the species. The Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve population contributed sonic

additional genetic variation, but the Colusa and Delevan

National Wildlife Refuge metapopulations did not.

Thus, protection of the Springlown and Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve metapopulations was considered to

be crucial to recovery’ (Center for Conservation Biology

1994). Samples from Sacramento National Wildlife

Refuge, Woodland, and Madera County were not

evaluated.

Habitatand CommunityAssociations.—This species

is restricted to seasonally-flooded, saline-alkali soils in

lowland plains and basins at elevations of less than 155

meters (500 feet). Within these areas, palitiate-bracted

bird’s-beak grows primarily’ along the edges of channels

and drainages, with a fi~\v individuals scattered in

seasonally’- wet depressions, alkali scalds (barren areas

with a surface crust of salts), and grassy areas. Palmatebracted bird’s-beak occurs in the Valley Sink Scrub and

Alkali Meadow’ natural communities in association with

other halophytes such as iodine bush (Allenrolfen

occidetitalis), alkali heath (Frankenia sn/i/ia), glasswort

(Salico,-nia subterininalis),seepweed(Suneda otoqui,iii),

and salt gfass (Holland 1986, Coats et al. 1993, CDFG

1995, Bittman 1985, 19860). At Springtown Alkali Sink,

palniate-bracted bird’s-beak and hispid bird’s-beak

occur together (Center for Conservation Biology 1994).

Suitability of roicrohubuats for pulmate—bracted bird’sbeuk depends primarily on sotI pH and to a lesser extent

on soil layering, salinity, and moisture. Thi:s ~pecics

occurs on neutral to alkaline soils pH 7.2 to 9.5) under

ri:oural conditions but has been gins’ n ‘in’ ac di.. soils in

gi cenhouse trial~ Coats em a!. 1993. C enter for

C nscrs ation Biology 1993, 199—1

4. Reasons for I)ecline and Threats to Surviv’d

Reasons for Dec/ine.—---Agricultural conversion

eliminated the formerly —known palmate-bructed birds—

33
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 8. Distribution of palmame-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordvlcuithus pa/matus).

34
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

beak populations near College City, Kerman, and

southeast of Mendota; reduced the size of the Woodland

population: and destroy’ed extensive areas of potential

habitat in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys.

Urban development was responsible for the destruction

ofthe Stockton occurrence.

Threats to Survival—Urban expansion (including

commercial uses, residential development, and

construction of recreational facilities) poses imminent

threats at the Springtown andWoodland sites. Numerous

other factors threaten the remaining populations.

Changes in the hydrologic regime (seasonal watercycles

and movements) by’ drainage, diking, and channelization

have interrupted the seasonal overland flow’s and altered

water salinity’ at Springtown, Woodland, and on lands

adjacent to the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve and

National Wildlife Refuges. Because of the lack of

genetic variability within and among the Sacramento

Valley populations and the limited number ofindividuals

in the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, western Madera

County. and Woodland populations. random or

catastrophic events could result in elimination (if the

species at any of these sites. Road maintenance is a

potential threat at the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve.

The Springtown metapopulation faces many’ additional

threats, includine unauthorized fill of wetlands,

encroachment by exotic plant species, off—road vehicle

use, and livestock v. allowing in seasonal pools (Coats Ct

al. 1993, Center lor Conservation Biology 1994. CDFG

1995. A. Howald pers. comm.).

5. Conservation Efforts

The state ofCalifornia listed palmate-bracted bini’sbeak as an endangered species in 1984. and USFWS did

likewise in 1986)IJSFWS 1986). In 1988, CDFG funded

aproject to map suitable habitats fromaerial photographs

and soil survey’ data (A. E-lowald pers. comm.). Since

then. t?DFG has sponsored intensive research on the

biologr . ecologx. and management of palntate—bracted

bird’s-beak at the Sprin~town \lkali Sink. The First

study focused on habitat characterization and resulted in

development ola management plan for the area (Coats em

aL 1993t The next serie’. of investications into the life

bistorx . reprodocti\ e biology. genetic composition. aitd

site relationships were conducted by the Center for

C. onservation B:’.:logy and resulted in development of a

long—term monitoring program for the Springtown Alkali

Sink Center for Conservation Biology’ 1994). Part ofthe

S~~ringtow n Alkali Sink linus been proposed as a

mitigation banking area for surrounding development;

under the proposed plan, restoration and management

also would be undertaken (Coats et al. 1993). However,

the mitigation bank would protect at most 25 percent of

occupied habitat; it is a commercial enterprise that will

continue only as long as it is profitable, and restoration

may not begin for many years (A. Howald pers. comm.).

A hydrologic study of the North Livermore Valley

watershed is currently underw’ay. Preliminary’

recommendations are contained in a report by Questa

Engineering Corporation (19971. and include measures

to reduce urban runoff and protect groundwater flows

from the saline foothills north and northeast of the sink.

Personnel at the Sacramento National Wildlife

Refuge complex have contributed to conservation of

palmute-bracted bird’s-beak in several ways. In 1990.

National Wildlife Refuge biologists established a new

population at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge by

scatterine seeds that had been collected from Delevan

NationalWildlife Refuge. TheNational WildlifeRefuge

complex avoids inundating known occurrences of

pulmate-bracted bird’s-beak, and the hydrology’ and

vegetation in occupied habitat arc being restored to

historical conditions. Refuge staff also monitor known

populations on the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge

complex annually and consider the species when any’

management activities are proposed or planned in

occupied habitat (G. Mensik pers. comm.). At least one

group of plantshas been fenced torestrict vehicle access

and reduce the potential for trampling by waterfowl

hunters (MA. Showers pers. observ.).

Additional conservation efforts have included

surveys and another reintroduction. The palmatebracted bird’s-beak population on private land in w’estern

Madera County was discovered in 1993 during surveys

by the Endangered Species Recovery Program. A small

transplant colony’ was established at the Mendota

Wildlife Management Area in 1973 using seed collected

from a nearby population that was about to be eliminated

(CI)f-G 1995. Heckard 1977). The Endangered Species

Recovery Procraiti currently is conducting demographic

.tud~cs of palmuic—bracted bird’s—beak at Alkait Sink

[coloco. .tl Reserve Seeds will he collected from tbi~

populalL ‘a in fall 1998 for banking at a Conter for Plant

Conser~ alion fa’ility.

6. Recovery Strategy

The recovery goal for palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is

35
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

to maintain self-sustaining populations in protected areas

representative of the former geographic and topographic

range of the species and ina varietyof appropriate natural

communities. Survey’s will be necessary to determine

whether natural populations remain in all target areas; if

natural populations are not found, reintroduction will be

necessary’ to achieve recovery. However, reintroduction

is expensive and experimental, and thus the preferable

course of action is to locate and protect the remaining

occupied habitat wherever possible. Unoccupied habitat

within metapopulations also should be protected to

facilitate seed dispersal and pollinator movement. Thus,

additional elements of the strategy are to protect land in

blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres) and to avoid

traementine any metapopulation into m(tre than two

blocks of contiguous. protected natural land. Buffer

tones ot 150 meters (500 heel) or more should be

protected bey’ond the population margins to reduce

external influences, provide pollinatorhabitat, and allow

lor population expansion. Finally, the natural

hydrological regime, including appropriate height ofthe

water table and periodic overland flows, must be

maintained to ensure long-term survival of palmatebracted bird’s-beak at protected sites.

To prevent the irreversible decline of palmatebracted bird’s-beak in the near future, the Springtown

Alkali Sink metapopulation must be protected from

development and from incompatible uses. In addition,

appropriate measures must be taken toprotect and restore

the hydrology after the Questa Engineering Corporation

hydrologic study has been completed. Another highpriority’ task is to ascertain the genetic composition ofthe

Woodland population. If it contains genes that differ

from those in populations that are protected currently, the

Woodland site should be considered for protection as a

specialty reserve. Ifpermitted development results in the

loss of any’ natural populations, seeds should be salvaged

for introduction into other suitable habitats. The

occupied habitat on public land also is important to the

survival of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak; management to

promote the continued survival of this species must

continue.

Additional actions that are necessary. but of

somewhat lower priority, are to determine the genetic

composition and extent of the population in western

Madera County’, conduct surveys, develop management

plans for all sites, and model population viability. The

occupied habitat in Madera County is not in imminent

danger of destruction, but the area is important for

recovery of a number of plant andanimal taxa, andlongterm protection should be assured through conservation

easements or other mechanisms. Ifthe genetic variability

or population size of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak in the

western Madera County site is low, techniques that can

be used to increase population viability include

augmentation (with seeds from other San Joaquin Valley

p(tpulations) and habitat management. Management

plans must be developed and implemented for each of the

inetapopulations. The plans should include monitoring

to track population trends and evaluate management

effectiveness. Seed samples should be collected from at

least the Springlown, Woodland. and Alkali Sink!

Mendota populations following established guidelines

(Center for Plant Conservation 1991) to preserve the

gene poo1 and provide sources for reintroduction or

a ugrnen tation of populations. if determined to be

necessary. Matrix projection models should be

developed for the Springlown Alkali Sink and San

Joaquin Valley populations, as well as for any others not

currently known that are counted towards recovery. To

do so, demographic studies must be instituted in these

populations to identify’ critical stages in the life cycle.

Additional research may be necessary’ to detern~ine

appropriate management to overcome limitations to

p(tpulation growth.

C. KERN MALLOW

(EREMALCHE KLR~vIeNsIs)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy—Kern mallow was first described as

Eremalclie kernensis, based on a specimen from the

“Temblor Valley, 7 miles. northwest of McKittrick”, in

Kern County (Wolf 1938, p.67). Both Kearney (1951)

and Munz (1958) transferred this species to the genus

Malvastrum then reconsidered (Kearney 1956, Munz

1968) and returned to the original name. Other

combinations have been suggested (Leonelli 1986) but

were not validly published. The mostrecently-published

treatments (Bates 1992, 1993) assign Kern mallow the

name Erema/che parrvi ssp. kernensis. However, the

taxonomy of Kern mallow’remains controversial in terms

of its rank and its relationship to Parry’s mallow

(Erema/che parrvi ssp. parn’i). Most local botanists

continue to use the scientific name Erema/che kernensis

(Medlin in lilt. 1995a) for this member of the mallow

family (Malvaceae).

36
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Description—The height and habit of Kern mallow

(Figure 9) vary depending on seasonal precipitation. The

form can vary from single-stemmed to multiplestemmed, w’ith the central stem erect andthe lateralstems

trailing alongthe ground. Stem lengths atflowering may

range from less than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) to nearly’ 50

centimeters (20 inches). The flowers have five petals,

and the wheel-shaped fruits are divided into singleseeded segments (Bates 1993).

Identification —The taxonomic debate centers

around the gender. color, andsize offlowers indicative of

Kern mallow versus Parry’s mallow’. Some populations

in the Kern/Parry’s mallow’ complex exhibit a condition

know’n as gvnodioecv, meaning that a population

contains a mixture of plants that have only pistil/ate

(female) flowers and plants that have only bisexual

flowers (with both male and female parts). Bates (1992,

1993) considered any gynodioecious population in the

Kern/Parry’s mallow complex to be Kern mallow and

those populations with only bisexual flowers to be

Parry’s mallow’. On the other hand, Taylor and Davilla

(1986) maintained that both Kern mallow and Parry’s

mallow’ were gy’nodioecious. Neither Wolf (1938) nor

authors of early’ regional floras (Abrams 1951, Munz and

Keck 1959) mentioned flower gender. Bisexual Kern

mallow flowers produce fewer seeds per fruit (7 to 13)

than do pistillate flowers (8 to 19). Parry’s mallow and

desert mallow (Erema/che exilis) fruits contain 10 to 22

and 9 to 13 segments, respectively (Abrams 1951, Munz

and Keck 1959, Bates 1992, 1993, Mazer et al. 1993).

Figure 9. Illustration of Kem mallow (from Abrams. Vol. 3,

1951, with permission).

The strictest definition of Kern mallow applies only

to populations in which white-flowered individuals

predominate. Even in these areas, afew individuals may

have pale lavender flowers (Wolf 1938, Bates 1992,

Maser et al. 1993), but lavender-flowered plants

represented less than 10 percent of one population in

1994 (E. Cypher unpubl. data). Definite Parry’s mallow’

populations consist of only pinkish-purple flowers,

whereas thoseofquestionable taxonomic affinity’ contain

either exclusively pinkish-purple flowers or a very small

proportion of white-flowered plants. Regardless of

color, pistillate flowers have shorter petals than bisexual

flowers in the same population (Bates 1992, 1993).

Parry’s mallow has larger flow’er parts than Kernmallow.

Another closely-related species that infrequently occurs

with the other two taxa is desert mallow’, which has

trailing stems andbisexual flowers that are smaller than

those of Kern mallow (Twisselmaun 1956, Twisselmann

1967, Hoover 1970, Bates 1993). The populations of

Kern mallow that are predominantly’ white-flowered are

the object of conservation concern, and thus the strict

interpretation is used in the following sections unless

otherwise noted.

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution—Kern mallow has always

had a highly-restricted distribution. In the original

description, Wolf(1938) mentioned specinteris from the

TemblorValley, Belridge Oil Field, andtwo sites west of

Buttonwillow; all these occurrences were in western

Kern Cowttv north of McKittrick.

Current Distribution.--—A 1986 status survey

reported three additional occurrencesin Lokern, which is

the local name for the area betw’een Buttonw’illow and

MeKiltrick (Taylor and Davilla 1986). More intensive

survey’s during the past few years (Anderson et al. 1991.

Olson and Magney’ 1992, CDFG 1995, Stebbins et al.

1992, 5. Carter pers. comm.) revealed that Kern mallow

occurs intermittently within an area of approximately

100 square kilometers (40 square miles) in Lokern,

which is best described as a single inctapopulation

(Figure 10). The California Native Piant Society

(Skiminer and Pavlik 1994) and CDFG (1995) also accept

reports of plants from three sites between Maricopa and

McKittrick (in extreme western Kern County) as

representing Kern mallow’, Because specimens are not

available to determine the color of the flowers and these

sites are outside of the accepted range, they are treated

here as representing Parry’s mallow.

37
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 10. Distribution of Kern mallow (Eremnlche kernensis).

38
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Pink-flowered plants fitting Bates’ (1992, 1993)

broader concept of Kern mallow’ are widespread. Recent

reports indicated that these plants occurred in several

areas of Kern County, including BuenaVista Valley, Elk

Hills, Lost Hills, McKittrick Hills, Stockdale, and the

Temblor Range. Recent and historical reports elsewhere

included Corcoran in Kings County’; the Carrizo Plain,

Elkhorn Plain, Panorama Hills, and Temblor Range in

San Luis Obispo County! the Cuy’ama Valley in Santa

Barbara County! and Pix ley in Tulare County (Hoover

1970, Leonelli 1986, Olson and Magney 1992, Skinner

andPavlik 1994,CDFG 1995, TaylorandDavilla 1986,

E. Cypher unpubl. obsery., S. Wilson pers. comm.).

Parry’s mallow ranges from Alameda to Ventura

Counties (Bates 1992).

3. Life History and Habitat

As with many arid-land annuals, the form, density.

plienologv (timing of different stages in the life cycle),

andreproduction of Kern mallow’ vary greatly’ depending

on precipitation.

Reproduction and Demography —In Lokern, Kern

mallow seeds typically germinate in January and

February’, and the plants begin floweringin March. Fruit

production begins within afew days after flowers appear;

flower and fruit production may continue into May’ if

sufficient moisture is available. The seeds fall from the

fruits as soon as they are mature. Seeds are capable of

germinating in the following growing season, but at least

some remain urigerminated. The duration of seed

viability in the soil is not known. Seed dispersal agents

are unknown but probably include animals and wind

(Taylor and Daxilla 1986, Mazer et al. 1993, F. Cy’pher

unpubl. observj.

Preliminary studies show’ed that insects facilitated

pollination of Kern mallow, However, small numbers of

seeds were produced when pollinators were excluded,

even in pistillale plants which did not produce pollen.

Possible explanations for this phenomenon were

apoomixis i.e.. seed set without fertilization),

contamnination of the test plants by’ researchers, or wind

pollination. However, a higher frequency of seed set

would have been expected if p(Jllen was carried by’ the

wind (Mazer et al. 1993). The native solitary’bee species

Dwdasia laticanda is one potential pollinator of Kern

mallow’. This bee species occurs in Kern County’ and is

know’n to visit mallow’s of the genus Erema/che.

Furthermore, many bees of the genus Diadasia restrict

their pollen collection to members ofthe mallow family

(Thorp in litI. 1998).

Population size of Kern mallow varies with rainfall.

Several botanists familiar with this species were unable

to find Kern mallow at known locations in years of

below-average rainfall (Wolf 1938, Twisselmann 1956,

Bates 1992). In Lokern, Kernmallow density was nearly

10 times as high in 1995, a year of much higher than

average rainfall, as in 1994, which had below-average

rainfall during the growing season. Similarly’, the

number of flowers per plant ranged from 1 to 8 in 1994

and from Ito over 700 in 1995 (E. Cypher unpubl. data.).

Habitat and Community Associations—Kern

mallow typically occurs in the Valley Saltbush Scrub

natural community, where it grows under and around

spiny and common saltbushes and in patches with other

herbaceous plants, rather than in the intervening alkali

scalds. Associated herbs include red brome, redstemmed fi laree (Erodiunt cicurariu,n), woolly goldflelds

(Lasthenia mi/tar), and white Sierran layia (Layia

pentachaeta ssp. albida). Kern mallow typically grows

in areas where shrub cover is less than 25 percent (Taylor

and Davilla 1986). The amount of herbaceous cover

varieswith rainfall and microhabitat; in occupied areas of

Lokern, herhaceous cover averaged 80 perceilt in 1993

and 48 percent in 1994 (Cypher I 994a, 1 994b. E. Cy’pher

unpubl. data). Kern mallow’ occasionally has reinvaded

disturbed sites when existing populations remained in

adjacent areas to provide sources ofseed (Mitchell 1989.

F. Cypher unpubl. obsery.).

Kern mallow occurs on alkaline satidy’ loam or clay’

soils at elevations of 95 to 275 meters (315 to 900 feet)

(Wolf 1938, CDFG 1995). Leonelli’s (1986)

comparison of Kern mallow’ habitat in Lokern with

Parrx” s mallow’ habitat in the Temblor Range revealed

that Kern mallow grew’ on soils that were more alkaline.

less saline, and less sandy than those where Parry’s

mallow grew.

4. Reasons for Decline and Tbreats to Survival

Reasons for Dec/ine.----’Fhe loss and degradation of

habitat in the Lokern area have been respcnsible for the

decline of Kern mallow’. Construction of the California

aqueduct impacted Kern mallow’ both directly, by

destroying plants in its path, and indirectly’, by pioviding

water that allowed cultivation of cotton andalfalfa in the

area of endemism. The western portion of Lokern was

39
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

developed for petroleum production, which eliminated

Kern mallow at the type locality. Two disposal facilities

for liquid waste were constructed in occupied habitat.

Causes of habitat degradation, not only in Lokern, but

also in the populations south to Maricopa, included

installation of pipelines and transmission lines and offroadvehicle use (CDFG 1995, Taylor and Davilla 1986).

Threats to Survival—Approximately 85 percent of

the Kern mallow habitat inLokern is privately owned and

thus is vulnerable to development for manypotential uses

(CDFG 1995, Taylor and Davilla 1986, Presley’ 1994).

Although the current level of petroleum production does

not seem to pose a threat to the portion of the

metapopulation that remains, increased production

levels could cause further fragmentation and loss of

localized colonies of Kern mallow. Ongoing activities

such as oii exploration and maintenance of pipelines and

utility corridors continue to disturb occupied habitat.

The maximum levels of development and habitat

disturbance that would be compatible with the continued

existence of Kern mallow’ are unknown. A more remote

threatis the possibility’ ofspills from tank truckstraveling

through the area on highways and roads.

Paradoxically, both uncontrolled grazing and

cessation of grazing have the potential to threaten the

Kern mallow metapopulation. Sheep have grazed the

Lokern area for decades (Presley 1994) and continue to

graze on private lands during the growing season (E.

Cy’pher pers. obsery.). Grazing reduces the number of

stems and branches on Kernmallow plants, w’hich in turn

reduces reproductive output (Mazer et al. 1993). In

addition, trampling is likely to lead to localized

destruction of Kern mallow in bedding areas w’here sheep

are concentrated (Taylor and Davilla 1986). However,

light to moderate grazing may serve to reduce

competition in areas that are dominated by aggressive

exotics (Cypher 1994b). Demographic studies indicated

that the survival rate of Kern mallow seedlings was

reduced in dense stands of exotic plants compared to

sparsely-vegetated sites (Cypher 1994b). Furthermore,

flower production was significantly increased in

preliminary experiments where competitors were

reduced through clipping (E. Cypher unpubl. data). The

overall effects of sheep grazing on Kern mallow’

populations are unknown and require further investigation

to determine appropriate management for the area.

Application of malathion in Lokern or other

pesticides on adjacent agricultural fields could pose a

threat to the long-term survival of Kern mallow by

reducing pollinator populations. Malathion is sprayed

periodically on naturallands in the San JoaquinValley to

control the beet leafhopper, which transmits diseases to

crops (Clark 1991). Although current permit conditions

for the California Department of Food and Agriculture

prohibit malathion spraying within 1.6 kilometers (1

mile) of Kern mallow occurrences, research has not been

conducted to determine whether or not this buffersize is

adequate. If pollinator numbers were reduced, the Kern

mallow metapopulation likelywould experience reduced

seed-set (Mazer et al. 1993). Also, if apomixis was the

primary’ source ofseeds, genetic variability could decline

and the metapopulation could be more vulnerable to

disease or other catastrophic events, such as has been

observed in common species (Burdon and Marshall

1981).

5. Conservation Efforts

Kern mallow was federally listed as endangered in

1990 (USEWS 1990, Table 1). Even before then,Lokern

was a focus for protection because a variety of

endangered and threatened species occupy the area. The

California Energy Commission, California Department

of Water Resources, and USBLM have sponsored

biological surveys in Lokern (Anderson et al. 1991,

Stebbins et al. 1992, 5. Carter pers. comm.).

Approximately 15 percent of the occupied Kern mallow

habitat, primarily on the margins of the metapopulation,

is owned by USBLM and The Nature Conservancy. An

interagency cooperative acquisition and management

plan for the entire 17,800-hectare (44,000-acre) Lokern

Conceptual Area is in drafi form; participants include

USBLM, CDFG, California Energy Commission. The

Nature Conservancy, Center for Natural Lands

Management, and USEWS. Chevron USA may

contribute to preservation of the area by establishing a

mitigation bank on its lands, which constitute

approximately 40 percent of the conceptual area and a

substantial portion of the Kern mallow habitat (Presley

1994). The draft Kern County Valley Floor Habitat

Conservation Plan specifiesthat no more than 10 percent

of the natural land inthe Lokern Conceptual Area may be

disturbed underits section l0(a)(l)(B) permit (T. James

pers. comm.), but protection efforts would not

necessarily’ target occupied Kern mallow habitat.

Efforts that specifically targeted the conservation of

Kern mallow included (I) research on the demography

and reproductive biology of Kern mallow funded by

40
Recovery Planfor UplandSpecies ofthe San Joaquin Valley

CDFG (Mazer et al. 1993), (2) salvage of plant

specimens and seed from the Laidlaw Waste Disposal

Facility by Endangered Species Recovery Program and

Laidlaw in cooperation with USEWS, (3) ongoing

population monitoring and research on the response of

Kern mallow to cattle grazing jointly sponsored by the

Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological

Survey, USBLM, USEWS, the Endangered Species

Recovery Program, CDFG, and other agencies.

corporations, and organizations, and (4) exclusion of

grazing from known Kern mallow habitat under the

control of USBLM and Center for Natural Lands

Management.

6. Recovery Strategy

Considering that habitat loss is the primary reason

that Kern mallow is listed as an endangered species, the

top-priority task for recovery is to protect habitat in

Lokern. The goal is to protect 90 percent of the

remaining occupied habitat. This goal is based on the

recognition that some development in Lokern must be

allowed for economic reasons and on theassumption that

loss of an additional 10 percent of the habitat will not

jeopardize the continued survival of the taxon, provided

that the protected habitat is managed appropriately.

Unoccupied habitat within the metapopulation also is

important for population expansion and movement of

pollinators and seed dispersers. Thus, additional

elements of the strategy are toprotect land in blocks of at

least 65 hectares (160 acres) and If) avoid fragmenting the

inetapopulation into more than two blocks of contiguous,

protected natural land. Buffer zones of 150 meters (500

feet) or more should be protected beyond the population

margins to reduce external influences and to allow for

population expansion.

The long-term prospects for survival of Kern mallow’

would be enhanced if more than one metapopulation was

protected. The preferred approach is to determine the

identity’ of the questionable populations in other areas

and protect any others that are identified through

biosystematic analysis as Kern mallow, rather than to

attempt artificial introductions. However, the decision as

to whether to protect existing populations outside of

Lokern or to plant seeds from Lokern at other sites

depends on the outcome of systematic research. A

biosvste,natic study (research that uses evidence from

several disciplines to determine taxonomic affiliations)

should be completed within 5 years of recovery plan

approval. Moreover, if the pink-flowered and whitefloweredmallow populations are determined torepresent

a single taxon, the listing status for Kern mallow would

need to be reevaluated.

Additional high-priority tasks are to continue

demographic and ecological research. Demographic

studies are a prerequisite to matrix projection modeling,

which is necessary to identify vulnerable stages inthe life

cycle. Only if theselimiting stages are managed properly

can populations be assumed to be self-sustaining

(Schemske et al. 1994). Research is required to

determine the relative magnitude of threats posed by

exotic plants and sheep and to formulate appropriate

managementstrategies for all protected lands. Even after

demographic studies are discontinued, population trends

should be monitored annually and management

strategies should be reassessed if the Lokern

metapopulation begins to decline. Several important

aspects of pollination ecology must be investigated in

greaterdetail, includingthe identity of insect pollinators,

their vulnerability’ to pesticides that are used locally, and

othermechanisms of pollen transfer. Until more specific

recommendations are available from research, pollinator

availability should be considered a limiting factor and

pesticide spraying should be avoided in Lokern during

the Kern mallow flowering period.

D. HoovER’s WOOLLX -STAR

(ERIASTRUAI HOOVERt)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy —Hoover’s woolly-star was named

originally by Jepson (1943) as 1-luegelia hooveri. In a

later taxonomic revision, Mason (1945) assigned the

currently-accepted name of Eriastrum hooveri to the

species. Both the scientific and common names honor

Robert F. Hoover, who collected the ty’pe specimen in

1937 in Kern County’, 11 kilometers (7 miles) south of

Shafter (Mason 1945). Hoover’s woolly-star is an

inconspicuous member of the phlox family’

(Polemoniaceae).

Description—The wiry’ stems of this species may’ or

may not branch and vary in height from 1 to 20

centimeters (0.4 to 8 inches) at flowering (Figure 11).

The leaves are thread-like and may’ have two narrow’

lobes near the base. Hoover’s woolly-star has tiny (less

than 5 millimeters; less than 0.2 inch long), white to pale

41
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

blue flowers that are nearly hidden intufts of woolly hair.

The stamens (male reproductive pans) are shorter than

the corolla (Abrams 1951, Munz and Keck 1959,

Patterson 1993, Taylor and Davilla 1986, Lewis 1992).

identification —Many-flowered eriastrum

(Eriastrurn pluriflorurn) frequently occurs with Hoover’s

woolly-star; the former has dark blue flowersthat are 16

millimeters (0.6 inch) or greater in length, stamens that

protrude from the corolla, and leaves withup to 10 lobes.

Small-flowered Eriastrum species that occur within the

same range are distinguished from Hoover’s woolly-star

by flower color and stamen length (Abrams 1951, Munz

and Keck 1959, Patterson 1993, Taylor and Davilla inlitt.

1986, Lewis 1992).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution—Prior to 1986, Hoover’s

woolly-star was known from 19 sites in4 counties, based

on herbarium collections and written observations. The

majority of the occurrences were on the San Joaquin and

Cuyama Valley floors, and the others were from the low

mountains at the west side of the San Joaquin Valley

(Figure 12). In Kern County, Hoover’s woolly-star was

known from the vicinities of Lokern, Oildale,

Semitropic, Shafter, and the Temblor Range. In Fresno

County. known occurrences were concentrated near

Kerman, Mendota, and Raisin City, except for one site

Figure 11. Illustration of Hoover’s woolly-star (from Abrams,

Vol. 3, 1951, with permission).

each in the Jacalitos and Panoche Hills. The Cuyama

Valley records consisted of one collection each from

Santa Barbara and San LuisObispo Counties(Taylorand

Davilla 1986).

Current Distribution.—Hoover’s woolly-star since

has been discovered in Kings and San Benito Counties

and at numerous additional sites in the four original

counties, particularly in foothill areas. Most of the

occurrences are concentrated in 4 metapopulations. In

descending order by estimated number of individuals,

these metapopulations are (1) the Kettleman Hills in

Fresno and Kings Counties, (2) Carrizo Plain - Elkhorn

Plain - Temblor Range - Caliente Mountains - Cuyama

Valley - Sierra Madre Mountains in San Luis Obispo,

Santa Barbara, and extreme western Kern Counties, (3)

Lokern - Elk Hills - Buena Vista Hills - Coles Levee -

Taft -Maricopa in Kern County, and (4) Antelope Plain -

Lost Hills - Semitropic in Kern County. Small, isolated

populations occur in scattered areas including the Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve and the Guijarral, Jacalitos,

Panoche, and Tumey Hills in Fresno County;

Buttonwillow, Devil’s Den, Lamont, Midway Valley,

and Rosedale in Kern County; and the Panoche Hills in

San Benito County (Lewis 1992, 1994, CDFG 1995,

Holmstead 1993, Danielsen et al. 1994, EG&G Energy

Measurements 1995a,b). According to Skinner and

Pavlik (1994), the species also occurs inTulare County.

3. Life History and Habitat

Reproduction andDemography.—Hoover’s woollystar is an annual, but the seeds germinate later in the

growing season than do those of many of the associated

annual plants. Seedlings may emerge from January or

February until mid-April (Taylor and Davilla 1986, E.

Cypher unpuhl. data). The typical flowering period for

Hoover’s woolly-star extends from March into June

(Munz and Keck 1959, Skinner and Pavlik 1994, Lewis

1992, Cypher 1994a). Pollination ecology has not been

investigated. However, other members of the genus

Eriastrum are pollinated by native bees (superfamily

Apoidae) and beeflies (family Bombyliidae) (Grant and

Grant 1965). The tiny seeds probably are dispersed by

wind or by tumbling of dead stems (Taylor and Davilla

1986). Unlike many other annuals, dead stems of

Hoover’s woolly-star may persist until the next growing

season (Lewis 1992).

Within metapopulations, Hoover’s woolly-star

typically occurs as scattered groups of plants, with each

42
Recovery Plan for Upland Speciesof the San Joaquin Valley

Figure 12. Dislri bution of Hoover’s woolly-star (Eriastrwiz hooveri}.

43
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

group occupying an area of less than 0.4 hectare (1 acre)

(Lewis 1994). Densities are highly variable among sites

and among years. In 1993, average densities reported for

Hoover’s woolly-star in occupied habitat were 3.6 per

square meter (0.3 per square foot) at Elk Hills (EG&G

Energy Measurements unpubl. data), 8.4 per square

meter (0.8 per square foot ) in Lokern, and 10.3 per

square meter (0.9 per square foot ) in the KettlemanHills

(Cvpher 1994a). However, metapopulation densities

would be considerably smaller due to the presence of

unoccupied stretches between the groups of plants.

Densities of Hoover’s woolly-star fluctuate from year to

year and are highest in years of above-average

precipitation (Holmstead 1993). At Elk Hills. densities

in natural colonies were 5 to 15 times greater in 1993. a

year of above-average rainfall, than in 1991, which was a

year of average rainfall (EG&G Energy Measurements

I 995a,b).

Habitat and Community Associations —Hoover’s

woolly-star seems tobe much more adaptable than other

endemic plants of the San Joaquin Valley. Optimal

habitats for Hoover’s woolly-star are characterized by

stabilized silty to sandy soils, a low cover of competing

herbaceous vegetation, and the presence of crvptogamic

crust (a layer of moss, lichen, and algae). However, this

species also has been found on loamy soils, in areas of

dense vegetation, and inareas lacking cryptogamic crust

(Taylor and Davilla 1986, Cypher 1994a, Lewis 1994,

EG&G Energy Measurements 1995a,b). Hoover’s

woolly-starmay reinvade disturbed soilsurfaces such as

well pads and dirt roads within 1 year after the

disturbance ceases if seed sources remain in the vicinity

(Holmstead 1993, Danielsen et al. 1994, EG&G Energy

Measurements unpubl. data, R. Lewis pers. comm.). In

fact, this species may benefit from light to moderate soil

disturbance in areas that are densely vegetated by exotic

plants (Holmstead and Anderson 1993, EG&G Energy

Measurements unpubl. data).

Populations of Hoover’s woolly-star occur in alkali

sinks, washes, on both north- and south-facing slopes,

and on ridgetops. Thisspecies occurs ina wide variety of

plant communities. Most are characterized by shrubs

such as common saltbush, seepweed, and matchweed

(Gutierrezia californica), but shrub cover in occupied

habitats typically is less than 20 percent. Herbaceous

plant species frequently found in association with

Hoover’s woolly-star include red brome, goldfields,

many-flowered eriastrum, and red-stemmed filaree.

Populations of Hoover’s woolly-star have been reported

at elevations ranging from 50 to 915 meters (165 to 3,000

feet) (CDFG 1995, Taylor and Davilla 1986, Holmstead

1993, Cypher 1994a, Danielsen et al. 1994, Lewis 1992,

1994, EG&G Energy Measurements 1995a,b),

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline.—Valley-floor populations of

Hoover’s woolly’-star have been destroyed primarily by

farming operations and secondarily by urbandevelopment

(Taylor and Davilla 1986, E. Cypher pers. observ.).

Threats to Survival—Occurrences of Hoover’s

woolly-star in the vicinity of Buttonwillow, Lost Hills,

Rosedale and sites along Interstate Highway 5 are

threatened by commercial development. Agricultural

conversion continues to threaten several populations on

the Valley floor. Flooding, as a result of high

precipitation, groundwaterrecharge programs, agricultural

wastewater diversion, or waterfowl management, could

destroy populations in low-lying areas (Skinner and

Pavlik 1994, Taylor and Davilla 1986). Dense growth of

associated vegetation, such as in areas where exotic

grasses dominate or where fire has been suppressed, may

create unsuitable conditions for growth of Hoover’s

woolly-star (J. Hinshaw pers. comm.). Hoover’s woollystar remains primarily in hilly areas, many of which are

oil fields~ petroleum production does not pose a threat in

most cases but could be detrimental if large areas of

occupied habitat were disturbed. The acquisition of Elk

Hills by Occidental Petroleum may lead to greater

surface disturbance if ratesof exploration and production

are increased.

5. Conservation Efforts

Hoover’s woolly-star was federally listed as

threatened in 1990 (USFWS 1990; Table 1). Field

surveys sponsored by USBLM, California Energy

Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, California

Department of WaterResources, and USFWS resulted in

the discovery of many new occurrences of Hoover’s

woolly-star between 1986 and 1997 (Anderson et al.

1991, Taylor and Davilla 1986, Lewis 1992, 1994,

Stebbins et al. 1992, Holmstead 1993, EG&G Energy

Measurements 1995a,b, Enterprise Advisory Services

1997, 1998). Through a consultation with USFWS, the

U.S. Department of Energy conducted periodic

monitoring of six representative Hoover’s woolly-star

sites at Elk Hills through 1997 (EG&G Energy

Measurements 1995a, 1995b, 1996, Enterprise Advisory

44
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Services 1997, 1998). Occidental Petroleum, the current

owner of the Elk Hills oilfield, plans to set aside a

conservation area containing Hoover’s woolly-star,

among other rare species (B. Cyphcr pers. comm.). In

addition, U.S. Department of Energy has sponsored

several research projects on the ecology of Hoover’s

woolly-star, its response to oilfield activity, and the

conditions under which it will recolonize disturbed areas

(Holmstead 1993, Holmstead and Anderson 1993,

EG&G Energy Measurements 1995a,b, J. Hinshaw pers.

comm.). Preliminary studies on the demography of

Hoovers woolly-star and its response to grazing were

conducted in 1993 with funding provided by USBLM,

CDFG, and Endangered Species Recovery Program

(Cvpher 1994a). Hoover’s woolly-star also has

benefited from the acquisition of conservation lands for

listed animals. It is known to occur on the Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve, Buttonwillow Preserve, Carrizo

Plain Natural Area. Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve,

Lokern Natural Area, andSemitropic Ridge Preserve. In

1990, Mobil Oil Corporation constructed exelosures

around Hoover’s woolly-star on their lands in Lost Hills

(Lewis 1994).

6. Recovery Strategy

Recovery of Hoover’s woolly-star can be

accomplished using public lands and other areas already

dedicated for conservation. As with the other listed

plants, the goal is to protect populations throughout the

species’ range and representing a variety oftopographic

positions andcommunity types. Considering that habitat

conversion is ongoing in valley-floor areas and that oil

production could increase on public lands, the continued

existence of populations cannot be assumed unless a

specific commitment is made to protect them from

incompatible uses. Some amount of unoccupied suitable

habitat is important to allow population fluctuations

among years, and a buffer zone is important to minimize

external influences. Thus, a minimum block size of 16

hectares (40 acres) is recommended, with an average

density of 625 Hoover’s woolly-star plants per hectare

(250 per acre). Monitoring must continue at

representative sites within each metapopulation to

determine trends. Manaeement strategies and recovery

needs should be reassessed if population densities at the

monitoring sites decline over 3 or more successive years

0f above-average rainfall that are separated by I or more

years of below-average rainfall.

E. SAN JOAQUIN WOOLLY-THREADS

(LEAIBERTIA CONGDONII)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy—In 1883. Gray named San Joaquin

woolly-threads as Eatonella congdonii. The type

specimen had been collected by Congdon near Deer

Creek tTulare County) in that same year. The current

name, Leinbertia congdonii, was published by Greene in

1897, who determined that San Joaquin woolly-threads

should be separated from snowy eatonella (Eatonella

nivea). Subsequent taxonomists have upheld Greene’s

taxonomy (Johnson 1993, Taylor 1989). San Joaquin

woolly-threadsis the sole speciesin thegenus Lembertia.

which is in the aster family (Asteraceae).

Description.—The common name “woolly-threads”

is derived from the many long (up to 45 centimeters; 18

inches), trailing stems covered with tangled hairs.

However, San Joaquin woolly-threads plants also can be

tiny (less than 7 centimeters~ lessthan 3 inches) and erect

with a single stem (Cypher 1994a). The tiny, yellow

flower heads are clustered at the tips of the stems and

branches (Figure 13). Eachflower head is approximately

6 millimeters (0.25 inch) long and contains two types ol

florer~ (the tiny flowers characteristic of the aster

family); the four to seven outer fiorets differ in shape

from the numerous inner florets. The two types offlorets

produce achenes (tiny, one-seeded fruits) that also differ

in shape (Johnson 1993, Taylor 1989).

Figure 13. Illustration of San Joaquin woolly-threads (from

Abrams and Ferris Vol. 4. 1960. with permission).

45
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

identification —San Joaquin woolly-threads differs

from snowy eatonella in the shape of the florets and

achenes and in geographical range (Munz and Keck

1959, Johnson 1993, Taylor 1989).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution—The historical range of

San Joaquin woolly-threads is based on 47 herbarium

specimens and literature reports dating from 1883 to

1983; 30 of the occurrences were from the Iloor of the

San Joaquin Valley, fourwere from the CuyamaValley.

and the remainder were in the hills west of the San

Joaquin Valley (Figure 14). These occurrences were

concentrated in eieht areas (in descending order of

abundance): (1) the plains between Avenal and Mendota

in Kings and Fresno Counties, (2) from Bakersfield to

Shafter in Kern County, (3) the inner Coast Ranges of

western Fresno and eastern San Benito Counties, (4)

from northof Lokern to Lost Hills in Kern County, (5) the

Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains in San Luis Obispo County,

(6) the Cuyama Valley in Santa Barbara County, (7) east

of Edison in Kern County, and (8) the type locality.

However. 33 of the historical occurrences had been

eliminated by 1989 (Taylor 1989).

Current Distribution —Many new occurrences of

San Joaquin woolly-threads have been discovered since

1986, pritnarily in the hills and plateaus west ofthe San

Joaquin Valley. These constitute four metapopulations

and several small, isolated populations. The largest

metapopulation occurs on the Carrizo Plain Natural

Area, where the occupied habitat totaled over 1,100

hectares (2,800 acres) in 1993 (R. Lewis 1993), which

was a particularly favorable year. In years of lower

rainfall, the occupied area is much smaller (E. Cypher

unpubl. observ.). Much smaller metapopulations are

found in Kern County’ near Lost Hills, in the Kettleman

Hills of Fresno and Kings Counties, and in the Jacalitos

Hills of Fresno County. The isolated occurrences are

known from the Panoche Hills in Fresno and San Benito

Counties, the Bakersfield vicinity’, and the Cuyama

Valley’ (CDFG 1995, Taylor 1989, Stebbins et al. 1992,

R. Lewis 1993, Taylor and Buck 1993, USBLM in litt.

1994, 5. Carter pers. comm., R. Lewis pers. comm., S.

Wilson pers. comm.).

3. Life History and Habitat

Reproduction and Demography —San Joaquin

woolly-threads is an annual herb, and its phenology

varies with weather and site conditions. In years of

below-average precipitation, few seeds of this species

germinate, and those that do typically produce tiny

plants. Seed germination may begin as early as

November but usually occurs in December and January.

San Joaquin woolly-threads typically flowers between

late February and early April, but flowering may

continue into early May if conditions are optimal (B.

Delgado pers. comm.). Populations in the northern part

of the range flower earlier than does the Carrizo Plain

metapopulation. Each plant may have from 1 to more

than 400 flower heads. Seed production depends on plant

size and the number of flower heads; in 1993, achene

production ranged from 10 to 2,500 seeds per individual

(Ma7er and Hendrickson 1993b, Cypher 1994a, E.

Cypher unpubl. data). The seeds are shed immediately

upon maturity, and all trace of the plants disappears

rapidly’ after their death in April or May. Seed dispersal

agents are unknown, but possible candidates include

wind, water, and animals. Seed-dormancy mechanisms

apparentlyallow theformation of asubstantial seed bank

in the soil (Twisselmann 1967, Taylor 1989, RiLewis

1993, Mazer and Hendrickson 1993b, Cypher 1994a).

Insect pollinalors are not required for seed-set in San

Joaquin woolly-threads (Mazer and Hendrickson

I 993b). However, animals may be important to this plant

species in other ways. On the Carrizo Plain Natural

Area, giant kangaroo rat activity contributes to greater

plant size and flower head production in San Joaquin

woolly-threads, probably by increasing available soil

nutrients and reducing competition from other plants.

The microhabitat offered by giant kangaroo rat precincts

also contributes to earlier seed germination and

maturation of San Joaquin woolly-threads, possibly

because precinct surfaces are warmer than the

surrounding area during the winter months (Cypher

1994a, 1994b).

Habitatand CommunityAssociations—San Joaquin

woolly-threads occurs in Nonnative Grassland, Valley

Saitbush Scrub, Interior Coast Range Saltbush Scrub,

and Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub (Cypher 1994a).

This species typically occupies microhabitats with less

than 10 percent shrub cover, although herbaceous cover

may be eithersparse or dense, andcryptogamic crust may

or may not be present. Plant species that often occurwith

San Joaquin woolly-threads include red brome, redstemmed filaree, goldfields, Arabian grass (Schismus

spp.). and mouse-tail fescue (Vulpia niyuros). Hoover’s

woolly-star often occurs in populations of San Joaquin

46
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 14. Di~iribution of San Joaquin woolly-threads (LemberOa rongdooii.

47
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

woolly-threads, although the reverse is not true (Taylor

1989, R. Lewis 1993, Taylor and Buck 1993, Cypher

1994a). In two cases, San Joaquin woolly’-threads was

found at low densities in previously’ disced areas that

were adjacent to undisturbed populations (R. Lewis

1993. Taylor and Buck 1993).

San Joaquin woolly-threads occurs on neutral to

subalkaline soils that were deposited in geologic times by

flowin” water. On the San Joaquin Valley floor, this

species typically’ is found on sandy or sandy loam soils,

particularly those of the Kimberlina series, whereas on

the Carrizo Plain it occurs on silty’ soils. San Joaquin

oolly’-threads frequently’ occurs on sand dunes and

sandy ridges as well as along the high-water line of

\~ashes and on adjacent terraces. Occurrences have been

reported at elevations ranging from approximately’ 60 to

260 meters (200 to 850 feet) on the Valley floor and

surrounding hills, and from 600 to 800 nieters (2,000 to

2.600 feet) in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara

Counties (Hoover 1937, CDFG 1995, Taylor l98~), R.

Lewis 1993, Taylor and Buck 1993, L. Cypher unpubl.

abserv.. R. xan de Hock pers. comm.).

4. Reasons for Decline and Tbreats to Survival

Reasonsfor Decline—Habitat loss was responsible

for the decline of San Joaquin woolly-threads on the

floors ofthe San Joaquin and Cuy’amaValleys, where the

majority ofthe occurrences were eliminatedby intensive

aericulture. In addition, several sites in and around

Bakersfield were eliminated by urban development, and

two others between Lokern and Lost Hills apparently

were destroyed as a result of intensive oilfield

development (CDFG 1995, Taylor 1989).

Threatsto Survival.—The Lost Hills metapopulation

is on private land in an area of high value for commercial

development and agriculture (Taylor 1989, Taylor and

Buck 1993). Several occurrences in the Kettleman Hills,

the Jacalitos Hills, and west of Bakersfield are in low’-

density oilfields; the plants do not seem to be threatened

by’ the current level of activity but could be destroy’ed by

more intensive use of the areas (R. Lewis 1993. E.

Cypher unpubl. observ.). Preliminary studies suggested

that both competition from exotic plants and spring

grazing reduced survival rates, but not flower production,

in San Joaquin woolly-threads (E. Cypher unpubl. data).

Trampling also reduces survival in areas where livestock

congregate. such as around water troughs (Taylor 1989,

R. Lewis 1993, Mazer and Hendrickson 1993b, Cypher

1994a,b, E. Cypher unpubl. data, B. Delgado pers.

Comm.). However, removal of livestock from areas that

have been grazed continuously for decades would be

inadvisablewithout additional data, because grazing may’

in fact be a useful management tool to control

competition from exotic plants (F. Cypher unpubl.

observ.).

5. Conservation Efforts

San Joaquin woolly-threads was federally listed as

endangered in 1990 (USFWS 1990; Table 1). USBLM

bioloUists have conducted extensive surveys for San

Joaquin woolly-threads. Thus, many ofthe occurrences

that arc known currently are on lands administered by

USBLM, including the entire Carrizo Plain Natural Area

metapopulation, part of the Kettleman Hills

metapopulation, and the sites in the Jacalitos and

Panoche Hills. Within these areas, fences have been

erected around several small occurrences of San Joaquin

woolly-threads that showed evidence of trampling by

livestock (R. Lewis 1993, 5. Carter pers. comm.. B.

Delgado pers. comm.). The Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains

and the Kettleman Hills are within Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, which would restrict activities

on USBLM lands in those regions (USBLM 1996a,b).

USBLM and the Endangered Species Recovery Program

are cooperatively monitoring selected populations and

conducting research on the impacts of livestock grazing

(Cypher 1994a,b, USBLM in litt. 1994).

Other groups also arecontributing to conservation of

this species. CDFG funded research on the demography,

reproductive biology, and ecology of San Joaquin

wooIIy- threads (Mazer and Hendrickson 1993b, Cypher

I 994a). California EnergyCommission, U.S. Department

of Energy, and California Department of Water

Resources have sponsored surveys for rare plants,

including San Joaquinwoolly-threads, in various parts of

the southern San Joaquin Valley’ (Anderson et al. 1991,

Stebbins 1993, B.L. Cypher pers. comm.). The

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan

identified a 121-hectare (300-acre) area west of

Bakersfield as a preserve acquisition target for this

species (Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation

Plan Steering Committee 1994). If the Kern County’

Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan is implemented

as currently proposed, private landowners in the vicinity

of Lost Hills would be offered incentives to protect San

Joaquin woolly-threads habitat (T. James pers. comm.).

48
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

6. Recovery Strategy

The recovery goal for San Joaquin woolly-threads is

similar to that for the other endangered plant species in

this plan: to maintain self-sustaining populations in

protected areas representative of the fonner geographic

and topographic range of the species and in a variety of

appropriate natural communities. A sufficient number

of natural populations exist that reintroduction should

not be necessary, provided that the existing sites are

protected and managed properly’. Unoccupied habitat

within metapopulations also should be protected to allow

for population fluctuations with rainfall and to facilitate

seed dispersal. Thus, additional elements of the strategy

are to protect land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160

acres), which have an average density of at least 1,000

San Joaquin woolly-threads plants per hectare (400

plants per acre); and to avoid fragmenting any

metapopulation into more than 2 blocks of contiguous,

protected natural land. Finally, buffer zones of 150

meters (500 feet) or more should be protected bey’ond the

population margins to reduce external influences and to

allow for population expansion.

The top-priority task to ensure the survival of San

Joaquin woolly-threads is to protect existing habitat in

the San Joaquin Valley. Other actions that are necessary

for recovery include protection and appropriate

management of populations on public land and annual

monitoring of representative sites within each

metapopulation. Monitoring is particularly’ important in

some ofthesmaller populations, including theLost Hills,

Jacalitos Hills, and Kettleman Hills metapopulations and

the Panoche Hills population to determine whether

densities are increasing, decreasing, orremaining stable.

Monitoring can verify’ that existing management

strategies are having the desired effect or draw attention

to incompatible land uses.

F. BAKERSFIELD CACTUS

(OPuNnA BASIL4RJS var. TRELEASEI)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy—The taxonomy of Bakersfield cactus

has not been accepted universally, even though it was

named nearly a century ago. Originally, Bakersfield

cactus was treated as a full species, Opuntia treleasii

(Coulter 1896). The type locality was given as “Caliente,

in the Tehachapi Mountains” (Coulter 1896, p. 434),

which is in Kern County. Shortly thereafter, Toumey

(1901) renamed Bakersfield cactus as a variety of

beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris), resulting in the

combination 0. basilaris var. treleasii. Griffiths and

Hare (1906) considered Bakersfield cactus a distinct

species and subdivided it into two varieties, 0. treleasii

var. rreleasii and var. kernii. Britton and Rose (1920)

corrected the spelling of the epithet to treleasci to be

consistent with the name of the original collector,

William Trelease. In the most recent treatment (Parfitt

and Baker 1993), the scientific name of Bakersfield

cactus is given as 0. basilaris var. treleasei. However,

some experts consider Bakersfield cactus to be a full

species (Bowen 1987, R. van de Hoek pers. comm.).

Description —Like other beavertail cacti, Bakersfield

cactus (Figure 15) has fleshy, flattened, green stems

(pads). The pads of Bakersfield cactus vary in outline

from rounded, heart-shaped, or diamond-shaped to

nearly cylindrical. A single plant may consist of

hundreds of pads. which originate both at ground level

and from the tips of other pads. The number of

individuals in a population nlay be difficult to determine

because pads from adjacent plants often overlap. Thus,

cactus populations usually are described by the number

of clumps (groups of pads that are rooted at the same

point) rather than as anumber ofindividuals. Clumps ol

Bakersfield cactus can grow up to 35 centimeters (14

inches) high and 10 meters (33 feet) across (R. van de

Hoek pers. comm.). The pads and fruits are dotted with

Figure 15. Illustration of Bakersfieldcactus (from Abrams and

Ferris, Vol. 3, 1951, with permission).

49
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

eye-spots. which are rounded structures that contain

barbed bristles. Tiny leaves are produced on the

y’oungest pads of beavertail cacti but are shed quickly.

Bakersfield cactus has showy magenta flowers. The dry

fruits are the size and shape of small eggs and may

contain grayish-white seeds (Munz and Keck 1959,

Parfitt and Baker 1993). Bakersfield cactus typically’ has

22 chromosomes, but plants with 33 chromosomes were

found in several populations (Pinkava et al. 1977, R. ~an

de Hoek pers. comm.).

Identification —B akersfield cactus is unique among

the varieties of 0. basilaris in that the eye-spots contain

spines in addition to the bristles. Other features of

Bakersfield cactus that differentiate it from related

beavertail cacti include the smooth pad surfaces,

cylindrical pad bases. nonsunken eye-spots, and longer

(up to 5 millimeters [0.2 inch]) leaves. The two varieties

of 0. trelcasci differ from each other in that variety

rreleasei has spines lessthan 7 millimeters (0.3 inch) long

(which may be loneer or shorter than the associated

bristles) and eye-spots even with the pad surface,

whereas variety’ kernii has spines longer than 7

millimeters (0.3 inch) and raised eye-spots (Griffiths and

Hare 1906, ESA Planning and Environmental Services

1986a, Bowen 1987).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution .—Bakersfield cactus is

endemic to a limited area of central Kern County’ in the

\icinity’ of Bakersfield. The CDFG (1995) considered

the pre-1987 reports to represent approximately 33

occurrences. However, based on written descriptions

(Twisselmann 1967), historical photographs (Britton and

Rose 1920, Benson 1982), topography, and deductions

from plant morphology’, the populations most likely were

more or less continuous (R. van de Hoek pers. comm.).

As of 1987, the northern, southern, eastern, and western

limits of the known range, respectively, were Granite

Station (R. van de Hoek pers. comm.), Comanche Point,

Caliente, and Oildale (CDFG 1995). Reported

occurrences of Bakersfield cactus in Los Angeles and

San Bernardino Counties, California, and Mohave

County, Arizona (Benson 1969) have been attributed to

misidentification of other cactus taxa (Bowen in litt.

1987).

Current Distribution ——Approximately one-third of

the historical occurrences of Bakersfield cactus have

been eliminated, and the remaining populations are

highly fragmented. However, the range was extended to

the south when several occurrences were discovered in

the late 1980s in south-central Kern County,just north of

Wheeler Ridge (Figure 16). The extant occurrences may

be grouped into the following areas of concentration; (I)

Caliente Creek drainage (Caliente-Bena Hills), (2)

Comanche Point. (3) Cottonwood Creek, (4) Fairfax

Road - Highway 178 - Highway 184 - Kern Bluffs - Hart

Park, (5) Fuller Acres, (6) Granite Station, (7) mouth of

Kern Canyon, (8) Oildale - KernRiver Oil Field - Round

Mountain Road (separated from area #4 by the Kern

River), (9) Poso Creek, (10) Sand Ridge, and (11)

Wheeler Ridge - Pleito Hills (CDFG 1995, Moe 1989).

3. Life History and Habitat

Few details on the life history of Bakersfield cactus

are available. The fleshy stems, tiny, short-lived leaves,

shallow root sy’stems, and specialized physiology

common to most members of the cactus family are

adaptations to growth in arid environments (Benson

1982).

Reproductionand Demography —Bakersfield cactus

is a perennial. The life span of wild plants has not been

determined, but clumps in cultivation at the Rancho

Santa Ana Botanic Garden in Claremont, California,

survivedfor 48 years, until extremely wetwinterweather

caused the pads to rot (R. van de Hoek pers. comm.).

Bakersfield cactus typically flowers in May (Munz and

Keck 1959). Reproductive biology ofthis taxon has not

been studied, but certain other Opuntia species require

cross-pollination for seed-setand many are pollinated by

bees (Benson 1982, Spears 1987, Osborn et al. 1988).

One potential pollinator of Bakersfield cactus is the

native solitary bee Diadasia australis ssp. caI~fornia,

which is known to occur in Kern County and which

specializes in collecting pollen from Opuntia species

(Thorp in litt. 1998). Vegetative reproduction, which is

the production of new plants from sources other than

seed, is typical in Bakersfield cactus and several related

species (Benson 1982). Fallen pads root easily if

sufficient water is available (Twisselmann 1967, Benson

1982, Mitchell 1988), but Bakersfield cactus does not

survive prolonged inundation (ESA Planning and

Environmental Services 1986a). Bakersfield cactus

produces seeds infrequently. Van de Hoek (pers. comm.)

noted that the frequency ofseed set in extant populations

is similar to the proportion of seeds he observed in

herbarium specimens. Cactus seeds require warm, wet

conditions to germinate, a combination which is

50
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 16. Distribution of Bakersfield cactus (Opunria basilaris var. treleaseij.

51
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

extremely rare in the Bakersfield area (Benson 1982).

Pads may be dispersed by flood waters (ESA Planning

and Environmental Services 1986a), but seed dispersal

agents are unknown.

The total population of Bakersfield cactus was not

estimated historically. Densely-spaced clumps of cactus

once covered an estimated areaof 6.5 by’ 0.8 kilometer (4

by 0.5 mile) from the Caliente Creek lloodplain onto

Sand Ridge (Twisselmann 1967). Historical photographs

showine extensive stands of Bakersfield cactus (Britton

and Rose 1920, Benson 1982) are believed to have been

taken ~outhw’est of Sand Ridge near the eastern margin of

the Kern Lake bed (R. van de Hoek pers. comm.). When

the known sites were last inventoried, fewer than 20,000

clumps of Bakersfield cactus were estimated to remain.

Only 4 areas had populations of I .0{)0 clumps or more:

Comanche Point. Kern Bluff, north of Wheeler Ridge.

and Sand Ridge (CDFG 1995, Moe 1989, R. van de Hock

pers. comm.). The metapopulations reported to

incorporate the greatest morphological diversity included

those in the Bena and Caliente Hills, Kern Cany’on. and

Sand Ridge (ESA Planning and Environmental Services

1986a, Bowen in litt. 1987, Moe 1989).

Habitat and Community Associations.—Soils

supporting Bakersfield cactus typically’ are sandy’,

although gravel, cobbles, or boulders also may be

present. Known populations occur on flood plains,

ridges, bluffs, and rolling hills (CDFG 1995, ESA

Planning andEnvironmental Services I 986a. Bakersfield

cactus is a characteristic species ofthe Sierra-Tehachapi

Saltbush Scrub plant community (Holland 1986. Griggs

et al. 1992), but populations near Caliente are in Blue

Oak Woodland and the Cottonwood Creek population is

in riparian woodland (CDFG 1995, ESA Planning and

Environmental Services 1986a, R. van de Hock pers.

comm.). Many’ Bakersfield cactus sites support a dense

growth of red brome and other annual grasses (Cypher

1994a). Sand Ridge is characterized by sparse

vegetation (ESA Plannine and Environmental Services

1986a, Cypher 1994a) and a preponderance of native

species such as California filago (Filago californica) and

y’ellow pincushion (Chaenactisglabriuscula). Historical

records indicate that the majority of Bakersfield cactus

occurred at elevations ranging from 140 to 260 meters

(460 to 850 feet). The highest-elevation population is at

550 meters (1,800 feet) near Caliente and the lowest

remaining is at 121 meters (396 feet) at Fuller Acres

(CDFG 1995).

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline.—The primary reason for the

decline of Bakersfield cactus was habitat loss. The

formerly extensive tracts of Bakersfield cactus near

Edison andLaniont were destroyedby conversion to row

crops andcitrus groves (Twisselmann 1967); muchofthe

conversion occurred prior to 1931 (Benson 1982).

Residential development eliminated numerous

occurrences in northeast Bakersfield between Mount

Vernon Avenue and Morning Drive in recent years

(CDFG 1995) Petroleum production has contributed to

habitat loss and fragmentation, particularly in the vicinity

of Oildale. Populations near Hart Park. the Kern Bluffs,

Oildale. FairfaxRoad, and parts of Sand Ridge havebeen

degraded by off-road vehicle activity, trash dumping, and

sand andgravel mining. Overgrazing may havedamaged

plants near Hart Park, Mettler, and Caliente, andflooding

decimated populations along Caliente Creek and the

Kern River (CDFG 1995, Nelson 1983. Bowen in litt.

1987, Mitchell 1988, Moe 1989, R. van de Hock pers.

comm). Air pollution is suspected to have contributed to

the decline of Bakersfield cactus (Messick 1987).

Threats to Survival—All the causes of decline

continue to threaten existing populations of Bakersfield

cactus. Almost all the known sites are on private land,

much of which has commercial value. Residential

development constitutes the most serious threat

currently’, especially in the greater Fairfax Road-Kern

Bluff and Round Mountain Road areas. Conversion for

either agricultural or residential use is possible near

Wheeler Ridge. Inundation could be an intermittent

problem for populations in floodplains and is a remote

possibility’ for occurrences near the California Aqueduct;

the largest concentration of clumps in the Wheeler Ridge

metapopulation is situated adjacent to an overflow drain

for the Aqueduct, which could lead to flooding if an

earthquake occurred anywhere alongits length (R. van de

Hock pers. comm.). Even the two protected populations

(see Conservation Efforts) are adjacent to agricultural

land and could be impacted by’ pesticide drift. Both offroad vehicle use and mining continue to degrade the

populations mentioned earlier.

Direct competition from introduced, annualgrasses is

believed to threaten the survival of mature Bakersfield

cactus plants and to hinder the establishment of new

plants (ESA Planning and Environmental Services

1986a, Mitchell 1988). Indirect effects from exotic

52
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 16. Disrihution of Bakersfield cactus (Opunhia basilaris var. releasei.

51
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

extremely’ rare in the Bakersfield area (Benson 1982).

Pads may be dispersed by flood waters (ESA Planning

and Environmental Services 1986a), but seed dispersal

agents are unknown.

The total population of Bakersfield cactus was not

estimated historically. Densely-spaced clumps of cactus

once covered an estimated area of 6.5 by 0.8 kilometer (4

by 0.5 mile) from the Caliente Creek floodplain onto

Sand Ridge (Twisselmann 1967). Historical photographs

showine extensive stands of Bakersfield cactus (Britton

and Rose 1920, Benson 1982) are believed to have been

taken southw’est of Sand Ridge nearthe eastern margin of

the Kern Lake bed (R. van de Hock pers. comm.). When

the known sites were last inventoried, fewer than 20,000

clumps of Bakersfield cactus were estimated to remain.

Only 4 areas had populations of I .000 clumps or more:

Comanche Point, Kern Bluff, north of Wheeler Ridge,

and Sand Ridge (CDFG 1995, Moe 1989. R. van de Hock

pers. comm.). The metapopulations reported to

incorporate the greatestmorphological diversity’ included

those in the Bena and Caliente Hills, Kern Canyon, and

Sand Ridge (ESA Planning and Environmental Services

1986a. Bowen in litt. 1987, Moe 1989).

Habitat and Community Associations. —Soi Is

supporting Bakersfield cactus typically are sandy’.

although gravel, cobbles, or boulders also may be

present. Known populations occur on flood plains.

ridges, bluffs, and rolling hills (CDFG 1995, ESA

Plannine andEnvironmental Services 19860). Bakersfield

cactus is a characteristic species of the Sierra-Tehachapi

Saltbush Scrub plant community’ (Holland 1986. Griggs

et al. 1992). but populations near Caliente are in Blue

Oak Woodland and the Cottonwood Creek population is

in riparian woodland (CDFG 1995, ESA Planning and

Environmental Services 1986a, R. van de Hock pers.

comm.). Many’ Bakersfield cactus sites support a dense

growth of red brome and other annual grasses (Cypher

19940). Sand Ridge is characterized by’ sparse

vegetation (ESA Planning and Environmental Services

1986a, Cypher 1994a) and a preponderance of native

species such as California filago (Filago californica) and

yellow pincushion (Chaenactis glabriuscula). Historical

records indicate that the majority of Bakersfield cactus

occurred at elevations ranging from 140 to 260 meters

(460 to 850 feet). The highest-elevation population is at

550 meters (1,800 feet) near Caliente and the lowest

remaining is at 121 meters (396 feetj at Fuller Acres

(CDFG 1995).

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline.—The primary reason for the

decline of Bakersfield cactus was habitat loss. The

formerly extensive tracts of Bakersfield cactus near

Edison andLamont were destroyed by conversion to row

crops and citrus groves (Twisselmann 1967); much ofthe

conversion occurred prior to 1931 (Benson 1982).

Residential development eliminated numerous

occurrences in northeast Bakersfield between Mount

Vernon Avenue and Morning Drive in recent years

(CDFG 1995). Petroleum production has contributed to

habitat loss and fragmentation, particularly in the vicinity

of Oildale. Populations near Hart Park, the Kern Bluffs,

Oildale, FairfaxRoad. and parts of Sand Ridge have been

degraded by off-road vehicle activity’, trash dumping, and

sand andgravel mining. Overgrazing may havedamaged

plants near HartPark, Mettler, and Caliente. andtlooding

decimated populations along Caliente Creek and the

Kern River (CDFG 1995, Nelson 1983, Bowen in litt.

1987. Mitchell 1988. Moe 1989, R. van de Hock pers.

comm). Air pollution is suspectedto have contributed to

the decline of Bakersfield cactus (Messick 1987).

Threats to Survival—All the causes of decline

continue to threaten existing populations of Bakersfield

cactus. Almost all the known sites are on private land,

much of which has commercial value. Residential

development constitutes the most serious threat

currently’. especially in the greater Fairfax Road-Kern

Bluff and Round Mountain Road areas. Conversion for

either agricultural or residential use is possible near

Wheeler Ridge. Inundation could be an intermittent

problem for populations in floodplains and is a remote

possibility for occurrences near theCalifornia Aqueduct;

the largest concentration of clumps in the Wheeler Ridge

metapopulation is situated adjacent to an overflow drain

for the Aqueduct, which could lead to flooding if an

earthquake occurred anywhere along its length (R. van de

Hock pers. comm.). Even the two protected populations

(see Conservation Efforts) are adjacent to agricultural

land and could be impacted by’ pesticide drift. Both offroad vehicle use and mining continue to degrade the

populations mentioned earlier.

Direct competition from introduced, annual grasses is

believed to threaten the survival of mature Bakersfield

cactus plants and to hinder the establishment of new

plants (ESA Planning and Environmental Services

1986a, Mitchell 1988). Indirect effects from exotic

52
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

grasses also may threaten Bakersfield cactus in several

ways. First, the dense herbaceous growth may promote a

greater fire frequency and intensity than would have

occurred with the sparse native vegetation typical in

historical times. The effect ofrepeated fires has not been

determined. However, survival of Bakersfield cactus

plants wasmonitored following single fire events at Sand

Ridge (Hewett in litt. 1987) and near the Rio Bravo

Hydroelectric Plant in Kern Canyon (Lawrence 1987,

George Lawrence and Associates 1988). All Bakersfield

cactus clumps survived the fires at both sites, despite

browning and wilting of the pads. During the following

spring, cactus plants that were subject to low-intensity’

flames flowered, but those subject to moderate-intensity’

flames produced only vegetative growth. The affected

cactus individuals near Rio Bravo were still alive 1 year

following the fire, but no further observations were made

of plants in either treatment area. Second, dense grass

cover may’ harbor insects that damage cactus, which has

been demonstrated with related species of Opuntia in

Nebraska grasslands (Burger and Louda 1994). Third,

the moist microclimate created by dense herbaceous

growth may’ promote growth of decay oreanisms and

cause pads to rot in years of above-average precipitation

(E. Cy’pher unpubl. observ.).

A lack of genetic diversity may threaten some

populations of Bakersfield cactus. Contributing factors

to this problem include the small size of many’

populations (Moe 1989). a lack of gene flow between

populations, andinfrequentsexual reproduction (Messick

1987). Populations low in genetic variation are more

vulnerable to diseases and parasites (Burdon and

Marshall 1981) and to chance events, including

environmental fluctuations, catastrophes. and genetic

drift (Menges 1991).

5. Conservation Efforts

Bakersfield cactus was federally and state-listed as

endaneered in 1990 (USFWS 199{),i. The Nature

Conservancy began preservation efforts for Bakersfield

cactus over 25 years ago by purchasing a portion of Sand

Ridge (Twisselmann 1969). Recently’. The Nature

Conservancy doubled the size ofthe Sand Ridec Nature

Preserve, to 111 hectares (275 acres, by’ acquiring a

remnant ofthe CalienteCreek w’ash at theeastern base of

the ridge. The preserve was transferred to the Center for

Natural Lands Management in 1998. Funding levels are

insufficientto allow intensive monitoring or management

trials, but prescribed burns will be used to control exotic

grass competition (G. Hinshaw pers. comm.).

Several colonies of Bakersfield cactus have been

acquired for conservation purposes within the past 2

years. The Implementation Trust for the Metropolitan

Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan protected

portions of three metapopulations by purchasing land in

the Kern Bluff, Cottonwood Creek, and Oildale areas

from willing sellers (R. Reed pers. comm.). The

Wildlands Conservancy’ recently acquired the Pleito

Hills population and plans to manage the area for the

benefit of Bakersfield cactus and other sensitive species

(D. Clendenen pers. comm.). Another portion of the

Wheeler Ridge-Pleito Hills metapopulation is protected

by the California Department of WaterResources, which

has set aside 33 hectares (81 acres) adjacent to the

California Aqueduct as a reserve for Bakersfield cactus

through consultations with USFWS and CDFG. The

only othersite on public land is under the control ofthe

Kern County Department of Parks andRecreation, where

a few clumps occur adjacent to Hart Park. However,

protection of Bakersfield cactus is neither the purpose

nor a priority for the site (Moe 1989). Kern County is

preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan, which likely will

include provisionsfor protection ofadditional Bakersfield

cactus populations through management agreements,

conservation easements, and land acquisition (T. James

pers. comm.). A Habitat Conservation Plan in

preparation by’ California Department of Water

Resources will address conservation of Bakersfield

cactus andotherspecies in the California Aqueductrightof-way (K. Brown pers. comm.).

Salvage efforts have been undertaken by local

members of the California Native Plant Society. who

transplanted Bakersfield cactus clumps from sites slated

for destruction to Sand Ridee Nature Preserve and the

California Livine Museum in Bakersfield. Prior to

construction ofthe East Hills Mall in Bakersfield. a few

ofthe cactus clumps growing on the site were removed,

then were replanted in a display’ bed when the mall was

completed. Transplanted individuals have not been

monitored at any’ of the sites to determine survival rates

or reproductive success(D. Mitchell pers. comm., R. van

de Hock pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

Due to social and economic considerations.

Bakersfield cactus will never occur as widespread as it

did historically. Instead. the recovery’ goal is to maintain

53
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

self-sustaining populations in protected areas

representative of theformer geographic and topographic

range of the taxon and in a variety of appropriate natural

communities. The remaining populations occur in areas

sufficiently representative ofthe former range to achieve

this goal. but very little additional loss can be

accommodated without compromising the long-term

existence of the taxon. Thus, habitat protection is an

important action to prevent the extinction or irreversible

decline ofBakersfield cactus. Unoccupied habitat within

metapopulations also should be protected to facilitate

movement of pollinators and seed dispersers. An

additional element ofthe strategy is to avoid fragmenting

the few large metapopulations that remain (i.e., Calmente

Creek. Comanche Point, Kern Bluff, Sand Ridge, and

Wheeler Ridge) into more than two blocks of contiguous,

protected natural land each. Land in the other target areas

should be protected in blocks of at least 16 hectares (40

acres), andpreferably’ in blocks of 65 hectares(160 acres)

or more. The block size is smallerfor Bakersfield cactus

than for other listed plant species not for biological

reasons, but because many of the areas already are so

fragmented by development that larger blocks do not

exist. Buffer zones of 150 meters (500 feet) or more

should be protected beyond the population margins to

reduce external influences and to allow for population

expansion. Surveys will be necessary to determine the

size of natural populations in several of the target areas

and the amount of existing occupied habitat.

Transplantation of Bakersfield cactus is not a viable

substitute for on-site protection. However, w’here

development would destroy entire populations, as many

of the clumps as possible should be transplanted to

protected areas to salvage potentially unique genetic

material, and the transplants should be monitored

periodically to determine survival rates and reproductive

success.

Demographic studies and matrix projectionmodeling

will be necessary to identify vulnerable stages in the life

cycle. Research then will be necessary todetermine how

to overcome factors that are identified as limiting to

population growth. Because demographic research will

take several years to complete and exotic plant

competition seems to be detrimental to cactus in several

ways, preliminary studies should begin immediately to

test the hypothesis that exotic plants are contributing to

mortality’ of Bakersfield cactus. A biosystematic study

would determine whether Bakersfield cactus should be

recognized as a full species.

G. ARID GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND PLANTS

1. Lesser Saltscale

(Atriplex minuscula)

Taxonomy.—Lesser saltscale is a member of the

goosefoot family (Chenopodiaeeae). Standley published

the name A triplex ?ninuscula in 1916. The name was not

widely accepted, and for many years lesser saltscale was

considered to be merely a variant of Parish’s brittlescale

(A. parishii) that did not warrant recognition (Abrams

1944, Munz and Keck 1959). However, Taylor and

Wilken (1993) considered lesser saltscale to be a valid

species and have returned to using the name A.

ininuscula.

Description—Lesser saltscale has many upright,

reddish stems up to 40 centimeters (16 inches) tall. The

leaves are egg-shaped with entire (untoothed) margins

and typically are opposite on the upper branches and

alternate on the lower part of the stem. The individual

flowers ofall Atriplex species are inconspicuous because

they are tiny and have no petals; moreover, the male and

female structures are produced in separate flowers. In

lesser saltscale, both flower genders occur in the leaf

axils (the points where leaves are attached to the stem),

with the male flowers on the upper part of the stem and

the females near the base of the same plant (Munz and

Keck 1959). Each fruit consists of a single reddish seed

that is enclosed by two egg- to diamond-shaped bracts,

which are covered withtubercles (wart-like projections).

The closely-relatedspecies brittleseale (Atriplex depressa)

and Parish’s brittlescale have stems and branches that lie

close to the ground, unlike the erect stems of lesser

saltscale, and differ in bract characters (Taylor and

Wilken 1993).

Historical Distribution —Herbarium specimens of

lessersaltscale were collected historically only at Goshen

(Tulare County) in 1905 and El Nido (Merced County) in

1936 (CDFG 1995).

CurrentDistribution .—Neither ofthe historical sites

has been checked to determine iflesser saltseale remains

extant, though no significant patch of natural land exists

in either area. In 1993, lesser saltscale was discovered at

five new localities in the San Joaquin and Sacramento

Valleys (Figure 17). The southernmost report was from

Kern County, near the intersection of Interstate 5 and

state Highway 58, and the northernmost was at Gray

54
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 17. Distribution of lesser saltscale (Airiplexminuscula).

55
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Lodge Wildlife Area in Butte County (CDFG 1995).

Lesser saltscale also was reported from the Kerman

Ecological Reserve in Fresno County (CDFG 1995),

Arena Plains National Wildlife Refuge in Merced

County (Silveira 1996), and along the Fresno River in

Madera County (D. Mitchell pers. comm.).

LifeHistory and Habitat—The life history oflesser

saltscale is poorly known, except that it is an annual and

flowers from May’ to October (Skinner and Paylik 1994).

Lesser saltscale grows on sandy’ soils in alkaline areas at

elevations of less than 100 meters (330 feet), often in

association with slough systems and river fioodplains.

However, it is found only in microh~ibitats that are not

inundated year-round. The species has been found in the

Valley’ Sink Scrub, Valley’ Sacaton Grassland, and

Nonnative Grassland natural communities. Lesser

saltscale grows with other halophytes, including alkali

sacaton, brittlescale, heartscalc (Atriplex cordulata), and

seepweed (CDEG 1995. D. Mitchell pers. comm., D.

Taylor pers. comm.).

Reasonsfor Decline and Threats to Survival—The

lack of historical information about lesser saltscale

prohibits a determination of whether or not it has

declined. However, the conversion of alkali sinks to

agriculture undoubtedly has reduced potential habitats

(Skinner and Pavlik 1994). The extant population in

Kern County is on land that is zoned for commercial

development and which is for sale (CDFG 1995). The

Madera County site is threatened by’ installation of a

pipeline (D. Mitchell pers. comm.). Sites on state

Wildlife Management Areas are threatened by flooding

for waterfowl management (D. Taylor pers. comm.).

Conservation Efforts—Lesser saltscale has not

been the target of conservation actions. However, it may

have benefited indirectly from land acquisition for other

species, such as the Tipton kangaroo rat. Lesser saltscale

could occur on USBLM lands in alkali sink areas

(USBLM 1993) or on CDFG’s Buttonwillow Preserve,

which is near the known Kern County site and which

includes similar habitat.

Conservation Strategy —To ensure the long-term

conservation oflesser saltscale, the strategy is to protect

at least five populations representing the full geographic

range of the species. Protected areas should be natural

land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres) and

should contain a minimum of 1,000 individuals to reduce

the likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or random

processes. The highest-priority tasks for lesser saltscale

are to survey historical sites and suitable habitat and to

protect extant populations from development and other

threats. All remaining unconverted alkali sinks in the

Central Valley should be surveyed, and threats to any

populations that are found must be evaluated. Surveys

for lesser saltscale can be conducted concurrently with

those for other rare plants that occur in alkali sinks,

particularly palmate-bracted bird’s-beak. Landowner

cooperation is necessary to ensure protection on private

lands, and the cooperation ofpublic agencies is crucial on

lands under their control. Moreover, threats must be

alleviated in protected areas to ensure the continued

survivalofthe species, andmonitoring will be required to

verify that populations are renmaining stable. Seeds

should be salvaged from any populations that are

scheduled to be destroyed by development. When

surveys have beencompleted, or at a maximum within S

years of recovery plan approval, the status of lesser

saltscale should be reevaluated.

2. Bakersfield Smaliscale

~Atriplex tularensis)

Taxonomy.—Bakersfield smallscale was named

Atriplex tularensis by Coville in 1893 (Skinner and

Paylik 1994). The type specimen was collected 25

kilometers (15 miles) south of Bakersfield on the Tulare

Plains of Kern County (Twisselmann 1967). In 1914,

Jepson reduced Bakersfield smallscale to a variety ofA.

cordulata, but Hall and Clements regarded it as a full

species in their 1923 publication. The scientific name

Obione tularensis was published by Engler and Prantl in

1934 (Niehaus 1977) but w’as not widely accepted.

Taylor and Wilken (1993) used the scientific name

A triplex tularensis for Bakersfield smallscale.

Description.—In many respects, this species is

similar to lesser saltscale because both are annual

members of the same genus. However, Bakersfield

smallscalehas stems up to 80 centimeters (30 inches)tall,

has only a few stiff branches, and the leaves may be

narrower in proportion to their length (Figure 18). In

Bakersfield smallscale, both male and female flowers

occur in leafaxils throughout the plant, and the fruits are

enclosed in diamond-shaped bracts that are smooth on

the surface but toothed on the margin. Braetscale (A.

sere,mana) is a related species that overlaps in range with

Bakersfield smallscale. However, unlike Bakersfield

56
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

smallscale, bractscale has toothed leafmargins, the male

flowers occur only at the branch tips, and the fruiting

bracts arewedge-shaped orround (Munz andKeck 1959,

Freas and Murphy 1988, Taylor and Wilken 1993).

Historical Distribution —Bakersfield sinaI Iscale

was restricted historically to a small area ofsouth-central

Kern County between Greenfield and Mettler

(Twisselmann 1969, Skinner and Paylik 1994, CDFG

1995, Niehaus 1977). Collection localities were

Greenfield, Adobe Station, Adobe Road, and Highway

223 (CDFG 1995).

Current Distribution—The only extant population

believed to represent Bakersfield smallscale is at Gator

Pond, which is a remnantof KernLake, and formerly part

of the Kern Lake Preserve (Figure 19). However,

Bakersfield smallscale specimens collected in the area

historically differ in appearance from those now present

at Gator Pond (D. Taylor pers. comm.).

Life History andHabitat—Bakersfield smallscale is

a summer annual, germinating from May to June and

flowering from June to October (Freasand Murphy 1991,

Skinner and Paylik 1994). Surface soil moisture is

required during the summer and fall months for seed

germination and seedling survival (Freas and Murphy

1988, Bowen 1986). The population at Gator Pond

declined from 721 plants in 1985 to 13 in 1987 and 0 in

1992 as a result of a prolonged drought (Tollefson 1992).

Figure 18. Illustrationof Bakersfieldsmallscale (fromAbrams

Vol 2., 1944, with permission).

Other aspects of the life history and reproductive biology

are unknown.

All the populations of Bakersfield smallscale were

found on the subalkaline margins of alkali sinks at

elevations of 91 to 96 meters (300 to 315 feet).

Associated species included alkali heath, glasswort,

scratchgrass (Muhlenbergia asperifolia), and saltgrass

(Twisselmann 1969, CDFG 1995, Bowen 1986). Other

species of concern that occur at Kern Lake are hispid

bird’s-beak and Buena Vista Lake shrew. Comanche

Point layia occurred in the vicinity historically (CDFG

1995).

ReasonsforDecline and Threatsto Survival.—Like

many of the other endangered plants of the San Joaquin

Valley, the decline of Bakersfield smallscale was due

primarily to agricultural activities (Skinner and Pavlik

1994, CDFG 1995). At most of the historical locations of

Bakersfield smallscale, the habitat was completely

destroyed by cultivation. At Gator Pond the soil surface

was not disturbed, but the hydrology was altered by

lowering the water table in the vicinity, leading to

conditions too dry for germination and survival of

Bakersfield smallscale in all but the wettest years

(Bowen 1986, Tollefson 1992).

The Atriplex that now occurs at Gator Pond exhibits

characteristics intermediate between Bakersfield

smallscale and bractscale. Freas and Murphy (1988)

speculated that under the drier conditiomis, bractscale

increased and the two species hybridized. Thus, pure

Bakersfield smallscale may be extinct. Even if the two

species did not hybridize, the plants at Gator Pond may

represent an undescribed form of bractscale (Skinner and

Paylik 1994, Skinner et al. 1995). Another possibility is

that Bakersfield smallscale never was a distinct species,

but instead was an environmental variant of bractscale

that appeared only in years of high rainfall, when soil

salinity decreased (Freas and Murphy 1988).

The greatest threat to the continued survival of the

annual Atriplex at Gator Pond is conversion to

agriculture. The landowner, J. G. Boswell Company,

formerly leased the site to TheNature Conservancy’as the

Kern Lake Preserve, but the lease was not renewed in

1995 (R. Tollefson pers. comm.). Even if the J. G.

Boswell Company chooses not to farmthe land, the lack

of sufficient water to the site threatens the continued

existence ofthe plants.

57
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 19. Distribution of Bakersfield smallscale (Atriplex m’ularensis).

58
Reco.’ery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Conservation Efforts.—Bakersfield smallscale was

state-listed as endangered in 1987. During the period

when The Nature Conservancy managed the Kern Lake

Preserve, the Bakersfield smaliscale population was

monitored annually. When the population declined

precipitously. The Nature Conservancy contracted

Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology

to study the reasons for the decline. They began

greenhouse propagation of plants in 1987, along with

research on the site requirements and taxonomy of

Bakersfield smallscale (Freas and Murphy 1988).

Additional water was provided to the Gator Pond

population in 1991. The potential for hydrologic

restoration of the site is being studied (K. Freas pers.

comm.), and USFWS is negotiating with the J.G.

Boswell Company to protect the site (Medlin in litt.

1995a). The Kern County Valley Floor Habitat

Conservation Plan is expected to provide incentives for

protecting the Gator Pond area (T. James pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy.—The conservation strategy

for Bakersfield smallscale is similar to that for lesser

saltscale: to protect at least 5 distinct populations

numbering at least 1,000 individuals on natural land in

blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres), with

appropriate site management to ensure the continued

existence of thespecies. To accomplish this goal, at least

four additional populations must be discovered or

established through artificial means, and the Gator Pond

population must be increased substantially. Due to the

precarious situation at the single known location, all

recovery actions for Bakersfield smallscale are high

priority’. First, Gator Pond must be protected from

conversion to other uses, either through a perpetual

conservation easement or through transfer of fee title toa

conservation entity. Hydrologic restoration of the site

also is imperative. These actions also will further

~onservationof the Buena Vista Lake shrew. Surveys for

Bakersfield smallscale should be conducted in the

remaining alkali sink areas of Kern County, particularly

in years with higher than noimal precipitation. However,

so little suitable habitat remains in the historic range of

the species that four additional populations are not likely’

to be found during survey’s.

Taxonomic studies and research into the effect ofsoil

salinity on m ~rphology (Freas and Murphy 1988) should

continue. Also, genetic comparisons should be

attempted between Gator Pond plants, bractscalc, and

iclated species to determine whether hybridization is

possible (D. Taylor pers. comm.). Greenhouse

propagation of the Gator Pond plants should continue,

and seeds should be collected from any additional

populations that are found. When definite Bakersfield

smallseale populations are identified (at Gator Pond or

elsewhere), introductions to protected alkali sinks in

Kern County should begin immediately to bring the total

number of sites to five. The status of Bakersfield

smallseale should be reevaluated within 5 years of

recovery plan approval.

3. Lost Hills Saitbush

(A triplex vallicola)

Taxonomy—Lost Hills saltbush has retained the

scientific name Atriplex vallicola since Hoover (1938)

first described it. However, according to Taylor and

Wilken (1993) a more appropriate rank for Lost Hills

saltbush may be as a subspecies of crownscale (A.

coronata). Another common name for A. vallicola is

Lost Hills crownscale (Taylor and Wilken 1993). The

type locality for Lost Hills saltbush is 8 kilometers (5

miles) north of the Lost Hills oil field, in Kern County

(Hoover 1938). Plants from the Carrizo Plain may

represent an undescribed subspecies of A. vallicola

(Taylor and Wilken 1993, Skinner and Pavlik 1994).

Description —LostHills saltbushreachesa maximum

height of only 20 centimeters (8 inches). The male and

female flowers are mixed in small clusters in the upper

leaf axils. The fruiting bracts are broadly triangular,

irregularly toothed, and may or may not have tubercles.

Lost Hills saltbush differs from crownscale primarily in

the shape and size ofthe bracts (Hoover 1938, Taylor and

Wilken 1993).

Historical Distribution—Prior to 1980, Lost Hills

saltbush was reported from three general areas: north of

Lost Hills (CDFG 1995), Mendota in Fresno County

(Hoover 1938), and the Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo

County (Hoover 1970).

Current Distribution -—In the 1980s, a number of

additional sites were discovered, and the species was

confirmed to be extant near Lost Hills and on the Carrizo

Plain (Figure 20). The centers ofconcentration currently

known are: (I) Lost Hills to extreme southern Kings

County’; (2) the Kerman Ecological Reserve in Fresno

County; (3) the Soda Lake regionofthe CarrizoPlain; (4)

the Lokern- McKittrick area of Kern County’; and (5

southwestern Merced County (Olson and Magney 1992,

59
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 20. Distribution of Lost Hills saltbush (Atriplex vallicola).

60
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin I’~illey

Skinner and Paylik 1994. CDFG 1995). The Lost Hills

andCarrizo Plain centers ofconcentration represent large

(greater than 10.000 plants) metapopulations, but most

othersites had only’ a few hundred individuals orfewer in

1993 (CDFG 1995).

Life History and Habitat —Lost Hills saltbush is an

annual that flowers from May to August (Skinner and

Pavlik 1994). Other aspects of its life history have not

been studied. This species occurs in the Valley Sink

Scrub, Valley Saltbush Scrub. Nonnative Grassland, and

Alkali Meadow natural communities. At mostsites, Lost

Hills saltbush grow’s in the dried beds of alkaline pools.

but one population south of McKittrick occurs on

exposed slopes rich in gypsum. Associated species

include common saltbush, spiny saltbush. alkali heath,

saltgrass. and seepw’eed. Valley-floor populations occur

at elevations of 50 to 85 meters (165 to 280 feet), whereas

those on the Cari~izo Plain and south of McKittrick range

from approximately 400 to 600 meters (1,300 to 2,000

feet) in elevation (Hoover 1938, Olson and Magney

1992. CDFG 1995, California Native Plant Society’

1988a).

ReasonsforDecline and Threatsto Survival—Two

occurrences of Lost Hills saltbush, one near Lost Hills

and one on the Carrizo Plain, were eliminated by

agricultural conversion. Trampling by’ livestock

degraded habitat for this species at several sites. One of

the largest occurrences (near Soda Lake) is on private

land that has been partially cleared for a mobile home.

Currently. the Lost Hills center of concentration is in the

greatest danger of elimination; it is on private land in an

area valuable for commercial development and

agriculture. In addition, flooding for waterfowl

management poses a threat in the vicinity of Lost Hills.

The population south of McKittrick faces potential

threats from petroleum production, off-road vehicle

activity, and the installation and maintenance of an

electric transmission line (Skinner and Pavlik 1994.

CDFG 1995, California Native Plant Society 1988a).

ConservationEfforts—Although LostHills saltbush

has not been the subject of direct conservation efiorts, it

has benelited indirectly from acquisition directedat other

species. Much of the land around Soda Lake has been

purchased by’ USBLM as part of the Carrizo Plain

Natural Area. Soda Lake is included in theCarrizo Plain

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (USBLM

1993), and grazing is not allowed in that area currently’

(Doran in litt. 1993). One occurrence in Lokern now’ is on

Center for Natural Lands Management land, and the

Kerinan Ecological Reserve is managed by CDFG.

Additional lands in the Lost Hills and Lokern areas may’

be protected if the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat

Conservation Plan is implemented as planned, but no

specific measures are provided for the conservation of

Lost Hills saltbush (T. James pers. comm.). Floristic

surveys of Naval Petroleum Reserve-l in California

(now Occidental of Elk Hills) may reveal populations of

Lost Hills saltbush in suitable habitats on the margins of

Elk Hills (J. Hinshaw pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy—The most important task

for conservation of Lost Hills saltbush is to protect

existing populations on private land from ongoing

threats. To do so, sites must be secured through

conservation easements or acquisition, and public

aoencies must agree to protect habitat on lands under

their control. Lost Hills saltbush can benefit from

recovery actions directed at the listed plant and animal

species, many’of which occur in the same areas. Surveys

must also be conducted in suitable habitat. Because it is

inconspicuous and difficult to identify, Lost Hills

saltbush may have been overlooked, even in areas

already set aside for conservation purposes. If at least

fix edistinct populations representing the full geographic

range of the species are protected and managed to

promote the continued survival of Lost Hills salthush,

lone-term conservation should be ensured. Protected

areas should be natural land in blocks of at least 65

hectares (160 acres) and should contain a minimum of

1.000 individuals to reduce the likelihood of extinction

troin intrinsic orrandom processes. Taxonoinic research

should be done to determine the appropriate rank and

affinities of Lost Hills saltbush, including the entity on

the Carrizo Plain. When surveys have been completed.

or at a maximum within 10 years of recovery plan

approval, the status of Lost Hills saltbush should be

reevaluated.

4. Vasek’s Clarkia

(C. tembloriensis ssp. calientensis)

Taxonomy.—Vasek s clarkia, a member of the

evening-primrose family (Onagraceae), was described

originally as a full species, Clarkia calientensis (Vasek

1977). The type locality ofVasek’s clarkia is.... along

Caliente Road, 10 kilometers E of the junction with the

Bakersfield-Tehachapi highway” (Vasek 1977, p. 252).

61
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of theSan Joaquin Valley

Based on its morphological similarity’ to the more

common Temblor clarkia (Clarkia tenibloriensis).

Holsinger (1985) proposed the name C. tenibloriensis

ssp. calientensis, which is in current use (H. Lewis 1993).

However, biosy’steinatic studies in progress suggest that

Vasek’s clarkia is a unique taxon that originated

independently’ of Temblor clarkia in recent times (T.

Holtsford pers. comm.).

Description.—Vasek’s clarkia can grow’ up to 80

centimeters (30 inches) tall and has alternate, grayishgreen. lance-shaped leaves. The flowers have four

lavender-pink petals w’ith narrow bases and diamondshaped tips. The six/es (part of the female reproductive

system) are approximately the same length as the

stamens. Vasek’s clarkia has broader petals, shorter

styles, narrower fruits, and larger seeds than Teinblor

clarkia, and both differ from gunsight clarkia (C.

unguiculata) in that they’ lack long hairs on the flower

pails (Holsinger 1985. H. Lewis 1993).

Historical Distribution—This maxon is endemic to

theCaliente Hills of Kern County. which are southeast of

Bakersfield (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). The historical

distribution consisted of only the type locality’, wherethe

taxon was first collected in 1967 (Vasek 1977).

Current Distribution—Plants have not been

observed at the ty’pe locality’ since 1982, despite repeated

searches. However. tw’o other occurrences were

discovered west of the type locality in 1982 (Figure 21);

they represent a single inetapopulation (CDFG 1995, T.

Holtstbrd pers. comm.).

Life History and Habitat—Vasek’s clarkia is an

annual, flowersin April (Skinner andPaylik 1994), and is

self-pollinating. The timing of seed germination in the

wild is not known, but in greenhouse tests, plants that

were started from seed in January’ had a higher

reproductive output than those that were started in

November(Vasek 1977). The closely-related Springville

clarkia (Clarkia springvillensis) forms a persistent seed

bank, and this taxon may as well (T. Holtsford pers.

comm.). Vasek’s clarkia grows in steep-sided canyons

on grassy’ north- and west-facing slopes at elevations of

275 to 335 meters (900 to 1,100 feet). Associated species

include bladderpod, farewell-to-spring (Clarkia

cylindrica), and gunsight clarkia (CDFG 1995). The

extant metapopulation comprises several thousand

individuals in favorable years but has extremely low

genetic variability (T. Holtsford pers. comm.).

Reasons for Decline.—The reason for the

disappearance of Vasek’s clarkia from the type locality is

unknown. The othertwo occurrences have notdeclined.

Threats to Survival—Vase k’s clarkia is a very

narrow’ endemic because of its extremely’ limited range,

small population size, and lack of genetic variability.

Thus, Vasek’s clarkia is very vulnerable to extinction

from random catastrophic events. All three of the

reported occurrences were on private property, some of

which is owned by the Tejon Ranch Company. Most of

the occupied habitat is too steep to be developed or

heavily’ grazed (T. Holtsford pers. comm.). Competition

fromexotic grasses is believed to be the primary’ threat to

this taxon (T. Holtsford pers. comm.).

Conservation Efforts.—Vasek and his colleagues

have conducted taxonomic and genetic research,

surveyed limited areas in the Caliente Hills, and

monitored Vasek’s clarkia since the species was first

described. However, access to the sites has been

restricted by’ the land ow’ner in recent years (CDFG 1995,

T. Holtsford pers. comm.). No other conservation

measures have been instituted to date, but Kern County

may’ provide incentives for conservation of the

populations throughthe ValleyFloor Habitat Conservation

Plan (T. James pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy.—AI though Vasek’s clarkia

is a narrow’ endemic, at least five separate populations

should be protected to increase the probability of longterm survival. Protected areas should be natural land in

blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres) and should

contain a minimum of 1.000 individuals to reduce the

likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or random

processes. Conservation of Vasek’s clarkia entails

maintaining compatible uses at the known sites,

controlling exotic grasses, surveying suitable habitats for

additional populations, and banking seed as a safeguard

against extinction. Conservation agreements with the

private landowners are recommended, even though

development is not expected in the area inthe near future.

Holtsford (pers. comm.) recommends continued light

grazing to control grasses. Monitoring will be important

to evaluate population trends; changes in site

management may be necessary if declining population

trends are observed. Surveys for Vasek’s clarkia could

be coordinated with those forCalifornia jewelfiower and

Bakersfield cactus, which occurred historically in the

Caliente Hills, and where potential habitat still exists.

Seed collections would not need to be large to be

62
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 21. Distribution of Vasek’s clarkia (C. teomhloriensis ssp. caliente,msis}.

63
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

representative of the gene pool in the extant

metapopulation but should be conducted according to

Center for Plant Conservation (1991) recommendations.

Introduction of the subspecies outside of the known

range is not recommended, but planting of seeds in

nearby’ suitable habitats within the historic range may’ be

necessary to achieve the required number of populations

if survey’s prove unsuccessful. The status of Vasek’s

clarkia should be reevaluated within 5 years ofrecovery’

plan approval.

5. Temblor Buckwheat

(Eriogonum temblorense)

Taxonomy.—Temblor buckwheat was named

Eriogonuin teniblorense by Howell and Twissclmann

(1963) and is a member of the buckwheat family

Polvgonaceae). The type specimen was collected by’

Twisselmann in Chico Martinez Canyon. in Kern

County’. The scientific name has remained unchanged

since it was published, but various authors(Hoover 1970,

Reveal 1989, Hickman 1993. Skinner and Paylik 1994.

Skinner et al. 1995) have speculated that Temblor

buckwheat should be combined with Eastw’ood’s

buckwheat (E. eastv.’oodianuni).

Description—The height of Temblor buckwheat

ranges from 10 to 80 centimeters (4 to 30 inches) and

varies with precipitation. The leaves occur primarily at

the base ofthe plant and are densely’ covered w’ith matted

hairs on both surfaces. The appearance of individual

plants of Teinblor buckwheat may vary’ from spring to

fall, with the blades rounded early in the year and more

elliptical later (Hoover 1970). The branches. w’hich are

elongated and spreading, bear flowers only’ at their tips.

w’here several 2-millimeter (0.08-inch) long, w’hite

flowers are clustered inside a cup-like structure.

Teinblor buckwheat is differentiated from Eastwood’s

buckwheat and another closely related species, Idria

buckwheat (E. vestituln). by’ the placement of the leaves

and the size and surface texture of certain flower parts

(Reveal 1989. Hickman 1993). However, the spring

form of Temblor buckwheat closely resembles

Eastwood’s buckwheat (Hoover 1970).

Historical Distribution—The range of Teinblor

buckwheat apparently’ always has been restricted. The

historical distribution is based on 19 collections, which

are clustered in eight areas of the inner Coast Ranges:

Chico Martinez Canyon and the Shale Hills in Kern

County; Indian Valley’. Parkfield Grade, and Stone

Canyon in Monterey’ County’; and Polonio Pass,

Cottonwood Pass, and the Shandon area in San Luis

Obispo County’ (Tw’isselinann 1967, Hoover 1970,

CDFG 1995).

Current Distribution.—The historical occurrences

have not been revisited in recent years but are believed to

be extant (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Another center of

occurrence was discovered on the Elkhorn Plain in 1995

(Figure 22).

Life History and Habitat.—Teinblor buckw’heat is

an annual, but it differs from most annuals of the San

Joaquin Valley in that it flowers during the hottest part of

the year. from May through September (Twisselinann

1967, Reveal 1989, Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Other

aspects of its life history’ have not been investigated.

Teinblor buckwheat typically occurs on w’hite, shattered

shale (Tw’isselmann 1967, R. Lewis pers. comm.) and

occasionally’ on sandstone (Hickman 1993). The shale

areas are dry and nearly barren of other vegetation, but

California buckw’heat (Eriogonuin fasciculatunm), sun

cups (Canmissonia californica), and Booth’s eveningprimrose (C. boor/iii) may be present (Lewis in litt. 1995,

D. Taylor pers. comm.). The type locality was

characterized by saltbush semub (CDFG unprocessed

datab All reported sites for Teinblor buckwheat are

below 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) in elevation (Hickman

1993). The Elkhorn Plain inetapopulation occurs on

slopes of 0 to 25 percent (Lewis in hint. 1995).

ReasonsforDecline and Threatsto Survival.— The

current status of Temblor buckwheat is unknown because

threats have notbeenevaluated atthe historical locations.

The Elkhorn Plain metapopulation occurs on USBLM

land that is protected as an Area of Critical

Environmental Concern (USBLM 1996a,b). Only one

minor threatwas noted by Lewis on the Elkhorn Plain (in

litt. 1995): some plants were trampled by cattle in the

vicinity of a water trough. The other historical localities

are on private property in areas that currently are not

desirable for development.

Conservation Efforts—Russ Lewis (pers. comm.)

of USBLM conducted surveys forTeinblor buckwheatin

potential habitats of the southern Caliente Range,

southern Teinblor Range (south of Crocker Grade), and

the Maricopa area in 1995. He found the species onlyon

the Elkhom Plain. Temblor buckwheat possibly could

64
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 22. Distribution of Teinblorbuckwheat (Eriogonum tetublorense).

65
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

occur on USBLM’s proposed Chico Martinez Area of

Critical Environmental Concern (USBLM 1996a,b), but

surveys would be necessary to verify the presence of the

species there.

Conservation Strategy—To ensure the long-term

conservation of Temblor buckwheat, the strategy is to

protect at least five populations representing the full

geographic range of the species. Protected areas should

be natural land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160

acres) and should contain a minimum of 1,000

individuals to reduce the likelihood of extinction from

intrinsic or random processes. Historical locations of

Temblor buckwheat should be surveyed to verify

whether the species still persists, toevaluate threats, and

to obtain population estimates. Periodic monitoring of

the populations is recommended, particularly on the

Elkhorn Plain due to the potential impacts of cattle

trampling. Current management should be continued in

all areas where the species is found; if the populations

decrease in favorable years, changes inmanagement may

be necessary. Biosystematic studies would be valuable

to establish the relationship of plants in this complex

(Skinner et al. 1995), but this task is of low priority.

When surveys have been completed, or at a maximum

within 10 years of recovery plan approval, the status of

Temblor buckwheat should be reevaluated.

6. Tejon Poppy

(Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis)

Taxonomy.—Both this taxon and the next are

members of the poppy family (Papaveraceae). Tejon

poppy’ was initially given the name Eschscholzia

caespitosa ssp. kernensis based on a specimen from the

“Tejon Hills. 2 miles northwest of Tejon Ranch

headquarters, Kern County” (Munz 1958, p. 91).

However, Tejon poppy has more characters in common

with Lemmon’s poppy (Eschscholzia lemmonji ssp.

lemmon ii) than with tufted poppy (Eschscholzia

caespitosa). and thusClark (1986)renamed Tejon poppy

F. lemmonji ssp. kernensis.

Description —Tejon poppy reaches a maximum

height of 30 centimeters(12 inches). The deeply-divided

leaves are mostly clustered atthe base of the plant (Figure

23). Each flowering stem is taller than the leaves and

bears a single erect, hairless bud that develops into a

showy, orange flower. Tejon poppy lacks a rim-like

appendage below the flower. The fruit is elongated and

contains many tiny, rough seeds. Unlike Tejon poppy,

Lemmon spoppy has nodding, hairy budsandCalifornia

poppy (E. californica) has a conspicuous, flared rim

beneath the flower. Tufted poppy has smaller, yellow

flowers andsmootherseeds (Munz and Keck 1959, Clark

1986, 1993).

Historical Distribution .—Tejon poppy is restricted

to Kern County. Based on literature reports and

collections, the taxon occurred historically insix areas in

the low hills that surround the southern tip of the San

Joaquin Valley’ (Figure 24). Twisselmann (1967) noted

that in the Tejon Hills, this taxon occurred between

Chanac and Tejon Canyons. Other historical locations

were Dry Bog Knoll in Adobe Canyon (between

Bakersfield and Woody), “mesas east of Bakersfield”

(Twisselmann 1967, p. 240), Comanche Point

(Twisselmann 1969), Elk Hills, Pleito Hills (CDFG

1995), and near Maricopa (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).

Current Distribution.—Tejon poppy is known to

remainextant at ElkHills (Enterprise Advisory Services,

Inc. in litt. 1998). The other historical populationsmay be

extant but have not been revisited in 3 or more decades.

LifeHistory and Habitat.—This annual herb flowers

from March to April (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Details

of the life history are not known, but Tejon poppy

populations are conspicuous only in years of aboveFigure 23. Illustration of Tejon poppy (fromAbrams, Vol.2,

1944, with permission).

66
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 24. Distribution of Tejon poppy (Eschscholcia leninionji ssp. kernensis).

67
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

average precipitation (Twisselinann 1967). Tejon poppy

grows on adobe clay soils in sparsely-vegetated

grasslands between 250 and 600 meters (800 and 2,000

feet) in elevation (Munz and Keck 1959, Twisselinann

1967, 1969, CDFG 1995). At Comanche Point, Tejon

poppy was observed in association w’ith Kern brodiaea

(Brodiaea terrestris ssp. kernensis), Sunset lupine

(Lupinus inicrocarpus var. horizonta/is). and Comanche

Point layia (Twisselinann 1969).

ReasonsforDecline.—Tejon poppy has always been

rare by’ virtue of its restricted range and soil affinities.

Twisselinann (1967, p. 240) described it as “normally

scarce. Except for Elk Hills, all the areas in which it

occurred are on private land, but none have been subject

to urban or industrial development.

Threats to Survival—Potential threats to Tejon

poppy’ include competitionfrom exotic plants, overgrazing

(Skinner and Pavlik 1994), and future residential

development.

Conservation Efforts—This laxon has not been the

focus of conservation measures. nor have any of the

historical areas of occurrence been protected for other

rare species. However, the U.S. Department of Energy

sponsored florismic survey’s that led to the discovery of

four colonies of Tejon poppy’ at Elk Hills in 1997

(Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc. 1998). Occidental

Petroleum is continuing the floristic surveys at Elk Hills,

w’hich may reveal additional populations in the area (J.

Hinshaw pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy —To ensure the long-term

conservation of Tejon poppy, the strategy is toprotect at

least five populations representing the full geographic

range ofthetaxon. Protected areas should be natural land

in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres) and should

contain a minimum of 1,000 individuals to reduce the

likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or random

processes. Historical locations forTejon poppy’ must be

searchedtodetermine if the subspecies is extant and what

site-specific threats it may face. Any extant populations

should be protected from identified threats. If Tejon

poppy remains extant at Comanche Point, it could be

protected in conjunction with Bakersfield cactus and

Comanche Point layia. Monitoring is necessary’ to

determine whether the populations are self-sustaining.

When surveys have been completed, or at a maximum

within 10 years of recovery plan approval, the status of

Tejon poppy should be reevaluated.

7. Diamond-petaled California Poppy

(Eschscholzia rhombipetala)

Taxonomy—The scientific name of this species,

Eschscho/zia rhonibipetala, was published by Greene in

1885 (Abrains 1923). Jepson later reduced it to a

subspecies of tufted poppy, assigning the name E.

caespitosa var. rhonibipetala (Munz and Keck 1959).

Currently, the name E. r/mornbipetala is in use (Clark

1993).

Description .—Diainond-petaled California poppy

resembles Tejon poppy and Leinmon’s poppy in many

respects. However, diamond-petaled California poppy

may have erect or nodding buds, the flowers are small

andyellow’, andthe bases ofthe leaves are fleshy (Hoover

1970, Clark 1993, Clark in litt. 1979). The fruits of

diamond-petaled Calitornia poppy are conspicuous

because they’ are 4 to 7 centimeters (1.5 to 3 inches) long,

which may nearly equal the height ofthe plants (Hoover

1970). Diamond-petaled Californiapoppy is distinguished

from frying pans (F. lobbii), another poppy that occurs in

the same general area, by leaf position and seed

characteristics (Clark 1993).

Historical Distribution—Diamond-petaled

California poppy was known historically from seven

sites in the inner Coast Ranges (Figure 25): Corral

Hollow in Alameda County; Antelope Valley near the

town of Sites in Colusa County; Antioch and the hills

south of Byron in Contra Costa County; the La Panza

area and near Yeguas Creek in San Luis Obispo County;

and Del Puerto Canyon in Stanislaus County (Hoover

1970, Clark 1993, CDFG 1995, Clark in litt. 1979,

Bittman 1986b). Hoover (1970) mentioned that the

species occurred in San Joaquin County, but no

specimens remain to document his report (Skinner and

Paylik 1994).

Current Distribution—At least two extant

populations of diamond-petaled California poppy are

known. The first discovered in 1992; it was on a

privately-owned portion ofthe northern Carrizo Plain in

San Luis Obispo County. Although diamond-petaled

California poppy was not present on the same site in

1995, it may reappear in favorable years. The second

confirmed population is on Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory propertyin Alameda County, where

it was discovered in 1997. It is believed to be the

occurrence reported historically as Corral Hollow.

Diamond-petaled California poppy may have been

68
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 25. Distribution of diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschschio/cia r/zotnbipera/a).

69
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

rediscovered at La Panza, but the identification is

questionable. Another reported occurrence in San Luis

Obispo County is sketchy (California Natural Diversity

Data Base 1997). The other historical populations have

not been observed since 1950 (Skinner and Pavlik 1994,

Skinner et al. 1995).

LifeHistory andHabitat —The ecology ofdiamondpetaled California poppy has not been studied in detail.

Flowering specimens were collected from March into

early’ May. Conditions for germination, pollinators, seed

dispersers, and demography are unknown. Most of the

populations reported have been on hillsides, but

community associations varied widely among the sites

that have been described in detail. TheCarrizo Plain site

was open saltbush scrub interspersed with vernal pools;

soil type was not reported. Associated species included

spiny saltbush, several species of goldfields (Lasthenia

species), Munz’s tidy-tips, red brome, and other annuals

(California Natural Diversity DataBase inlitt. 1997). At

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, diamondpetaled California poppy occurred on clay where an

eroding bank merged with annual grassland. Other

plants in the vicinity were the forbs wind poppy

(Sty lornecon heterophv/la) and microseris (Microseris

douglassii) and the grasses pine bluegrass (Poa

secunda), slender wild oats (Avena barbata), and red

brome (California Natural Diversity Data Base in litt.

1997). Near La Panza. diamond-petaled California

poppy was found on nearly barren areas of clay soils in

association with San Benito thornmint (Accinthornintha

obovata) and large-leaved filaree (Erodium

macrophvllunl) (Hoover 1970, Bittman 1986b). Clark

(1993) indicated that diamond-petaled California poppy

had been found infallow fields. The historical sites were

found at 9 to 1,000 meters (30 to 3,300 feet) in elevation

(California Natural Diversity Data Base in litt. 1997).

Reasonsfor Decline and Threats to Survival.— The

reasons why diamond-petaled California poppy has not

been seen at many historical localities are unknown.

Natural land remains in most of the areas where it was

collected historically, although some land in the vicinity

of Yeguas Creek has been converted to agriculture and

the La Panza area is subject to heavy grazing (CDFG

1995, Bittman 1986b). The Antioch area is growing

rapidly and thus is subject to development pressure.

Threats to extant populations are agricultural conversion

on the northern Carrizo Plain and erosion at Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory.

Conservation Efforts.—Concentrated surveys near

historical locations led to the discovery of the Carrizo

Plain and Livermore Laboratory populations. Searches

in the La Panza area in 1991 revealed only Lemmon’s

poppy (CDFG 1995). The diamond-petaled California

poppy at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is

being protected from disturbance by the Department of

Energy (T. Kato pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy—The conservation strategy

for diamond-petaled California poppy is to protect the

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory population and at least

four other populationsrepresenting the full historic range

of the species. Protected areas should be natural land in

blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres) and should

contain a minimum of 1,000 individuals to reduce the

likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or random

processes. Considering that suitable habitat remains at

many of the historical sites, efforts to rediscover

diamond-petaled California poppy should continue,

particularly inyears of above-average rainfall. Any other

sites determined to have the appropriate community

associations should also be surveyed. Possible sites

include East Bay Regional Parks’ Black Diamond Mine,

Los Vaqueros Watershed, and the Altamont Creek

Watershed. If additional populations are discovered

during surveys, threats must be determined on a site-bysite basis. Changes in site uses are not necessary unless

impacts tothe population are noted. Monitoring should

be initiated as soon as occurrences are found. If

additional populations are found but fewer than five

populations can be protected, seed collection (Center for

Plant Conservation 1991) and introduction to public

lands will be necessary to ensure the continued existence

of the species. The statusof diamond-petaled California

poppy should be reevaluated within 5 years of recovery

plan approval or when surveys have been completed,

whichever is less.

8. Comanche Point Layia

(Layia leucopappa)

Taxonorny.—Keck (1935) gave Comanche Point

layia the name Lavia leucopappa. The common name

refers to the type locality in Kern County, where this

species was first collected in 1927. The original

scientific name is still in use (Baldwin and Bainbridge

1993). Comanche Point layia is a member of the aster

family.

70
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Description —ComanchePointlayia (Figure 26) has

glandular stems that grow up to 60 centimeters (24

inches) tall. The leaves are oblong, fleshy. and entire to

lobed. Each daisy-like flower head is composed of two

kinds of tiny flowers: rayflorets have flattened corollas

and occur near the margin of the head, whereas disk

florets are tubular and are clustered in the center of the

head. Comanche Point layia has 6 to 15 w’hite ray florets

and 20 to 100 yellow’ disk florets. The achenes produced

by’ the ray and disk florets differ slightly. Comanche

Point lay’ia is distinguished from other members of the

genus that have w’hite ray flowers by the fleshy leaves

and microscopic characters of the flower head and

achenes (Munz and Keck 1959, Abrains and Ferris 1960.

Baldwin and Bainbridge 1993).

Historical Distribution —Comanche Point layia is

endemic to KernCounty. It occurred historically in three

general areas ofthe extreme southern San Joaquin Valley

and adjacent hills to the east (Figure 27): (1) the

Comanche and Tejon Hills (including the type locality).

(2) between Edison and Bena, and (3) on the Valley’ floor

near the southern end of KernLake (Tw’isselinann 1967,

1969, CDFG 1995).

Current Distribution —Comanche Point layia

remains in the Comanche and Tejon Hills but has not

been observed in the Edison-Bena area or on the Valley

floor since 1935 (CDFG 1995).

Life History and Habitat.—The typical flowering

period for Comanche Point layia, an annual, is March to

Figure 26. Illustration of Comanche Point layia (from Abrains

and Ferris Vol. 4, 1960, w’ith permission).

April (Munz and Keck 1959). However, it has been

observed only in years of higher than average rainfall

(Twisselmann 1967, 1969). Cross-pollination is

necessary for seed set (Munz and Keck 1959). In the

Comanche and Tejon Hills,Comanche Point layia grows

on sparsely-vegetated inicrohabilats in Nonnative

Grassland. Associatedspecies include annual buckwheats

(Eriogonunm spp.), hollisteria (Hol/isteria hanata). leafystemmed coreopsis (Coreopsis ca/liopsidea), and Tejon

poppy. On the Valley floor, Comanche Point layia was

found on the margins of alkali sinks and on hummocks.

Comanche Point lay’ia typically occurs on light-colored,

subalkaline clay soils at elevations of 150 to 350 meters

(500 to 1,150 feet) (Twisselinann 1967, 1969, Baldw’in

and Bainbridge 1993, CDFG 1995).

ReasonsforDecline and Threats to Survival—The

formerly extensiveoccurrences of Comanche Point lay’ia

on the Valley floor apparently have been eliminated by

conversion to agriculture (Twisselinann 1967, 1969,

CDFG 1995). Populations in the Comanche and Tejon

Hills potentially are threatened by urban development

and are subject to grazing (Skinner and Paylik 1994).

Conservation Efforts—Comanche Point layia has

not received any formal protection. Conservation needs

of the species are being considered during the

development of the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat

Conservation Plan (T. James pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy —To ensure long-term

conservation of Comanche Point layia, the strategy is to

protect at least five populations representing the full

historic range of the species. Protected areas should be

natural land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres)

and should contain a minimum of 1,000 individuals to

reduce the likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or

random processes. The highest-priority task to recover

Comanche Point layia is to ensure that the extant

populations are protected from development. Comanche

Point layia could be protected jointly with Bakersfield

cactus and Tejon poppy at Comanche Point if the

appropriate inicrohabitats are included in a conservation

area. Monitoring of the populations is necessary to

determine if they are self-sustaining. Ifpopulations do

not decline, changes in land use are not necessary.

Surveys for Comanche Point layia are also important in

alkali sinks and canbe conducted concurrently’ withthose

for Bakersfield smallscale and other halophytes.

Comanche Point layia also may be rediscovered during

surveys for Bakersfield cactus, California jewelfiower,

71
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 27. Distribution of Comanche Point layia (Layia heucopappa).

72
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Vasek’s clarkia, and Tejon poppy’ in the Comanche and

Bena Hills. Collection of a representative seed sample

(Center for Plant Conservation 1991) from the

Comanche-Tejon Hills inetapopulation and any

discovered indisjunct areas is recommended topreserve

geneticmaterial because the distribution of this species is

so limited. Also, ifthe Gator Pond area is protected for

Bakersfield sinallscale and Buena Vista Lake shrew’,

Comanche Point lay’ia potentiallycould be reintroduced.

The status of Comanche Point layia should be

reevaluated w’ithin 5 years of recovery plan approval or

when surveys have been completed, whichever is less.

9. Mun.z’s Tidy-tips

(Layia munzii)

Taxonomy.—Keck (1935) named Munz’s tidy-tips

(Lavia niunzii) in the same puhlication in which he

described Comanche Point layia. The type locality for

Munz’stidy-tips is “32 miles (51 kilometers) east ofPaso

Robles” in San Luis Obispo County’ (Keck 1935, p. 17).

The scientific name has not changed (Baldwin and

Bainbridge 1993).

Desc,4.~tion.—Munz’s tidy-tips (Figure 28) is

closely related to Comanche Point layia but the two

species differ in appearance. The stems of Munz’s tidytips may trail along the ground or grow upright, the leaves

are not fleshy, and the ray florets are yellow with white

tips. Munz’s tidy-tips closely resembles the common

tidy-tips (L. plarvglossa) and the rare Jones’ tidy-tips (L.

jones/i). These three species are distinguished by subtle

characteristics of the flower heads and achenes. Also,

Jones’ tidy-tips has purple streaks on the stem, unlike

Munz’s tidy-tips (Munz and Keck 1959, Abrains and

Ferris 1960, Hoover 1970, Baldwin and Bainbridge

1993).

HistoricalDistribution—Historically, Munz’s tidytips was widespread in the western San Joaquin Valley

and inner Coast Ranges from Fresno south (Figure 29).

In Fresno County, the species was collected near

Firebaugh, Little Panoche Creek, Mendota, the town of

San Joaquin, and Wheatyille. In San Luis Obispo

County, Munz’s tidy-tips occurred from the Cholaine

Valley’ (where the type specimen was collected) to the

Carrizo Plain (Hoover 1937, 1970, Twisselinann 1956.

CDFG 1995). The species was described as occasional in

Kern County (Twisselinann 1967), but the only specific

locations reported were west of Wasco and near Elino

(CDFG 1995). According to Abrams and Ferris (1960),

Munzs tidy-tips also occurred in Merced County.

CurrentDistribution —Extensive colonies ofMunz s

tidy-tips remain on the Carrizo Plain, ranging from the

area southeast of Soda Lake to California Valley (Lew’is

1997). This species also was observed in the vicinity’ of

Lost Hills (Kern County) during the late 1980s. The

Wasco and Elino occurrences have been eliminated;

other historical populations have not been revisited in 30

or more years (CDFG 1995).

Life History and Habitat.—Munz’s tidy-tips is an

annual that flowers during March and April. Crosspollination is required for seed set (Munz and Keck

1959). Other facets of the life history have not been

studied. Munz’s tidy-tips grows on alkaline clay in lowlying areas and on hillsides in grasslands, Valley

Saltbush Scrub, and Valley Sink Scrub. Associated

speciesmay include red brome, annual fescue, LostHills

saltbush, common tidy-tips, iodine bush, and spiny’

saltbush (Hoover 1937, Munz and Keck 1959,

Twisselinann 1967, Hoover 1970, Skinner and Paylik

1994, CDFG 1995, Lewis 1997). On the Carrizo Plain,

Munz’stidy-tips is confinedtothe spiny saltbush zone of

the Soda Lake basin. It barely overlaps in range with

common tidy-tips, which grows in slightly higher areas

(Lewis 1997). Historical and current sites ranged from

45 to 800 meters (150 to 2,600 feet) in elevation (CDFG

1995, Lewis 1997).

Kern County

Figure 28. Illustration of Munz’s tidy mips (from Abrams and

Ferris Vol. 4. 1960. with permission).

Reasons for Decline—Both

73
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 29. Distribution of Munz’s tidy-tips (Li via omunzii).

74
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

occurrences of Munz’s tidy-tips were destroyed by

conversion to agriculture. Many low-lying areas in

Fresno, Kern, and San Luis Obispo Counties have been

cultivated, which may’ have destroyedother populations.

Threats to Survival—The recently-observed site

near Lost Hills is on an airport runway and therefore is

subject to continued disturbance. If other Valley-floor

sites remain extant, they could be threatened by

agricultural conversionand commercial development. A

small portion of the Carrizo Plain inetapopulation is

subject to cattle grazing, but no detrimental effects have

been observed to date (Lewis 1997).

Conservation Efforts—Russ Lewis of USBLM

conducted surveys for Munz’s tidy-tips on the Carrizo

Plain Natural Area (Lewis 1997). The public land

portion of the Carrizo Plain inetapopulation is in a

desienated Area of Critical Environmental Concern;

USBLM plans to manage the area forthe perpetuation of

rare species, including Munz’s tidy-tips (USBLM

1996ab, Lew’is 1997). This species also may occur in

reserves on the San Joaquin Valley floor, such as the

Center for Natural Lands Management’s Semitropic

Ridge, or USBLM’s Kettleinan Hills Area of Critical

Environmental Concern, but its presence remains to be

verified.

Conservation Strategy—To ensure long-term

conservation of Munz’s tidy-tips, the strategy is to

protect at least five populations representing the full

historic range of the species. Protected areas should be

natural land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres)

and should contain a minimum of 1,000 individuals to

reduce the likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or

randomprocesses. The presence of this species on public

lands does not negate the need for protection elsewhere.

Protection from development and incompatible uses is

equally important on both public and private lands.

Surveys are necessary to determine the current status of

historical populations as well as threats facing each

occurrence (Skinner and Paylik 1994). Extant

populations should be protected from any site-specific

threats and monitored regularly. Munz’s tidy-tips could

benefit from survey and protection efforts for listed

species, including palinate-bracted bird’s-beak, Fresno

kangaroo rat, and Tipton kangaroo rat, and forspecies of

concern such as Lost Hills saltbush and Jared’s

peppergrass. When surveys have beencompleted, or at a

maximum w’ithin 10 yearsof recovery plan approval, the

status of Munz’s tidy-tips should be reevaluated.

10. Jared’s Peppergrass

(Lepi4iumjaredii)

Taxonomy—Lepidium jaredii was named by

Brandegee (1894). Jared collected the type specimen

“near Goodwin, San Luis Obispo County” (Brandegee

1894, p. 398). Hoover (1966) divided the species into

two subspecies: Panoche peppergrass (L. jaredii ssp.

a/bum) and Carrizo peppergrass (L.jaredii ssp. jaredii).

The type locality for Panoche peppergrass is ‘Arroyo

Hondo wash north of Cantua Creek, Fresno County”’

(Hoover 1966, p. 345). The type locality for Carrizo

peppergrass is by definitionthe same as that for the entire

species. Although the most recenttreatment of the genus

(Rollins 1993) did not differentiate between the

subspecies,California Native Plant Society (Skinner and

Pavlik 1994) follow’s Hoover’s taxonomy. Jared’s

peppergrass is in the mustard family.

Description —Jared ‘5 peppergrass (Figure 30)

varies from 10 to 70 centimeters (4 to 28 inches) in

height, and the stems may be branched. It has narrow

leaves, which occasionally have a few’ teeth on the

margins. Each plant has many tiny flowers, which are

distributed along the upper portionsof each branch. The

flattened, egg-shaped fruits contain two seeds each

(Munz and Keck 1959, Rollins 1993). Panoche

peppergrass has white flowers and numerous branches,

whereas Carrizo peppergrass has yellow flowers and few

branches (Hoover 1937, 1966, Taylor et al. 1990).

HistoricalDistribution —Jared’s peppergrass ranged

from San Benito County south to San Luis Obispo

County, with Panoche peppergrass occupying the

northern portion of the species’ range (Figure 31).

Locations mentioned inthe literature priorto 1966 canbe

assigned to a subspecies only tentatively. Apparently,

collections from Arroyo Hondo, Little Panoche Creek.

Panoche Creek, Riverdale, south of Mendota, and 20

miles northeast of Corcoran (all in Fresno County), and

between Panoche and Idria in San Benito County

represent Panoche peppergrass (Hoover 1966, CDFG

1995, Taylor et al. 1990). Carrizo peppergrass was

reported historically from the Carrizo Plain (including

the ty’pe locality) and Estrella in San LuisObispo County

(Brandegee 1894, Hitchcock 1936, Twisselinann 1956,

Hoover 1970).

Current Distribution—Currently, Panoche

peppergrass is known or presumed to be extant at

approximately 15 occurrences. The majority ofthe sites,

75
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

including Arroyo Hondo and Panoche Creek, are in the

Ciervo-Panoche region of Fresno and San Benito

Counties (CDFG 1995, Taylor et al. 1990, Beehler inlitt.

1994). One or two sites may remain in southern Fresno

County and another inthe OrchardPeak area of San Luis

Obispo County (Skinner and Paylik 1994). Carrizo

peppergrass remains extant on the CarrizoPlain Natural

Area; the extensive colonies east and southeast of Soda

Lake comprise a single metapopulation (Lew’is 1997).

Two other occurrences ofCarrizo peppergrass havebeen

discovered recently’: Padrones Canyon in the eastern

foothills of the Caliente Mountains in San Luis Obispo

County, and the Devil’s Den area in Kern County’ (CDFG

1995, Taylor et al. 1990. Lewis 1997).

Life History and Habitat—Both subspecies of

jared’s peppergrass are annuals. Germination requireinents have not been reported for either taxon. Panoehe

peppergrass flowers from February to June and Carrizo

peppergrass from March to May (Skinner and Paylik

1994), but few plants bloom in dry years (Hoover 1937).

In 1997. Carrizo peppergrass germinated in January

(Lewis 1997). Both taxa have been reported from clay

and from sandy soils. Panochepeppergrass occurs indry

stream beds, on alluvial fans, and on slopes. Associated

species include a variety of grasses and forbs as well as

the shrubs common saltbush, quailbush (Atrip/ex

lenrmforniis), inulefat (Baccharis sa/icifo/ia). and scalebroom (Lepidosparturu squaniatuln) (Hoover 1970,

CDFG 1995, Taylor et al. 1990, Beehler in litt. 1994,

Figure 30. Illustration of Jared’s peppergrass (from Abrams,

Vol. 2, 1944. with permission).

Lewis in litt. 1994, Lewis 1997). Carrizo peppergrass

may occur in association with spiny saltbush, Lost Hills

salthush, alkali daisy (Lasthenia ferrisiae), alkali

peppergrass (Lepidiunt dictvotum), and a few other plant

species in the low-lying, alkaline areas east and southeast

of Soda Lake. However, in open areas without spiny

saltbush Carrizo peppergrass often forms dense, singlespecies stands. Carrizo peppergrass grows in a slightly

lower part of the Soda Lake basin than does Munz’s tidytips. Soils in these low’er areas remain saturated for

extended periods and frequently’ have a black or whitish

surface crust(Lewis 1997). In Padrones Canyon. Carrizo

peppergrass grow’s on steep, south-facing slopes and on

the ridgetop where isolated areas of alkaline soil occur.

The primary associate in these areas is hillside daisy

(Mono/opia lanceohata)Lewis inlitt. 1994, Lewis 1997).

Both subspecies ofJared’s peppergrass are found below

1,000 meters (3,300 feet) in elevation (CDFG 1995.

Taylor et al. 1990, Beehler in litt. 1994, Lewis in litt.

1994, Lewis 1997).

Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival.—

Panoche peppergrass populations have been subject to

disturbance from sand and gravel quarrying. Trampling

by cattle is a possible threat to populations of this

subspecies (Skinner and Paylik 1994, CDFG 1995,

Taylor et al. 1990, Beehler in litt. 1994). Carrizo

peppergrass does not seem to have declined. The only

potential threats noted were sheep grazing at Devil’s Den

and a minor possibility of cattle trampling on the Carrizo

Plain (CDFG 1995, Lewis 1997).

Conservation Efforts—In 1988, Dean Taylor of

BioSystems Analysis, Inc. and biologists from the

Hollismer Resource Area of USBLM began surveys for

Panoche peppergrass in both historical locations and

suitable habitats. After they discovered the Fresno and

San Benito County populations, USBLM acquired

several of the sites that were on private land and now

protects them from mining (CDFG 1995, Taylor et al.

1990, Beehler in litt. 1994, D. Taylor pers. comm.). The

Orchard Peak area is also on public land (USBLM 1993).

Russ Lewis of USBLM conducted surveys for and

mapped occurrences of Carrizo peppergrass in 1997

(Lewis 1997). The CarrizoPlain and Padrones Canyon

populations of Carrizo peppergrass are in USBLM’s

Carrizo Plain Area of Critical Environmental Concern,

which is managed primarily for the benefitof rare species

(Lewis in litt. 1994, USBLM 1996a,b).

Conservation Strategy —To ensure the long-term

76
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 31. Distribution of Jared’ s peppergrass (Lepidium jaredii).

77
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

conservation of Jared’s peppergrass, the strategy is to

protect at least five distinct populations of each

subspecies, representing the full geographic range of the

species. However, the more populations, the greater the

likelihood of long-term survival for the species.

Therefore, as many populations as possible should be

protected, even though more than five currently are

known from public lands. Protected areas should be

natural land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres)

and should contain a minimum of 1,000 individuals to

reduce the likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or

random processes. Protection from development and

incompatible uses is equally important on both public

and private lands. The most important task to ensure the

survival of Jared’s peppergrass is to exclude severe

surface-disturbing activittes such as mining and land

conversion within occupied areas. Light grazing may

continue where impacts have not been observed.

However, population monitoring is necessary; if

declining population trends are noted, management

changes may’ be necessary. Field inventories for both

subspecies also should be continued, particularly in wet

years, to verify’ the status of historical populations and

arrange for their protection. When surveys have been

completed or at a maximum within 10 years of recovery

plan approval, the status ofJared’speppergrass should be

reevaluated.

11. Merced Monardella

(Monardello leucocephala)

Taxonomy.—Merced monardella is known today by

the scientific name published by Gray (1867),

Monarde//a /eucocephia/a. The type specimen was

collected in Merced County on the plains near the

Merced River (Epling 1925). Greene transferred Merced

inonardella to the genus Madronella in 1906, but Epling

(1925) returned thespeciesto Monarde/la. The scientific

name has not been altered since (Jokerst 1993. Stebbins

1993). Merced inonardella is a member of the mint

family (Lainiaceae).

Description —Merced monardella (Figure 32) has

square stems 15 to 20 centimeters (6 to 8 inches) tall.

Both the stems and the opposite, lance-shaped leaves are

gray-hairy and have a characteristic mint scent.

Although the white flowers are tiny, the flower heads are

showy’ because each one is surrounded by a circle of

white bracts. Merced monardella can be distinguished

from the related species Sierra monardella (M.

candicans) and coyote-mint (M. vil/osa) by the color of

the stems, bracts, and flowers; microscopicdifferencesin

the flowers; and habitat (Munz and Keck 1959, Jokerst

1993).

Historical and Current Distribution —Historically,

Merced monardella was collected from five individual

sites that were clustered in two areas: (I) near the

Merced River south of Delhi in Merced County

(including the ty’pe locality); and (2) along the Tuoluinne

River near La Grange and Waterford in Stanislaus

County (Figure 33). The most recent record of the

species w’as from 1941 (Skinner and Paylik 1994, CDFG

1995, Stebbins 1993). Merced monardella was not found

at historical sites during surveys from 1990 through

1992, but may persist on private lands where access was

denied (Stebbins 1993).

Life History and Habitat—This annual plant may

grow only in years of above-average precipitation; it

flowers in May, June, and July after the soil dries.

Merced monardella is restricted to extremely sandy,

subalkaline soils inlow-lying areas borderingrivers. The

native vegetation in these areas is grassland, but several

collections were made in dry-farmed fields. The only

associated species mentioned by collectors was naked

buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum). Elevations at the

historical sites range from approximately 15 to 80 meters

(50 to 260 feet) (Hoover 1937, CDFG 1995, California

Figure 32. Illustration of Merced monardella (from Abrams,

Vol. 3, 1951, with permission).

78
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 33. Distribution of Mereed monardella (Monarde//a leucocephaha).

79
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Native Plant Society 1988b, Stebbins 1993).

Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival.—

Much of the suitable habitat for Mercedmonardella was

converted toagriculture more than 50 years ago (Hoover

1937). The intensive, irrigated agriculture practiced

today is incompatible with survivalof this species, unlike

the dry-land grain farming common in the past. Other

activities that may’ have contributed to its decline include

urban development and sand and gold extraction. The

remaining suitable habitatsthat may’support undiscovered

populations are primarily’ in private ownership and thus

are subject to these same threats (CDFG 1995, California

Native Plant Society’ 1988b, Stebbins 1993).

Conservation Efforts .—USFWS sponsored a status

survey for Merced monardella, w’hich included field

survey’s from 1990 through 1992. California Native

Plant Society has stressed the importance of conducting

survey’s l’or Merced monardella, although this species has

been listed as “presumed extinct” pending rediscovery

(Skinner and Pavlik 1994, Skinner et al. 1995).

Conservation Strategy —To ensure long-term

conservation of Merced monardella. the strategy is to

protect at least five distinct populations. Protectedareas

should be natural land in blocks of at least 65 hectares

(160 acres) and should contain a minimum of 1,000

individuals to reduce the likelihood of extinction from

intrinsic or random processes. Survey’s for Merced

monardella must be continued in both historical sites and

suitable habitats, especially’ in years of above-average

precipitation. The cooperation of private landownersis a

prerequisite for surveys at some sites, and therefore an

incentive program should be devised. Ifany populations

are found, site-specific threats must be determined and

negated. Monitoring should be initiated in all

populations if the species is rediscovered. The status of

Merced monardellashould be reevaluated within 5 years

of recovery plan approval or when surveys have been

completed. whichever is less.

12. Merced Phacelia

(Phacelia ciliata var. opaca)

Taxonomy—Howell (1936) published the name

Phace/ia ciliata var. opaca for Merced phacelia. He

cited the type locality as “clay hills 5 miles northeast of

Merced, Merced Co.” (Howell 1936, p. 221). Authors of

subsequent floras (Abrams 1951, Munz and Keck 1959.

Wilken et al. 1993) considered Merced phacelia to be

merely a minor variant of the Chinese-lantern phacelia

(P. ciliata) that did not warrant formal taxonoinic

recognition. Nonetheless, California Native Plant

Society (Skinner and Paylik 1994) continues to treat

Merced phacelia as a distinct variety’. This taxon is a

member of the waterleaf family (Hydrophyllaceae).

Description.—Merced phacelia (Figure 34) reaches

a maximum height of 55 centimeters (22 inches). The

leaves vary in both size and shape, ranging from 3 to 15

centimeters (1 to 6 inches) long and from deeply-lobed to

divided. Each branch tip is coiled like a scorpion’s tail

and holds many flowers. The individual flowers are

approximately 1 centimeter (0.5 inch) long, bell-shaped,

and blue with pale centers. The ca/vx, which is the group

of leaf-like structures below the petals. has five cihiate

(with stiff hairs along the margin) lobes (free tips of parts

that are fused at the base). The calyx is inconspicuous

while the l’lowers are open; as the fruitsmature, the calyx

lobes elongate and become opaque (hence variety

opaca). Conversely, in Chinese-lantern phacelia the

calyx lobes grow broader and remain translucent at

maturity (Wilken et al. 1993, Constance 1979).

Historical and Current Distribution —Merced

phacelia was collected in east-central Merced County

near the towns of Le Grand, Merced, Planada. and Tuttle

Figure 34. Illustration of Merced phacelia (from Abrams, Vol.

3. 1951, with permission).

80
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 35. Distribution of Merced phacelia (Pliacelia cihiata var. opaca,.

81
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

between 1929 and 1939 (Figure 35). A very small

population, consisting of fewer than 10 individuals, was

observed in 1977 approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles)

northeast of Merced. The other historical locations have

not been visited for over 50 years due to a lack of access

(Howell 1936. Skinner and Paylik 1994, CDFG 1995,

Constance 1979).

Life History and Habitat,—This annual plant

flowers between February and May. Merced phacelia is

restricted to heavy’ clay soils on the Valley floor and

adjacent low’ hills at elevations below 100 meters (328

feet). Other aspects ofits life history andhabitat have not

been reported (Howell 1936, Hoover 1937. Skinner and

Pavlik 1994, Constance 1979).

Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival.—

Merced phacelia is rare by virtue of its restricted range.

Most historic populations are inaccessible, therefore, no

estimate can be given of the species relative abundance.

The historical sites do not face any known threats at this

time, though development of the planned University of

California campus east of Merced and the consequent

induced grow’th should be considered a significant threat.

Conservation Efforts —No conservation measures

have been instituted for Merced phacelia.

Conservation Strategy —Cooperation of property

ow’ners will be keyto protecting this taxon. To ensure the

long-term conservation of Merced phacelia, the strategy

is to protect at least five distinct populations. Protected

areas should be natural land in blocks of at least 65

hectares (160 acres) and should contain a minimum of

1 .000 individuals to reduce the likelihood of extinction

from intrinsic or random processes. The first step will be

for qualified botanists to obtain permission to survey’

historical locations to determine the current status of

populations. Prospects for the persistence of Merced

phacelia will be favorable if the majority’ of the

populations remain extant and are free from threats. The

second step, should any occupied habitats be found to

face major threats, will be to pursue conservation

easements, and identify’ and address site-specific

management needs. Research into the taxonomy’ and

genetics ofthe Phace/ia cihiata complex could determine

whether this taxon deserves recognition (Skinner et al.

1995). but it is a low-priority task. When surveys have

been completed, or at a maximum within 10 years of

recovery’ plan approval, the status of Merced phacelia

should be reevaluated.

13. Oil Neststraw

(Stylocline citroleum)

Taxonomy—Oil neslstraw was recently recognized

as a distinct species, Stylocliume citro/euni (Morefield

1992), eventhough herbarium specimens were collected

as early as 1883. Munz collected the type specimen in

1935 from flats near Taft, in Kern County (Morefield

1992). Oil neststraw is believed to have originated as a

hybrid of two common species, everlasting neststraw

(Sty/ocline gnapha/oides) and California filago (Fi/ago

ca/ijbrnica). However, oil neststraw satisfies the

definition of a species because it is capable of

reproducing itselfwithout further crossing of the parental

species (Morefield 1992). Oil neststraw is a member of

the aster family.

Description—Oil neststraw is inconspicuous because

it grows low to the ground and does not have showy

flowers. It has trailing, woolly stems less than 13

centimeters (5 inches) long and small, woolly leaves.

The round flower heads are 5 millimeters (0.2 inch) or

less in diameter. Each flower head contains many

individual florets, which consist of reproductive parts

and papery scales covered with woolly hairs. The fruits

are tiny, brown achenes. Oil neststraw is difficult to

distinguish from closely related species because the

identifying characters are microscopic (Morefield 1992,

1993).

Historical Distribution—Five populations of oil

neststraw were known historically, based on collections

made from 1883 to 1935 (Figure 36). Four of the

occurrences were in Kern County, in the vicinities of

Bakersfield, McKittriek, and Taft (two sites, inciuding

the type locality). The fifth collection was made in San

Diego County.

Current Distribution—Oil neststraw is known

currently from Elk Hills and the nearby Coles Levee

Ecosystem Preserve in western Kern County (Figure 36)

(Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc. 1997, 1998, QUAD

1997, Jay Hinshaw pers. comm.). The status of other

westem Kern County occurrences is unknown; although

natural land remains at most sites, the location

descriptions are vague. The east Bakersfield and San

Diego occurrences are less likely to remain due to rapid

development in those areas.

Life History andHabitat.—Oil neststraw, an annual,

flowers in April and reproduces strictly by self82
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 36. Distribution of oil nestslraw (Srt’Ioc/ioe ci(ro/cu,o)

83
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

pollination. The extant occurrences and several of the

historical localities are in petroleum-producing areas,

giving rise to both the common and scientific names.

This speciesgrows on flats and on slopes. One of the Elk

Hills populations of oil neststraw’ occurs on the bank of a

wash in a very sparsely vegetated area that has welldeveloped cryptogamic crust. The few’ plant species

associated w’ith oil neststraw at that site are natives such

as everlastine neststraw’. California filaw, Hoover’s

woolly-star, and many-flowered eriastrum. Plantspecies

that occur w’ith oil neststraw’ in the other Elk Hills sites

are red brome. common salibush. and white burrobush

(Hvome,ioc/ea so/so/a). All the extant occurrences are in

the Valley’ Saltbush Scrub plant community’ in

undexeloped areas. Oil neststraw’ has been found at

elevations of 60 to 320 meters (200 to 1.050 feet) on both

sandy and clay’ soils (Morefield 1992, EG&G Energy’

Measurements unpublished data. D. Taylor pers.

comm.).

Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival.—

Urban development has almost certainly eliminated the

historical populations of oil neststraw’ in the vicinities of

San Dieco and Bakersfield. and possibly’ the one near

Taft (Skinner and Paylik 1994). Petroleum production is

the primary use in the other areas where oil neststraw’

occurred historically’, but actual population losses to

oilfield activities havenot been documented. The know’n

populations on Elk Hills are not in an area w’ith high

potential for oil extraction (B.L. Cypher pers. comm.).

However, any surface-disturbing activities would be

detrimental to oil neststraw (J. Morefield pers. comm.).

Conservation Efforts —Most conservation efforts to

date for oil neststraw have been accomplished by U.S.

Department of Energy’ and their contractors in the

Endangered Species and Cultural Resources Program at

Elk Hills. Floristic survey’s funded by’ the U.S.

Department of Energy (1995—1997) and Occidental

Petroleum (1998) revealed the presence of numerous

new occurrences of oil neststraw’ scattered throughout

ElkHills (Enterprise Advisory Services. Inc. 1997, 1998,

J. Hinshaw’ pers. comm.). Oil neststraw also was

discovered at the adjacent Coles Levee Ecosystem

Preserve during surveys funded by’ ARCO Western

Energy (QUAD 1997). Morefield verified the identity’ of

Elk Hills specimens collected through 1997. J. Hinshaw’

has developed a field key to oil neststraw and related

species to facilitate identification and to permit mapping

of occurrences, and he has conducted workshops to train

local biologists in recognizing the species (J. Hinshaw

pers. comm.). U.S. Department of Energy entered into a

voluntary agreement with USEWS to protect four ofthe

known populations on Elk Hills while the area was in

government ownership. One or more of these

occurrences are likely tobe included in the conservation

area that Occidental Petroleum will set aside in 1998

(B.L. Cypher pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy.-—The strategy for oil

neststraw’ is similar to thatfor otherspeciesofconcern: to

protect at least five distinct populations representing the

full geographic range of the species in the San Joaquin

Valley’. The know’n occurrences at Elk Hills represent a

single metapopulation and collectively’ constitute one of

the five required populations. Protected areas should be

natural land in blocks of at least 65 hectares (160 acres)

and should contain a minimum of 1.000 individuals to

reduce the likelihood of extinction from intrinsic or

random processes.

Several tasks are necessary’ to ensure long-term

conservation of oil neststraw. First, the local populations

at Elk Hills must be protected from disturbance

(deliberate or accidental) for the foreseeable future.

Occidental Petroleum could accomplish this goal by’

including representative populations of oil neststraw in

theirElk Hills conservation area. Next,intensive surveys

should be undertaken in suitable habitats throughout the

southern San Joaquin Valley. The species has been

overlooked in the past because it is so small, because it

grows intermixed w’ith superfickilly’ similar plants, and

because it w’as not recognized as a species until 1992.

However, the availability of keys based on both field and

microscopic characters and Morefield’s w’illingness to

identify’ questionable specimens should overcome most

limitations to species identification. The nature and

magnitude of threats should be determined for all

populations that are discovered, and steps should be

taken to prevent habitat loss or degradation. In addition,

site factorsshould be characterized to provide clues to the

species’ habitatrequirements. Representative populations

should be monitored annually to evaluate population

trends. The status of oil neststraw should be reevaluated

within 5 years of recovery’ plan approval.

84
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

H. GIANT KANGAROO RAT

(DIPODOMYS JNGENS)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy —Dipodomys ingens was described as

Perodipus ingens by Merriam (1904a), who listed the

type locality as Painted Rock, 20 miles SE Simmler,

Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obispo County, California. The

type locality was amended to 41 kilometers(25 miles) SE

of Simmler by Williams and Kilburn (1991). The genus

namePerodipus was used for several years to include all

the kangaroo rats with five toes on the hind feet. Grinnell

(1921) relegatedPerodipus to a synonymof Dipodomvs.

Thistaxonomy has been sustained in the latesttaxonomic

review of the family Heteromyidae (Williams et al.

1993a).

Description —The giant kangaroo rat is adapted for

bipedal locomotion (two-footed hopping) (Eisenberg

1963). The hind limbs are large compared to the size of

the forelimbs; the neck is short;and the head is large and

flattened. The tail is longer than the combined head and

body length and has a dorsal crest of long hairs towards

the end ofthe tail, terminating in a large tuft (Figure 37).

Large, fur-linedcheek pouches open on each side of the

mouth. The pouches extend as deep invaginated pockets

of skin folded inward along the sides of the head

(Grinnell 1922).

identification —Giant kangaroo rats are distinguished

from the coexistingspecies, San Joaquin kangaroo rat (D.

nitratoides) and Heermann’ s kangaroo rat(D. heermanni),

by sizeand number oftoes on the hind foot. The hind feet

Figure 37. Illustration of the giant kangaroo rat (drawing by

Jodi Sears. based on photo © by’ D.F. Williams).

of adult giant kangaroo rats each have five toes and are

longer than 47 millimeters 1 .85 inches) (Best 1993).The

giant kangaroo rat is the largest of more than 20 species

in the genus (Grinnell 1922, Hall 1981, Best 1993).

Grinnell (1932a) reported a mean mass of 157.0 grams

(5.54 ounces) for 15 adult males and 151.4 grams (5.34

ounces) for 7 adult females. AdultHeermann’skangaroo

rats average 65 to 80 grams (2.29 to 2.82 ounces), with

maximum weights not exceeding about 90 grams (3.17

ounces) (Williams 1992); the hindfoot also has five toes

but individuals’ feet usually measure less than 45

millimeters (1,77 inches) (Best 1993). Average weight

of San Joaquin kangaroo rats is less than 45 grams (1.59

ounces), and they have four toes on each hind foot.

Length of the hind foot does not exceed 39 millimeters

(1.54 inches) (Grinnell 1922).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution —Up until the 1 950s

colonies of giant kangaroo rats were spread over

hundreds of thousands of acres of continuous habitat in

the western San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo Plain, and

Cuyama Valley (Grinnell I 932a, Shaw 1934. Hawbecker

1944, 1951). The historical distribution of giant

kangaroo rats encompassed a narrow band of gently

sloping ground along the western edgeofthe San Joaquin

Valley, California, from the base of the Tehachapi

Mountainsin the south, to a point about 16 kilometers(10

miles) south of Los Banos, Merced County in the north;

the Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains and San Juan Creek

watershed west of the Temblor Mountains, which form

the western boundary of the southern San Joaquin

Valley; the upper Cuyama Valley next to and nearly

contiguouswith the Carrizo Plain; and scattered colonies

on steeperslopes andridge tops in the Ciervo, Kettleman,

Panoche, and Tumey Hills, and in the Panoche Valley

(Figure 38). Withinthis circumscribed geographic range

were about 701,916 to 755,844 hectares (1,734,465 to

1,867,723 acres), which included different estimates of

the amount of nonhabitat depending on different

assumptions. The most liberal estimate of historical

habitat was about 631,724 hectares (1,561,017 acres;

Williams 1992).

Current Distribution—The species population is

currently fragmented into six major geographic units: A)

the Panoche Region in western Fresno and Eastern San

Benito Counties; B) KettlemanHillsin KingsCounty; C)

San Juan Creek Valley in San Luis Obispo County D)

western KernCounty in the area of the Lokern, Elk Hills,

85
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 38. Distributional records of the giant kangaroo rat (Di,oodo,nvs ingens).

86
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

and other uplands around McKittrick, Taft, and

Maricopa; E) Carrizo Plain Natural Area in eastern San

Luis Obispo County; and F) Cuyama Valley in Santa

Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties (Figure 39;

Williams 1980, 1992, O’Farrell et al. 1987a, Williams et

al. 1995). These major units are fragmented into more

than 100 smaller populations, many of which are isolated

by’ several miles of barriers such as steep terrain with

plant communities unsuitable as habitat, or agricultural,

industrial, or urban land without habitat for this species.

Extant habitat was last estimated to be 11,145 hectares

(27,540 acres), about 1.8 percent of historical habitat

(Williams 1992).

Within the area of currently occupied habitat,

populations of giant kangaroo rats have expanded and

declined with changing weather patterns since 1979. At

their peak in 1992 to 1993, thereprobably were about 6 to

10 timesmore individualsthan attheir low pointin spring

of 1991, w’hen a majority ofthe 11,145 hectares (27,540

acres)probably was uninhabited and most of the rest w’as

inhabited by less than 10 percent of peak numbers

(Williams 1992, Williams et al. 1993b, Williams et al.

1995, Allred etal. inpress, Williams and Nelson inpress,

D.F. Williams unpubl. data).

3. Life History and Habitat

Food and Foraging—Giant kangaroo rats are

primarily seed eaters, but also eat green plants and

insects. They cutthe ripening heads of grasses and forbs

and cure them in small surface pits located on the area

over their burrow system (Shaw 1934, Williams et al.

1993b). They also gather individual seeds scattered over

the ground’s surface and mixed inthe upper layerof soil.

Surface pits are uniform indiameterand depth (about 2.5

centimeters, 1 inch), placed vertically in firm soil, and

filled with seed pods. After placing seeds and seedheads

in pits, the animal covers them with a layerof loose, dry

dirt. Pits are filled with the contents of the cheek pouches

after a single trip to harvest seeds. Before being moved

underground, the seeds, including filaree and peppergrass

(Lepidiuni nitidunm), are sun-dried which prevents

molding (Shaw 1934).

Figure 39. Locations of extant populations of giant kangaroo rats (Dipodomvs ingens).

87
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Individuals in many populations of D. ingens also

make large stacks of seed heads on the surfaces of their

burrow systems (Hawbecker 1944, Williams et al.

1993b). The material is cured, then stored underground.

Amounts cached in surface stacks may not correspond

with annual herbaceous productivity. No stacks were

found in 1990, a year with no seed production, and 1991,

a year with the secondhighest plant productivitybetween

1987 and 1994 (Williams and Nelson in press).

Grinnell (1932a, p. 313) examined three nursing

females who had their cheek pouches “literally crammed

w’ith green stuff’~ and speculated that green foliagemight

be an important part of the diet during lactation. Other

individuals, including a young female and adult males,

w’ere captured with foliage and fruits of peppergrass and

foliage of filaree in their cheek pouches (Grinnell

1932a). In captivity’, giant kangaroo rats have been

maintained for periods from 2 weekstomore than 2 years

on adiet of air-dried seeds, consisting primarily of millet,

oat. and sunflower, occasionally supplemented with

green plants. Of the green plants, captives preferred

forbs to annual grasses. and usually ignored the blades of

perennial grasses (Williams and Kilburn 1991). Shaw

(1934) found a live insect of the bee and wasp family in

the cheek pouch of a giant kangaroo rat. Eisenberg

(1963) kept a giant kangaroo ratin captivity on a diet that

included seeds, lettuce, and mealworm (darkling beetle)

larvae (Tenebrio sp.).

Giant kangaroo rats forage on the surface from

around sunset to near sunrise, though most activity takes

place in the first 2 hours after dark. Foraging activity is

greatest in the spring as seeds of annual plants ripen.

Typically, plants such as peppergrass ripen first, and

early caches, mostly in pits instead of stacks, consist of

pieces of the seed-bearing stalks of this and other earlyripening species. The ability to transport large quantities

ofseeds and otherfood in cheek pouches and their highly

developed caching behaviors, coupled with relatively

high longevity of adults with established burrow

systems, probably allow giant kangaroo rats to endure

severe drought for 1 or 2 years without great risk of

population extinction (Williams et al. 1993b, D.F.

Williams unpubl. data).

Reproduction andDemography —Results of studies

conducted between 1987 and 1995 in colonies on the

Elkhorn and Carrizo Plain indicated that giant kangaroo

rats have an adaptable reproductive pattern that is

affected by’ both population density and availability of

food. During times of relatively high density, females

have a short, w’inter reproductive season with only one

litter produced and there is no breeding by young-of-theyear. This was true both in years of high plant

productivity anddrought. In contrast, populations at low

densities continue to breed into summer during drought.

In 1990, ayear of severe drought and no seedproduction,

most females appeared not to reproduce; the few that

bred apparently failed to raise young. In most years,

females were reproductive between December and

March or April, but in colonies with low densities,

reproduction extended into August or September

(Williams et al. 1993b, Williams and Nelson in press,

Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl. data).

Mating strategies are being studied on the Carrizo Plain

by Dr. Jan Randall. Initial results indicate that mating

strategies are flexible and may be responding to the age

of males, proximity of females, and changes in sex ratios

(Hekkala 1995).

Giant kangaroo rats can breed the year of their birth

when environmental and social conditions permit

(sufficient food and space). At the Soda Lake colony,

juvenile females had their first litters at an estimated

mean age of 5 months. Some females had two to three

litters per year. This relatively high rate of reproduction

probably was promoted by high plant productivity and

low population density (Williams and Nelson in press).

Little information is available on age-specific litter

size. The mean of known embryo counts and littersizes is

3.75, probably a value higher than the number born

(Williams and Kilburn 1991, D.F. Williams unpubl.

data). Dr. Jan Randall’s research showed that gestation

was 30 to 35 days (Hekkala 1995). During a post-drought

January through May breeding season, 44 percent of the

litters contained tw’o young. One female had a litter of

three, the remaining 39 percent had a litter of one.

The major time for dispersal of giant kangaroo rats

seems to be following maturation of young, about II to

12 weeks after birth. However in y’ears of high density,

when most or all burrow systems are occupied, most

young appear to remain in their natal burrows until

opportunity to disperse arises or they finally are driven

off by the mother or one of the siblings. Under these

circumstances, death or dispersal of the resident does not

leave a burrow’ system vacant for long. Williams and

Nelson (in press) found on a study site at Soda Lake, San

Luis Obispo County that more females than tnales

dispersed although males more often moved longer

88
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

distances. Females had a nearly 60 percent greater

survival rate than males. Dispersal of adults with

established burrow systems was occasionally detected;

one adult male moved more than 120 meters (131.2

yards) from his established home to take up a new

residence in a new burrow system he constructed

(Williams et al. 1993b, Williams and Nelson in press,

Williams and Tordoff 1988).

Estimated home range size ranges from about 60 to

350 square meters (71.8 to418.6 square yards). There is

no significant difference in size of home range between

sexes. The core area of the territory’, located over the

burrow system (precinct) is the most intensely used

location in the home range (Braun 1985). Grinnell

(1932a) and Shaw (1934) suggested that territories were

occupied by a singleanimal. More recentstudiesindicate

that multiple individuals may live in precincts. These

appeared to be family groups of females and offspring of

different ages (Randall 1997).

Estimates of density, employing both trapping and

counts of precincts ranged from I to 110 animals per

hectare (1 to44 animals per acre) (Grinnell 1 932a,Braun

1985. Williams 1992). Changes in density generally

coincide with amount of rainfall and herbaceous plant

productivity, though numbers in populations studied in

1989 remained high despite drought and low plant

productivity (Figure 40). Large seed caches made in

spring 1988 probably carried individuals through 1989

and 1990 during drought (Williams et al. 1993b,

Williams and Nelson in press, D.F. Williams unpubl.

data). The population on the Elkhorn Plain typically’ was

100

140

120

100

I,

L2 so

n

• 60

z

40

20

200K

2

z

Figure 40. Numbers of giant kangaroo rams captured during

August censuses, ElkhornPlain. Census periods were 6 daysin

duration. The Y2 axis shows mean net plant producmivitx’ per

square meter (Williams et at. 1993b, Endangered Species

Recovery’ Program unpubl. data).

at much higher density than other populations recently

studied, and fluctuated less than populations elsewhere,

suggesting that the habitat on this part of the Elkhorn

Plain is some of the best remaining.

Population Genetics—Partial results of on-going

studies of population genetics of giant kangaroo rats

provide guidance for designing a recovery strategy. The

northern populations in Fresno and San Benito Counties

are highly differentiated genetically from the southern

populations on the CarrizoPlain Natural Area.

The genetic structure of the CarrizoPlain population

differs from northernpopulations inthat it has effectively

acted as one large population, though the genetic data

strongly suggestthat the inhabited areas there have gone

through episodes ofsubstantialexpansion and contraction

in size (Mosquin et al. in press). This is consistent with

recent observations from population censuses (Williams

1992, Williams et al. 1993b, Williams and Nelson in

press, Altred et al. in press, D.F. Williams unpubt. data).

In the north, the population along the edge of the

Valley’ at the eastern base of Monoctine Ridge (San

Joaquin Valley’ population) is substantially differentiated

genetically from the other large population in the

southeastern end of Panoche Valley (Figure 41). These

two populations show little evidence of gene flow

between them, and the San Joaquin Valley population is

closer genetically to the Carrizo Plain population than

any other of the semi-isolated northern populations.

Clearly, this represents the remnant of the historical

population that wasdistributed along the western edge of

the Valley’ between Merced and Kern Counties. The two

large, northern populations (San Joaquin Valley and

Panoche Valley) appear to have been the sources of the

small, semi-isolated populations on ridge-tops in the

Ciervo and Tumey Hills. These latter populations are

differentiated from both of the large populations. and

from each other. They appear to have played the major

role in gene flow’ between thc Panoche Valley’ (Figure 41,

see area B) and San Joaquin Valley populations.

Interpoputation movements appear to have been

achieved over relatively’ tong periods in a stepping-stone

manner bctw cen small populations on the>e ridge tops

Though small, they contain a significant proportion of

the rare and unique genes of the northern population

(Mosquin et at. in press).

The genetic studies show that effective popuhation

size (number ofsuccessfully-breeding individuals) in the

1087 iBIS 1030 1090 1001 1092 1003 1094 1005

Auoust CsnsuB

89
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 41. Distribution of extant colonies of giant kangaroo rats(Dipodomysingens) in their northern

geographic range (Williams em al. 1995). A—colonies alongthe eastern base of Monocline Ridge and

the Tumey Hills; B—Panoche Valleycolonies; C—colonies along the crest oftheCiervo Mountains.

north is smaller than current population size, indicating

there has been a large increase inthe northern population

size very recently. This is consistent with the increase

measured after the end of the drought in 1991 (Williams

et al. 1995). In the south, estimated effective population

size is slightly greater than current population size,

indicating that current and historical population sizes are

approximately the same (Mosquin et al. in press).

The genetic structure of giant kangaroo rat

populations also shows that the effective a’ispersa/

distance of giant kangaroo rats (i.e., dispersal of genes) is

much greater than predicted on the basis of capturerecapture and behavioral studies. Results from trapping

of kangaroo rats show most movements are less than 100

meters (330 feet) and rarely as much as 1 kilometer (0.62

mile) (Jones 1988, 1989, Williams and Nelson in press).

The genetic data suggest that effective distances are

several times greaterthan 1 kilometer (0.62mile). There

are too few data, and analyses are too incomplete to make

a precise estimate, butthey do suggest effective dispersal

over several kilometers and through highly inhospitable

habitat in the northern population (Mosquin et al. in

press).

Behavior and Species Interactions—Little direct

evidence exists on aggression by giant kangaroo rats, but

they seem to be much more aggressive than the two cooccurring species. Wherever giant kangaroo rats were

found by Grinnell (1932a), they dominated the

community to the exclusion of other rodent species.

Hawbecker (1944, 1951) and Tappe (1941) corroborated

1ff

- 9.

90
Recovery Planfor UplandSpecies ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Grinnell’s observations, finding that giant kangaroo rats

excluded all other nocturnal rodents from areas where

they occurred.

Braun (1983), however, found that a population of

giant kangaroo rats on the CarrizoPlain, San LuisObispo

County, did not exclude other species of rodents to the

extent reported by others. Braun (1983) believed that the

lack of exclusivity’ supported the hypothesis that this

population was living in suboptimal habitat.

The giant kangaroo rat, by its relative abundance and

burrowing activity’, is a key’stone species in grassland and

shrub communities (Schiffinan 1994. Goldingay et al.

1997). When abundant locally’, giant kangaroo rats are a

significant prey’ item for many species, including San

Joaquin kit foxes (an umbrella species), American

badgers (Taxidea taxus), coyotes (Canis /atrans). longtailed weasels (Musteha frenara). burrowing owls

(Athene cunicu/aria), barn owls(Tytoa/ba). greathorned

owls (Bubo virginianmis), and short-eared owls (Asio

flanmnmeus). Snakes seen w’ithin giant kangaroo rat

colonies included the coachwhip (Masti- cophis

flage//uni), gopher snake (Pituophmis ,ne/ano- /eucus),

common king snake (Laniprope/tis getulmis), and w’estern

rattlesnake (Crota/is viridis; Williams 1992). Giant

kangaroo rat burrows also are used by blunt-nosed

leopard lizards and San Joaquin antelope squirrels. On

the Carrizo Plain Natural Area, the endangered

California jewelfiower grows primarily on the burrow’

systems of giant kangaroo rats (Cy’pher 1994a. In

spring, precincts show’ as distinct, evenly-spaced, dark

green patches because of the more lush growth of

herbaceous plants compared to intervening spaces

(Grinnell I 932a). Measurements of plant productivity

on and off precincts over an 8-year period show that

when rainfall was sufficient to promote grow’th and

fruiting of plants. the net productivity’ of herbaceous

plants was two to five times greater on precincts than

surrounding ground (Hawbecker 1944. Williams et at.

I 993b, Williams andNelson in press). Further, grow’th of

herbaceous plants on precincts contained about 4 percent

more proteimi than plants from surrounding ground.

These dil’ferermccs were attributed directly to the presence

and activities of m.he giant kangaroo rats (Williams et at.

1993b).

Activity L’ycles.—Giant kangaroo rats are active all

year and in all types of weather. They do not migrate or

become dormant or torpid. Although primarily’

nocturnal, giant kangaroo rats have been seen above

ground during daylight, including midday in the hottest

part of the year (Williams et al. 1993b, Williams and

Tordoff 1988). Giant kangaroo rats typically emerge

from their burrows soon after sunset and are active for

about 2 hours (time of first emergence to time of last

disappearance). There usually is no second period of

activity before dawn. Animals are aboveground only for

about 15 minutes per night. Activity patterns appear tobe

unaffected by distance from the home burrow, snow,

rain, wind, moonlight, or season (Braun 1985).

Habitatand CommunityAssociations —Historically,

giant kangaroo rats were believed to inhabit annual

grassland communities w’ith few or no shrubs, welldrained, sandy-loam soils located on gentle slopes (less

than II percent) in areas with about 16 centimeters (6.3

inches) or less of annual precipitation, and free from

flooding in w’inter (Grinnell l9Va Shaw 1934,

Hawbecker 1951). However, more recent studies in

remaining fragmentsof historical habitat found that giant

kangaroo rats inhabited both grassland and shrub

communities on a varietyofsoiltypes and on slopes up to

about 22 percent and 868 meters (2,850 feet) above sea

level. This broader conccpt of habitat requirements

probably reflects the fact that most remaining

populations are on poorer and marginal habitats

compared to the habitats of the large, historical

populations in areas now cultivated. Yet these studies

demonstratedthat the preferred habitat of giant kangaroo

rats still was annual grassland communities on gentle

slopes of generally less than 10 percent, with friable,

sandy- loam soils. Few’ plots in flat areas were inhabited,

probably because of periodic flooding during heavy

rainfall (Williams 1992, Williams et al. 1995, AlIred et

at. in press).

Below about 400 meters (1,300 feet) at Panoche

Creek in western Fresno County and in the Lokern,

Buena Vista Valley, and Elk Hills regions of the southern

San Joaquin Valley, giant kangaroo rats are found in

animuat grassland and saltbush scrub. Scattered common

and spiny’ saltbushes characterize areas where giant

kanearoo rats are associated with shrubs. The most

common herbaceousplants arc red brome. annual fescue,

dud red ~.tcmmcd filarec (Williams 1992).

Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub associations support

relatively’ large populations of giant kangaroo rats at

elevations above about 400 meters (1,300 feet). In the

southern portion of the extant geographic range of giant

kangaroo rats, these communities are characterized by’

91
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

open stands of the dominant shrub, California ephedra.

Annual grasses and forbs, particularly red-stemmed

filaree, peppergrass, and Arabian grass dominate areas

between shrubs. Giant kangaroo rats are most numerous

where annual grasses and forbs predominate, with

scattered ephedra bushes and fewer shrubs such as

Anderson desert thorn (Lvcium anderso,mii), eastwoodia

(Easrsm’oodia elegans), and pale-leaf goldenbush Isocoma

acradenia var. bracteosa) (Williams 1992).

Above about 600 meters (2,000 feet) in elevation,

eastwoodia, California buckwheat, winter fat

(Krasc/meninnikovia /atmam’a), and chaparral yucca (Yucca

sm’hmipp/ei) are more common on steep slopes (greater than

about 5 to 6 percent) and sandy’ ridgetops. Cheesebush

(Hvnmenoc/ea sa/soha) and matchw’eed are common only

in arroyns. Only satellite colonies of giant kangaroo rats

or scattered individuals are found in these latter

associations. In the northern portion of the geographic

range of giant kangaroo rats, Anderson desert thorn is

absent: otherwise, the woody shrubs comprising the

ephedra community are the same or closely-related

species (Williams 1992. Williams et al. 1995).

4. Reasons for Decline and Threatsto Survival

Reasonsfor Decline—Until the late 1960s andearly

1970s, little land within the historical range ofthe giant

kangaroo rat had been permanently cultivated and

irrigated or otherwise developed. Completion of the San

Luis Unitof the Central Valley Project and the California

Aqueduct of the State Water Project resulted in rapid

cultivationand irrigation of natural communities that had

provided habitat for giant kangaroo rats along the west

side of the San Joaquin Valley (Williams 1992, Williams

and Germano 1993). Between about 1970 and 1979,

almost all the natural communities on the western floor

and gentle western slopes of the Tulare Basin were

developed forirrigatedagriculture, restricting occurrence

of most species of the San Joaquin saltbush and Valley

Grassland communities, including the giant kangaroo

rat. This rapid habitat loss was the main reason for its

listing as endangered. At the timeof its listing, relatively

little of its extant habitat w’as publiclyowned or protected

from possible destruction.

Use of rodenticide-treated grain to control ground

squirrels and kangaroo rats also may have contributed to

the decline of giant kangaroo rats in some areas. From

the 1960s into the early’ 1980s rodenticides such as

Compound 1080 were often broadcast over broad areas

by airplane. Today, thereare large areasin the Sunflower

Valley (western corners of Kings and Kern Counties),

Kettleman and Tent Hilts in Kings County, and the

eastern foothills of the Panoche Hills, Fresno County,

that show characteristic features of giant kangaroo rat

precincts, but are unoccupied by kangaroo rats. Williams

(1992) believedthat populations in these areas may have

been eliminated by use of rodenticides.

Based on remarks by Grinnell (1932a) and Shaw

(1934). giant kangaroo rats can survive inareas that have

been grazed to a point where almost no plant material

remains. It is not known, however, ifthey could survive

indefinitely’ if those grazing intensities were sustained.

Destruction of natural communities to develop the

infrastructure for petroleum exploration and extraction

also has reduced habitat for giant kangaroo rats and

contributed to their decline, especially in the area around

Coalinga, Fresno County, and in the oil fields of western

Kern County. The small cities and tow’ns along the

western edge of the San Joaquin Valley between

Coalinga and Maricopa also have developed on what was

once habitat for giant kangaroo rats. These

developments, plus mineral extraction, roads and

highways, energy and communications infrastructures,

and agriculturally related industrial developments

collectively have contributed to the endangerment ofthe

giant kangaroo rat, but were not as important as loss of

habitat by cultivation.

Threats to Survival—Since listing as endangered

(USFWS 1987), conversion of habitat for giant kangaroo

rats has slowed substantially, because most tillable land

has already beencultivated and because of a lack of water

for irrigation. However, urban and industrial

developments, petroleum and mineral exploration and

extraction, new energy and water conveyance facilities,

and construction of communication and transportation

infrastructures continue to destroy habitat for giant

kangaroo rats and increase the threats to the species by

reducing and further fragmenting populations. Though

many of these recent and future losses wilt be mitigated

for by protecting habitat elsewhere, they still result in

additional loss and fragmentation of habitat. Habitat

degradation due to lack of appropriate habitat

management on conservation lands, especially tack of

grazing or fire to control density of vegetation (including

shrubs) may be a threat to giant kangaroo rats (Williams

and Germano 1993).

92
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Though 60 population monitoring plots, range-wide,

for giant kangaroo rats were established in 1995 by the

Endangered Species Recovery Program (Williams and

Kelly inlitt. 1994a), there are no funds obligated tocarry

out a monitoring program in the future. Regular

monitoring is important to any endangered species

management program. Without monitoring, the effects

of management prescriptions cannot be properly

evaluated or altered in response to changes in

populations due to both management actions and

environmental variation. Perhaps no active management

program is needed for giant kangaroo rat habitat, but that

cannot be determined until after several years of rangewide monitoring and evaluation of effects of different

land uses on populations.

The sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve #1 in Elk Hills

to private interests (Henry 1995a, 1995b) could

represent a threat to one of the three largest regional

populations of giant kangaroo rats if rates of exploration

and production are increased. The giant kangaroo rat

population in western Kern County is isolated from all

others, and though attimesis fairly widespread, it seems

especially sensitive to variable precipitation patterns,

declining to only a few small areas during drought and

after periods of heavy rainfall. Thus, its vulnerability to

extinction by random catastrophic events (e.g., drought,

flooding, fire) seems relatively high (B.L. Cypher pers.

comm., T. Kato pers. comm., L. Spiegel pers. comm.,

Endangered SpeciesRecovery Program unpubl. observ.).

Any factor that would reduce substantially the amount of

protected habitat in thatregion would pose amajorthreat

to the population. The greatest value of the Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California to giant kangaroo rats

is the large extent of habitat of varying quality and its

connectivity to adjacent habitat in the Lokern area. The

pubiicly’-owned portion of the Naval Petroleum

Reserves in California ensures that giant kangaroo rat

habitat will be protected during and after extraction of

petroleum deposits.

Land in western Fresno County at the edge of

irrigated ground provides an importantarea forrecovery

of the northern population of giant kangaroo rats

(Williams em al. 1995) (Figure 39). The extant population

on natural lands along the border of cultivated ground is

split into two segments (Figure 41. see area A). One

occupies only a narrow’ band about 6.44 kilometers (4

mites) long and from about 200 meters (660 feet) to 320

meters (1,050 feet) w’ide. The other, separated by only’ a

few hundred meters, occupies about 250 hectares (617

acres)in an oval pattern about 2,400 by 1,200 meters (1.5

by 0.75 miles; Williams et al. 1995). Together, they

support about 27 percent of the entire northern

population in times of high population numbers, and

probably more than 50 percent in times of lowest

populationnumbers. This populationrepresents the “upslope” remnant of a formerly huge colony that stretched

among the gentle slopes ofthe western edge of the Valley

from around the alluvial fan of Laguna Seca Creek in

Merced County, southward to Coalinga, a distance of

about 97 kilometers (60 miles). During population

irruptions it also is the “connector” population to small,

scattered populations in the Ciervo and Tumey Hills, and

along Panoche andSilver Creeks (Figure 41, see area C).

The narrow band of habitat forthis population is bisected

lengthwise and degraded inquality by roads, power lines,

and pipelines. Moderate levels of livestock grazing on

this property probably have maintained nearly optimum

conditions for giant kangaroo rats in what is only

mediocre-quality habitat in comparison to historical

habitat, but among the better-quality habitat remaining.

Any additional loss or degradation of habitat from

construction of permanent roads and energy conveyance

facilities or cultivation could pose a substantial threat to

the entire northern population.

Habitat for three of the six regional populations of

giant kangaroo rats include no public or conservation

lands (Figure 39). These are the populations in Cuyama

Valley (about 194 hectares, 480 acres), Kettleman Hills

(about I hectare, 2.47 acres), and San Juan Creek Valley

(estimate unavailable because of lack of access to private

land; Williams 1992). All are small and vulnerable to

extinction from demographic and random catastrophic

events meg.. drought, flooding, fire), and inappropriate

land uses that would degrade or destroy habitat.

5. Conservation Efforts

Designation as State (1980; Table I) and federally

(USFWS 1987) endangered has resulted in substantial

habitat protection for giant kangaroo rats. Most

significant has been protection on the U.S. Department of

Energy Naxal Petroleum Reserves in California in

western Kern County (O’Farrell and Kato 1987.

O’Farrell em at. 1987a, 1987b). and on USBLMadministered Federal properties (USBLM 1987, 1993).

Acquisition of private property in the jointly managed

Carrizo Plain Natural Area by’ the State of California.

93
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

U.S. Government, and The Nature Conservancy (Table

2) has significantly reduced threats to the species from

drytand cultivation and illegal use ofrodenticides. It also

has allowed for control of livestock grazing on this land

by the change inownership from private topublic. Other

significant acquisitions that have benefited conservation

of giant kangaroo rats have been the land exchanges and

purchases within western Fresno and eastern San Benito

Counties by’ the USBLM, and compensation, donation,

and acquisition of parcels in the Lokern area of western

Kern County by the California Energy Commission,

CDFG, and The Nature Conservancy’ (Table 2).

Substantial progress in understanding the current

distribution, habitat associations, demography, and

population genetics of giant kangaroo rats has been

achieved by a series of research projects, mainly

supported by USFWS section-6 funds and money from

the Endangered Species Tax Checkoff Program and

Environmental License Plate Program administered by

the CDEG’s Bird and Mammal Conservation Program

(R. Schtorff pers. comm.). Additional funding and

logistic support for research on giant kangaroo rats has

been provided by’ the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

USBLM, USEWS. and The Nature Conservancy’. This

research has been summarized in a series of reports and

publications (Williams 1980, Williams 1992, Williams

et al. 1993b, 1995, AlIred et al. in press, Mosquin et at. in

press, Williams and Nelson in press, Williams and

Tordoff 1988). Additionally’, substantial information on

distribution, habitat, and population fluctuation has been

provided by the U.S. Department of Energy through

EG&G Energy Measurements for research conducted at

the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California in western

Kern County (O’Farrell and Kato 1987, O’Farrell et at.

1987b, EG&G Energy Measurements 1995a,b), and for

the southern San Joaquin Valley (Anderson et al. 1991)

and the CarrizoPlainNatural Area (Kakiba-Russell et at.

1991) by the California Energy Commission.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency County

bulletins governing use of rodenticides have greatly

reduced the risk ofsignificant mortality togiant kangaroo

rat populations by State and county rodent-control

activities. The California Environmental Protection

Agency’,California Department ofFood and Agriculture,

county agricultural departments, CDEG, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency collaborated with the

Service inthe development of County Bulletins that both

are efficacious and acceptable to land owners (RA.

Marovich pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

Recovery of giant kangaroo rats can be achieved

when the three largest populations (western Kern

County, Carrizo Plain Natural Area, and the Panoche

Region) and the populations in the Kettleman Hills, San

Juan Creek Valley and Cuyama Valley are protected and

managed appropriately. Because the giant kangaroo rat

is a key’stone species, protection of the above areas will

benefit many other listed species that share the same

habitattypes.

Information on reproductive rates and survivorship

still is insufficient to adequately model population

viability, though measured population growth strongly

suggeststhat reproductive capacity of giant kangaroo rats

is ample to rapidly rebuild depleted population numbers

and toexpand into newly available habitat. The principal

factor in recovery of giant kangaroo rats is protection of

existing habitat and key local populations within the

three regional populations.

Current understanding of demographics, distribution

(Williams 1992, Williams et at. 1993b, 1995, AlIred et al.

in press, Williams and Nelson in press), and population

genetics (Mosquin et al. inpress) of giant kangaroo rats is

sufficientto presume that the species is notthreatened by

inbreeding, tow’ reproductive rates, etc., though some

small, isolated populations are at risk from these factors.

Population responses to environmental variation seen

during the last 16 years (Williams 1980, 1992, Williams

et al. 1 993b, Williams andNelson in press, D.F. Williams

unpubl. data) suggest that random catastrophic events

(e.g., drought, flooding, prolonged rainfall) poses the

greatest risk to long-term survival of the species.

Protection from random catastrophic events requires

both relatively large habitat areas with varying

topography and habitat conditions, and land uses that

provide optimum habitat conditions.

Recovery Actions —Though substantial habitat for

giant kangaroo rats is now in public ownership,

recoveringgiant kangaroo ratsrequires additional habitat

protection. Key to protection is an adequate

understanding of compatible land uses and management

prescriptions that provide optimum habitat conditions for

giant kangaroo rats (Williams and Germano 1993).

Several other listed species, including the California

jewelfiower, San Joaquin woolly-threads, blunt-nosed

leopard lizard, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, and San

Joaquin kit fox, seem to require the same or similar

94
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

habitat conditions, so there is unlikely to be conflicts in

habitat management prescriptions for most of the listed

species where they coexist. Land acquisition, purchase

ofconservation easements, or other incentive mechanisms

that will ensure that suitable habitat will be maintained in

perpetuity also are needed to protect key local

populations. Some existing public lands could be

inhabited or support larger populations if suitably

restored. Yet, available data are insufficient to know the

types and amountsof compatible land uses or appropriate

forms of habitat restoration and management. Recovery

actions to protect habitat for giant kangaroo rats follow’:

I. Of highest priority for habitat protection is

proper land use and management on publiclyowned and conservation lands in the Carrizo

Plain Natural Area, Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California. Lokern Natural Area, and CiervoPanoche Natural Area. Where populations of

giant kangaroo rats and associated, listed species

appear to be robust, land use should not be

changed when ownership or conservation status

of parcels changes unless there are compelling

reasons to do so. For land already in public and

conservation ownership, historical uses that

maintained habitat for giant kangaroo rats, such

as livestock grazing, should be reestablished

where appropriate.

2. Of equal priority is supporting research on

habitat management andrestoration, focusingon

effects of livestock grazing on habitat quality,

and habitat restoration on retired farmland,

especiall~’ abandoned dryland farms.

3. Second in priority for habitat protection is the

protection of additional land supporting key’

populations by acquisition of title, conservation

easemnent. or other mechanisms. Areas to be

protected are prioritized, as follows:

a. I) Land in the Lokern Area of western

Kern County. The goal is to protect 90

percent of theexistine natural land bounded

on the east by natural landsjust east of the

California Aqueduct. on the south by

Occidental of Elk Hills. on the west by State

Highway’ 33. and on the north by’ Lokern

Road:

(2) Land in the Naval PetroleumReserves

in California of w’estern Kern County. The

goal is to maintain in a natural state (i.e.,

grassland and saltbush scrub communities)

90 percent of the existing natural land in

Occidental of Elk Hills, and 80 percent of

the natural land inNaval Petroleum Reserve

in California No. 2. including all in the

Buena VistafMcKittrick Valley between

Elk Hilts Road on the southeast and State

Highway 33 on the northwest;

b. Existing natural land providing habitat for

giant kangaroo rats in western Fresno and

eastern San BenitoCounties. The goat is to

protect all existing natural land on the Silver

Creek Ranch, and existing habitat for this

species along the eastern bases of

Monocline Ridge and the Tumey Hills,

between Arroyo Ciervo on the south and

Panoche Creek on the north;

c. Acquire and restore habitat on periodically

farmed land with no or Ctass-3 irrigation

w’ater rights immediately’ east of occupied

natural habitat along the strip described in

3.b, and west of Interstate Highway 5;

d. Other natural land occupied by giant

kangaroo rats in western KernCounty. The

goal is to protect 80 percent of existing

habitam for giant kangaroo rats:

e. Land occupied by’ giant kangaroo rats in the

Cuyama Valley, Santa Barbara County;

f. Land occupied by giant kangaroo rats inthe

Kettlenman Hills, Kings County;

g. Land occupied by giant kangaroo rats in the

San Juan Creek Valley, San Luis Obispo

County.

The above areas described in items e through g arc

important to the continued existence and recovery of

other species, though it is not known if giant kangaroo rat

populations have sufficient habitat in those areas to

iuaiutain viability’ indefinitely. Theirkeystone role inthe

ecosystem. however, makes it important to try’ to

maintain these giant kangaroo rat populations.

A long-termn program to periodically monitor

populations range-wide is important to understanding

population responses to random catastrophic events(e.g..

95
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

drought, flooding, fire) and differing land uses, response

to adaptive management, andto measure progress toward

recovery. This program would measure responses of

populations, key elements of their plant community,

environmental variation, and soil erosion or formation to

variation in climate and land uses (Williams and Kelly in

litt. 1994a). Monitoring should be conducted annually

for at least a 10-year period, and periodicallythereafter at

5-year intervals.

I. Fmu~sr~o KANGAROO RAT

(DIPoDoMYs NITRATO IDES EXILIS)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy.—The Fresno kangaroo rat is one of three

subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat. The type

specimen ofthe Eresno kangaroo rat w’as collected frt)m

Fresno, California, in 1891. Merriam (1894) considered

the Fresno and the Tipton kangaroo rats to be subspecies

of Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodonmvs nmerrianmi), a

widespread species occurring in the Mojave Desert of

California and elsewherein western North America. Yet,

Grinnelt (1921) noted that the populations of ~D.

nmerrianmi” from the San Joaquin Valley were distinct

from other members of this species. Grinnell (1922)

subsequently reclassified exi/is as a subspecies of a new

species, the San Joaquin kangaroo rat (D. ,mitraroides).

Fresno and Tipton kangaroo rats are similar in overall

structure and occupy contiguous geographic ranges on

the floor of the Tulare Basin and southeastern half ofthe

San Joaquin Basin in the San Joaquin Valley. A third

subspecies, the short-nosed kangaroo rat, is found in the

foothills and basins along the western side of the San

Joaquin Valley south of Los Banos, Merced County on

the north, and western portions of the Tulare Basin, the

upper Cuyama Valley, and Carrizo Plain (Williams et al.

1 993a).

Boolootian (1954) studied structural variation in

populations of D. nitram’oides, concluding that exilis did

not merit recognition as a subspecies and regarded it tobe

asynonym of nitratoides. Hall and Kelson (1959) did not

follow Boolootian’s (1954) recommendation for reasons

they attributed to the unpublished advice of Seth Benson

(former Curator of Mammals. Univ. California,

Berkeley’,Museum ofVertebrateZoology). In amaster’s

thesis study of Fresno kangaroo rats, Hoffmann (1975)

concluded that Benson erred in his determination of the

identity ofsome San Joaquin kangaroo rats,but that exi/is

was identifiable as asubspecies. Williams (1985) agreed

with Hoffmann’s conclusions that the samples he

regarded as exi/is were distinguishable from those he had

available of nim’ratoides andbrevinasris,but noted that the

subspecies were practically indistinguishable when

samplesof populations from localities intermediate to the

geographic locations of Hoffmann’s samples of exilis

and nitratoides were included. DNA studies to resolve

this issue are currently being conducted. Investigators

using serum proteins (Johnson and Selander 197 t,Patton

et al. 1976, Best and Janecek 1992) and chromosome

structure (Stock 1971, Patton et al. 1976) found

substantial differences at the species level between D.

nitratoides and D. nmerrianmi, supporting Grinnell’s

(1922) earlier species reclassification. Subspecies

taxonomy of D. imitratoides was most recently reviewed

by Williams et al. (1993a) and all were retained.

Description—The San Joaquin kangaroo rat is

similar in general appearance to the other 20 species of

kangaroo rats, but is smaller, and differs substantially

from all otherspecies in several ways (Figure 42). Like

all kangaroo rats, the San Joaquin kangaroo rat is adapted

for survival in an arid environment. Adaptations for

bipedat locomotion include elongated hind limbs, a long,

tufted tailfor balance, a shortened neck, and, compared to

typical rodents, a large head. The skull is flattened from

top to bottom, w’ith enlarged auditon’ bullae (bony

capsules containing the middle and inner ears). Other

characteristics include large eyes placed near the top of

the head and small, rounded ears. Foretimbs are

comparatively short with stout claws that facilitate

Figure 42. Illustration of a San Joaquin kangaroo rat

(Dipodomvs nirratoides) by Jodi Sears based on photo © by

D.F. Williams.

96
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

digging burrows (Best 1991). Its total length averages

about 231 millimeters (9.09 inches) for males and 225

millimeters (8.86 inches) for females (Hoffmann 1975).

The hind foot usually is less than 36 millimeters (1.42

inches) inlength. The fur is dark yellowish-buffdorsally

and white ventratly (Knapp 1975). A white stripe

extends across the hips, continuing for the length of the

prominently tufted tail. The base of the tail is

circumscribed by’ white. Dorsal and ventral sides ofthe

tail are blackish. Dark whisker patches on each side of

the nose are connected by a black band of fur (Grinnell

1922. Culbertson 1934, Williams 1985).

Identification .—The San Joaquin kangaroo rat can

be distinguished from other kangaroo rats within its

geographic range by the presence of fourtoes on the hind

foot; the other species found in the same area have five

toes. The Fresno kangaroo ratis the smallest of the three

subspecies of D. ,mitraroides. Individuals of the three

subspecies of D. nitraroides cannot be reliably

distinguished w’ithout dissection unless the geographic

origin ofthe individual is know’n. The Fresno kangaroo

rat is distinguished from the other subspecies of the San

Joaquin kangaroo rat by its smaller average measurements

(in millimeters): length of hind foot for males 33.9

millimeters (1 .33 inches), for females, 33.4 millimeters

(1.31 inches); mean inflation of the auditory bultae for

mates, 21.4 millimeters (0.84 inch), for females, 21.2

millimeters (0.83 inch) (Hoffmann 1975) (see accounts

of Tipton and short-nosed subspecies for corresponding

average measurements).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution.—The known historical

geographic rangeof the Fresno kangaroo rat encompassed

an area of grasslandand chenopod scrub communities on

the San Joaquin Valley’ floor, from about the Merced

River. Merced County’, on the north, to the northern edge

of the marshes surrounding Tulare Lake, Kings County’,

on the south. and extending from the edge of the Valley

floor near L.ivingston. Madera, Fresno, and Selma.

westward to the wetlands of Fresno Slough and the San

Joaquin River (Figure 43). Documentation of historical

distribution is scanty’. Boolootian (1954), Culbertson

(1934. 1946i, Hoffman and Chesemore (t98~)

Hoffmann (1974, 1975), Knapp (1975). Williams

(1985), and Williams et at. (1993a collectively provided

a composite picture of the historical distribution and

documentation ofthe loss amid fragmentation of habitat.

An estimate of the historical range, within the area as

outlined above, is approximately 359,700 hectares

(888,500 acres; Williams 1987). Not alt this area would

have been habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats.

Current Distribution.—There are no known

populations within the circumscribed historical geographic

range in Merced, Madera, andFresno Counties. A single

male Fresno kangaroo rat was captured twice in autumn

1992 on the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, w’est of

Fresno. Trapping at the Reserve in 1993, 1994, and 1995

did not yield additional captures. Fresno kangaroo rats

were previously trapped on the Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve in 1981 and 1985, and on adjacent privately

owned land in 1981 (Hoffman and Chesemore 1982,

Chesemore and Rhodehamel 1992). Though the Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve is now about 382.4 hectares

(945 acres), suitable habitat there for Fresno kangaroo

rats probably totals about 162 hectares (400 acres).

Trapping at other sites in Merced, Madera, and Fresno

Counties between 1988 and 1995 failed to locate other,

extant populationswithin the area typically considered as

the geographic range of the Fresno kangaroo rat

(Chesemore and Rhodehainel 1992, Williams and

Kilburn 1992, D.F. Williams unpubl. data).

Other areas of west-central Fresno County that were

inhabited historically by Fresno kangaroo rats, and that

were uncultivated in 1981, included nine separate sites.

Two of the nine parcels now’ are partly cultivated but

715.7 hectares (1,768.4 acres) in two others were

purchased by the State (now the Kerman Ecological

Reserve). Fresno kangaroo rats have not been found at

any’ ofthese sites during surveys between 1988 and 1996

(Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl. data).

Populations of San Joaquin kangaroo rats have been

foundon about 150 hectares (371 acres) comprising five

isolate(1 parcels in Kings County’. south of the historical

rix er amid slough chammnels of the Kings Rixer and north of

the Tutare Lake bed (\Vitliams 1985, D.F. Williams

unpubl. data). Stat’fofthe Endangered Species Recovery’

Program last verified occurrence of two populations in

1994 and 1995. One site, 39 hectares (97 acres) in size.

is located on Lemnoore Naval Air Station. Whether these

populations belong to the Eresno or‘lipton subspecies is

umicertain. but historically’, the) were gcograph~aatty

connguous ~nd probably’ periodically’ connected to

populations idemitilied as Fresno kangaroo rats. Genetic

and morphometric studies (to measure the size ofthe feet

and auditory’ bullac) ofthese populations are in progress

(J.L. Patton pers. comm.).

97
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 43. Distributional records for the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodonmys nitraroides exilis).

98
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Other areas with possibly extant populations of

Fresno kangaroo rats include uncultivated grassland,

alkali sink shrubland, and seasonally’ flooded wetlands

within the historical range of the species, in Fresno,

Madera, and Merced Counties. Trapping at selected sites

in all threecounties between 1988 and 1995 has failed to

confirm presence, but lack of permission to trap on

private lands has prevented athorough search by staffof

the Endangered Species Recovery Program. Populations

of D. nitraroides occurred on theMendota WildlifeArea,

Fresno County’, both east and west of theFresno Slough,

but the population west of Fresno Slough was regarded

by Hoffmann (1975) as representing D. n. bret’inasus

rather than exi/is, though they were intermediate to the

two subspecies structurally (Bootootian 1954).

Occurrence on the Wildlife Area has not been verified,

despite trapping in 1981 and 1993.

San Joaquin kangaroo rats also have been taken

recently in seasonally-flooded iodine bush (A//enro/fea

occidentalis) shrublands in the South Grasslands Water

District, Merced County. This population is locatedin an

area historically considered part of the geographic range

of the short-nosed subspecies. Individuals exhibit

structural characteristics somewhat intermediate to

bres’inasus and exilis, but are found in thesame habitat as

exi/is and have been tentatively assigned to exilis

(Johnson and Clifton 1992, Williams et al. 1993a).

These areas are privately ow’ned lands included in the

wetland waterfowl easement program of USEWS.

3. Life History and Habitat

Food and Foraging.—Fresno kangaroo rats collect

and carry seeds in fur-lined cheek pouches. Seeds are a

staple in their diet, but they also eat some types of green,

herbaceous vegetation, and insects. A wide variety of

seeds probably are consumed, dependine on availability.

Known foods include seeds of annual and perennial

grasses, particularly’ wild oats, brome grasses (red and

ripgut (B. diundius) brome, soft chess (B. Iiordeaceus]j,

wild barley (Hordt’on sp. . mouse—tail fescue, alkali

sacat~n. and salmerass; and seeds of annual forbs such as

filarec. peppergrass. common spikeweed (Heouizonia

pungcns . and shepherd’s purse (Capse/la hursapostoris) (Culbcrmson 1946, Koos 1979). Seeds of the

woody and semniwoody shrubs, iodine bush and

seepw ced 5uccla mnoquinii), also are eaten (Koos 1979).

Seeds of woody’ shrubs. especialts saltbushes are

diligently’ sought out by Tipton and short-nosed

kangaroo rats, and also probably areimportant for Fresno

kangaroo rats (D.F. Williams unpubl. observ.). Insects

make up a small part of the diet, varying from about 2 to

10 percent frequency in fecal samples (Koos 1979).

Most kangaroo rats gather seeds w’hen they are

available and cache them for consumption later.

Typically, caches are made in small pits that hold the

contents ofthe two cheek pouches. Caches arelocatedon

thesurface ofthe soil, and are typically scattered overthe

home range ofthe individual. A few, small, seed caches

were found in excavated burrows of Fresno kangaroo rats

(Culbertson 1946). These small caches also hold only

about the contents of two cheek pouches. Culbertson

(1946) speculated that Fresno kangaroo rats didnot cache

seeds in their burrow’s to the same extent as other

kangaroo rats because thesoil where they lived was damp

much of the year. Seeds would spoil rapidly under such

conditions. He also speculated that Fresno kangaroo rats

therefore were obligated to forage on the surface year

round to a greater extent than kangaroo rats that cached

more food. In fall and w’inter, after the wet season

commences, sprouts of seeds and tender new growth of

grasses and forbs may be essential items in the diet of

Fresno kangaroo rats. Green developing seed heads may

be important in the spring months. Seeds, and perhaps

insects, are the most important items in the diet in late

spring, summer, and fall.

Reproduction andDemography—Nothing is know’n

about mating behavior or the mating system of Fresno

kangaroo rats in the wild. Culbertson (1946) recorded

observations of captive Fresno kangaroo rats, including

young born in captivity, and Eisenberg (1963) and

Eisenberg and Issac (1963) described mating behavior

and care of yotmng in a captive colony of short-nosed

kangaroo rats. Mating probably’ takes place on the

surface within the territomy’ of the female. Culbertson

(1946) did not locate nests in excavated burrow’ systems

and wrote that captive, pregnant females usually did not

make nests before giving birth. He thought that this was

because they were greatly disturbed by’ capture and

confinement shortly’ before givine birth.

Sexual maturity’ was attained in as little as 82 (lay’s

after birth. Pregnant female Fresno kanearno rats have

been takcn between February and March and June and

September (Hoffmann 1974). Pregnancies between June

amid Septeniber might represent second or third litters for

adult females, summer bmeeding by’ young females born

in the spring, or both. Females are probably’ capable of

breeding tw’o or more times per year.

99
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Breeding probably is initiated inwinter after onset of

the rainy season. Nothing is known about pair bonds in

wild populations, butthere probably are no lasting malefemale pair bonds formed. Females may breedwith more

than one male during abreeding cycle, thoughtypically a

single male attains dominance for mating purposes with

one or more females within his territory, as is true of

closely related kangaroo rat species. Most females born

the previous season probably do not give birth until midFebruary or early March during years with average or

below average rainfall. In captivity’, gestation w’as 32

days and young were weaned at 21 to 24 days. Average

littersize in captive Fresno kangaroo rats was about two

(range, one to three) (Culbertson 1946, Eisenberg and

Issac 1963).

Young are born in the burrow, probably w’ithin a nest

of dried, shredded vegetation. Young remain

continuously in the burrow until they are fully furred and

able to move about easily. Cutbertson (1946) believed

that young Fresno kangaroo rats were not found outof the

burrow and foraging for themselves until about 6 weeks

old. This is consistent for estimates for Tipton and shortnosed kangaroo rats (D.F. Williams, unpubt. data).

Based on limited information, populations of Fresno

kangaroo rats probably turn over annually with most

individuals born inthe spring orsummer not surviving to

breed the following spring (Hoffmann 1974, Williams et

at. 1993b, D.F. Williams unpubl. data). In the only study

of Fresno kangaroo rats, Hoffmann (1974) found that

only 2 of 75 marked animals w’ere presenton study’ plots

through four trapping periods between 10 February and

28 December. Numbers w’ere lowest in April, prior to

dispersal ofspring-born young, and peaked in May. By

June,juvenites comprised the majority of the population.

Maximum longevity in natural populations is probably

between 3 to 5 years, based on studies of short-nosed

kangaroo rats (Williams et at. 1993b).

Reproductive potential of Fresno kangaroo rats is

relatively low compared to most rodents. Limiting

factors on populations are unknown, but availability of

suitable sites for burrows, free from winter flooding,

probably is a major factor. No specific information is

available on limitations of food. Likewise, there is no

information on the roles of disease and predation in the

population dynamics of Fresno kangaroo rats. Under

current conditions of small, isolated and potentially

inbred populations, both disease and predationare major

threats.

Home range size varies by habitat features, season,

and sex. Warner (1976) found home ranges to be small

overall at an average of about 566 square meters (677

square yards) at the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve.

Warner’s data may underestimate the typical home range

size based on reports of other kangaroo rats. For

example, inthe closely related species, D. ,nerrianmi, size

of home range averaged about 1.65 hectares (16,500

square meters, 4.06 acres) for males and 1.57 hectares

(15,780 square meters, 3.9 acres) forfemales in astudy’ in

New Mexico (Blair 1943).

In one study, estimates of population densities varied

from about 16.7 to 24.8 Fresno kangaroo rats per hectare

(6.8 to 10.1 per acre) during a period from February

through December (Hoffmann 1974). Other studies

estimated densities from 2 to 29.3 Fresno kangaroo rats

per hectare (0.8 to II .9 per acre) at different sites and in

different seasons (Warner 1976, Koos 1977, 1979).

Hoffmann (1974) believed that competition with

Heermann’s kangaroo rat, a larger, more widelydistributed species that uses a broader range of plant

comninunities, might be an important factor inelimination

of Fresno kangaroo rats from sites impacted heavily by

grazing.

Behavior and Species Interactions.—Fresno

kangaroo rats shelter in ground burrows that are dug by

them or their predecessors. Burrows usuallyare found in

relatively light, crumbly soils in raisedareas. The surface

area covered by the burrow system of individual Fresno

kangaroo rats generally varies from about 2.1 to 3.7

meters (7 to 12 feet) on a side. There are usually two to

five burrow’ entrances that slant gently underground, and

one or more holes that open from a vertical shaft.

Tunnels are about 51 millimeters (2 inches) in diameter

and extend about 30.5 to 38.1 centimeters (12 to 15

inches) below ground. There may be several

interconnecting tunnels and numerous dead-end side

branches. Nesting materialor large food caches have not

been found in the few burrows that have been excavated

(Culbertson 1946).

The burrow system is the apparent focus of

territoriality in San Joaquin kangaroo rats. Except for

young associated with females, each burrow system is

typically occupied by a single individual. Culbertson

(1946) found that captive Fresno kangaroo rats always

fought when placed together in a small cage, and

concluded that individuals were intolerant of each other.

Yet when given sufficient space, individuals in a captive

100
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

breeding colony of short-nosed kangaroo rats were more

tolerant of others than expected from the typical

behaviors of other species (Eisenberg 1963, Eisenberg

and Isaac 1963). The socialrelations of Fresno kangaroo

rats in the wild are unknown.

Activity Cycles.— Fresno kangaroo rats are nocturnal

and active yearround. They do not hibernate and cannot

recover unaided from hypothermia. Tappe (1941)

reported seeing Tipton kangaroo rats emerge from their

burrow’s and begin above-ground activities as early as

seven minutes before sunset in early spring. Other

kangaroo rats in the San Joaquin Valley are sometimes

seen above ground by day in March and April (D.F.

Williams unpubl. obsery.), but this is considered to be

rare and isolated deviations from the typical nocturnal

activity. In one study, the peak period of capture of

Fresno kangaroo rats occurredlater after dark than that of

the larger, more aggressive Heermann’s kangaroo rats

(Hoffman 1985).

Habitat and Community Associations.—Fresno

kangaroo rats occupy sands and saline sandy soils in

chenopod scrub and annual grassland communities on

the Valley floor. Recently they have been found only in

alkali sink communities between 61 to 91 meters (200 to

300 feet) in elevation. Topography is often nearly level,

consisting of bare alkaline clay-based soils subject to

seasonal inundation and are broken by slightly rising

mounds of more crumbly soils, which often accumulate

around shrubs or grasses. Associated plant species

include seepweed, iodine bush, saltbushes, peppergrass,

filaree, wild oats, and mouse-tail fescue (Culbertson

1946, Hoffmann 1974, Hoffman and Chesemore 1982).

Within the alkali-sink plant associations, Fresno

kangaroo rats probably were the most numerous small

mammal under natural conditions, basedon observations

of the D. nit,’atoides population in an alkali sink

community’ in the South Grasslands area of Merced

County (Endangered Species Recovery’ Program unpubl.

observ.). As such, they were a keystone species.

providing a major source of food for a variety of

predators, including the endangered San Joaquin kit fox.

Their burrow’s were used extensively’ by’ the endangered

blunt-nosed leopard lizard and other reptiles (Culbertson

1946, Williams 1985). Their seed-caching behaviors

may’ have been important in the dispersal and

germination of some plants. and their burrow’ing and

digging probably beneficially affected soil structure and

fertility’ (Williams 1985).

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline.—When the Fresno kangaroo

rat was discovered in 1891, cultivation of its habitat

already was threatening the species’ existence (Merriam

1894). By the early 1900s, it was believed to be extinct

(Grinnell 1920), only to be rediscovered in 1933

(Culbertson 1934). By 1974, known habitat for these

animals had been reduced and fragmented into three

major areas, encompassing approximately 5,920

hectares (14,629 acres) in Fresno County, primarily by

agricultural developments, urbanization, and

transportation infrastructures (Knapp 1975). With the

exception of the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve and

adjacent private land, Hoffman and Chesemore (1982)

reported that only 2,396 hectares (5,920 acres) of

potentially suitable habitat remained in Fresno County.

Ofthistotal, they considered 2,072 hectares (5,120acres)

to be marginal because of heavy livestock grazing.

Actual presence of Fresno kangaroo rats was not

confirmed on any of the nine isolated parcels composing

this total.

Threats to Survival.—In spring of 1986 a levee on

the south side of the San Joaquin River broke, flooding

the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve and other important

habitat. Water nearly a meter deep covered most of the

area for several days.

The Alkali Sink and Kerman Ecological Reserves

have not been actively managed since they’ were

purchased as habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats and other

species of the Alkali Sink communities. Livestock

grazing that occurred prior to acquisition by CDFG was

suspended after purchase, and some parcels now have

heavy grow’ths of herbaceous plants and deep mulch

cover. The change in land use from grazing to no grazing

may’ have been a factor in the apparent elimination and

possible extinction of the Fresno kangaroo rats at the

Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve. Yet, conclusive data on

effectsof livestock grazing on habitat quality for Fresno

kangaroo rats is lacking. It is likely’ that seasonal grazing

at levels considered good range-management have a

beneficial effect on habitat quality for D. ,mitratoides.

Loss of habitat to cultivation, year-round grazing

(w’hich typically’ requires supplemental leeding), and

conversion ofland to other uses continue to diminish the

size and quality of extant, historical habitat. Coupled

with the resulting fragmentation and isolation of habitat,

these developments increase the probability of

101
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

extinction. Flooding poses a high risk to protected

habitat in Fresno County because of its proximity to the

San Joaquin River and because this land is the same or

only slightly higher in elevation than the riverbed. If a

population of Fresno kangaroo rats still is extant in the

area, another break in the river levee could cause its

extinction. Other potential threats are the illegal use of

rodenticides, competition with Heermann’s kangaroo

rats. and disease and predation. any’ of which could

eliminate small, isolated populations (Williams and

Germano 1993).

5. Conservation Efforts

The Fresno kangaroo rat was listed by the State of

California as Rare on June 27, 1971 (Title 14, Calif.

Admin. Code, Sec. 670.5). It was subsequently changed

by’ the State to Endangered status on October 2, 1980

(Title 14, Calif. Admin. Code, Sec. 670.5). The Fresno

kangaroo rat was designated as a federally-listed

endangered species on 30 January 1985 (Table 1;

USEWS 1985b).

Accompanying the listing ofthe Fresno kangaroo rat

as endangered was the designation of 347 hectares (857

acres) as critical habitat. In 1985, when it was designated

as critical habitat, 9.3 heetares (23 acres) were a small

part of the 4,343-hectare (10,732-acre) MendotaWildlife

Area. and 296 hectares (732 acres) comprised the

contiguous Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, both Stateowned and managed. The remaining 41.3 hectares (102

acres) of critical habitat were in five privately-owned

parcels (Figure 44). Critical habitat is definedas specific

areas w’ithin and outside the geographic area occupied by

aspecies at the time of Federal listing on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) which may’ require

special management considerations or protection.

Concern centering around the continued loss of

extant natural communities within the geographic range

ofthe Fresno kangaroo rat precipitated State listing and

subsequent studies on the life history, distribution, and

threats to remaining populations (Hoffmann 1974,

Knapp 1975. Koos 1977, Hoffmann and Chesemore

1982). The State Wildlife Conservation Board began

acquiring habitat in 1978 in the x’icinity of Whitesbridge

Road (Fresno County) for establishment of the Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve. The primary purpose of these

acquisitions w’as protection of State-listed species and

alkali sink communities. Between 1978 and 1985, the

State purchased approximately 377 hectares (931.7

acres) at a cost of about $1.32million (J. Gustafson pers.

comm.). Another 1.3 hectares (3.3 acres) of previously

cultivated land were added later to the Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve, making its current size 382.4

hectares (945 acres). Acquisitions to date include

approximately 85 percent of the designated 347 bectares

(857 acres)of critical habitat forthe Fresno kangaroo rat.

Remaining critical habitat outside of the Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve encompasses approximately 16.2

hectares (40acres) in three separate parcels under private

ownership in NE 1/4 NW 1/4 of Sec. 12, and 25 hectares

(61.8 acres) in two separate privately owned parcels and

approximately 9.3 hectares (23 acres) of State-owned

lands in adjacent T145, Rl5E, Sec. 11. This latter State

parcel is a portionof the MendotaWildlife Area, which is

principally wetland waterfowl habitat subject to regular

flooding.

The CDFG developed a draft management plan for

the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve in 1984 (finalized in

1990) (CDFG in litt. 1984). Management objectives

were to be the protection of native alkali sink

communtties and the Reserve’s listed biota. Measures

addressed inthis draft plan included controlling grazing,

fencing of reserve boundaries, encouraging maintenance

of native species, restricting collecting and hunting, and

precluding any development.

Williams reported in 1989 (in litt.) that management

objectives for the Reserve had not been met and

significant harm tothe population had occurred.

USFWS prepareda Land Protection Plan forsecuring

habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats through conservation

easement or purchase (USEWS 1985b). The Land

Protection Plan specified protection of 1,066 hectares

(2,635 acres) of lands contiguous to critical habitat for

Eresno kangaroo rats, along the northern border of the

Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve. This plan was never

implemented.

In 1988, additional inventory work was undertaken

for Fresno kangaroo rats on natural lands in Merced,

Madera, and Fresno Counties. Additional sites in the

South Grasslands Waterfowl Management Area of

Merced County were found to be inhabited by this

species, but its subspecific classification is uncertain.

Lack of access to private lands hampered thorough

inventories elsewhere, but no Fresno kangaroo rats were

found on any parcels in Fresno County that had extant

102
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

extinction. Flooding poses a high risk to protected

habitat in Fresno County because of its proximity to the

San Joaquin River and because this land is the same or

only slightly higher in elevation than the riverbed. If a

population of Fresno kangaroo rats still is extant in the

area, another break in the river levee could cause its

extinction. Other potential threats are the illegal use of

rodenticides, competition with Heermann’s kangaroo

rats, and disease and predation, any of which could

eliminate small, isolated populations (Williams and

Germano 1993).

5. Conservation Efforts

The Fresno kangaroo rat was listed by the State of

California as Rare on June 27, 1971 (Title 14, Calif.

Admin. Code, See. 670.5). It was subsequently changed

by the State to Endangered status on October 2, 1980

(Title 14. Calif. Admin. Code, Sec. 670.5). The Fresno

kangaroo rat was designated as a federally-listed

endangered species on 30 January 1985 (Table 1;

USFWS 1985b).

Accompanying the listing of the Fresno kangaroo rat

as endangered was the designation of 347 hectares (857

acres) as critical habitat. In 1985, when it was designated

as critical habitat, 9.3 hectares (23 acres) were a small

part ofthe 4,343-hectare (10,732-acre) MendotaWildlife

Area, and 296 hectares (732 acres) comprised the

contiguous Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, both Stateowned and managed. The remaining 41.3 hectares (102

acres) of critical habitat were in five privately-owned

parcels (Figure 44). Critical habitat is defined as specific

areas within and outside the geographic area occupied by

a species at the time ofFederallisting on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) which may require

special management considerations or protection.

Concern centering around the continued loss of

extant natural communities within the geographic range

of the Fresno kangaroo rat precipitated State listing and

subsequent studies on the life history, distribution, and

threats to remaining populations (Hoffmann 1974,

Knapp 1975, Koos 1977, Hoffmann and Chesemore

1982). The State Wildlife Conservation Board began

acquiring habitat in 1978 in the vicinity of Whitesbridge

Road (Fresno County) for establishment of the Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve. The primary purpose of these

acquisitions was protection of State-listed species and

alkali sink communities. Between 1978 and 1985, the

State purchased approximately 377 hectares (931.7

acres) at a cost of about $1.32 million (J. Gustafson pers.

comm.). Another 1.3 hectares (3.3 acres) of previously

cultivated land were added later to the Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve, making its current size 382.4

hectares (945 acres). Acquisitions to date include

approximately 85 percent of the designated 347 hectares

(857 acres)of critical habitat forthe Fresno kangaroo rat.

Remaining critical habitat outside of the Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve encompasses approximately 16.2

hectares (40 acres) inthree separateparcels underprivate

ownership in NE 1/4 NW 1/4 ofSec. 12, and 25 hectares

(61.8 acres) in two separate privately owned parcels and

approximately 9.3 hectares (23 acres) of State-owned

lands in adjacent T145, Rl5E, Sec. 11. This tatter State

parcel is a portion of the MendotaWildlife Area, which is

principally wetland waterfowl habitat subject to regular

flooding.

The CDFG developed a draft management plan for

the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve in 1984 (finalized in

1990) (CDFG in titt. 1984). Management objectives

were to be the protection of native alkali sink

communities and the Reserve’s listed biota. Measures

addressed inthis draft plan included controlling grazing,

fencing of reserve boundaries, encouraging maintenance

of native species, restricting collecting and hunting, and

precluding any development.

Williams reported in 1989 (in titt.) that management

objectives for the Reserve had not been met and

significant harm to the population had occurred.

USFWS prepareda Land Protection Plan forsecuring

habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats through conservation

easement or purchase (USFWS 1985b). The Land

Protection Plan specified protection of 1,066 heetares

(2,635 acres) of lands contiguous to critical habitat for

Fresno kangaroo rats, along the northern border of the

Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve. This plan was never

implemented.

In 1988, additional inventory work was undertaken

for Fresno kangaroo rats on natural lands in Merced,

Madera, and Fresno Counties. Additional sites in the

South Grasslands Waterfowl Management Area of

Merced County were found to be inhabited by this

species, but its subspecific classification is uncertain.

Lack of access to private lands hampered thorough

inventories elsewhere, but no Fresno kangaroo rats were

found on any parcels in Fresno County that had extant

102
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 44. Designated critical habitat for the Fresno kangaroo ram.

103
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

populations in the 1970s and early 1980s. Attempts to

locate Fresno kangaroo rats continued periodically in

1989, 1990, and 1991 without success (D.F. Williams

unpubl. data).

In the Bio/ogica/ Opinion for the Friant Divisio,m

Water Contract Renewa/s, habitat for the Fresno

kangaroo rat was ranked highestinpriority’ for protection

by’ the Bureau of Reclamation (USFWS in titt. 1991).

Before that could be accomplished, however, extant

populations had to be located. Attempts to identify and

inventory all potential habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats

within their historical range, began in September 1992

and are continuing today. This effort was successful in

findingonly a singleFresno kangaroo rat, a male, on land

already in State ownership. The Bureau of Reclamation

also has funded a study of the population genetics and

taxonomy of San Joaquin kangaroo rats. Principal

objectives are to determine the range-wide genetic

structure ofthe species and the degrees of differentiation

of the various fragmented populations (Patton in litt.

1994). This w’ork still is in progress.

The EndangeredSpecies Recovery Programcontinued

the search for extant populations of Fresno kangaroo rats

and initiated management studies of kangaroo ratson the

Kerman and Alkali Sink Ecological Reserves. Because

there apparently are no extant populations on these

reserves, the initial objectives are to measure population

sizes of Heermann’s kangaroo rats and vegetation

characteristics on four plots, two on each Reserve. If

future funds are provided, grazing could be initiated in

future years and vegetation and population responses of

Heermann’s kangaroo rats measured. The goal would be

to find a vegetation management regime that reduces

populations of Heermann’s kangaroo rats. Population

responses toboth grazing and burning are hem gtestedin

habitat for a small population of D. nitratoides on

Lemoore Naval Air Station, funded by the Navy and

conducted by the Endangered Species Recovery

Program. Additional population and vegetation

managementstudies on Pixlcy’ National Wildlife Refuge.

directed at determining appropriate habitat management

for Tipton kangaroo rats, are expected to provide some

information needed to manage habitat for Fresno

kangaroo rats. This strategy assumes that Fresno

kangaroo rats will be available for translocation to the

Alkali Sink and Kerman Ecological Reserves. This will

require that a population be located or that one or more of

the extant populations peripheral to the historical range

of the Fresno kangaroo rat prove to be genetically and

taxonomically inseparable from Fresno kangaroo rats

(Williams and Kelly in litt. 1994b, 1994c).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency County

bulletins governing use of rodenticides have greatly

reduced the risk of significant mortality to Fresno

kangaroo rat populations by State and county rodentcontrol activities. The California Environmental

Protection Agency, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, county agricultural departments, CDFG,

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

collaborated with the Service in the development of

County Bulletins that both are efficacious and acceptable

to land ow’ners (RA. Marovich pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

Several pressing issues must be attended to now

concerning recovery of the Fresno kangaroo rat.

Answering the questions these issues pose is an integral

first step in addressing recovery:

I. The genetic relationships among extant isolated

and scattered populations of San Joaquin

kangaroo rats.

2. Location and size of any extant Fresno kangaroo

rat populations.

3. How’ to manage natural lands toenhance habitat

forFresno kangaroo rats.

The second step to recovery involves instituting

actions dictated by resolution of these issues, such as

restoring and protecting of habitat, possibly translocating

populations, and continuing management studies and

population monitoring. The consolidation and protection

ofsufficient habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats to maintain

a viable population cannot await the resolution of all

these issues, though. There already is historical habitatin

public ownership, though it is not sufficiently protected

from catastrophes, such as flooding, nor appropriately

monitored and managed for Fresno kangaroo rats. But,

even with optimal habitat management, these parcels

appear to be too small and vulnerable to both flooding

and other catastrophes to provide the only refugesfor the

species. Thus, protection of the large block of natural

land north of and betw’een the Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve and the San Joaquin River and even larger

blocks elsewhere is needed.

The largest existing block of natural land that was

104
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

historical habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats is located in

western Madera County (Williams 1990). Approximately

12,000 heetares (30,000 acres) are located in contiguous

parcels. Fresno kangaroo ratsstill possibly exist on some

part of this property, but access was given toEndangered

Species Recovery Program to survey only two parcels

comprising less than 10 percent of the total. Fresno

kangaroo rats were not located on either parcel, though

blunt-nosed leopard lizards, San Joaquin kit foxes, and

patmate-bracted bird’sbeak were seen or known from the

sites or general area (Williams 1990, D.F. Williams

unpubl. data). Because this area provides the highest

potential for containing an extant population of Fresno

kangaroo rats, and also is an important element in the

recovery of palmate-bracted bird’s beak and blunt-nosed

leopard lizards, protection and management of parcels

there is considered of greater importance than elsewhere

on parcels that are not known to be currently occupied.

The population of San Joaquin kangaroo rats at

Lemoore Naval Air Station is the only one in public

ow’nership in Kings County, and is endangered

regardless of its taxonomic identity as the Fresno or

Tipton kangaroo rat. Though the Navy has instituted

habitat management studies on the parcel, it is too small

to support a viable populationindefinitely. The occupied

site was formerly farmed, but then was retired to provide

a motorcross track for Navy personnel. Kangaroo rats

probably colonized the site by dispersing from the

formerly-occupied land around a nearby runway.

Restoration and enhancement of habitat next to the

runway is not an option because this could attract birds

and increase the probability of planes striking birds.

Expansion of the existing habitat area by retiring land

next tothe motoreross siteand managing it appropriately

is important to maintaining the kangaroo rat population.

Because the land is owned by the U.S. Government and

is part of the air station, acquisition would not be needed,

and the toss of revenue from the agricultural lease would

be small compared to the cost of protecting habitat

elsewhere. The amount of land needed cannot be

calculated precisely now, but the initial addition of 32 to

65 hectares (80 to 160 acres) tothe 38 hectares (97 acres)

of existing habitat would provide space and habitat for an

expanding population. The sooner this is accomplished,

the greater the chances that the population can be saved.

Restoration of habitat and, if necessary,

reestablishment of Fresno kangaroo rats on the Alkali

Sink and Kerman Ecological Reserves also are elements

of the recovery of the species, but until management

issues, including protection from flooding, are resolved,

these have tower priority. Reducing the accumulation of

mulch and ground cover of weedy grasses has priority

over other management issues on these reserves.

Restoration to optimal conditions at the Kerman Reserve

for Fresno kangaroo rats may also require establishment

of saltbushes and other shrubs.

Size of occupied habitat areas for recovery ideally

should be several thousand acres each, but no existing or

potential habitat area comes near to the minimum

desirable size. Therefore, criteria are scaled to size of

existing and potential habitat areas. With habitat

management, these parcels should be adequate tosupport

populations. Three separate populations reduce the risk

of extinction by environmental catastrophes, and

considerably enhance the prospects of recovery. A larger

number ofseparate populations is possible, but obtaining

more than four large populations on public lands

probably is not very practical given the amount and

distribution of natural lands within the historic range of

the species.

Recovery Actions—Recognizing that genetic and

taxonomic studies (Patton in litt. 1994, J.L. Patton pers.

comm.) and habitat surveys already are in progress,

critical recovery actions needed now are:

I. Complete the studies on relationships and

taxonomic identity of isolated populations of

San Joaquin kangaroo rats.

2. Intensify and continue efforts to locate

populations ofFresno kangaroo rats within the

historical range ofthe species. If a population is

found, captive breeding should be considered as

a recovery option depending on the size of the

population.

3. Continue and increase habitat management

studies.

4. Restore additional habitat for D. nitratoides at

Lemoore Naval Air Station.

5. Protect natural land between the Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve and the San Joaquin River

to the north (Sandy Mush Road/South

Grasslands Area).

6. Begindiscussion and planning for conservation

of natural lands in western Madera County;

105
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

acquire title or easement to appropriate parcels

from wilting sellers.

Recovery actions that also are needed, but after

critical actions are implemented or completed are:

7. Protect additional habitat for Fresno kangaroo

rats in Kings County, where populations of the

species are discovered. Habitat should be in

blocks of at least 384 hectares (950 acres),

preferably’ larger, with one block no less than

1,012 hectares (2,500 acres).

8. Work with landowners in western Madera

County to determine presence or absence of the

species there. If a population is found, assess

translocating populations to public lands in

Fresno County.

9. Restore habitat forFresno kangaroo rats on the

Alkali Sink and Kerman Ecological Reserves.

Restoration should include manipulation of the

plant community to favor Fresno kangaroo rats

over Heermann’s kangaroo rats.

10. Reintroduce Fresno kangaroo rats to restored

and unoccupied habitats on ecological reserves

and newly-protected parcels.

11. Monitor alt populations and their supporting

biotic communities annually for a 10-year

period, then at 3-year intervals until recovery is

achieved.

12. Manage habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats as

needed.

J. Tn’ro~ KANGAROO RAT

(DIPODOMYS NITRATOIDES NITRATOIDES)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy.—The Tipton kangaroo rat is one of three

subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat. The type

specimen of the Tipton kangaroo rat was collected from

Tipton, Tulare County. California, in 1893 (Merriam

1894). See account of the Fresno kangaroo rat for a

discussion of taxonomic history of D. n. nitratoides.

Hafner (1979) examined samples of Tipton and shortnosed kangaroo rats, and, using detailed analyses,

established better-defined boundaries between the two

subspecies than those of previous researchers. He

concluded that samples from populations northeast and

east of Bakersfield, and inupland sattbush communities

above the southern and eastern borders of the Tulare

Basin floor were characteristic of populations of shortnosed kangaroo rats, typified by reference samples from

the Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obispo County. Hafner’s

(1979) analyses showed that the subspeciesboundary on

the southwest in Kern County nearly coincided with the

California Aqueduct, which is positioned just above the

Valley floor along the edge of the more steeply sloping

foothills in areas that do not flood extensively. The

natural boundary between these two subspecies on the

southwest was probably a narrow zone of seasonal and

permanent wetlands around Kern and Buena Vista lakes

and the Kern River channel that meandered north from

the east edge of the Elk Hills to historical Goose Lake.

Historical barriers between the two subspecies probably

were intermittent in some spots. More recent flood

control and diversion of waters from the Kern River for

irrigation and other purposes removed these barriers and

probably allowed for increased genetic exchange

between the two subspecies. Today, the California

Aqueduct and large expanses of irrigated cropland again

have isolated these populations.

Description—See account of the Fresno kangaroo

rat for a general description of the species. On average,

adult Tipton kangaroo rats weigh about 35 to 38 grams

(1.23 to 1.34 ounces), have a head and body length of

about 100 to 110 millimeters (3.94 to 4.33 inches) and a

tail about 125 to 130 millimeters (4.92 to 5.12 inches) in

length. The Tipton kangaroo ratis larger than the Fresno

kangaroo rat and smaller than the short-nosed kangaroo

rat.

ldentification .—See the Fresno kangaroo rat account

for distinguishing Tipton kangaroo rats from other cooccurring species. The Tipton kangaroo rat can be

distinguished from the Fresno kangaroo rat by its larger

average measurements: total length for males, 235

millimeters (9.25 inches), for females, 221 millimeters

(8.7 inches); length of hind foot for males 34.7

millimeters (1.37 inches), for females, 33.6 millimeters

(1.32 inches); mean inflation of the auditory bullac for

males, 22.1 millimeters (0.87 inch), for females, 21.8

millimeters (0.86 inch) (Hoffmann 1975) (see accounts

of Fresno and short-nosed subspecies for corresponding

average measurements).

106
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

2. Historical and Current Distribution

HistoricalDistribution.— The historical geographic

range of Tipton kangaroo rats (Figure 45) was estimated

to cover approximately’ 695,174 hectares (1,716,480

acres) (Williams 1985). Tipton kangaroo rats were

distributed within an area on the floor of the Tulare Basin,

extending from approximately the southern margins of

Tulare Lake on the north; eastward and southward

approximately’ along the eastern edge of the Valley floor

in Tulare and Kern Counties. The southern and western

extent of their range was the foothills of the Tehachapi

Mountains (south) and the marshes and open water of

Kern and Buena Vista lakes, and the stoughs and

channels of the KernRiver alluvial fan. Farther north, the

w’estern boundary was approximately along the Buena

Vista slough of the Kern River channel into Goose Lake.

The approximate line on the northwest is marked by’ the

city of Lost Hills, Kern County; Kettleman City, Kings

County; and Westhaven, Fresno County. Prior to

development of water-diversion and irrigation systems

over the past several decades, this area bounded three

large lakes, Tulare, Kern, and Buena Vista,togetherwith

marshlandsthat were unsuitable habitat for kangaroo rats

(Boolootian 1954, Hoffmann 1974, Hafner 1979,

Williams et at. 1993a, Williams 1985).

Current Distribution.—By July 1985, the area

inhabited had been reduced, primarily by cultivation and

urbanization, to about 25,000 hectares (63,000 acres),

only about 3.7 percent of the historical acreage.

Additional small parcels not surveyed by Williams

(1985) have since been found to be inhabited. Tipton

kangaroo rats also have reinhabited several hundred to a

few’ thousand acres that were in cropproduction in 1985

but have since beenretired because of drainage problems

or lack of w’ater, or acquired by State and Federal

agencies for threatened and endangered species

conservation. Most notable has been a mix of mostly

agricultural and some natural land on the Kern Fan

Element, some of which is now within the Kern Water

Bank Habitat Conservation Plan area. This project

provides over4,000 hectares (10,000acres)of habitat for

threatened and endangered species, though a lesser,

unknown amount actually has been naturally recolonized

from adjacent natural land. Offsetting these gains has

beenthe toss of several hundred to a few thousand acres

of habitat that have been developed. Thus, the current

acreage of occupied habitat is unknown, but probably

does not differ much from the 1985 estimate.

Current occurrences are limited to scattered, isolated

areas clustered west of Tipton, Pixley, and Earlimart,

around Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, Atlensworth

Ecological Reserve, and Allensworth State Historical

Park, Tulare County; between the Kern National

Wildlife Refuge, Delano, and in natural lands

surrounding Lamont (southeast of Bakersfield), Kern

County; at the Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve; and

other, scattered units to the south in KernCounty (Figure

45).

3. Life History and Habitat

Food and Foraging.—Tipton kangaroo rats eat

mostly seeds, with small amounts of green, herbaceous

vegetation and insects supplementing their diet when

available. Most aspects of food and foraging of Tipton

kangaroo rats are identical to those of Fresno kangaroo

rats. See the account of the Fresno kangaroo rat formore

information.

Reproduction and Demography .—Littte specific

information has been published on reproduction of

Tipton kangaroo rats. Generally, this aspect of their

biology is extremely similar to that of the Fresno

kangaroo rat (see that account for details). Five Tipton

kangaroo rats being held in captivity to prevent their

death by permitted destruction of their habitats each gave

birth to two young (D.J. Gerrnano pers. comm., DE.

Williams unpubt. obsery., S. Yoerg pers. comm.).

Reproduction commences in winter and peaks inlate

March and early April (Figure 46). Most females appear

to have only a single litter, though some adult females

have two or more, and females born early in the year also

may breed (Endangered Species Recovery Program

unpubt. data).

At the Paine Wildflower Preserve south of Kern

National Wildlife Refuge, Clark et al. (1982) estimated a

density of 2.6 Tipton kangaroo rats per hectare (1.05 per

acre) inthe “best” habitat above flood level, and 1.5 per

hectare (0.61 per acre) in “poor” habitats subjected to

flooding and disturbance by past disking of the soil.

Hafner (1979) estimated relative densities of Tipton

kangaroo rats at 13 sites representing areas from

throughout the geographic range and most plant

communities in which Tipton kangaroo rats were known

to occur. Densities ranged from a low of 1 to 2 per

hectare (0.4 to 0.8 per acre) in alkaline and terrace

grasslands with a sparse cover ofseepweed to a high of

107
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 45. Distributional records for the lipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomvs nitratoides nirratoides).

108
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

100

90

MO

70

C,~ 60

C

4,

0.

40

30

20

10

0

03-.,an 07-Rem 07-Mar 04-Apr 02-May 20-May 27-un 25-~ 22-Aig 15-Sep

24-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar I 8-Apr 1 6-May 1 0-.an 11 -Jal 00-Aag 05-Sep

Figure 46. Percentageof reproductive female Tipton kangaroo

rams. Based on weekly censuses am Pixtey’ National Wildlife

Refuge (Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl. data);

weeks 3 Jan. 1993 to 19 Sep. 1994.

about 7 to 9 per hectare (2.8 to 3.6 per acre) in saltbush

scrub.

In 1985, surveys throughthe remaining extant habitat

resulted in estimated densities, based on numbers of

burrow systems, ranging from less than 1 per hectare to

50 per hectare (less than 0.4 to 20.2 per acre). Areas

supporting very low densities had few noticeable features

in common. Sites on the eastern perimeter of the

geographic range in terrace grasslands had consistently

low densities. Areas subjected to prolonged flooding

also supported few kangaroo rats.

At Pixtey National Wildlife Refuge on two plots,

density estimatesinJune 1991 during drought were 3.0 to

3.8 Tipton kangaroo rats per hectare (1.2 to 1.5 per acre).

After the end of a 5.5 year drought in April 1991, a

population irruption occurred, and peaked in January

1993. Subsequently, density declined from the high of

88.2 per hectare (35.7 per acre) in January 1993 to alow

of 1.1 per hectare (0.45 per acre) in April 1995. The

shape of this population decline is illustrated by the

number of Tipton kangaroo rats known to be alive each

month in Figure 47 (Endangered Species Recovery

Program unpubl. data). During the decline, annual

rainfall was greaterthan average and little or no livestock

grazing occurred in the pasture where the plot was

located. Kangaroo rats could not use theirusual defenses

of speed and alertness, adaptations for habitats with

sparse, low vegetation, and many’ may’ have been taken

by predators. High rainfall also may have caused death

from waterpemetrating burrow’s anddrowning occupants,

spoiling seed stores, or causing death from hypothermia

or pneumonia-like diseases that have been observed to

afflict these animals when placed in a cool, moist

environment (Endangered Species Recovery Program

unpubl. obsery.).

Behavior and Species Interactions.—Tipton

kangaroo rats live in ground burrows. Most burrows

probably are dug by’ the occupant or apredecessor ofthe

same species. Burrows are typically simple, but may be

unbranched or branched, including interconnecting

tunnels. Most burrows are less than 25 centimeters (10

inches)deep (Germano andRhodehamel 1995). Nothing

else specific to the behaviorof the Tipton subspecies has

been published (see Fresno kangaroo rat for a general

discussion of behavior and species interactions).

Tipton kangaroo rats are food for a variety of

predators: coyotes, San Joaquin kit foxes, long-tailed

weasels, American badgers, owls, hawks (San Joaquin

kangaroo rats infrequently emerge from their burrows

during daylight; Tappe 1941, Williams et al. 1993b),

various species of snakes, and probably others. Except

for small, isolated populations, predation is unlikely to

threaten Tipton kangaroo rats. The increasing

fragmentation of the range of Tipton kangaroo rats,

however, increases the vulnerability ofsmall populations

to predation.

Habitat and Community Associations —Tipton

kangaroo rats are limited to arid-land communities

occupying the Valley floor of the Tulare Basin in level or

400

375

350

325

4, 300 2.

275

C 260

o 226 C 200

175

~150

~ 126

z

150

75

50

26

0

Figure 47. Number of Tipton kangaroo rats known to be alive

each month. Endangered Species Recovery’ Program data are

for plot am Pixtey’ National Wildlife Refuge.

109
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

nearly’ level terrain. They occupy alluvial fan and

floodplain soils ranging from fine sands to clay-sized

particles with high salinity’. Historically, populations

apparently’ w’ere most numerous and persistent in

Retiemuat Interior Dune Grassland and Sierra-Tehachapi

Salmbush Scrub communities. Today’, much of the

occupied remnants of their range have one or more

species of sparsely scattered woody shrubs and aground

cover of mostly’ introduced andnative annual grasses and

forbs. Woody shrubs commonly’ associated with Tipton

kangaroo rats are: spiny and common salmbushes,

arrow’scale (A trip/ex phv//osregia), quailbush (A triplex

/entmformis), iodine bush, pale-leaf goldenbush, and

honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. rorrevana). A

conspicuous semiwoody species is seepweed (Williams

1985).

Important existing communities for Tipton kangaroo

rats are iodine bush shrubland (Valley Sink Scrub) and

Valley Saltbush Scrub (Griggs et al. 1992). Winter rains

and runofffrom the surrounding mountainranges (Sierra

Nevada to the east, Tehachapi Mountains to the south,

and TemblorRange tothe west)flood much of these lowtying communities occupied by Tipton kangaroo rats.

Areas w-ith standing water during portions of winter and

spring (vernal pools) become alkaline playas when the

water has evaporated allowing Tipton kangaroo rats to

recolonize these areas even though alkaline water lies

close to the surface of the soil, year around. Presumably

during flooding, individuals are either drowned or

captured by predators after being forced from their

burrows, or escape to higher ground (Williams 1985).

Although Tipton kangaroo rats occur in terrace

grasslands devoid of woody shrubs, sparse-to-moderate

shrub cover is associated with populations of high

density’. Typically, how’ever, burrow systems are located

in open areas; only in areas of dense shrub cover are

burrow’s usually located beneath shrubs. Terrain not

subject to flooding is important for permanent occupancy

by’ Tipton kangaroo rats.

Burrow-s of Tipton kangaroo rats are commonly

located in slightly- elevated mounds, the berms of roads

(w’here placed above ground level), canal embankmenms.

railroad beds, and bases of shrubs and fences where

windblown soils accumulate above the level of

surrounding terrain. Soft soils, such as fine sands and

sandy’ toams, and powdery’ soils of finer texture and of

higher salinity are generally associated with greater

densities of Tipton kangaroo rats than are less saline and

alkaline, sandy-loam, loam, and clay-loam soils of

portions of the eastern margins of their geographic range,

supporting terrace grasslands. This may relate to how’

crumbly’ the soils are, the type of plant comnmunities they

support, or both (Williams 1985).

At Pixley’ National Wildlife Refuge, Tipton kangaroo

rams are the most numerous small mammal. They

dominate grazed annual grassland on the refuge, where

they typically outnumber Heermann’s kangaroo rats, the

second most numerous species. Other common, small

mammalian associates are San Joaquin pocket mice and

deer mice (Williams and Germano 1991, D.F. Williams

unpubt. data). Other common, mammalian associates

include San Joaquin kit foxes, coyotes, American

badgers, California black-tailed hares, California ground

squirrels, harvest mice, and house mice.

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline—The principle reason for the

decline of Tipton kangaroo rats was the toss of habitat

due to agricultural conversion. Agriculture followed the

gold rush of the 1850s, first developing on the nonsaline

soils of the alluvial flood plains and forests of the eastern

Valley. This probably only had aminorimpacttohabitat

for Tipton kangaroo rams. The later construction ofdams

and canals produced adependable supply of water forthe

Valley. This in turn allowed the cultivation of the

alkaline soils of the saltbush and valley sink scrub and

relictuat dune communities, and was principally

responsible for the decline and endangerment of the

Tipton kangaroo rat.

As recently as the early 1970s, just after the

completion of the Central Valley and State Water

Projects, only about 1.4 million hectares (3.5 million

acres) in the San Joaquin Valley were in irrigated

cultivation—most of the total was in the San Joaquin

Basin (approximately the northern half of the Valley).

By 1978, however,only about 195,000 hectares(370,000

acres) out of a total of about 3.4 million hectares (8.5

million acres) on the San Joaquin Valley floor remained

as non-developed land (Williams 1985).

An aerial survey’ conducted in late 1983, together

with selected ground inspections and other sources of

information provided an estimate of 44,562 heetares

(110,031 acres) of undeveloped land out of a total of

1,035,296 hectares (2.556,288 acres) on the floor of the

Tutare Basin (Werschkult em al. 1984). Ignoring minor

110
Recovery Planfor Uplaiid Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

differences between the boundaries of the 1983 survey

and the investigations by Williams (1985), only about

30,549 hectares (75,430 acres) were undeveloped in June

1985. Remaining natural lands represented the least

desirable for development in the basin.

The use of rodenmicides to control California ground

squirrels probably contributed to the decline or

elimination ofsmall populations of Tipton kangaroo rats,

isolated and surrounded by agricultural land. Urban and

industrial development andpetroleum extraction alt have

contributed to habitat destruction, though not on a scale

comparable to agricultural development (Williams

1985).

Threats to Survival—Current threats of habitat

destruction or modifications rendering areas unsuitable

for Tipton kangaroo rats come from industrial and

agriculturally-related developments, cultivation, the

formation of heavy thatch by exotic grasses, and

urbanization, and secondarily from flooding. Nearly

every parcel of land in private ownership that is currently

inhabited by Tipton kangaroo rats is surrounded by

cultivated fields or urbanized land where these animals

cannot live. Nearly all remaining natural land is of poor

agricultural potential, having saline soils and high water

tables, and more than half is subject to winter flooding

(Williams 1985).

Because of the large amount of salts in soils on the

Tulare Basin floor, lack of natural drainage tothe ocean,

and the desert climate, build up of salts in the soil and

saline-saturated fields threatens agriculture over large

areas (San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage

Program 1990). Most of the remaining habitat of Tipton

kangaroo rats is in areas that are already flooded

periodically. Several parcels with extant natural lands in

the 1 970s now haveprivate evaporation pondsinto which

salt-laden drain waters are being diverted. Unless other

solutions are found fordrainage problems,including land

retirement, more habitat for Tipton kangaroo rats

probably will be lost to this purpose (Williams 1985).

5. Conservation Efforts

In addition to being federally-listed as endangered in

1988 (USFWS 1988), the Tipton kangaroo rat was listed

by’ the State of California as Endangered in 1989 (Table

I; Williams and Kilburn 1992). Mitigation actions and

compensation funds to purchase natural lands providing

habitat for Tipton kangaroo rats have resulted in

preservation of portions of key areas in the Allensworth

Ecological Reserve, Semitropic Ridge, Kern Fan areas,

and more scattered parcels elsewhere (Table 2).

Habitat management studies on Pixley National

Wildlife Refuge, which provides some of the best

remaining habitat forTipton kangaroo rats,were initiated

in 1991 (Williams and Germano 1991), and expanded in

1992 (Engler and Chapin 1993). The CDFG also has

begun to census its properties and investigate habitat

management in the Allensworth Ecological Reserve

(Potter 1993). The Bureau of Reclamation and USFWS

have supported a study of population ecology of Tipton

kangaroo rats at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge by the

Endangered Species Recovery Program since December

1992 (Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl.

information). CDFG also has recently instituted habitat

management investigations and experimentation on part

of Allensworth Ecological Reserve (M. Potter and G.

Presley pers. comm.).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency County

bulletins governing use of rodenmicides have greatly

reduced the risk of significant mortality to Tipton

kangaroo rat populations by State and county rodentcontrol activities. The California Environmental

Protection Agency, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, county agricultural departments, CDFG,

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

collaborated with the Service in the development of

County Bulletins that both are efficacious and acceptable

to land owners (RA. Marovich pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

The major issues in recovering the Tipton kangaroo

rat are habitat management and protection of blocks of

their natural or restored habitat to maintain viable

populations. The species’ populations periodically irrupt

to high levels and decline rapidly’, often going extinct

locally. Local extinctions or near extinctions may be

caused by tong-term drought, excessive amounts of

precipitation, flooding, and perhaps other, less well

known factors. When large expanses of connected

habitat existed, local extinction was not a great problem

because some surviving populations eventually irrupted

and individuals recolonized areas where they had been

eliminated. Contributing to this pattern of population

dynamics is competition with Heermann’ s kangaroo rats.

which are much larger, more general in their habitat

111
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

requirements, and more successful in maintaining

populations in a fragmented landscape. At mimes when

the environment is poorly suited to Tipton kangaroo rats,

competition with Heermann’s kangaroo rats may’ cause

elimination ofthe former. Because (If the fragmentation

and isolation of remaining habitat, when these natural

processes ensue, local extinction without opportunity for

lamer recolonization results. This process already has run

i)r nearly’ run its course with Fresno kangaroo rams. There

are several blocks of habitat for Fresno kangaroo rats left,

ranging from about 16.2 hectares (40 acres) to several

from about 259 to 2,023 hectares (641) to 5,000 acres).

and oneof about 12,141 hectares (30,000 acres), yet none

are know’n to harbor Fresno kangaroo rams. Because the

decline and fragmentation of Tipton kangaroo rat habitat

has occurred much more recently, probably a similar fate

awaits it unless there is management intervention, and

conservation lands for this species are sufficiently large

and diverse to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of

some environmental processes. Thus, the two key

elements of a recovery strategy for Tipton kangaroo rats

are:

I. Determining how to manage natural lands to

enhance habitat for Tipton kangaroo rats that

lessens the frequency and severity of population

crashes and negative impact of competition with

Heermann’s kangaroo rats.

2. Consolidating and protecting blocks of suitable

habitat for Tipton kangaroo rats to minimize the

effects of random catastrophic events (e.g.,

drought, flooding, fire) on their populations.

These blocks should be of several thousand acres

each w’ith a core of at least 2,000 hectares (about 5,000

acres) of high quality’ habitat that is not subject to

periodic flooding from overflowing streams or sheet

flooding from torrential rain. They should provide

topographicdiversity and diversity of plant comnmunities.

The vegetation should be actively’ managed by an

appropriate level of livestock grazing to prevent

excessive accumulation of mulch and growing plants

until such time as optimum management conditions are

determined by scientific research.

The existing configuration of the natural landdeveloped land mosaic is such that it is impracti~’at and

too expensive to propose reconnecting the large blocks of

land in Tutare and northern Kern and southern Kings

Counties with the lands on the westernedge ofthe Valley

andthe isolated blocks in the southern end ofthe Valley.

Instead, by protection of additional natural land and

restorationof contiguous agricultural land withdrainage

problems, sufficient habitat in three areas can be

protected economically: the Kern Fan area; the Pixtey

National Wildlife Refuge-Allensworth Natural Area,

and the Kern National Wildlife Refuge-Semitropic

Ridge area.

RecoveryActions —Needed recovery actions are:

I. Expand, coordinate, and continue habitat

management studies of Tipton kangaroo rats at

sites representing the range of existing habitat

conditions for the species.

2. Initiate studies of competition between Tipton

and Heermann’s kangaroo rats, focusing

primarily on how different habitat management

prescriptions affect the population dynamics of

the tw’o species am sites of coexistence.

3. Design and implement a range-wide population

monitoring program that measures population

and environmental fluctuations at sites

representative of the range of naturalland sizes

and habitat conditions for the species.

4. Inventory and assess existing natural land and

drainage-problem parcels contiguous to and

near existing protected natural lands and

develop a protection plan that ranks parcels that

may’ be available according to their size and

potential for supporting Tipton kangaroo rats,

with the objective of connecting and expanding:

a. Pixtey National Wildlife Refuge and the

scattered parcels of the Attensworth

Ecological Reserve;

b. Kern National Wildlife Refuge and the

scattered parcels of the Semitropic Ridge

conservation lands;

c. Kern River alluvial fan area including the

Kern Fan Element, Cole’s Levee

Ecosystem Preserve, and other mitigation

parcels.

d. Additional lands which after inventory

and assessment are identified as important

to the two key’ elements of the recovery’

112
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

strategy for Tipton kangaroo rats.

5. Develop and implementresearch on restoration

of habitat for Tipton kangaroo rats, including

cost-effective mechanisms to protect both

natural and restored habitat from flooding.

6. Restore habitat on retired agricultural lands as

needed.

K. BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD

(GAMBELIA .51LA)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy.—The blunt-nosed leopard lizard was

described and named by Stejneger(1890) as Crotaphytus

si/us, from a specimen collected in Fresno, California.

Cope (1900), however, considered the blunt-nosed

leopard lizard to be a subspecies of the long-nosed

leopard lizard (C. wislizenii), and listed it as C. w. si/us.

Under this arrangement, leopard lizards and collared

lizards were placed in the same genus. Smith (1946)

separated the collared from the leopard lizards, placing

the latterin the genus Gambe/ia. The basesforseparation

were differences in head shape, presence or absence of

gu/ar (throat area) folds, and differences in bony plates

on the head. The subspecific status of G. w. si/us was

remained by Smith (1946). This generic split was not

universally agreed upon and the status, both generic and

specific, of the lizards remained controversial until

Montanucci (1970) presented a solid argument for

specific status based upon the study of hybrids between

the long-nosed and blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

Montanucci et al. (1975) again separatedGanibelia from

Crotaphytus, resulting in the name Ganibe/ja si/us

(Jennings 1987). Frost and Collins (1988), Collins

(1990), and Germano and Williams (1993) used the

spelling si/a to properly agree in gender with the genus

Gambelia.

Description .—The blunt-nosed leopard lizard(Figure

48) is a relatively large lizard of the family Iguanidae,

with a long, regenerative tail;long, powerful hind limbs;

and a short, blunt snout (Smith 1946, Stebbins 1985).

Adultmales are larger than adult females, ranging in size

from 87 to 120 millimeters (3.4 to 4.7 inches) snout-vent

length (Tollestrup 1982). From snout to vent,females are

86 to 111 millimeters long (3.4 to 4.4 inches). Adult

males weigh between 31.8 and 37.4 grams (1.3 to 1.5

ounces), and adult females weigh between 20.6 and 29.3

grams (0.8 to 1.2 ounces) (Uptain et al. 1985). Males are

distinguished from females by their enlarged posmanal

scales, femorat pores (visible pores on the underside of

the thigh), temporal and mandibularmuscles (muscles on

the skull that close the jaws), and tail base (Montanucci

1965).

Although blunt-nosed leopard lizards are darker than

other leopard lizards, they exhibit tremendous variation

in color and pattern on the back (Tanner and Banta 1963,

Montanucci 1965, 1970). Background colorranges from

yellowish or light gray-brown to dark brown depending

on the surrounding soil color and vegetation association

(Smith 1946, Monmanucci 1965, 1970, Smebbins 1985).

The under surface is uniformly white.

The color pattern on the back consists of longitudinal

rows of dark spots interrupted by a series of from 7 to 10

white, cream-colored, or yellow transverse bands. In the

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, the cross bands are much

broader and more distinct than in other leopard lizards

and extend from the lateral folds on each side to the

middleof the back, where they meet or alternate along the

midline of the back. With increasing age the cross bands

may fade and the spots may become smaller and more

numerous, particularly in mates (Monmanucci 1967,

Smith 1946). Similarly colored bands or rows of

transverse spots produce a banded appearance to the tail

(Smith 1946). Juveniles have blood-red spots on the back

that darken with age, becoming brown when sexual

maturity is reached, although a few adults retain reddish

centers to the spots (Montanucci 1967).

Figure 48. Illustration of a blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

Drawing by Kristina Boechini (©by CSU Smanistaus

Foundation).

113
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Except for the throat. undersides are unit’ormly’ w’hite

to yellow in immature lizards and prenuptial females.

Nuptial females have bright red-orange markings on the

sides of the head and body and the undersides of the

thighs andmail. This color fades to pink or light orange by

lame July. Males in many populations develop a nuptial

color during the breeding season that spreads (Iver the

entire undersides of the body and limbs. This salmon to

bright rusty-red color may’ be maintained indefinitely’

(Montanucci 1965).

Identification .—The blunt-nosed leopard lizard can

be distinguished fromthe long-nosed leopard lizard by its

color pattern, truncated snout. and short, broadtriangular

head (Stejneger 1890, Smith 1946). The blunt-nosed

leopard lizard has dark blotches on the throat instead of

parallel streaks of the long-nosed leopard lizard. Other

distinguishing characteristics are a significantly’ smaller

number of maxillary and premaxillary teeth (this may be

directly related to the shortened snout) and a smaller

variation in the number of femoral pores (Smith 1946).

In general. blunt-nosed leopard lizards can be

distinguished from all other leopard lizards by their

retention into adulthood of the primitive color pattern

shared by alt young leopard lizards (absence of

ornamentationaround the dorsal spots; retention of w’ide,

distinct cross bands; presence of gular blotches; and

fewer spots arranged in longitudinal rows) (Smith 1946,

Montanucci 1970).

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution.—The blunt-nosed leopard

lizard is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley of central

California (Stejneger 1893, Smith 1946, Montanucci

1965. 1970, Tollestrup 1979a). Althoughthe boundaries

of its original distribution are uncertain, blunt-nosed

leopard lizards probably occurred from Smanislaus

County in the north, southward to the Tehachapi

Mountains in Kern County (Figure 49). Except where

their range extends into the Carrizo Plain and Cuy’ama

Valley west ofthe southwestern end of the San Joaquin

Valley. the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast

Range Mountains, respectively, define the eastern and

western boundaries of its distribution. The blunt-nosed

leopard lizard is not found above 800 meters (2,600 feet)

in elevation (Montanucci 1970). The blunt-nosed

leopard lizard hybridizes with the tong-nosed leopard

lizard w’here their ranges meet in Batlinger Cany’on and

others (Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties) in the

Cuvama River w’atershed (Montanucci 1970, Le Fevre in

hint. 1976).

Current Distribution—Although the blunt-nosed

leopard lizard has been listed as endangered for 30 years,

therehas never been a comprehensive survey of its entire

historical range. The currently known occupied range of

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard is in scattered parcels of

undeveloped land on the Valley floor, and inthe foothills

of the Coast Range. Surveys in the northern part of the

San Joaquin Valley documented the occurrence of the

blunt-nosed leopard lizard in the Firebaugh and Madera

Essential Habitat Areas (Williams 1990). Essential

Habitat Areas were defined in previous recovery plan

editions for this species as undeveloped wildlands

containing suitable habitat for the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard and essential to the continued survival of the

species (USFWS 1980a, in tilt. 1985).

In the southern San Joaquin Valley, extant

populations are known to occur on the Pixley National

Wildlife Refuge, Liberty Farms, Allensworth, Kern

National Wildlife Refuge, Antelope Plain, Buttonwillow,

Elk Hills, and Tupman Essential Habitat Areas, on the

Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains, north of Bakersfield around

Poso Creek, and in western Kern County in the area

around the towns of Maricopa, McKimtrick, and Taft

(Byrne 1987, R.L. Anderson pers. comm., L.K. Spiegel

pers. comm.). Personal observations by D.J. Gemano

have been made at the Kern Front oil field, at the baseof

the Tehachapi Mountains on Tejon Ranch, and just west

of the California Aqueduct on the Tejon and San Emizdio

Ranches (D.J. Gemano, pers. comm.). Remaining

undeveloped lands farther north that support blunt-nosed

leopard lizard populations include the Ciervo, Tumey,

and Panoche Hills, Anticline Ridge, Pleasant Valley, and

the Lone Tree, Sandy Mush Road, Whimesbridge, Horse

Pasture, and Kettleman Hills Essential Habitat Areas

(CDFG 1985; Figure 47). The species is presumed to be

present still in the upper Cuyama Valley, though no

recent inventory is known for that area.

3. Life History and Habitat

Food and Foraging.—B hunt-nosed leopard lizards

feed primarily on insects (mostly grasshoppers, crickets,

and moths) and other lizards, although some plant

material is rarely’ eaten or, perhaps. unintentionally

consumed with animal prey’. They appear to feed

opportunistically’ on animals, eating whatever is

available in the size range they can overcome and

swallow. Which lizards are eaten is largely determined

by the size and behaviorof the prey. Lizard species taken

as prey’ include: side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana),

114
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 49. Distributional records for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Ganmbeha si/a).

115
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

coast horned lizards (Phrvnosonma coro,matuui),California

w’hiptails (Cnemidop/zorus tigris), and spiny lizards

(Sce/oporus spp.). Young of its ow’n species also are

eaten (Montanucci 1965, Kato em at. 1987a, Germano and

~rithiams 1994a). Because they have similar diets,

interspecific competition probably occurs between the

blunt-nosed leopard lizard and California whiptail

(Montanucci 1965, Toltestrup 1979b).

Reproduction and Demography—Breeding activity

begins within a month of emergence from dormancy’ and

lasts from theend of April through the beginning ofJune,

and in some y’ears to near the end of June. During this

period, and for a month or more afterward, the adults

often are seen in pairs and frequently occupy’ the same

burrow systems (Monmanucci 1965, Germano and

Williams 1994b). Male territories may overlap those of

several females, anda given male may mate with several

females. Copulation mnay’ occur as late as June

(Montanucci 1965).

Two to six eggs averaging 15.6 by 25.8 millimeters

(0.6 by 1.0 inch) are laid in June and July, and their

numbers are correlated with the size of the female

(Monmanucci 1967). Under adverse conditions, egglaying may be delayed 1 or 2 months orreproductionmay

not occur at all (Montanucci 1965, Tollestrup 1979b,

1982, Germano et al. 1994). Eggs are laid in a chamber

eitherexcavated specifically for a nest or already existing

within the burrow’ system (Monmanucci 1965, 1967).

Females typically produce only one clutch of eggs per

year, but some may produce three or more under

favorable environmental conditions (Montanucci 1967,

USEWS 1985a, Germano and Williams 1992, Williams

em at. 1993b). After about 2 months of incubation, young

hatch from July through early August, rarely to

September, and range in size from 42 to 48 millimeters

(1.7 to 1.9 inches) snout-vent length (Montanucci 1965,

Tollestrup 1982). Before their first winter, young

leopard lizards may grow to 88 millimeters (3.5 inches)

in snout-vent length (Montanucci 1967).

Sexual maturity is reached in from 9 to 21 months,

depending on the sex and environmental conditions

(USEWS 1985a). Females tend to become sexually

mature earlier than mates, breeding for the first time after

the second dormancy. while males usually do not breed

until hater (Montanucci 1965, 1967).

The relative proportions of the three age groups

(adult, subadult, hamchling or young-of-the-year) change

through the activity’ season as young are added to the

population only’ in August or later and entry into

dormancy and differential mortality affects the

proportions in age groups above ground. Data based

upon surface activity do not give an accurate estimate of

the population age structure because the adults cease

activity above ground from about 4 weeksbefore toabout

the same time as the eggs hatch. The best estimate of the

relative proportions of adults and subadults (animals

hatched the previous summer) may be made from data

gathered in May because both groups are active on the

surface then. In May the proportions were 85 percent

adults and 15 percent subadults (Montanucci 1965).

Montanucci (1965) believed that data gathered in August

for subadults and hamchlings yielded the best estimate of

their proportions because both groups were active. His

data w’ere about 2:1 hatchtings to subadults. Combining

these numbers, the population consisted of about 67

percent adults, 11 percent subadults, and 22 percent

hamchlings. The age structure of a population on Pixtey

National Wildlife Refuge consisted of 62 percent adults,

27 percent subadults, and 11 percent hamehlings in 1984

(Uptain et al. 1985).

Age structure of adults during a 7-year period on the

Etkhorn Plain (Williams em at. 1993a, Endangered

SpeciesRecovery Program unpubl. data), was determined

in 1995; percentages of 2, 3,4, and 5 year-old males were

69.5, 21, 6.5, and 2,respectively. Percentages of females

2, 3, and 4 years old were 70, 22, and 7.5; none were

recaptured older than 4 years. Parker and Pianka (1976)

made estimates for the long-nosed leopard lizard based

on their data for a Utah population, which are consistent

with the age structure and reproductive situation

described for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Maximum

longevity would thus be 8 to 9 years with an annual

survivorship of about 50 percent.

In several populations, and during most of the year,

males appear to outnumber females by’ a ratio of 2:1

(Montanucci 1965, Uptain em al. 1985, Kato et al. 1987b).

Mullen (1981) reported that the ratio of males to females

was 3:1, w’hereas Montanucci (1965) found that the

numbers in a Valley floor population were equal. Uptain

em al. (1985) showed that, although 63 percent of the

hamchtings in a population on Pixley National Wildlife

Refuge were male, the rnale:female ratio varied

seasonally’ from 2:1 in the spring, to 1:1 in the summer,

and to 2:3 in the fall. These were all based on short-menn

studies. In contrast, populations on two plots on the

Elkhorn Plain over several years typically had adult and

116
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

subadult sex ratios of about 1:1 (1:1.04). Females

outnumbered males more often than the reverse during

census periods in May and June. Hamchting sex ratios,

however, showed the opposite, withmales outnumbering

females, most censuses with ratios varying between

about 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 male:female (Williams em at. 1993b.

Germano and Williams 1994b, Endangered Species

Recovery Program unpubl. data).

Male and female home ranges often overlap. The

mean home range size varies from 0.1 to 1.1 heemares

(0.25 to 2.7 acres) for females and 0.2 to 1.7 heemares

(0.52 to 4.2 acres) for males (Tollestrup 1983, Kato em at.

1987b).

There are no current overall population size estimates

for the species. Uptain em at. (1985) reported densities

ranging from 0.3 to 10.8 lizards per hectare (0.1 to 4.2 per

acre) for a population on the Pixley National Wildlife

Refuge in Tulare County. In a previous study of this

population, Tollestrup (1979) estimated an average

density of 3.3 lizards per heetare (1.3 per acre). ln 1991,

after three previous years of severe drought, two 8.1-

hectare (20-acre) plots had estimated densities of 6.7 and

7.0 lizards per heemare (2.7 and 2.8 per acre) on Pixtey

National Wildlife Refuge (Williams andGermano 1991).

On the Elkhorn Plain, estimated population size on two

8.1-heemare plots of adult and subadult blunt-nosed

leopard lizards in June (period of peak above-ground

activity) varied between 0 in 1990 to more than 170 in

1993. Only subadult lizards were active above ground in

April andno lizards were active by June 1990, the year of

severest drought (Williams et at. 1993b, Germano em at.

1994, D. J. Germano and D.F. Williams unpubl. data).

Turner em at. (1969) estimated that the average density of

a southern Nevada population of the long-nosed leopard

lizard was 3 lizards per hectare (1.2 per acre). Population

densities in marginal habitat generally do not exceed 0.5

blunt-nosed leopard lizards per hectare (0.2 per acre)

(Mullen 1981. Le Fevre in hint. 1976, Madrone Associates

1979).

Beha vior and Specieslnteractions.—Social behavior

is more highly developed in the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard than in the long-nosed leopard lizard. For

example, territorial defense and related behavioral

activity are completely absent in the tong-nosed leopard

lizard. w’hereas blunt-nosed leopard lizards are highly’

combative in establishing and maintaining territories

(Montanucci 1970). In addition, Tothestrup (1979,1983)

observed six distinct behavioral displays specific to the

blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Behavioral displays of all

types were more frequent during the breeding season.

Leopard lizards use small rodent burrows for shelter

from predators and temperature extremes (Tollestrup

1979b). Burrows are usually abandoned ground squirrel

tunnels, or occupied or abandoned kangaroo rat tunnels

(Montanucci 1965). Each lizard uses several burrows

w’imhout preference, bum will avoid those occupied by

predators or other leopard lizards. Montanucci (1965)

found that in areas of low mammal burrow density,

lizards will construct shallow, simple tunnels in earth

berms or under rocks. While foraging, immature lizards

also take cover under shrubs and rocks.

Potential predators of blunt-nosed leopard lizards

include w’hipsnakes, gopher snakes, glossy snakes

(A rizona elegans), western long-nosed snakes

(Rhinocheilus /econtei), common king snakes, western

rattlesnakes, loggerhead shri kes (Lanius /udovicia,m us),

American kestrels (Fa/co spa rverius), burrowing owls,

greater roadrunners (Geococc’5’x ca/ifornianus), golden

eagles (Aqui/a chrysactos), hawks, California ground

squirrels, spotted skunks (Spiloga/e putorius), striped

skunks (Mephitis niephitis), American badgers, coyotes,

and San Joaquin kit foxes (Monmanucci 1965, Toltestrup

1979b). Blunt-nosed leopard lizards are hosts to

endoparasimes such as nematodes, and ectoparasites such

as mites and harvest mites (Montanucci 1965).

Activity C’ycles.—Seasonat above-ground activity’ is

correlatedwith weather conditions, primarily temperature.

Optimal activity occurs when air temperatures are

between 23.5 degrees and 40.0 degrees Celsius (74 and

104 degrees Fahrenheit) and ground temperatures are

between 22 degrees and 36 degrees Celsius (72 and 97

degrees Fahrenheit) (USFWS I 985a, J. B rode pers.

comm.). Some activity has been observed am

temperatures as high as 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees

Fahrenheit) (OFarrell amid Kato 1980, Mullen 1981,

Toltestrup 1976, Williams and Tordoff 1988). Body’

temperaturesrange from 32.2 to 42.0 degrees Celsius (90

and 108 degrees Fahrenheit) (Cowles and Bogerm 1944,

Mullen 1981). Because diurnal activity’ is temperature

dependent, blunt-nosed leopard lizards are most likely to

be obser’.-ed in the morning and late afternoon during the

hotter days (Tollestrup 1976). Smallerlizards and young

have a w-ider acmiximv range than the adults (Monmanucci

1965). This results in the smaller, subadult lizards

emerging from hibernation earlier than adults, remaining

active later in the year, and being active during the day

117
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

earlier and later than adults (Montanucci 1965). Adults

are active above ground in the spring months from about

March or April through June orJuly, with the amount of

activity decreasing so that by the end of June or July

almost all sightings are ofsubadult and hatchling leopard

lizards (Williams em al. 1993b). Also, following the

breeding season, the proportion of each sex active

changes as males tend to cease surface activity sooner

than females (Monmanucci 1967, Williams and Tordoff

1988). Adults captured on the surface in August are

about 70 percent females (Monmanucci 1967). Adults

retreat to their burrow-s to brumnmate (dormancy in

poiki/otliermic vertebrates [having a body temperature

that varies with the temperature of its surroundings]),

beginning in August or September, bum hamchiings are

active until mid-October or November, depending on

weather.

Habitat and Community Associations—Bluntnosed leopard lizards inhabit open, sparsely vegetated

areas of low relief on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in

the surrounding foothills (Smith 1946, Montanucci

1965). On the Valley floor, they are most commonly

found in the Nonnative Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub

communities described by Holland (1986). The Valley

Sink Scrub is dominated by low, alkali-tolerant shrubs of

the family Chenopodiaceae, such as iodine bush, and

seepweeds. The soils are saline and alkaline lake bed or

phay’a clays that often form a white salty crust and are

occasionally covered by introduced annualgrasses. Prior

to agricultural development, Valley Sink Scrub was

widespread around Kern, Buena Vista, Tulare, and

Goose lakes and extended north to the Sacramento

Valley along the trough of the San Joaquin Valley.

Today, nearly all the remaining Valley sink scrub on the

Valley floor is seasonally flooded fragments of this

historical community. This community corresponds to

tw’o that Tollestrup (1976) described as A//enro/fea

grassland and Suaeda flat.

Valley Needlegrass Grassland, Nonnative (Annual)

Grassland, and Alkali Playa (Holland 1986) also provide

suitable habitat for the lizard on the Valley floor. Valley

Needlegrass Grassland is dominated by native perennial

bunchgrasses, including purple needlegrass (Nasse/la

pu/chra) and alkali sacamon. Associated with the

perennial grasses are native and introduced annual

plants. Both the Valley Needlegrass Grassland and

Nonnamive/Annual Grassland occur on fine-textured

soils and probably were widespread in the Valley before

large areas were converted to agriculture. The Alkali

Playa community occurs on poorly drained, saline and

alkaline soils in small, closed basins. The small, widely

spaced, dominant shrubs include: iodine bush,

saltbushes, and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus).

Blunt-nosed leopard lizards also inhabit Valley

Saltbush Scrub, which is a low shrubland, withan annual

grassland understory, that occurs on the gently sloping

alluvial fans of the foothills of the southern San Joaquin

Valley and adjacent Carrizo Plain. This community is

dominated by the chenopod shrubs, common sattbush

(A triplex poivcarpa) and spiny salmbush (Atrip/ex

spi,mifera), and is associated with non-alkaline, sandy or

loamy soils. Tollestrup (1976) described this plant

community as Atrip/ex grassland. Similar to this

community, but dominated principally by common

salmbushes, are the Sierra-Tehachapi Salinbush Scrub

(extending from the southern Sierra Nevada north of

Porterville to the Grapevine in the Tehachapi Mountains)

and Interior Coast Range Saltbush Scrub. The latter

ranges from Pacheco Pass to Maricopa but, for the most

part, has been converted by grazing and fire to

Nonnainive/Annual Grassland. Otherfoothill communities

that occur within the range of the blunt-nosed leopard

lizardare Upper Sonoran SubshrubScrub and Serpentine

Bunchgrass (Holland 1986). In general,leopard lizards

are absentfrom areas of steep slope, dense vegetation, or

areas subject to seasonal flooding (Montanucci 1965).

4. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

Reasons for Decline—Since the 1870s and the

advent of irrigated agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley,

more than 95 percent of the original natural communities

have been destroyed. This dramatic loss of natural

communities was the result of cultivation, modification

and alterationof existing communities for petroleum and

mineral extraction, pesticide applications, off-road

vehicle use, and construction of transportation,

communications, and irrigation infrastructures. These

processes collectively have caused the reduction and

fragmentation of populations and decline of blunt-nosed

leopard lizards (Stebbins 1954, Montanucci 1965,

USEWS 1980a, 1985a, Germano and Williams 1993).

Farming began in the Valley as a direct response to

increased demands for local food supplies, created by the

migration of settlers to California during the 1849 Gold

Rush (California Department of Water Resources 1974).

Land conversion was accelerated in the 1920s with the

advent of reliable electrical groundwater pumps and in

118
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

the 1950s and 1960s with importation of water via

Federal and State water projects (San Joaquin Valley

Interagency Drainage Program 1979). By’ 1985, 94

percent of wildhands on the Valley floor had been lost to

agricultural, urban, petroleum, mineral, or other

development (USFWS 1985c, CDFG 1985).

Smebbins (1954) first recognized that agricultural

conversion of its habitat was causing the elimination of

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The cumulative effects of

the dramatic decline in its available habitat and

degradation of existing habitat by a variety of human

activities have resulted in the lizard’s present status as

endangered.

In the first blunt-nosed leopard lizard recovery plan

(USEWS 1980a). 20 Habitat Units were identified as

“EssentiaF’ to the continued survival of the blunt-nosed

leopard lizard, though these did not have any legal

protection equivalent to critical habitat. Ten of these

habitat units were recommended as having priority for

protection (USEWS 1980a, in hint. 1985). Between 1977

and 1985, over 30,000 heemares (74.000 acres) of this

important Valley-floor habitat were destroyed.

Threats to Survival.—Habitat disturbance.

destruction, and fragmentation continue as the greatest

threats to blunt-nosed leopard lizard populations.

Construction of facilities related to oil and natural gas

production, such as welt pads, wells, storage tanks,

sumps, pipelines, and their associated service roads

degrade habitat and cause direct mortality’ to leopard

lizards, as do leakage of oil from pumps and transport

pipes. and storage facilities, surface mining, and offhighway vehicle traffic (Mullen 1981. USEWS 1985a.

Kamo and OFarrell 1986, Madrone Associates 1979,

Chesemore 1980). Dumping of waste oil and highly’

saline wasmiewamer into natural drainage systems also

degrades habitat and causes direct mortality’, but these

activities are no longer permitted. Lizards displaced by’

degraded or host habitat may’ be unable to survive in

adjacent habitat ifit is already’ occupied or unsuitable for

~olonization (USFWS 1985a, Williams and Tordoff

1988). Direct mortality occurs when animals arc killed or

buried in their burrow’s during construction, killed by’

‘-chicle traffic oh access roads. drowned or mired in pools

of oil (Montanucci 1965. Mullen 1981. Kato and

OFarrell 1986. Kamo em al. 1987b) and uncovered oil

cellars (USEWS 1988). or fall into excavated areas from

which they’ are unable to escape (O’Farretl and Sauts

1987).

Although lizards occur in areas of light petroleum

development and recolonize oil fields that have been

abandoned (O’Farretl and Kato 1980, Chesemore 1980,

O’Farrehl 1980, Williams in hint. 1989), their population

densities decrease as oil activity increases (Jones 1980,

O’Farrelt and Kato 1980, Mullen 1981, Kamo and

O’Farrell 1986, O’Farrell and Sauls 1987). Eighty-three

percent of the blunt-nosed leopard lizard population on

Elk Hilts Naval Petroleum Reserves in California

inhabited areas where little or no petroleum-related

activity had occurred (Kato and O’Farrell 1986). D.J.

Germano (pers. comm.) reports relatively high numbers

of blunt-nosed leopard lizards am the Kern Front Oil

Fields despite the high level of oil activity’.

Livestock grazing can result in removal of

herbaceous vegetation and shrub cover, destruction of

rodent burrowsused by lizards forshelter, and associated

soil erosion ifthe stocking rate is too high or animals are

left on the range too long after annual plants have died

(Chesemore 1981, Williams and Tordoff 1988). Unlike

cultivation of row crops, which precludes use by leopard

lizards, light or moderate grazing may be beneficial

(USEWS 1985a, Germano and Williams 1993,

Chesemore 1980). Chesemore (1980) suggested that 15

percent to 30 percent ground cover was optimal for

leopard lizard habitat and greater than 50 percent was

unsuitable. Researchers have hypothesized that leopard

lizards prefer tightly grazed grasslands since these are

dominated by’ Arabian grass. a low, sparsely’ growing,

introduced annual grass, whereas ungrazed areas are

dominated by red brome which is a taller, denser

introduced grass (Mullen 1981, Chesemore 1980).

However, domination by Arabian grass rriay be partly or

predominately due to precipitation, soil structure, and

other environmental variables instead of grazing

intensity’, based on long-term studies at several sites

within the geographic range of the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard (Williams em. at 1993b. Germano and Williams

1994b, Williams and Nelson in press, Williams and

Germano 1991). On the Elkhorn Plain Ecological

Reserve, high percentages of ground cover (nearly’ 100

percent in 1991—1993, 1995) may not have provided

optimum habitat conditions, but grasshoppers and large

moths and other prey for leopard lizards were abundant

under these conditions. Blunt-nosed leopard lizards

survived such conditionsin similar proportions in grazed

and nongrazed areas both in years of low’ and high plant

productivity’, though drought and lack of grazing during

several years of the study’ makes results inconclusive

(Williams em at. 1993b. Germano em at. 1994, Germano

119
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

and Williams 1994b, Williams and Nelson in press, D.F.

Williams unpubl. data).

The use of pesticides may directly and indirectly

affect blunt-nosed leopard lizards (Germano and

Williams 1993, Jones and Stokes 1977, California

Department of Food and Agriculture 1984, Williams and

Tordoff 1988). The insecticide malathion has been used

since 1969 to control the beet leafhopper (California

Department of Food and Agriculture 1984). California

Department of Food and Agriculture treats areas on the

west side ofthe San Joaquin Valley, from Merced to San

Luis Obispo Counties, up to three times a year,

depending on the seasonal densities of the sugar beet

leafhopper andwhether or not it is carrying the curly-top

virus (H.L. Foote pers. comm.). Pretreatment survey’s for

blunt-nosed leopard lizards are conducted so that

inhabited areas can be avoided, if possible.

Although the acute and chronic effects of malathion

toxicity to leopard lizards are unknown (R.A. Marovich

pers. comm.), Hall and Clark (1982)found that acute oral

administration of malathion w’as relatively non-toxic to

another lizard of the family Iguanidae. The most

important effects of malathion on the blunt-nosed

leopard lizardmay be those associated w’ith the reduction

of insect prey populations (California Department of

Food and Agriculture 1984). Because it degrades in

approximately 48 hours, the direct effect of this

insecticide on the abundance of prey speciesis thought to

last for 2 to 5 days (California Department of Food and

Agriculture 1984). Aerial application of malathion may

reduce the availability of food for reproducing lizards in

the spring, and later for hameblings when they should be

storing fat to sustain themselves during their first winter

(Kato and O’Farrell 1986). During recent consultation

with the Service, the California Department of Food and

Agriculture’s curly mop virus control program was

modified to increase protection measures, including

increasing the use of biocontrol and integrated pest

management techniques in blunt-nosed leopard lizard

habitat (USEWS in limit. 1997a).

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard mortality is known to

occur as a result of regular automobile traffic and offroad vehicle use (Tollestrup 1979b, Uptain em at. 1985,

Williams and Tordoff 1988). Little information is

available regarding the relative effect of this cause of

mortality, but habitat fragmentation has accompanied

the construction of roads. Typically roads surround and

often bisect remaining fragments of habitat, increasing

the risks of mortality by vehicles and strengthening the

population effects of isolation.

5. Conservation Efforts

The blunt-nosed leopard lizard was listed as

endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior in

1967 (USEWS 1967) and by the State of California in

1971 (Table I). A recovery plan was first prepared in

1980 (USEWS 1980a) and revised in 1985 (USFWS

1985a). Conservation efforts have included habitat and

population surveys, studies of population demography

and habitat management, land acquisition, and

development of management plans for public lands that

have benefitted blunt-nosed leopard lizards as well as

otherlisted species (see the Introduction, 3.Conservation

Efforts am the Community Level and Table 2).

Large-scale habitat surveys include those for the

California Energy Commission’s Southern San Joaquin

Valley Habitat Preservation Program (Anderson et al.

1991), the CarrizoPlain Natural Area (Kakiba-Russell et

al. 1991), Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California (O~Farrell and Matthews 1987, O’Farrell and

Sauls 1987, EG&G Energy Measurements 1995a,b),

USBEM hands in Fresno, San Benito, and Monterey

Counties (O’Farrell em al. 1981), and a survey of 12,000

hectares (30,000acres)of naturalland inwestern Madera

County (Williams 1990). There also have been

numerous smaller-scale preprojeem surveys as part of the

See. 7 and 10(a) permit processes of the Endangered

Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act and

California Environmental Quality Act laws and

regulations. Most of these have taken place in the

southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern and western Kings

Counties.

The CDFG conducted aerial surveys between 1976

and 1985 to determine the extent of remaining natural

lands inthe San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1980a. 1985a).

Survey maps were compared with baseline maps hand

drawnfrom EROS45.7 by 45.7-centimeter colorinfrared

high attitude photos, taken in August 1974. The loss of

undeveloped land in each of 20 Essential Habitat areas

was compared for the years 1983 and 1985, the years

most recent surveys were conducted.

In 1985, USFWS (USFWS in hint. 1985) proposed

that 3,345 hectares (8,265 acres) in the Firebaugh,

Whitesbridge, and Pixtey Refuge Essential Habitat areas

be acquired using Land and Water Conservation Fund

120
Recoi’ery Platifor Upland Species ofthe Sa,i Joaquin Valley

Actfunds. How-ever, because offundingconstraints, this

plan has not been implemented.

Studies ofpopulationecology and habitat management

of leopard lizards have been conducted by several

researchers funded by the USBLM, U.S. Department of

Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, Service, and CDFG.

The results oftwo research investigations of blunt-nosed

leopard lizard food habits and home range size have been

published since 1985 (Kamo em at. 1987b, I 987b). Studies

of demography and habitat management on the Elkhorn

Plain have been on-going since 1987 (Williams et at.

1993b. Germano and Williams 1994b, Germano et at.

1994, Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl.

data). Similarly,since 1985, studies of demography have

beenongoing at Pixtey- National Wildlife Refuge (Uptain

em at. 1992, Williams and Germano 1991. Endangered

Species Recovery Program unpubl. data). Other studies

of habitat management and restoration have taken place

at the Kern Fan Element by the California Department of

WaterResources (J’ Shelton and S. Juarez pers. comm.).

Though population viability analyses are an

important aspect of conservation planning for this

species, recent single-population analyses (Buechner

1989, Endangered Species Recovery Program studies in

progress) are inadequate for two main reasons: (1) there

are insufficient data on demographics of blunt-nosed

leopard lizards from several sites representing the range

of environmental conditions to which the species is

exposed; and (2) the data are not representative of the

temporal variation ofthe environment. Before modeling

can become a useful tool for conservation planning, data

needed to conduct memapopulamion modeling must be

gathered. These data include demographics of individual

populations, the carrying capacity of the habitat of each,

and their connectivity (rate of movement). Despite the

shortcomings of current information, recentstudies have

show-n that blunt-nosed leopard lizards can withstand

severe, longterm drought by remaining dormant for up to

22 months, and have the reproductive capacity lor

irruptive population growth w-hen conditions are

favorable (Williams cm at. 1993b, Germano et at. 1994,

Germano and Williams 1994b).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency County’

bulletins governing use of rodenticides have greatly

reduced the risk of significant mortality to blunt-nosed

leopard lizard populations by State and county rodentcontrol activities. The California Environmental

Protection Agency, California Department of Food and

Agriculture, county agricultural departments, CDFG,

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

collaborated with the Service in the development of

County Bulletins that both are efficacious and acceptable

to land owners (RA. Marovich pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

The more important questions that must be addressed

before or simultaneous w’ith purchase of land (yr

crinservation easements, is how’ to preserve andenhance

populations on existing habitat. Substantial habitat is in

public ownership or a conservation program, but

appropriate habitat management prescriptions for these

parcels mostly are unknow’n. No parcel currently is being

specifically managed to optimize habitat conditions for

this species. Thus, the three most important factors in

recovering the blunt-nosed leopard lizard are:

I. determining appropriate habitat management

and compatible hand uses for blunt-nosed

leopard lizards;

2. protecting additional habitat for them in key

portions of their range; and

3. gathering additional data on population

responses to environmental variation at

representative sites in their extant geographic

range.

A population monitoring program and a range-wide

population survey are needed to determine current

population sizes and habitat conditions, track lizards’

responses to environmental variation and changing land

uses, and rank areas and parcels for protection bypurchase oftitle or easement. Special attention must be

directed to surveys in potential habitat in central Merced

County, w’here ground surveys have not been conducted.

Also needed is an analysis of extinction patterns on

different-sized, isolated blocks of natural land on the

Valley’ floor to gain insight into the effects of habitat size

and diversity on population viability. Because several

important populations are isolated on fragmented natural

hand on the Valley floor and along its southern and

western perimeter, ultimately’, determining viable

population size, genetic variation, and methods to

enhance population movements and restore habitat on

retired farmlands are needed to ensure recovery.

Recovery Actions—Principal recovery actions for

121
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard should focus on

information needed to make informed decisions about

land acquisition and habitat management andrestoration,

and measure progress toward recovery’ - Habitat

protection is important, and in some portions of the

geographic range of blunt-nosed leopard lizards, it has a

high priority. Yet, white habitat protection goals may

require many’ years to achieve, and some may never be

reached, other actions must be implemented. Needed

actions are:

- Determine appropriate habitat management and

compatible land uses for blunt-nosed leopard

lizards.

2. Conduct range-w’ide surveys of known and

potential habitat for presence and abundance of

blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

3. Protect additional habitat for them in key

portions oftheir range; areas of highest priority

to target for protection are:

a. Natural lands in western Madera County;

b. Natural landsin the Panoche Valley areaof

Silver Creek Ranch. San Benito County’;

c. Agricultural and natural land between the

north end of the Kettleman Hilts and the

Guijarral Hilts and the Guijarral Hills and

Anticline Ridge (western rim of Pheasant

Valley, Fresno County’) to restore and

protect a corridor of continuous habitat for

blunt-nosed leopard lizards and other

species without the ability to move through

irrigated farmland:

d. Natural lands west ofHighway 33 and east

of the coastal ranges between the Pleasant

Valley, Fresno County. on the north and

McKimmrick Valley’, Kern County, on the

south;

e. Natural lands of the linear, piedmont

remnants of their habitat west of Interstate

Highway 5 between Pleasant Valley and

Panoche Creek, Fresno County;

f. Natural lands in upper Cuyama Valley.

4. Gather additional data on population responses

to environmental variation at representative

sites in its extant geographic range.

5. Design and implement a range-wide population

iTi()nitoring program.

6. Protect additional habitat for blunt-nosed

leopard lizards in the following areas (all are of

equal priority):

a. Natural and retired agricultural lands

around Pixtey National Wildlife Ret’uge,

Tulare County. with an objective of

expanding and connecting the Refugeunits

with each other and with the Atlensworth

Ecological Reserve;

b. Natural land in and around the Elk Hilts

Naval Petroleum Reserves in California

and LokernNatural Area w’ith the objective

ofexpanding and connecting existing lands

with conservation programs;

c. Natural and retired agricultural lands in the

Semitropic Ridge Natural Area, Kern

County. with the objective of expanding

and connecting existing reserves and

refuges.

L. SAN JOAQUIN KIT Fox

(VLILPES MACROTJS AICTIcA)

1. Description and Taxonomy

Taxonomy.—The kit fox, Va/pes nmacrotis, was

described by’ C. Hart Merriam (1888). The area of the

type locality, near Riverside in Southern California, is

now highly urbanized. Eight subspecies were recognized

historically (e.g., Halt 1981). V. ni. inutica, the San

Joaquin kit fox, was first described by Merriam (1902).

Today, only V. in. macrotis and V. in. mutica are

recognized (Mercure et al. 1993). The type locality is

near Tracy, San Joaquin County, California.

Several different taxonomies for the species and

subspecies of small, North American foxes have been

proposed over the last 110 years (historical literature

summarized by Hall 1946, Hall and Kelson 1959,

Rohwer and Kilgore 1973, Waithmnan and Roest 1977,

Hall 1981). Two recent studies examined the

122
Recovery P/anfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquiii Valley

evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among small,

North American foxes (Dragoo et at. 1990, Mercure et at.

1993). Dragoo et al. (1990) concluded that all North

American arid-land foxes belonged to the species V.

xe/ox (swift fox). The subspecific statuses of the miaxa

historically regarded as subspecies of V. macrotis also

were challenged by Dragoo em al. (1990), who

recommended that all be synonymized under V. re/ox

loacrotis. Genetic w-ork by Mercure em al. (1993) led

them to conclude that, though there was evidence of

hybridization between kit and swift foxes over a limited

geographic area, they should be considered separate

species. Further, Mercure et al. concluded that of the

traditional subspecies of the kit fox, the San Joaquin

Valley population is the most distinct and should be

considered a subspecies (1993, p. 1323). Their data

recognize the swift fox as a separate monotypic species,

and two subspecies of kit foxes: V. tuacrotis inacrotis,

found throughout the remaining habitat within the

historical range of the species, except the San Joaquin kit

fox range; and V. niacrotis niutica, the San Joaquin kit

fox.

Description.—The kit fox is the smallest canid

species in North America and the San Joaquin kit fox is

the largest subspecies in skeletal measurements, body

size, and weight. Grinnell et at. (1937) found a difference

in body size between males and females: males averaged

80.5 centimeters (31.7 inches) in total length, and 29.5

centimeters (11 .6 inches) in tail length; females

averaged 76.9 centimeters (30.3 inches) in total length,

and 28.4 centimeters (11.2 inches) in tail length. Kit

foxes have long slender legs and are about 30 centimeters

(12 inches) high am the shoulder. The average weight of

Figure 50. Illustration of a kit fox by Jodi Sears (© DR

Williams)

adult males is 2.3 kilograms (5 pounds), and of adult

females is 2.1 kilograms (4.6 pounds) (Morrell 1972).

General physical characteristics of kit foxes include a

small, slim body, relatively’ large ears set close together,

narrow nose, and a long, bushy tail tapering slightly

toward the tip (Figure 50). The tail is typically’ carried

low and straight.

Color and texture of the fur coat of kit foxes varies

geographically and seasonally. The most commonlydescribed colorations are buff, man, grizzled, or

yellowish-gray’ dorsal coats (MeGrew’ 1979). The guard

hairs on the backare black tipped, which accountsfor the

grizzled appearance (Bell 1994). Tw’o distinctive coats

develop each year: a tan summer coat and a silver-gray

winter coat (Morrell 1972). The undersides vary’ from

light buff to white (Grinnell et al. 1937), with the

shoulders, lower sides, flanks and chest varying from

buff to a rust color. The ear pinna (external ear flap) is

dark on the back side, with a thick border of white hairs

on the forward-inner edge and inner base. The tail is

distinctly black-tipped.

ldentification.—The foot pads of kit foxes are small

by comparison with other canids. A sample of 21 tracks

from throughout the San Joaquin Valley had an average

length of 3.1 centimeters (1.2 inches) and an average

width of 2.6 centimeters (1 inch) (Orloff et al. 1993).

Other characteristics such as the degree to which the feet

are furred and the size, shape, and configuration of the

pads distinguishkit fox tracks from those of co-occurring

canids and domestic cats (Orloff em al. 1993).

Because all three fox species that occur in the San

Joaquin Valley are primarily nocturnal, identification of

free-living, and often fast-moving, animals can be a

challenge. The black-tipped tail and coat color

differences usually distinguish kit foxes from red foxes

(V. x’u/pes). At 4 to 5 kilograms (8 to 11 pounds), the red

fox also is much heavier than the kit fox. Gray foxes

(Urocvon cinereoargeimteus) however are sometimes

misidentified as kit foxes, especially in winter when the

kit fox coat is thicker and has more gray. Both species

have a black tail tip butgray foxes also have a distinctive

black stripe running along the top of the tail. Gray foxes

are more robust than kit foxes; they are heavier with an

average body w’eight of about 3.6 kilograms (8 pounds)

(Grinnell em al. 1937). However, San Joaquin kit foxes

have longer ears, averaging 8.6 centimeters (3.4 inches)

compared with 7.8 centimeters (3 inches) for gray foxes

(Grinnell em al. 1937).

123
Recovery P/anfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquiii Valley

2. Historical and Current Distribution

Historical Distribution.—‘The historical range was

first defined by’ Grinnell em at. (1937)- Prior to 1930, kit

foxes inhabited most of the San Joaquin Valley’ from

southern Kern County’ north to Tracy’, San Joaquin

County, on the w’esm side, and near La Grange, Stanislaus

County, on the eastside. These authors believed that by’

1930 the kit fox range had been reduced by more than

half, with the largest portion ofthe rangeremaining in the

southern and w’estern parts of the Valley (Figure 51),

though they’ provided no indication for why’ they believed

foxes had been eliminated from most of the east side and

Valley’ floor.

Current Distribution—Although the San Joaquin

kit fox has been listed as endangered for over 30 years,

there has never beena comprehensive survey’ ofits entire

historical range. And, despite the toss (If habitat and

apparent decline in numbers since the early’ 1970s, there

has been no new’ survey of habitat that w’as then thought

to be occupied (Morrelt 1975).

Despite the tack of a comprehensive survey’, local

survey’s, research projects and incidental sightings

indicate that kit foxes currently inhabit some areas of

suitable habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the

surroundinmz foothills of the coastal ranges. Sierra

Nevada. and Tebachapi Mountains, from southern Kern

County’ north toContra Costa. Alameda. and San Joaquin

Counties on the west, and near La Grange. Stanistaus

County on the east side (If the Valley (Williams in litt.

1990), and some of the larger scattered islands of natural

land on the Valley’ floor in Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno,

Madera. and Merced Counties (Figure 51). Kit foxes

also occur w’esmw’ard into the interior coastal ranges in

Monterey’, San Benimo, and Santa Clara Counties (Pajaro

River w-atershed), in the Salinas River w-atershed,

Monterey’ and San Luis Ohispo Counties, and in the

upper Cuy’ama River w-atershed in northern Ventura and

Santa Barbara Counties and southeastern San Luis

Obispo County’. Kit foxes arc also known to live within

the city’ limits ofthe city of Bakersfield in Kern County’

(Laughrin 1970, Jensen 1972, Morrell 1975. USEWS

1983, Swick 1973. Waithman 1974a, Endangered

Species Recovery’ Program unpubt. data).

Some researchers have suggested that as San Joaquin

Valley natural lands were cultivated or otherwise

developed, displaced kim foxes colonized nearby- valley’s

and foothills (Laughrin 197f). Jensen 1972); hoxvevcr,

there is no concrete evidence to support this assertion. As

early as 1925, Grinnell em at. reported kit fox specimens

from the Panoche Creek area in the foothills of w’estern

Fresno County, and east of Rose Station (Fort Tejon) in

southern Kern County am an elevation (If 363 meters

(l,20() feet) (Grinnell et al. 1937, USFWS 1983).

Therefore, it is more probable that kit foxes have always

(iccurred in these areas, possibly am loxv density.

The largest extant populations of kit foxes are in

western Kern County’ on and around the Elk Hills and

Buena Vista Valley, Kern County’, and in the Carrizo

Plain NaturalArea, San Luis Obispo County. The kitfox

populations of Elk Hilts and the City of Bakersfield,

Kern County’ (B.L. Cypher pers. comm.). Carrizo Plain

Natural Area, San Luis Obispo County’ (White and Rails

1993, RaIls and White 1995), Ciervo-Panoche Natural

Area, Fresno and San Benito Counties (Endangered

Species Recovery Program), Fort Hunter Liggett,

Monterey County (V. Getz pers. comm.), and Camp

Roberts, Monterey’ and San Luis Obispo Counties (W.

Berry pers. comm.) have been recently, or are currently,

the focus of various research projects. Though

monitoring has not been continuous in the central and

northern portions of the range, populations were

recorded in the late 1980s at San Luis Reservoir, Merced

County (Briden em al. 1987), North Grasslands and

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge area on the Valley

floor, MercedCounty’ (Paveglin andClifton 1988), and in

the Los Vaqueros watershed, Contra CostaCounty in the

early 1990s (V. Getz pers. comm.). Smaller populations

and isolated sightings (If kit foxes are also known from

other parts of the San Joaquin Valley floor, including

MaderaCounty’ and eastern StanislausCounty (Williams

1990).

3. Life History and Habitat

Food and I’oraging.—Diem of kit foxes varies

geographically’. seasonally, and annually, based on

x-ariation in abundance of potential prey. In the southern

p(Irti(In of their range, kangaroo rams, pocket mice, whitefooted mice (Peronmvscus spp.), and other nocturnal

rodents comprise about one-third or more of their diets.

Kit foxes there also prey on California ground squirrels,

black-tailed hares, San Joaquin antelope squirrels, desert

c(Ittontails, ground-nesting birds, and insects (Scrivneret

at. 1987a). Vegetation and insects occur frequently in

feces. Grass is the most commonly ingested plant

material (Morrell 1971, CA. Vanderbilt-White pers.

comm.). In the central portion (If their geographic range,

124
Recovery Plan for Upland Speciesofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 51. Map of distributional records for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrodsmutica).

125
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

defined here as Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera, San

Benito, Merced, Stanislaus, and Monterey Counties,

known prey species include white-footed mice, insects,

California ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, San Joaquin

antelope squirrels, black-tailed hares, and chukar

(Alectoris chukar) (Jensen 1972, Archon 1992), listed in

approximate proportion of occurrence in fecal samples.

In the northern part of their range, defined here as San

Joaquin, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, kitfoxes

most frequently consume California ground squirrels

(Orloff et al. 1986). Cottontails, black-tailed hares,

pocket mice, and kangaroo rats also are eaten (Hall 1983,

D.F. Williams unpubl. data). Though ground squirrels

are diurnal and kit foxes are predominantly nocturnal, kit

foxes are commonly seen during the day during late

spring and early summer (Orloff et al. 1986).

Reproduction and Demography.—Kit foxes can

breed when 1 year old, but may not breed their first year

of adulthood (Morrell 1972). Adult pairs remaintogether

all year, sharing the home range but not necessarily the

same den (K. Ralls pers. comm.). During September and

October, adultfemales begin to clean and enlarge natal or

pupping dens (they select dens with multiple openings;

Morrell 1972). Mating and conception take place

between late December and March (Egoscue 1956,

Morrell 1972, Zoellick et al. 1987a, Spiegel et al. in

press). Themedian gestation period is estimated to range

from 48 to 52 days (Spiegel et al. in press). Litters of

from two to six pups are born sometime between

February and late March (Egoscue 1962, Morrell 1972,

Zoellick et al. 1987a, Spiegel et al. in press).

The female is rarely seenhunting during the time she

islactating. During this period the male provides most of

the food for her and the pups. The pups emerge above

ground at slightly more than 1 month of age. After 4 to5

months, usually in August or September, the family

bonds begin to dissolve and the young begin dispersing.

Occasionally ajuvenile female will remain withthe adult

female for several more months (O’Neal et al. 1992,

Spiegel et al. in press). Offspring of both sexes

sometimes remain with their parents through the

following year and help raise a subsequent litter (White

and RaIls 1993, Spiegel et al. in press, B.L. Cypher pers.

comm.).

Reproductive success of kit foxes is correlated with

abundance of their prey (Egoscue 1975). Success

decreases when the density of prey speciesdrops because

of drought, too much rainfall, or other circumstances

(White and Ralls 1993, Spiegel et al. in press, B.L.

Cypher pers. comm., White and Garrott 1998).

During a 6-year study at the Elk Hills Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California, pups dispersed an

average of 8 ±1.4 kilometers (5.0 ±0.9 mile; Scrivner et

al. 1987b). Maximum reported distances can vary

considerably (Hall 1983). One individual traveled a

minimum of 40 kilometers (25 miles) from its whelping

den (V. Getz pers. comm.), and a prime adult male

dispersed from Camp Roberts to the Carrizo Plain in

1989 (P.J. White pers. comm.). Adult and juvenile kit

foxes radio-collared at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum

Reserves in California dispersed through disturbed

habitats, including agricultural fields, oil fields,

rangelands, and across highways and aqueducts. One

pup crossed the Temblor Range into the Carrizo Plain

(Scrivner et al. 1987b).

The average age of kit foxesin a Utah population was

about 2 years (Egoscue 1975). One fox in another Utah

study was estimated to be atleast 7 years old (Egoscue

1962). Kitfoxes at Camp Roberts are reported tobe over

8 years old (P.J. White pers. comm.). Kit foxes on Naval

Petroleum Reserve-i in California are known to live as

long as 8 years but such longevity is rare; animals less

than 1 year old outnumber older foxes by 2.8:1 (Berry et

al. 1987a). Annual survival rates of juvenile foxes have

ranged from 0.26 on Naval Petroleum Reserve- 1 in

California (Berry et al. 1987a) to 0.21 to 0.41 on the

Carrizo Plain (Ralls and White 1995). In captivity, kit

foxes have lived up to 10 years (McGrew 1979, M.

Johnson pers. comm.).

An annual adult mortality rate of approximately 50

percent has been reported (Morrell 1972, Egoscue 1975,

Berry et al. 1987a, Ralls and White 1995, Standley et al.

1992). The annual mortality rate forjuvenile kit foxes

may be closer to 70 percent (Berry et al. 1987a).

Predation by larger carnivores (e.g., coyotes) accounts

for the majority of San Joaquin kit fox mortality. The

effects of disease, parasites and accidental death are

largely unknown, but were thoughtto account for only a

small portion of mortality (Berry et al. 1987a). Drought

plays a role in low reproductive success (i.e., pups are

born but do not survive toweaning). Adults canmaintain

weight and body condition and females can give birth,

butpairs apparently cannot catch enough prey to support

pups (White andRaIls 1993, Spiegel et al. in press).

San Joaquin kit fox densities on the west side of the

126
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

San Joaquin Valley were estimated to be 0.4 per square

kilometer (1.04 per square mile) prior to 1925, based on

fur trapping efforts (Grinnell et al. 1937). In 1969,

Laughrin (1970) estimated that range-wide kit fox

densities were 0.2 to 0.4 per square kilometer (0.52 to

1.04 persquare mile). Morrell (1975) estimated densities

of 1.2 per square kilometer (3.11 per square mile) in

optimal habitats in “good” years. In the 1983 recovery

plan (USFWS 1983), Morrell’s data was corrected for

habitat loss and an estimate of 0.5 per square kilometer

(1.30 per square mile) was obtained. The estimated mean

density of trappable adult kit foxes was from 0.8 to 1.1

per square kilometer (2 to 2.8 per square mile) between

1980 and 1982 on the Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California (O’Farrell 1984). More recently, kit fox

densities at the Naval Petroleum Reserves were

determinedfrom annual live-trapping efforts (Enterprise

Advisory Services, Inc., unpubl. data). On Naval

Petroleum Reserve- 1 in California, the mean density

from 1981 to 1993 was 0.12 per square kilometer (0.31

per square mile) in winter, but varied from 0.72 per

square kilometer (1.86 per square mile) in 1981 to 0.01

persquare kilometer (0.03per square mile) in 1991. On

Naval Petroleum Reserve-2 in California, mean density

from 1983 to 1993 was 0.38 per square kilometer (0.98

per square mile), and varied from 0.72 per square

kilometer (1.86 per square mile) in summer 1983 to 0.1

per square kilometer (0.30 per square mile) in winter

1991. On the nearby Carrizo PlainNatural Area, kit fox

densities were estimated to be 0.15 to 0.24 per square

kilometer (0.39 to0.62 persquare mile) (White andRalls

1993).

In the 1983 recovery plan (USFWS 1983) it was

estimated that the population range-wide of adult kit

foxes prior to 1930 may have been between 8,667 and

12,134 assuming an occupied range of 22,447 square

kilometers(8,667 square miles) and densities of0.4 to0.6

persquare kilometer (1.04 to 1.55 per square mile). The

kit fox population in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,

Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties was estimated to be

about 11,000 animalsin theearly 1 970s based on limited

aerial surveys of pupping dens and amount of historic

habitat, but without correction for cultivated and

urbanized lands (Waithman 1974b). Laughrin (1970)

reported an estimated total population size of 1,000 to

3,000 foxes in 1969. Morrell (1975) conducted a more

thorough investigation of kit fox abundance in 14

counties in which kit foxes were known to occur and

estimated the total population at 14,832. In the 1983

recovery plan (USFWS 1983), Morrell’s data was

adjusted and a corrected estimate of 6,961 foxes in 1975

was obtained. Whencompared to the pre-1930 estimate,

this represents a possible population decline of 20 to 43

percent. Approximately 85 percent of the fox population

in 1975 was found in only six counties (Kern, Tulare,

Kings, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and Monterey), and

over half the population occurred in two of those

counties: Kern (41 percent) and San Luis Obispo (10

percent) (Morrell 1975).

Behavior and Species Interactions—San Joaquin

kit foxes use dens for temperature regulation, shelter

from adverse environmental conditions, reproduction,

and escape from predators. Though kit foxes are reputed

to be poor diggers (Jensen 1972, Morrell 1972), the

complexity and depth of their dens do not support this

assessment (USFWS 1983). Kit foxes also modify and

use dens constructed by other animals, such as ground

squirrels, badgers, and coyotes (Jensen 1972, Morrell

1972, Hall 1983, Berry et al. 1987b), and human-made

structures (culverts, abandoned pipelines, and banks in

sumps or roadbeds) (Spiegel et al. in press, B.L. Cypher

pers. comm.).

Den characteristics vary acrossthe San Joaquin kit

fox’s geographic range. In the southernmost portion,

dens withtwo entrances are mostfrequently found. Natal

and pupping dens,inwhich pups are born and raised, tend

to be larger withmore entrances (2 to 18) (Morrell 1972,

O’Farrell and Gilbertson 1979, O’Farrell et al. 1980,

O’Farrell and McCue 1981, Berry et al. 1987b).

Entrances are usually from 20 to 25 centimeters (8 to 10

inches) in diameter and normally are higher than wide.

Ramp-shaped mounds of dirt from 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6

feet) long are deposited at some den entrances (Morrell

1972). Most hillsides where kit fox dens are found (95

percent) have a slope of less than 40 degrees (Reese et al.

1992). Natal and pupping dens are found on flatter

ground with slopes of about 6 degrees (O’Farrell and

McCue 1981, O’Farrell et al. 1980). The entrances of

pupping dens show more evidence of use, such as fox

scat, preyremains, and matted vegetation. In the central

portion of their geographic range, dens also have several

openings; however, instead of a mound of dirtin front of

the opening, the dirt is more often scattered into a long

tailing ramp, generally with a runway down the middle.

In areasof tallgrass, matted grass infront of the entrance

is obvious. In western Merced County, most dens are

found on slopes of less than 10 degrees, but a few are

found on slopes of up to 55 degrees (Archon 1992). In

the northernportion of the kit fox range, dens appeared to

127
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

be placed higher than most surrounding ground

compared to areas farther south, perhaps reflecting the

topography of the area. Dens most often are located on

the lower section of the slope (Orloff et al. 1986), yet

foxes are sometimesseen entering dens on the upperpart

of a slope (Bell 1992). Most dens lack the ramp or

runway characteristic of dens in the southern and central

portions of the Valley. No evidence has been found to

indicate that kit foxes in this area construct their own

dens (Hall 1983). Kit foxes probably enlarge California

ground squirrel burrows(Orloffet al. 1986), butthey also

may construct their own dens.

Kit foxes often change dens and numerous dens may

be used throughout the year. However, evidence that a

den isinuse may be absent(V. Getzpers. comm.). Reese

et al (1992) found that 64 percent of the dens used by

radio-collared kit foxes at Camp Roberts during 1988-

1991 exhibited no sign of kit foxes. Foxes change dens

four or five times during the summermonths, and change

natal dens one or two times per month (Morrell 1972).

One family of 7 kit foxes used 43 dens; the maximum

number used by 1 individual was 70 (Hall 1983). Foxes

on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area changed dens much

more frequently than indicated by Morrell’s study

(White and RaIls 1993). Radiotelemetry studies indicate

that foxes use individual dens for a median of 2 days

(mean of 3.5 days) beforemoving to a different den. One

fox was tracked to 70 different dens during a two year

study (K. RaIls pers. comm.). Den changes have been

attributed todepletion of prey inthe vicinity of the den or

to increases in external parasites such as fleas (Egoscue

1956). Avoidance of coyotes is a more probable reason

for frequently changing dens because kitfoxes caneasily

search their home range in one night for prey, and

parasitesare unlikely tobuild to intolerable levels in2 or

3 days (K. RaIls pers. comm.)

Nightly movements onthe Elk Hills NavalPetroleum

Reserves in California averaged 15.4 kilometers (9.6

miles) during the breeding season and were significantly

longer than the average nightly movements of 10.2

kilometers (6.3 miles) during the pup-rearing season.

Movements during the breeding season also were

significantly longer than those made during the pupdispersal season (10.4 kilometers, 6.5 miles) (Zoellick et

al. 1987b).

Home ranges of from less than 2.6 square kilometers

(1 square mile) up to approximately 31 square kilometers

(12 square miles) have been reported by several

researchers (Morrell 1972, Knapp 1978, Zoellick et al.

1987b, Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, White and Ralls

1993, Paveglio and Clifton 1988). The maintenance of

large and relatively non-overlapping home ranges, as

noted on the Carrizo Plain, may be an adaptation to

drought-induced periods of prey scarcity that are

episodic and temporary on the Carrizo Plain (White and

RaIls 1993). Differences in home range size among

study sites tend to be related to prey abundance (White

and Ralls 1993, White and Garrott 1998).

Kit foxes are subject to predation or competitive

exclusion by other species, such as the coyote, nonnative

redfoxes, domestic dog (Canisfamiliaris), bobcat (Felis

rufus), and large raptors (Hall 1983, Berry et al. 1987a,

O’Farrell et al. 1987b, White et al. 1994,Ralls andWhite

1995, CDFG 1987). Coyotes are known to kill kit foxes,

though an experimental coyote-control program at the

ElkHills Naval Petroleum Reserves inCalifornia did not

resultin an increase in survival rate for kitfoxes, nor did

coyote-inducedmortality decrease (Cypher and Scrivner

1992, Scrivner and Harris 1986, Scrivner 1987). The

extentto which gray and kitfoxes compete for resources

is unknown. The need for similar den sites and prey

species probably place nonnative red foxes in direct

competition with the much smaller kit fox. Nonnative

red foxes are expanding their geographic range incentral

California (Orloff et al. 1986, Lewis et al. 1993), and

competition with or predation on kit foxes may be a

factor in the apparent decline of kit foxes in the Santa

Clara Valley (T. Rado pers. comm.), and perhaps

elsewhere in the northwestern segment of their range.

Coyotes aggressively dominate encounters with red

foxes and will pursue and kill both red and gray foxes

(Sargeant and Allen 1989), as well as kitfoxes. Coyotes

may reduce the negative impacts of redfoxes on kit foxes

by limiting red fox abundance and distribution, but

details ofinteractions between the two species and the

extent to which coyotes might slow or prevent the

invasion of red foxes into kit fox habitats are unknown

(White et al. 1994, Ralls and White 1995).

Activity Cycle.—San Joaquin kit foxes are primarily

active at night(i.e., nocturnal), and active throughoutthe

year (Grinnell et al. 1937, Morrell 1972). Adults and

pups sometimesrest and play near the den entrance in the

afternoons, but most above-ground activities begin near

sunset and continue sporadically throughout the night.

Morrell (1972) reported that hunting occurred only at

night. Yet predation on ground squirrels, which are

activeduring the day (i.e., diurnal), by some populations

128
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

indicatesthat kitfoxes are not strictlynocturnal, adapting

to the activities of available prey (Balestreri 1981, Hall

1983, Orloffet al. 1986, O’Farrell et al. 1987b, Hansen in

litt. 1988).

Habitat and Community Axsociations.—Kit foxes

prefer loose-textured soils (Grinnell et al. 1937, Hall

1946, Egoscue 1962, Morrell 1972), but are found on

virtually every soil type. Dens appear to be scarce in

areas with shallow soils because of the proximity to

bedrock (O’Farrell and Gilbertson 1979, O’Farrell et al.

1980), high water tables (McCue et al. 1981), or

impenetrable hardpan layers (Morrell 1972). However,

kit foxeswill occupy soils with a high clay content, such

as in the Altamont Pass area in Alameda County, where

they modify burrows dug by other animals (Orloff et al.

1986).

Historically, San Joaquin kit foxes occurred in

several native plant communities of the San Joaquin

Valley. Because of extensive land conversions and

intensive land use, some of these communities only are

represented by small, degraded remnants today. Other

habitatsin which kit foxes are currently found have been

extensively modified by humans. These include

grasslands and scrublands with active oil fields, wind

turbines, and an agricultural matrix of row crops,

irrigatedpasture, orchards, vineyards, and grazed annual

grasslands (nonirrigated pasture). Other plant

communitiesin the San Joaquin Valley providing kitfox

habitatinclude Northern Hardpan VernalPool, Northern

Claypan Vernal Pool, Alkali Meadow, and Alkali Playa.

These are found as relatively small patches in scattered

locations. In general, they do notprovide good denning

habitat for kit foxes because all have moist or

waterlogged clayor clay-like soils. However, where they

are interspersed withmore suitable kit fox habitats they

provide food and cover.

In the southernmostportion ofthe range,the kitfox is

commonly associated with Valley Sink Scrub, Valley

Saltbush Scrub, Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub, and

Annual Grassland. Kit foxes also inhabit grazed

grasslands, petroleum fields (Morrell 1971, O’Farrell

1980), urbanareas (B. Cypherpers. comm.), and survive

adjacent to tilled or fallow fields (Jensen 1972, RaIls and

White 1991). In the central portion of the range, the kit

fox is associated with Valley Sink Scrub, interior Coast

Range Saltbush Scrub, Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub,

Annual Grassland and the remaining native grasslands.

Agriculture dominatesthis region where kitfoxes mostly

inhabitgrazed, nonirrigated grasslands, but alsolive next

to and forage in tilled or fallow fields, irrigated row

crops, orchards, and vineyards. In the northern portionof

their range, kit foxes commonly are associated with

annual grassland(Hall 1983) and Valley OakWoodland

(Bell 1994). Kit foxes inhabit grazed grasslands,

grasslands with wind turbines, and also live adjacent to

and forage in tilled and fallow fields, and irrigated row

crops (Bell 1994).

Kit foxes use some types of agricultural land where

uncultivated land is maintained, allowing for denning

sites and a suitable prey base (Jensen 1972, Knapp 1978,

Hansen 1988). Kit foxes also den on small parcels of

native habitat surrounded by intensively maintained

agricultural lands (Knapp 1978), and adjacent to dryland

farms (Jensen 1972, Kato 1986, Orloffet al. 1986).

4. Reasons forDecline and Threatsto Survival

Reasons for Decline.—Numerous causes of kit fox

mortality have been identified, though these have

probably variedconsiderably in relative importance over

time. Researchers since the early 1970shave implicated

predation, starvation, flooding, disease, and drought as

natural mortality factors. Shooting,trapping, poisoning,

electrocution, road kills, and suffocation have been

recognizedas human-induced mortality factors(Grinnell

et al. 1937, Morrell 1972, Egoscue 1975, Berry et al.

1987a, RaIls and White 1991, RaIls and White 1995,

Standley et al. 1992).

By the 1 950sthe principal factors inthe decline ofthe

San Joaquin kit fox were loss, degradation, and

fragmentation of habitats associated with agricultural,

industrial, and urban developments in the San Joaquin

Valley (Laughrin 1970, Jensen 1972, Morrell 1975,

Knapp 1978). Extensive land conversions in the San

Joaquin Valley began as earlyas the mid-1800s with the

Arkansas Reclamation Act, and by 1958 an estimated 50

percent ofthe Valley’s original natural communities had

been lost (USEWS 1980a). In recent decades thisrate of

loss has accelerated rapidly with completion of the

Central ValleyProject and the State Water Project,which

diverted and imported new water supplies for irrigated

agriculture (USFWS in litt. I995a). From 1959 to 1969

alone, an estimated 34 percent of natural lands were lost

within the then-known kitfox range (Laughrin 1970). By

1979, only about 6.7 percent of the San Joaquin Valley

floor’s original wildlands south of Stanislaus County

remained untilled and undeveloped (USFWS 1980a).

129
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Such land conversions contribute to kit fox declines

throughdisplacement, direct and indirectmortalities, and

reduction of prey populations.

Threats to Survival.—Loss and degradation of

habitat by agricultural and industrial developments and

urbanization continue, decreasing carrying capacity of

remaining habitat and threatening kit foxes. Livestock

grazing is not thought to be detrimental to kit foxes

(Morrell 1975, Orloff et al. 1986), but may alter the

numbers of different prey species, depending on the

intensity of the grazing. Livestock grazing may benefit

kitfoxes insome areas (Laughrin 1970, Balestreri 1981),

but grazing that destroys shrub cover and reduces prey

abundance may be detrimental (O’Farrell et al. 1980,

O’Farrell and McCue 1981, USFWS 1983, Kato 1986).

Petroleum field development in the southern half of

the San Joaquin Valley affects kit foxes by habitat loss

due tograding and construction for roads, well pads, tank

settings, pipelines, and settling ponds. Habitat degradation

derives from increased noise, ground vibrations, venting

of toxic and noxious gases, and release of petroleum

products and waste waters. Traffic-related mortality is

also a factor for kit foxes living in oil fields. The

cumulative and long-term effects of these activities on kit

fox populations are not fully known, but recent studies

indicate that areas of moderate oil development may

provide good habitat for kit foxes, as long as suitable

mitigation policies are observed (O’Farrell et al. 1980,

Spiegel et al.in press). The impacts of oil activities at the

Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California on kit

fox population density, reproduction, dispersal, and

mortality appeared to be similar in developed and

undeveloped areas of the Reserve (Berry et al. 1987a).

The most significant impact on kit fox abundance in

developed oil fields appears to be mediated through

habitat loss. However, the relationship between habitat

loss and population size in western Kern County is

unclear: the Midway-Sunset oil field is highly developed

with about 70 percent ground disturbance yet fox

abundance is about 50 percent that of the undeveloped

Lokern area (Spiegel et al. in press).

Other developments within the kit fox’s range

include cities and towns, aqueducts, irrigation canals,

surfacemining, roadnetworks, non-petroleum industrial

projects, power lines, and wind fanns. These

developments negatively impact kit fox habitat, but kit

foxes may survive within or adjacent to them given

adequate prey base and den sites. Kit foxes have been

documented denning along canals and in levees (Jones

and Stokes 1981, Hansen 1988), adjacent to highways

(ESA Planning and Environmental Services 1986b,

Hansen 1988), near wind farms (Hall 1983, Orloffet al.

1986), along power line corridors (Swick 1973), and at

sanitary land fills (R. Faubion pers. comm.). Kit foxes

also are known to live in and adjacent to towns such as

Tulare (G. Presley pers comm.), Visalia (Zikratch pers.

comm.), Porterville (Hansen 1988), Maricopa, Taft, and

McKittrick (J.M. Sheppardpers. comm.) and the City of

Bakersfield (Jones and Stokes 1981, B.L. Cypher pers.

comm.). Bakersfield foxes (living in the Kern River

Parkway) are reported tobehavedifferently from animals

in more remote populations: they often scavenge food

from parking lots and dumpsters, have small foraging

ranges, often are diurnal, and are relatively tame. This

may be an expression of their ecological plasticity (e.g.,

Grinnell et al. 1937,p.

41 1, T.Murphy pers. comm., B.L.

Cypher pers. comm.).

All these influences combine to compress and

constrict the kitfox into fragmented areas, varying in size

and habitat quality. The fragmentation of these areas

coupled with the suspected high mortality during

dispersal may limit movement to and habitat of these

lands. As the human population of California continues

to grow, the amount and qualityof habitatsuitable for kit

foxes will inevitably decrease. Continued habitat

fragmentation is a serious threatto the survival of kit fox

populations.

The use of pesticides and rodenticides also pose

threats to kit foxes. Pest control practices have impacted

kit foxes in the past, either directly, secondarily, or

indirectly by reducing prey. In 1925, near Buena Vista

Lake, Kern County, seven kit foxes were found dead

within a distance of 1 mile, having been killed by

strychnine-poisoned baits put out for coyotes. It was

suspected that hundreds of kit foxes were similarly

destroyed in a single season (Grinnell et al. 1937). In

1975 in Contra Costa County (where the main prey item

of kitfoxes isthe California ground squirrel), the ground

squirrelwasthoughtto havebeeneliminated county wide

after extensive rodent eradication programs (Bell et al.

1994). In 1992, two kit foxes at Camp Roberts died as a

result ofsecondary poisoning from rodenticides(Berry et

al. 1992, Standley et al. 1992). The Federal government

began controlling the use of rodenticides in 1972 with a

ban of Compound 1080 on Federal lands pursuant to

Executive Order. Above-ground application of

strychnine within the geographic ranges of listed species

130
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

was prohibited in 1988. Efforts have been underway to

greatly reduce the risk of rodenticides to kit foxes

(USFWS in litt. 1993).

Invasion and occupationof historical and potential kit

fox habitats by nonnative red foxes may limit

opportunities for kit foxes. Exclusion of kit foxes by

competing red foxes, direct mortality, and potential for

disease and parasite transmission all are issues that have

not yet beenresearched. Therefore, we know neither the

historical impacts to the kit fox, nor to what extent the

continuing expansion ofthe range of nonnative redfoxes

will have on kit foxes.

Accidents and disease, thoughnot well documented,

are thought to play a minor role in kit fox mortality

(USFWS 1983), however, at Camp Roberts rabies

accounted for 6.3 percent of deaths of radio-collared kit

foxes (Standley et al. 1992) and there is concern that

rabies may be a contributing factor in the recent decline

of kit foxes at Camp Roberts (P.J. White pers. comm.).

Random catastrophic events such as drought or flooding

present a significant threat. Drought, with a

corresponding decline in prey availability, results in a

decrease inkit fox reproductive success(White andRalls

1993, Spiegel et al. in press). How extended periods of

drought may affect kit fox populations is unclear, but

local extinctions are likely in some isolated areas.

Recently, small mammal populations have declined

rapidly andseverely, apparently due tothe above average

rainfall in the 1994-1995 precipitation year. In the Elk

Hills region, relatively few pupping dens were found in

1995, and only a small proportion of kit fox pairs

apparently raised pups (B.L. Cypher pers. comm., L.K.

Spiegel pers. comm.).

5. Conservation Efforts

The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as endangered by

the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1967 (USFWS

1967) and by the State of California in 1971 (Table 1). A

recovery plan approved in 1983 proposed interim

objectives of halting the decline of the San Joaquin kit

fox and increasing population sizes above 1981 levels

(USEWS 1983).

Conservationefforts subsequenttothe 1983 recovery

plan have included habitat acquisition by USBLM,

CDFG, California Energy Commission, Bureau of

Reclamation, USFWS, and The Nature Conservancy.

Purchases most significant to conservation efforts were

the acquisitions in the Carrizo Plain, Ciervo-Panoche

Natural Area, and the Lokern Natural Area. A multiagency acquisition is underway which would secure

60,000 acres straddling western Merced, Stanislaus, and

eastern Santa Clara Counties. Other lands have been

acquired as mitigation for land conversions, both

temporary and permanent (Table 2). Mitigation in the

form of management and research was granted to the

California Energy Commission, U.S. Department of

Energy (Naval Petroleum Reserves inCalifornia), Army

National Guard (Camp Roberts), and Department of

Defense (Fort Hunter Liggett). Most of the current

research literature arises from these sources and The

Smithsonian/Nature Conservancy-sponsored research

on the CarrizoPlainNatural Area (White andRaIls 1993,

White et al. 1994, Ralls and White 1995, White et al.

1996).

For over 15 years EG&G Energy Measurements has

conducted research into the ecology of the kit fox

population on the Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California, Kern County. Reports have covered such

topics as dispersal (Scrivner et al. 1987b), mortality

(Berry et al. 1987a), and movements and home range

(Zoellick et al. 1987b). Additionally, they have

evaluated habitat enhancement, kit fox relocation,

supplemental feeding (EG&G Energy Measurements

1992), and coyote control (Cypher and Scrivner 1992) as

means of enhancing recovery. Other life history

information has come from studies sponsored in whole or

in part by CDFG, California Department of Water

Resources,USFWS,Smithsonian Institution, Department

of the Army and Air Force, California Energy

Commission, and The Nature Conservancy (Hall 1983,

Archon 1992, Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, White and

RaIls 1993, White et al. 1994, 1996). Followingthe 1983

recovery plan, only three surveys for distribution have

been conducted, two in the northern range of the fox

(Orloff et al. 1986, Bell et al. 1994), and one in western

Madera County (Williams 1990).

Large-scale habitat surveys have been conducted on

the CarrizoPlain (Kato 1986, Kakiba-Russell et al. 1991)

and the southern San Joaquin Valley (Anderson et al.

1991). A preliminary aerial survey for potential habitat

was conducted along the east side of the Valley (Bell et

al. 1994). There also have been numerous smaller-scale

preproject surveys as part of the section 7 and 10(a)

permit process of the Endangered Species Act, National

Environmental Protection Act, and California

Environmental Quality Act laws and regulations.

131
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

A population viability analysis was prepared for

USFWS using RAMAS/a, a Monte Carlo simulation of

the dynamics of age-structured populations (Buechner

1989). Since this analysis, deficiencies in the database

have been identified and a metapopulation analysis has

been completed (Kelly et al. 1995). This analysis,

however, is preliminary and will be updated as new

information is collected.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency County

Bulletins governing use of rodenticides have greatly

reduced the risk of directmortality to San Joaquin kit fox

populations by State and county rodent-control

activities. The California Environmental Protection

Agency, California Department ofFood and Agriculture,

county agricultural departments, CDFG, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency collaborated with the

USFWS in the development of County Bulletins that are

both efficacious and acceptable to land owners (R.A.

Marovich pers. comm.).

6. Recovery Strategy

Though the kit fox has been listed for over 30 years,

its status throughoutmuch of its current range is poorly

known. This is partly because so much of its historical

range inthe San Joaquin Valley isin private ownership.

Similar gaps in information are common to many of the

other listed and candidate speciesbeing addressed inthis

recovery plan. However, recovery actionsfor the kitfox

are also considered critical to the recovery of many of

these other species in the San Joaquin Valley. The kit

fox’s occurrence in the same natural communities as

most other species featured in this plan and its

requirement for relatively large areas of habitat mean its

conservation will provide an umbrella of protection for

many of those other species that require less habitat.

Therefore,a conservative recoverystrategy is appropriate

forthis species and the followingregional (or ecosystem

level) recovery actions should be given high priority.

Given the importance and urgency of the situation,

the recovery strategy for the kit fox needs to operate on

two distinct but equally important levels: the

continuation and expansion of recovery actions initiated

subsequent to the original recovery plan using existing

information; and,the development of new information in

concert with expansion of existing information, which is

currently inadequate for some aspects of recovery

management.

Level A Strategy.—The goal of this strategy is to

work toward the establishment of a viable complex of kit

fox populations(i.e., a viable metapopulation) on private

and public lands throughout its geographic range.

Although the exact dimensions of a viable kit fox

metapopulation cannot be predictedin advance,there are

general principles from conservation biology that can

and must be applied forrecovery of the San Joaquin kit

fox (with due consideration to the current, inadequate

knowledge about the animal’s life history, distribution,

and status). Because kit foxes require large areas of

habitat and have dramatic, short-term population

fluctuations, one cannot rely on a single population to

achieve recovery. Preliminary population viability

analyses suggest that the Carrizo Plain population, the

largestremaining, is not viable by itself nor is it viable in

combination with populations in western Kern County

and the Salinas Valley.

Conserving a number of populations, some much

more significant than others because of their large sizes

or strategic locations, therefore, will be a necessary

foundation for recovery. The areas these populations

inhabit needto encompass as much of the environmental

variability of the historical range as possible. This will

ensure that maximal geneticdiversity is conserved inthe

kit fox metapopulation to respond to varying

environmental conditions, and that one environmental

event does not negatively impact to the same extent all

existing populations. Also, connections need to be

established, maintained, and promoted between

populations to counteract negative consequences of

inbreeding, random catastrophic events (e.g., droughts)

and demographic factors.

A sound, conservative strategy hinges on the

enhanced protection and management of three

geographically-distinct core populations, which will

anchor the spine of the metapopulation. A number of

smaller satellite populations (number and location yet to

be determined, probably 9 to 12 or more)will be fostered

in remaining fragmented landscapes through habitat

management on public land and conservation agreements

with private land owners,

The three core populations are:

1. Carrizo Plain Natural Area in San Luis Obispo

County;

2. Natural lands of western Kern County (i.e., Elk

Hills, Buena Vista Hill, and the Buena Vista

Valley, Lokern Natural Area and adjacent

132
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species oftheSanJoaquin Valley

natural land) inhabited by kit foxes; and

3. The Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area of western

Fresno and eastern San Benito Counties.

These three core populations each are distinct. The

western Kern County and Carrizo Plain populations,

although geographically close, are separated by the

TemblorRange. Although both locations have high fox

densities from time to time, they also have different

environmental conditions, which are reflectedin the fact

that their population dynamics are not always

synchronous (B.L. Cypher pers. comm., Endangered

Species Recovery Program unpubl. observ.). These

differences amongst the core populations are important

considerations in conservation planning. Also,

preliminary population viability analyses indicate that

extinction probabilities increasedramatically ifeither the

Carrizo Plain or western Kern County population is

eliminated. Finally, both of these locations have large

amounts of land in public ownership, lowering the

burdenon privateland owners toassistin recoveryof the

kit fox. The Carrizo Plain and western Kern County

populations are important for kit fox recovery.

The Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area population is

locatedmore than 160 kilometers (100 miles) northwest

ofthe othertwo core populations. As with the other core

populations,it has significant numbers of foxes, atleastit

had historically and it still may from time to time, and

large expanses of land are in public ownership. It also

experiences a different environmental regime from the

othertwo. Finally, preliminarymetapopulation viability

analysesindicate that recovery probabilities increase if a

population is established or maintained in this area,

apparently because of its different environmental regime.

In addition to basing the choice of these three core

populations on the above criteria, this particular

metapopulation configurationhas an additional important

advantage over combinations of other fox populations.

These three populations are more or less connected to

each other by grazing lands, although they are steep and

rugged in many places. Kit foxes occur at varying

densities in the areas between the core populations (e.g.,

Kettleman Hills), providing linkages between core

populations, and also probably with smaller, more

isolated populations in adjacent valleys.

Important kit fox populations in the Salinas-Pajaro

Region (herein defined as the area of the Salinas River

and Pajaro River watersheds with habitat for kit foxes;

Figs. 1 and 51) are located at Camp Roberts and Fort

Hunter Liggett in the Salinas River Watershed. Though

thereare natural connections between theSalinas-Pajaro

Region, the Carrizo Plain Natural Area, and the San

Joaquin Valley, the amount of movement of kit foxes

between the Salinas-Pajaro Region and these areas is

unknown, though one fox is known to have moved from

Camp Roberts to the Carrizo Plain (K. Ralls pers.

comm.).

Other lands in the San Joaquin Valley that have kit

foxes, or the potential to have them,include refuges and

other lands managed by the CDFG, California

Department of Water Resources, Center for Natural

Lands Management,Lemoore NavalAir Station, Bureau

of Reclamation, and USFWS, as well asthose on private

lands in western Madera County, central, western, and

eastern Merced County, eastern Stanislaus County,

northern Kings County, aroundPixley National Wildlife

Refuge and Allensworth Ecological Reserve in Tulare

County, Semitropic Ridge Natural Area and around the

Bakersfield metropolitan area of Kern County (Figure

51).

Many of these more isolated natural lands exhibit

symptoms of ecosystem fragmentation such as

degradation of natural communities and loss of

biodiversity. Nevertheless, some fragments have

resident kit foxes by virtue of their proximity to other

populations, and others serve as important corridors

between kit fox populations. Forexample, the California

Department of Water Resources’s Kern Fan Element

provides an important linkage between kit foxes along

the Kern River Parkway in Bakersfield and the western

Kern County core population.

Yet, many of these areas, despite having suitable

habitat, have become so degraded over time, reduced in

size, and isolated from extant kit fox populations that

they rarely have kit foxes today. When they do, these

small, isolated populations are very susceptible to local

extinction. It is likely that the degree of isolation from

larger, more stable kit fox populations is the primary

reason for absence or very low densities of kit foxes on

some of the larger parcels of natural land remaining on

the Valley floor (e.g., central Merced County, western

Madera County, and the Mendota area, Fresno County;

Williams 1990).

Connecting larger blocks of isolated natural land to

133
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

core and other populations, thus, is an importantelement

of recovery of kit foxes. Connecting large blocks will

help reduce the harmful effects of habitat loss and

fragmentation. To enhance these connections,

conservation lands on the Valley floor couldbe increased

in size through acquisition of title or conservation

easements, or a combination of both.

Another complementary approach is to reduce the

level of isolation by promoting conservation of kit foxes

on agricultural lands through “safe harbor” and other

initiatives. New procedures and regulations must ensure

that farmers are not penalized and farming not disrupted

by enhancing use of farmland by kit foxes. The goal

should be specific incentive programs to encourage

farmersto maintain, enhance, or createhabitat conditions

for kit foxes. The ideal situation would be to establish a

small number of breeding kit foxes in farm lands. A

proposal to addresshabitat fragmentation inthis way has

already been developed by the American Farmland Trust

(Scott-Graham 1994). Those lands could then serve as

bridges between the more isolated refuges and reserves

and the larger populations along the spine of the

metapopulation, on the west side of the San Joaquin

Valley.

Concurrently, strategic retirement of agricultural

lands that have serious drainage problems will help

reduce the effects ofwidespread habitat fragmentation of

populations. Land retirement for reducingor eliminating

drainage problems has been authorized by both State and

Federal governments. In particular, the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act of 1992 has provisions and

funding for such land retirement. If land retirement

proves not to pose a contaminant issue, the program can

greatly boost recovery of kit foxes and other listed

species and species of concern in the San Joaquin Valley.

If large blocks (ideally, no less than 2,023 to 2,428

hectares [5,000 to 6,000 acres]) of drainage-problem

lands are retired from irrigated agriculture, the retired

farmland can be converted to habitat for kit foxes,

kangaroo rats, blunt-nosed leopard lizards, and other

listed and sensitive species. Those land blocks can

provide more than just habitat. They can also reduce

isolation and its detrimental effects. If strategically

located, they can provide “stepping stones” for

movement of kit foxes between Valley floor and west

side populations. Strategic irrigated land retirement and

subsequent establishment as habitat conservation areasis

the most cost effective and rapid route to recovery of kit

foxes.

Level BStrategy.—While landretirement and habitat

restoration and management get under way, other urgent

recovery needs, which are primarily research-related or

informational in nature, must be addressed. The

acquisition of new and better information will permit

refinement of the viability models and land-use

optimization models that are under developmentforthe

kitfox. In turn thesemodels will assistinmanagement of

kit fox populations.

Needed is information on distribution and status

throughoutmost of its current and historical range. Much

better information on the distribution, status and

movements of kit foxes is needed, particularly in the

Salinas-Pajaro Region and the northern and eastern San

Joaquin Valley.

Good data also are needed on the use of agricultural

lands by kit foxes. Better demographic information is

needed for kit foxes living in natural, agricultural,

residential, and industrial lands throughout their range.

Most of the existing data are forthe southern part of the

Valley where the environmentalregime ismore arid, and

destruction of former fox habitat has been much more

recent. Better data on the relationship between prey

populations and kit fox population dynamics also are

needed. A better understanding is needed of how kit

foxes interact with red foxes, the indirect impacts of

rodenticide use, and the influence of predator control

activities.

Recovery Actions.—Recognizing that recovery

requires a dual trackwith simultaneous actions, recovery

actions are ordered in two lists, each of approximately

equal priority to the other: a) habitat protection and

population interchange, and, b) population ecology and

management. Habitat protection and enhancement

requires appropriate land use and management. To do so

oftenrequires purchase of title or conservation easement,

or anothermechanism of controllingland use. However,

untilneeded research is completed, iflisted speciesoccur

on an acquired parcel,the generalrule ofthumb should be

that no dramatic changes in land use be made until

appropriate management prescriptions have been

determined. Many elements of management mustfirst be

determined by scientific research; thus the concept of

adaptive management (monitoring and evaluating

outcomes, then readjusting management directions

accordingly) is operative here. A highpriority therefore

is the research required todetermine appropriate habitat

management and other recovery actions.

134
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

a. HabitatProtection and Population Interchange:

i.Protect natural lands in western Kern County.

ii. Protect natural lands in the Ciervo- Panoche

Natural Area of western Fresno and eastern

San Benito Counties.

iii. Expand and connect existing refuges and

reserves in the Pixley-Allensworth and

Semitropic Ridge natural areas through

acquisition of existing natural land and

farmland with drainageproblems, and by safe

harbor initiatives.

iv. Expand and connect (physically or by

“stepping stones”) existing natural land in the

Mendota area, Fresno County, with the

Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area, through

restoration of habitat on retired, drainageproblem farmland.

v. Maintain andenhance connecting corridors for

movement of kit foxesbetween the Kettleman

Hills and the Valley’s edge throughthe farmed

gap between the Kettleman and Guijarral

Hills, and between the Guijarral Hills and

Anticline Ridge.

vi. Maintain andenhance connecting corridorsfor

movement of kit foxes around the western

edge of the Pleasant Valley and Coalinga in

Fresno County, and between this area and

natural lands on the western edge of the

Coastal Range in Kings and Kern Counties.

vii. Maintain and enhance movement of kit foxes

through agricultural land between the Lost

Hills area and the Semitropic Ridge Natural

Area by strategic retirement of drainageproblem farmland, acquisition, andsafe harbor

initiatives.

viii. Maintain and enhance habitat and movement

corridors around the south end of the Valley

between the Maricopa area on the west and

Poso Creek area on the northeast through

easements, toning agreements, and safe

harbor initiatives. One south Valley

component is already in place. Kern Fan

Element provides valuable conservation lands

that serve as an important bridge between the

Bakersfield area and the ElkHills-Lokern core

area. This design is being maintained by the

new project owners, the Kern Water Bank

Authority.

ix. Maintain and enhance movement of kit foxes

between the Mendota area, Fresno County,

natural lands in western Madera County, and

natural lands along Sandy Mush Road and in

the wildlife refuges and easement lands of

Merced County. Specifically, maintain and

enhance the Chowchilla or Eastside Bypass

and natural lands along this corridor through

acquisition, easement,or safe harbor initiatives.

x. Link natural lands in the Sandy Mush Road

area of MercedCounty with the population of

kit foxes on natural lands to the east by a safe

harbor initiative on farmland.

xi. Protect natural land on the eastern base of

Ortigalita Mountainand maintain and enhance

a potential movement corridor through

farmland between the base of Ortigalita

Mountain,Merced County, and naturalland to

the north along the edge of the Diablo Range

through Santa Nella by zoning and cooperative

safe harbor initiatives.

xii. Protect and enhance existing kitfox habitat in

the Salinas-Pajaro Region, centered on Camp

Roberts andFort Hunter Liggett.

xiii. Protect and enhance corridors for movement

of kitfoxes through the Salinas-PajaroRegion

and from the Salinas Valley to the Carrizo

Plain and San Joaquin Valley.

xiv. Protect existing kit fox habitatin the northern,

northeastern, and northwestern segments of

theirgeographic range and existing connections

between habitat in those areas and habitat

farther south.

b. Population Ecology and Management:

i.Determine habitat restoration and management

prescriptions for kit foxes. Such studies

should focus on factors that promote

populations of prey species, including several

135
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

that are included in this recovery plan.

Appropriate habitat management for those

species is one of the highest priority issues in

their recovery, and thus, indirectly in recovery

of kit foxes.

ii. Determine current geographic distribution and

population status of kit foxes, with special

emphasis on potential habitat in eastern

Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin

Counties and the Salinas-Pajaro Region.

in. Establish a scientifically valid population

monitoring program range-wide at

representative sites, and periodically monitor

the status of these populations.

iv. Determine use of farmland by kit foxes.

Studies should determine types of crops and

cultural practices providing foraging habitat;

structures and landscape features providing

denning opportunities and promoting

movement of kit foxes through agricultural

land and between natural and agriculturalland;

demography of kit foxes in agricultural land;

and red fox/kit fox interactions in an

agricultural setting (the latter topic is

discussed further in a subsequent action).

v. Measure population movements between the

three core areas and theSalinas-Pajaro Region

through genetic investigations and expansion

and coordination of existing population

studies. Ongoing studies at Elk Hills (Naval

Petroleum Reserve #2 in California - U.S.

Department of Energy and its contractors, and

Occidental ofElkHills - Occidental Petroleum),

Fort Hunter Liggett (U.S. Army), Camp

Roberts (CA Army National Guard), and the

Panoche Region (Endangered Species

Recovery Program, USFWS, Bureau of

Reclamation), should be expanded and their

objectives redefined and coordinated. An

additional population study should be initiated

on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area and

coordinated withthese otherstudies. Important

common objectives of all studies should be:

population estimates applicable to each region

and not just the facility (e.g., western Kern

County, Salinas-Pajaro Region); dispersal

distance and success; fluctuationsin vital rates

and spatial parameters ofpopulations compared

toenvironmental fluctuations (i.e., population

demography, including reproduction,mortality,

survivorship, recruitment into the population

and dispersal); and interactions of canid

species(i.e., kitfoxes, redfoxes, coyotes, freeranging dogs).

vi. Determine direct and indirect effects ofrodent

and rabbit control programs on kit foxes, and

the economic costs and benefits of control

programsversus kitfox enhancementprograms

for controlling ground squirrels and rabbits.

vii. Measure genetic features and degree of

isolation of agricultural “island” populations

and effective population movement between

core populations using DNA techniques.

viit. Determine the nature of interactions between

kit foxes, red foxes, coyotes, and free-ranging

dogs on both farmland and grazing land. One

element of this study should be to determine

which fox species benefits more from

enhancement of farmland habitat for wildlife,

and what this means to survival of kit fox

populations in farmland. Another element

should be to determine if coyote control

benefitsred foxes to the detriment of kit foxes.

M. STATE LISTED, FEDERAL CANDIDATES

AND OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONCERN

1. Dune Community Insects

Three species of sand-dwelling beetles are not

candidatesforlisting, but are ofspecial interest. Though

each has a different pattern of distribution, all occur in

similar, rare habitats in the northwestern portion of the

San JoaquinValley. There are several common elements

in their recovery, particularly protecting their habitats

and learning more about distribution, life history, and

population status. First, individual accounts are

presented, then a composite conservation strategy is

presented for them and their supporting biotic

communities.

136
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

a. Ciervo Aegialian Scarab Beetle

(Aegialia concinna)

Taxonomy.—The Ciervo aegiahan scarab beetle

(Aegialia concinna) was described by Gordon and

Cartwright (1977) from the type locality 29 kilometers

(18 miles) southwest of Mendota, Fresno County,

California. This beetle is a member of the Order

Coleoptera, the Family Scarabaeidae, Subfamily

Aphodiinae, and Tribe Aegialiini (Gordon and

Cartwright 1988).

Description.—TheCiervo aegialian scarab beetle is a

flightless, pale brownish-yellow to reddish-brown

beetle, with the upper surface always paler than the

underparts(Figure 52). Thisbeetle ranges inlength from

3.25 to 4.0 millimeters(0.13 to0.15 inch), and from 1.70

to 2.0 millimeters (0.07 to0.08 inch) in width(scientific

measurement of insects is universally in metric units).

The small size, pale color, and slender, smooth hind

legs distinguish the Ciervo Aegialian scarab beetle from

others in the same genus (Gordon and Cartwright 1977,

1988).

Historical and Current Distribution—The Ciervo

aegialian scarab beetle is known from onlyfour localities

in Contra Costa, Fresno, and San Benito Counties

(Gordon andCartwright 1988), and San Joaquin County

(USFWS in litt. 1992a) (Figure 53).

I

Fig. 52. Drawing of the Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle

(Aegialia concinna). Adapted from Gordon and Cartwright,

1977.

LifeHistory andHabitat.—Little is known aboutthe

specific life history and habitat of the Ciervo aegialian

scarab beetle. In general, beetles of the Family

Scarabaeidae, SubfamilyAphodiinae, eat dung and other

decaying organicmaterials. Most adultstunnel and form

a dung ball underground for larva. Some larvae live in

soil or sand, feeding on organic materials or plant roots

(White 1983). The Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle has

been associated withDelta and inland dune systems, and

sandy substrates (Gordon and Cartwright 1988, Miriam

Green Associates 1993). Plant associations specific to

this species are unknown.

Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival.—

Suitable habitats for species associated with dune

systems in the San Joaquin Valley are limited and highly

fragmented. Dune systems have been destroyed or

severely degraded by agricultural development, flood

control, water management, and off-road vehicle use

(Gordonand Cartwright 1977, Miriam Green Associates

1993). As a result, populations of the Ciervo aegialian

scarab beetle are locally isolated, making them highly

vulnerable to disturbances.

b. San Joaquin Dune Beetle

(Coelusgrads)

Taxonomy.—The genus Coelus Eschscholtz, 1829,

of the family Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera, Tentyriinae)

includes five species ofburrowing beetles that are mostly

restricted to sand dunesin western coastal states of North

America. The San Joaquin dune beetle (Coelus gracilis)

was described by Blaisdell (1939) from the specimen

type collected near Antioch, Contra Costa County,

California.

Description.—The San Joaquin dune beetle is the

smallest species (average body length) of dune beetles,

withthe male beetle averaging about 85 percentthe size

of the female (Doyen 1976). In general, the body is

sturdy, inflated on top, and ranges in color from pale

yellowish-brown to dark brownish-black (Figure 54).

Historical and Current Distribution —The San

Joaquin dune beetle historically inhabited inland sand

dunesfrom Antioch,Contra Costa County,inthe north to

the Kettleman Hills, Kings County,in the south (Figure

53) (Doyen 1976). Currently, this beetle is restricted to

small isolated sand dunes (250 to 10,000 square meters;

275 to 11,000 square yards) along the western edge of the

I t

I

137
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Figure 53. Distributional records for three species ofsand dune inhabiting beetles in the San Joaquin Valley, California.

138
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

San Joaquin Valley. The population at the type locality

near Antioch, Contra CostaCounty, apparently has been

eliminated (Doyen 1976, USFWS 1978, in litt. 1992a,

1992b).

Life History and Habitat.—The San Joaquin dune

beetle is believed to be a detritivore, feeding upon

decomposing vegetation buried in the sand (Scarabeus

Associates 1989). Nothing is known about the mating

system of the San Joaquin dune beetle. In general, eggs

of beetle species develop inthe ovariesof the female and

may be laid singly or in masses, withhatching occurring

after several days (White 1983). Larval dune beetles,

including very small larvae, are common throughout the

year, indicating that oviposition (i.e., egg laying) occurs

over a long period oftime. Dune beetle larvae develop

and pupate exclusively in the sand. Pupae have been

found in the wild only in late spring and early summer

(Doyen 1976). The San Joaquin dune beetle resides ina

hot summer climate, and is active from about November

through April, during the growth period of the winter

short-lived plants under which it takesrefuge. Few San

Joaquin dune beetles are found during summer months

(Doyen 1976). Adult dune beetles may live at least 6

months in the laboratory, and for a year or longer in the

wild (Doyen 1976).

San Joaquin dune beetles spend most of their time in

sand soils. Larval stages are found exclusively in loose

sands. Adults typically reside 5 to 10 centimeters (2.0to

4 inches) or more underground under a canopy of

N

Figure 54. Illustration ofSan Joaquin dune beetle (by Kristina

Bocchini, © by CSU Stanislaus Foundation).

7

vegetation. Less often they are found underground in

areas with no vegetation covering the surface. Their

occurrence in favorable habitats is very patchy (Doyen

1976).

Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival.—

There is no evidence that this species has declined,

though itmay be inferred so from the widespread loss of

sand dune communities in the San Joaquin Valley

(GordonandCartwright 1977) andapparent disappearance

from the type locality (Doyen 1976). Doyen (1976)

believed that off-road vehicle use on dune habitats near

Kettleman City and Monocline Ridge, Fresno County,

was a threattothe species, thoughHagen (1986) believed

the disappearance of these beetles from Antioch Dunes

was due to over-stabilization or lack of sufficient

disturbance of the dunes.

c. Doyen’s Dune Weevil

(Trigonoscuta sp.)

Taxonomy.—The primary reference on the taxonomy

of the genus Trigonoscuta (sand dune weevils;

Coleoptera, Curculionidae) is the posthumouslypublished work of Pierce (1975). Pierce’s work

describes some 65 species and places the genus close in

evolution to the genus Tapinopsir, a group of flightless

sand dune weevils from Chile. This judgment, based

largely on the congruence of certain internal

characteristics, upsets the accepted classification for

these groups (Lacordaire 1863); it also placesTapinopsis

as ancestral to Trigonoscuta. The numerous species in

the genus probably result from the separation and

isolation of small populations of these weevils by the

advance, retreat, and evolution of ancient and modern

coast lines and their associated dune and relict dune

systems (Pierce 1975).

The Doyen’sdune weevil, a speciesof Trigonoscuta,

has not been formally described (E.L. Sleeper pers.

comm.). It appears to be more closely related tocoastal

than to desert species (E.L. Sleeper pers. comm.).

Sleeper (pers. comm.) has suggested the name

“Trigonoscuta doyeni,” but until it is formally described

and named, it is not a recognized species.

Description.—Like all members of the genus,

Doyen’s dune weevils are flightless, and fit the general

description given by Pierce (1975) as “gray, sandcolored, oval weevils,” but are slightly lighter in color

139
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

than other, coastal species (E.L. Sleeper pers. comm.).

They range from 4.5millimeters to7 millimeters(0.18to

0.27 inch) in length (Figure 55).

Historical and Current Distribution.—AlI

Trigonoscuta species are associated with either coastal

sand dunes, desert sand dunes, or otherinland sand dune

areas. Most inland species of the genus are found in the

desert Southwest. However, in the early 1960s, Dr.

ElIbertL. Sleeper discovered a population of sand dune

weevils on a single sand dune in the Los Medanos area,

just south of Kettleman Station inKings County (Figure

53). The same populationwas independently discovered

several years later by Dr. John T. Doyen of the

Department of Entomological Sciences, University of

California, Berkeley (E.L. Sleeper pers. comm.). Since

thattime, extensive surveys by several parties at over 30

sand-dune sites where the species might be expected to

occur, between Kettleman Station in the south and the

Panoche Hills in the north, have failed to locate another

population (E.L. Sleeper pers. comm.).

Based on the negative results ofthese surveys, and the

following additional points, it is unlikely that this

wingless beetle has had a significantly wider distribution

in the recent past. First, many species of Trigonoscuta

are found innaturally isolated sand dune areas,justabove

the hightide zone along the PacificCoast, from Victoria,

British Columbia south to Baja California (Pierce 1975).

Second, these weevils are flightless and restricted to

Figure 55. Illustration of Doyen’s dune weevil (by Kristina

Bocehini, © CSU Stanislaus Foundation).

sparselyvegetated, unconsolidated dunes found from the

western San Joaquin Valley to the Mojave desert and

Coachella and Imperial Valleys. This wide distribution

of the many inland representatives of the genus suggests

that they each evolved from ancestral coastal species

isolated by the retreat of the ocean from the Central

Valley and interior desert areas about 3 millionyears ago

(Pierce 1975). Third, small, isolated populations are

characteristic of this lineage, probably because of its

evolutionary history (Pierce 1975). Fourth, by various

accounts, sites in the central interior coast ranges of

California withsuitably loose sand dunes seemto be few

in number, widely scattered, and of a tenuous, transitory

nature—over time, some become consolidated and

overgrown with vegetation, while others open up due to

some local disturbance (Scarabaeus Associates 1989,

E.L. Sleeper pers. comm.).

According to Sleeper (pers. comm.), this solitary

population of Trigonoscuta is found on the open “slipface,” covering about 200 square meters (240 square

yards) of a modified, vegetated relict dune. Although

described as being “very abundant” on this site from

1978 to 1980, only a single specimen was found in the

spring of 1988 (Scarabaeus Associates 1989). Based on

surveys in April 1993, the population was estimated to

contain about 150 to 200 individuals; weevils were again

observed at the site in April 1994 (E.L. Sleeper pers.

comm.).

Recent surveys by the Endangered Species Recovery

Program have confirmed that the species still occurs on

this relict dune. However, only three individuals were

found (Uptain et al. 1998). The three individuals were

found on the top of the dune rather than on the slip face.

Life History andHabitat.—As with other species of

Trigonoscuta, little is known about the biology or habits

of individuals of the Doyen’s dune weevil. They are

restricted to sand soils. Weevils in this genus are

associated with a wide variety of plant types, the larvae

feeding on the roots, the adults on the leaves (Pierce

1975, ScarabaeusAssociates 1989). Atriplex (Scarabaeus

Associates 1989) andAstragalus oxyphysus(Uptain et al.

1998) are known host plants. Doyen’s dune weevils are

flightless and nocturnal.

With large numbers having been collected from

January through December, coastal species of

Trigonoscuta seem to be active year round. Desert

species, on the other hand, mostly have been taken from

140
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

March through May, with a few having been collected in

January andFebruary, indicating a shorter active season

(Pierce 1975). Females have been observed laying eggs

in April; firstinstar larvae also have been found in April

(Pierce 1975). Developmenttime and number of larval

stages is not known.

Reasonsfor Decline and Threats to Survival.—As

noted by Pierce(1975)many of the relict dunesinhabited

by Trigonoscuta are very small in extent, but they have

persisted for longperiods. Surveyssince the early 1960s

have not locatedadditional populations of Trigonoscuta

on the open sandy areas of remnantdunesinthe PanocheCoalinga area of the central interior coast ranges.

Although itis possible that othersstill could be found,the

Los Medanos population is the only known extant

population of Trigonoscuta in the San Joaquin Valley.

The primary threats to this species are the random

effects ofenvironmentaland populationprocesses facing

such a small, singlepopulation;fire; off-road vehicleuse;

and road widening, sand stabilization, or other highway

maintenance activities by the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans). The site has been burned

several times by wildfire between 1994 and 1998

resulting in the complete elimination of Atriplex, the

dune weevils’ primary host plant. This has undoubtedly

contributed greatly to their decline. Between 1978 and

spring 1988, the area sustained “great off-road vehicle

damage”, vegetation had become “limited to a narrow

strip along the fence line” and “were it not for the fence

line, the species may well have been eliminated”

(Scarabaeus Associates 1989). Dr. Sleeper (pers.

comm.) has suggested that the population is relatively

safe from disturbance by off-road vehicle use because of

the steepness of the slip face. In recent years, off-road

vehicle use at the site has been nearly eliminated. The

lack of disturbance may have contributed to stabilization

of the sand dune by allowing grasses and forbs to

colonize the site, possibly resulting in a decline of dune

weevils.

Conservation Efforts ofthe Three DuneSpecies.—

The Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle, San Joaquin dune

beetle, and Doyen’s dune weevil are not candidates for

Federal listing, but are considered species of concern

(USFWS 1996). USFWS proposed that the San Joaquin

dune beetle be listed as threatened in 1978, and that the

fourremaining (offive original)siteswhere it was known

to exist, including the Monocline Ridge and Los

Medanossites, be designated as criticalhabitat (USFWS

1978). This action also would have resulted in some

protection for the scarab beetle and Doyen’sdune weevil

populations. However, the proposal was withdrawn in

1980 (USFWS 1980b). In 1995, the Doyen’s dune

weevil was removed as a Category 1 candidate because

of concerns about the taxonomy of the species (USFWS

1995b). There have been no fonnal conservation efforts

forthe Ciervo and Doyen’s dune weevil. However, there

may have been some secondary conservation effect from

actions taken to protect the San Joaquin dune beetle,

which was found to be “common” at the Los Medanos

siteinthe spring of 1988 (Scarabaeus Associates 1989, p.

7).

The otherthree areas where San Joaquin dune beetles

have been found, and two sites for the Ciervo aegialian

scarab beetle are now covered underthe Bureau of Land

Management’s Management Plan for the Panochel

Coalinga Area of Critical Environmental Concern

(USBLM 1987). Althoughone of the stated objectives of

this management plan is to monitor for the presence of

Doyen’s dune weevils, the only known population at Los

Medanos, though close, lies outside the management

area. Based on priorsurveys, therecurrently is no reason

to believe that the species is found in the management

area.

Caltrans modified their activities so as to not disturb

San Joaquin dune beetles at a site in the Los Medanos

area that is within their right-of-way and across the

highway from the Doyen’s dune weevil population.

Similarly, Caltrans will institute protection and

enhancement measuresfor the Doyen’s dune weevil (D.

York pers. comm.).

Conservation Strategy for the Dune Insect

Community.—Protecting the land surrounding the

population of Doyen’s dune weevil, and the populations

of the two dune beetles on USBLM lands are important.

The dune weevil’s existing habitat may have to be

protected from all disturbances until populations can be

established elsewhereandits specific habitatrequirements

and life history are better known. The other two dune

beetles probably do not require specific habitat

management; however, because they both may feed on

dung, exclusion of livestock from inhabited sites should

not be considered. Protecting habitat for Doyen’s dune

weevil also will require clearly identifying, for the

responsible parties, the location of the population.

Properly publishing the species name and description of

the Doyen’s dune weevilis needed to clarify itsstatus and

141
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

foritto be eligible for considerationfor candidate status.

Translocation to suitable sites, mostlikely in USBLM’s

Panoche/Coalinga management area, is probably

necessaryforlong-term survival ofthe species. Because

little is known about its biology or life history, focused

studies to answer questions relevantto management are

important.

Conservation Actions.—For the Ciervo aegialian

scarab beetle and the San Joaquin dune beetle, the major

actions required to ensure conservation of these species

are to learn more about their life histories and specific

habitat requirements. Inhabited sites on public lands

should be protected from sand mining and off-road

vehicle travel. Specific habitat management actions

should be based on information obtained from these

ecological studies. The status of the Ciervo aegialian

scarab beetle and San Joaquin dune beetle should be

reevaluated within 5 years ofrecovery plan approval or

when new information is available, whichever is less.

The situation appearsmost critical for Doyen’s dune

weevil, and the following are the requirements for

ensuring conservation ofthis species:

1. Publish the scientific name and description of

the species.

2. Immediately begin studies to:

a. Gather information about its biology and

natural history needed for management of

the species.

b. Determine the degree of threat to the

species by off-road vehicle use of this site,

if any, and what options exist formitigating

or eliminating such threats.

c. Determine the degree of threat by Caltrans

activities at this site, if any, and what

options exist for mitigating or eliminating

such threats.

d. Determine if the introduction of the

Doyen’s dune weevil to new areas of

suitable habitat is a feasible, practical, and

acceptable option for lessening the

stochastic threats to its existence.

3. Promptimplementationof whatever actions are

indicated by these studies.

4. Reevaluate the status of Doyen’s dune weevil

within 3 years of recovery plan approval.

2. San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel

(Ammospermophilus nelsoni)

Taxonomy.—The San Joaquin antelope squirrel is

one of five speciesof antelope squirrels. Members ofthe

genus Ammospermophilus are confined to desert, arid

steppe, and open shrubland communities in the

southwestern United States and northern Mexico.

Ammospermophilus nelsoni was described by Merriam

(1893) as amember of the genus Spermophilus; the type

specimen was from Tipton, Tulare County, California.

A. nelsoni also has been placed in the genus Citellus.

Taylor(1916) distinguished the northernpopulations as a

subspecies, A. nelsoniamplus, butA. nelsoni currently is

considered to be monotypic (Hall 1981, Hafner 1981).

Description.—The San Joaquin antelope squirrel

(Figure 56) has a typical ground-squirrel shape: tiny,

rounded ears, and streamlined, fusiform (spindleshaped) body with relatively shortlegs and tail. The tail

has laterally projecting thick fringes of hairs, and is

usually held cocked or curled overthe back. The upper

parts are colored buffy-tan with a light stripe along the

sides. The underside ofthe tailislight grayish or whitish.

Individualsrange from about 218 to240 millimeters (8.5

to 9.4 inches) in length (Hall 1981), and adults weigh

Figure 56. Illustration of a San Joaquin antelope squirrel

(Ammospermophilusnelsoni). Drawing by DeborahBasey (©

by D.F. Williams).

142
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

from about 130 to 170 grams (4.6 to 6.0 ounces)

(Williams 1980).

Ident~fication.—The San Joaquin antelope squirrel

can be distinguished from the co-occurring California

ground squirrel by much smallersize; shorter, less bushy

tail with a flattened shape rather than the bottle-brush

shape of the California ground squirrel; and the presence

of a light-colored stripe along the sides of the body.

Many people think antelope squirrels are chipmunks, but

antelope squirrels lack the light and dark stripes on the

face and the light and dark stripes on the back, which are

characteristic of western chipmunks (Tamias spp.).

Historical Distribution.—The historical distribution

of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel included the western

and southern portions of the Tulare Basin, San Joaquin

Valley, and the contiguous areas to the westin the upper

Cuyama Valley and on the Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains

(Figure 57). They ranged from western MercedCounty

on the northwest, southward along the western side ofthe

San Joaquin Valley to its southern end. They were

distributed over the floor of the San Joaquin Valley in

Kern County and along the eastern edge of the Valley

northward to near Tipton, Tulare County (Hall 1981,

Williams 1980). San Joaquin antelope squirrels range in

elevation from about 50 meters (165 feet) on the San

Joaquin Valley floor toabout 1,100 meters (3,600feet) in

the Temblor Mountains. Antelope squirrels are not

common above about 800 meters (2,600 feet) on the

ridges and plains west of the San Joaquin Valley proper

(Williams 1980, D.F. Williams unpubl. data). The area

encompassed by the distribution records prior to

cultivation was approximately 1,398,600 hectares

(3,456,000 acres). Grinnell and Dixon (1918) wrote that

San Joaquin antelope squirrels were unevenly distributed

and occurred in abundance in only a few localities; one

was in the Lokern and Elk Hills region of western Kern

County.

CurrentDistribution.—Extant, uncultivated habitat

forSan Joaquin antelope squirrels was estimated in 1979

to be 275,200 hectares (680,000acres) (Williams 1980).

This estimate encompassed the land occupied by towns,

roads, canals, pipelines, strip mines, airports, oil wells,

and other developments. None of the best habitat

described by Grinnell and Dixon (1918) remained. Only

about 41,300 hectares(102,000 acres)was ratedas fairto

good quality, supporting from 3 to 10 antelope squirrels

per hectare (1 to 4 per acre). Antelope squirrels had been

nearly eliminated from the floor of the Tulare basin, and

existed mainly in marginal habitat in the mountainous

areas borderingits western edge. Substantialpopulations

were found only in and around Lokern and Elk Hills in

western Kern County, and on the Carrizo and Elkhorn

Plains in eastern San Luis Obispo County.

Since 1979, San Joaquin antelope squirrels have

disappeared from many of the smaller islands of habitat

on the Valley floor, including Pixley National Wildlife

Refuge, Tulare County; Alkali Sink and Kerman

Ecological Reserves, Fresno County; and several areas

within the Allensworth Conceptual Area of Tulare and

KernCounties (Williams 1980, Harris and Steams 1991,

D.F. Williams unpubl. observ., Endangered Species

Recovery Program unpubl. data).

Food andForaging.—SanJoaquin antelope squirrels

are omnivorous. The amount and type offood consumed

are mostly dependent upon availability. The squirrels eat

green vegetation, fungi, and insects more often than

seeds, even when seeds are relatively abundant

(Hawbecker 1975, Harris 1993). Vegetation and seeds of

filaree and red brome are the main food plants

(Hawbecker 1953). Insects, principally grasshoppers,

are eaten regularly when available. Seeds ofshrubs such

as ephedra and saltbushalso are staples.Seeds and insects

may be necessary inthe diet assources of protein. When

seeds and grasshoppers are scarce, antelope squirrels eat

harvester ants (Hawbecker 1975). During spring,

especially during severe drought, San Joaquin antelope

squirrels eat large quantities of ovaries and developing

seeds of ephedra (D.F. Williams unpubl. observ.).

Reproduction and Demography —The breeding

period for San Joaquin antelope squirrels is late winter

through early spring. There is only one breeding period

per year, coinciding with the time of year when green

vegetation is present (Hawbecker 1953, 1958). Young

squirrels do notbreed their first year (Hawbecker 1975).

Testes of males begin to enlarge in Septemberor October

and reach maximum size by November or December,

longbefore the ovaries of females begin to develop (Best

et al. 1990). Copulation and conception usually take

place in February or March. By the end of March, testes

begin to regress in size and maintain a minimum size of

about 4 to 8 millimeters (0.2 to 0.3 inch) through the

summer. All males are not reproductively active at the

same time; some males may have enlarged testes in May

(Hawbecker 1975).

Gestation lasts about 26 days. Embryos arepresentin

143
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 57. Distributionalrecords for the San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammosperinophilus nelsoni).

144
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

late January, but development is concentrated in

February and early March. Embryos range in number

from 6 to 11, with an average of 8.9 (Hawbecker 1975).

Young are born between March and April and are

first seen above ground when about 30 days of age

(Williams and Tordoff 1988). Young are weaned

beginning inlate April; the last young are weaned inmidor late-May (Hawbecker 1975).

Timing, nature, and distance of dispersal are poorly

documented; Hawbecker (1975) noted that weaned

young were still together in late May. Williams and

Tordoff (1988) noted at least some family groups were

still together in mid-July. Young San Joaquin antelope

squirrels on the Elkhorn Plain Ecological Reserve had a

mortality rate of about 70 percent during their first yearof

life, and adults had a mortality rate from about 50 to 60

percent (Williams and Tordoff 1988).

Behavior and Species Interactions.—San Joaquin

antelope squirrels live in burrows, either of their own

construction or ones dug by kangaroo rats. They may

also take over and enlarge burrows dug by Heermann’s

kangaroo rats (Grinnell and Dixon 1918, Hawbecker

1947, 1953, Williams 1980). Hawbecker (1947, 1953)

believed that antelope squirrels were dependent upon

kangaroo rats to dig burrows because the many burrows

examined by him all seemed to have been dug by

kangaroo rats. In contrast, Grinnell and Dixon (1918)

believedthat they dug their own burrows. Burrows vary

in complexity and length, but generally have two to six

openings and are between about 30 and 50 centimeters

(12 to20 inches) deep. Favoredlocations for burrows are

in the side of an arroyo, the berm of an unimproved road,

or under shrubs (Williams 1980).

Antelope squirrels make use of both shrubs and

burrows of giant kangaroo rats as sites of refuge from

predators as they move across their home ranges. They

also regularly retreat to the shade ofshrubs to avoid the

heat of the sun and to dump excess body heat to the

cooler, shaded ground. Burrows of giant kangaroo rats

may serve the same purpose (Williams et al. 1988,

Williams and Kilburn 1992).

California ground squirrels displace San Joaquin

antelope squirrels and may even restrict the range of the

antelope squirrel(Taylor 1916, Harris andStearns 1991).

Hawbecker (1953) noted that the range of the San

Joaquin antelope squirrel may be determined, to some

degree, by the range of co-occurring kangaroo rat

species. The range of giant kangaroo rats most nearly

coincides with that of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel,

but their microhabitats generally differ in many areas.

Populations of Heermann’s kangaroo rats are common in

most areas where antelope squirrels are found. San

Joaquin kangaroo rats also occur in the same areas as San

Joaquin antelope squirrels, but these kangaroo rats are

much smaller; their small-diameterburrows would have

to be enlarged considerably before antelope squirrels

could use them (Williams 1980).

San Joaquin antelope squirrels probably compete

with kangaroo rats for seeds, especially those of grasses

and forbs, and, to a lesser extent, green herbaceous

material. The extent to which kangaroo rats eat insects,

an important staple for antelope squirrels, is unknown,

but insects are probably only aminor part of their diets.

Species of birds are probably the main competitors of

antelope squirrels for insects (Williams and Tordoff

1988). San Joaquin antelope squirrels are prey for a

variety of animals: hawks, falcons, eagles, snakes, kit

foxes, coyotes, badgers and probably other predators

(Williams and Tordoff 1988).

Activity Cycle.—San Joaquin antelope squirrels are

primarily diurnal, usually active early or late in the day

(Elliot 1904). Activity is reduced when ambient

temperatures drop below about 10 degrees Celsius (50

degrees Fahrenheit) (Hawbecker 1958), but on sunny

days they have been observed when air temperatures

were around 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit)

(D.F. Williams unpubl. observ.). Activityalso isreduced

at high ambienttemperatures, butthe amount and critical

temperatures at which activity is curtailed are unclear.

On the Elkhorn Plain Ecological Reserve, antelope

squirrels were observed at all hours of the day and at

ambient temperatures in excess of 42 degrees Celsius

(108 degrees Fahrenheit) during July and August

(Williams and Tordoff 1988). In contrast, Hawbecker

(1958) noted that squirrels occasionally ventured into the

hot sun only for short periods. They are active above

ground for extensive periods during the day in the spring

when temperatures are generally between about 20 to 30

degreesCelsius (68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit).

Habitatand CommunityAssociations—SanJoaquin

antelope squirrels live inrelatively arid annual grassland

and shrubland communities in areas receiving less than

about 23 centimeters (10 inches) of mean annual

precipitation. They are most numerous in areas with a

145
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

sparse-to-moderate cover of shrubs such as saltbushes,

California ephedra, bladderpod, goldenbushes,

matchweed, and others. Shrubless areas are only

sparsely inhabited, especially where giant kangaroo rats

are not present or not common.

Hawbecker (1953) believed that most antelope

squirrelsfound in shrublessareas were nonbreeders. Yet,

on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area antelope squirrels are

widespread; permanent populations are found over

thousands of acres without shrubs (Harris and Stearns

1991, D.F. Williams, unpubl. observ.). Grinnell and

Dixon (1918) and Hawbecker (1953) observed that San

Joaquin antelope squirrels rarely occurred on the Valley

floor in areas with alkaline soils supporting halophytes

such as iodine bush and spiny saltbush. Highly alkaline

soils on the Valley floor typically have water tables

within a few centimeters toa meter(1 to40 inches) orso

from the surface, perhaps limiting habitation. Steep

slopes and broken, rocky, upland terrain are also scarcely

inhabited (Williams 1980).

San Joaquin antelopesquirrelsrequire areasfree from

flooding where they can place ground burrows. Soils

must be friable. Substantial colonies investigated by

Hawbecker (1953)were almost always confined to loam

and sandy-loam soils withmoderate amounts of soluble

salts, but soils with a wide range of textures are used

(Williams 1980). In shrubless areas, and many areas with

sparse shrub cover, San Joaquin antelope squirrels are

associated with giant kangaroo rats, and they also live in

burrow systems made by giant kangaroo rats (Williams

and Tordoff 1988, Williams et al. 1993b, D.F. Williams

unpubl. observ.).

In the southern and western San Joaquin Valley, San

Joaquin antelope squirrels are associated with open,

gently sloping land with shrubs. Typical vegetation

includes saltbushes and ephedra (Hawbecker 1975).

Near Panoche, San Benito County, at an elevation of

about 360 meters (1,200 feet), they are associated with

such plants as California ephedra, California juniper,

matchweed, one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda ssp.

secunda),redbrome, and red-stemmed filaree (Hawbecker

1958). Near Los Banos, Merced County, and near

Mendota, Fresno County, the habitatis mostly devoid of

brushy cover (Hawbecker 1947).

Reasonsfor Decline.—Loss of habitatto agricultural

developments, urbanization, and petroleum extraction is

the principal factor threatening San Joaquin antelope

squirrels. Use of rodenticides for control of ground

squirrels and San Joaquin antelope squirrels wasreported

by Grinnell and Dixon in 1918. Use of insecticides to

control leafhoppers and other insects might impact

antelope squirrels negatively by temporarily reducingthe

abundance of insects, an important source of food and

moisture during summer.

Threats to Survival.—The processes of habitat loss

and fragmentation are expected to continue on a much

smaller scale than in the past, but the direct and indirect

effects of these processes are expected to accelerate the

declineof the species. Thoughone of the two largest and

most important habitat areas, the Carrizo Plain Natural

Area, is now mostly in public ownership, potential

protection is tenuous for the species in the equally

important population of the Lokern-Elk Hills area of

western Kern County. The sale of Naval Petroleum

Reserve #1 inElkHills to private interests(Henry 1995a,

1995b) could represent a threat to the San Joaquin

antelope squirrel if rates of exploration and production

are increased.

Another threat to San Joaquin antelope squirrels on

private land may be the long-term effects of excessive

grazing by livestock. Elimination of shrubs and soil

erosion resulting from heavy use of rangeland

communities by livestock can degrade their carrying

capacities for most member species. First affected are

those species dependent upon the plants most palatable

and vulnerable tograzingand browsing by livestock. San

Joaquin antelope squirrels appear to maintain good

population densities on moderate-to-severely degraded

rangelands where shrubs such as ephedra are common,

but it is doubtful that they could maintain viability

indefinitely unless the processes of overgrazing and

resulting soil erosion were halted. Substantial soil

erosion has occurred on both public and private lands

throughoutthe historical geographic range of the species

(Williams et al. 1993b, D.F. Williams unpubl. observ.).

Rangeland conditions in the region have deteriorated

over the last several decades, and deep gully erosion is

accelerating, even in areas where livestock grazing has

been curtailed or reduced.

Conservation Efforts.—The San Joaquin antelope

squirrel was designated a threatened species by the State

of California in 1980 (CDFG 1980). The San Joaquin

antelope squirrel wasremoved as aCategory 1 candidate

for Federal listing in 1995 (USFWS 1995b), and is now

considered a species of concern (USFWS 1996).

146
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

San Joaquin antelope squirrels were the targetspecies

for the first unit of the Allensworth Ecological Reserve

(J. Gustafson pers. comm.), and one of several species

benefiting from othermitigation and nonmitigation land

protection actions (Table 2). The CDFG’s Bird and

Mammal Conservation program funded studies on

ecology and habitat management of San Joaquin antelope

squirrels (Williams et al. 1988) and studies of population

survey methods, demography, and distribution (Harris

andStearns 1991). TheBiologicalResources Division of

U.S. Geological Survey is studying effects of roads on

San Joaquin antelope squirrels in the Carrizo Plain

Natural Area, and interactions between San Joaquin

antelope squirrels and giant kangaroo rats (G. Rathbun

pers. comm.). The Biological Resources Division also

funded a study of food habitats of San Joaquin antelope

squirrels (Harris 1993).

Conservation Strategy —San Joaquin antelope

squirrels in the two largest populations on the Carrizo

Natural Area and in western Kern County should be

protected by appropriate land uses and habitat

management. Ensuring that habitat for San Joaquin

antelope squirrels is dedicated toconservation objectives

will require purchase of title or easementtosome parcels,

and protection of habitat on existing public lands in

western Kern County. Additional populations need

protection, especially in western Fresno and eastern San

Benito County, along the fringe of the Valley between

Fresno and Kern Counties, and on the Valley floor.

The status ofantelope squirrels inthe Kettleman Hills

and on the remaining islands of habitat in the southern

San Joaquin Valley is precarious. Protection and

enhancement of habitat in the Semitropic Ridge area of

Kern County is important tomaintaining a populationon

the Valley floor. Protecting and restoring habitat in the

area including Pixley National Wildlife Refuge and

Allensworth Natural Area (this area encompasses all the

natural and abandoned farm lands in the AllensworthDelano area of Tulare and Kern Counties), and

reintroducing antelope squirrels to Pixley National

Wildlife Refuge is necessarytosecure a populationinthe

eastern portions of the Valley. Both habitat restoration

and management forSan Joaquin antelope squirrels will

require additional information derived from scientific

investigations.

Conservation Actions —Actionsrequired toconserve

the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, in approximate order

of importance, are:

1. Determine habitat management prescriptions

for San Joaquin antelope squirrels on the

southern San Joaquin Valley floor.

2. Inventory potential habitat for San Joaquin

antelope squirrelsinthe Allensworth, Semitropic

Ridge, and Kettleman Hills natural areas, and

along the western edge of the Valley between

Pleasant Valley, Fresno County,and McKittrick

Valley-Lokern Area, Kern County.

3. Protect additional habitat for San Joaquin

antelope squirrels in the Pixley National

Wildlife Refuge- Allensworth Natural Area.

4. Developand implement apopulation monitoring

program for San Joaquin antelope squirrels at

sites representative of their existing geographic

range.

5. Protect additional habitat for San Joaquin

antelope squirrels in the Panoche Region of

western Fresno and eastern San Benito

Counties.

6. Protect additional habitat for San Joaquin

antelope squirrels in western Kern County.

7. Protect additional habitat for San Joaquin

antelope squirrels in the Semitropic Ridge

Natural Area.

8. Reevaluate the status of San Joaquin antelope

squirrels within 3 years of recovery plan

approval.

3. Short-Nosed Kangaroo Rat

(Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus)

Taxonomy.—The short-nosed kangaroo rat is one of

three subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat. The

type specimen of D. n. brevinasus was collected in 1918

from Hays Station on the upper alluvial fan of Panoche

Creek, Fresno County, California (Grinnell 1920).

Hafner (1979), using discriminant analysis, reaffirmed

conclusions of earlier researchers that populations of D.

nitratoides on the Carrizo Plain and west of the Kern

River alluvial fan, at the northwestern edge of Buena

Vista Lake, and west of the channels, sloughs, and lakes

fed by the Kern River were short-nosed kangaroo rats.

147
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Also, these waters at the west edge of the Valley floor

markedthe boundarybetween the subspecies brevinasus

and nitratoides. The California Aqueduct closely

follows this boundary from the Buena Vista Lake bed

west of Lost Hills.

Description.—See account of the Fresno kangaroo

rat for a general description of the species. Adult shortnosed kangaroo rats average larger in size than Tipton

and Fresno kangaroo rats. Mean mass is about 39 to 44

grams (1.4 to 1.6 ounces), headand body length averages

about 100 to 110 millimeters (3.9to 4.3 inches), and tail

length about 115 to 130 millimeters (4.5 to 5.1 inches).

ldentification.—See the Fresno kangaroo rat

account for ways to distinguish short-nosed kangaroo

rats from other co-occurring species. The short-nosed

kangaroo rat can be distinguished from the Fresno

kangaroo rat by its larger average measurements: mean

totallength formales indifferent populations, 238 to 252

millimeters (9.4 to 9.9 inches); for females, 232 to 246

millimeters (9.1 to 9.7 inches); mean length of hind foot

for males, 35.7 millimeters (1.41 inches); for females,

34.5 millimeters (1.36 inches); mean inflation of the

auditory bullae for males, 22.6 millimeters (0.89 inch);

for females, 22.4 millimeters (0.88 inch) (Hoffmann

1975) (see accounts ofFresno and Tipton subspecies for

corresponding average measurements).

Historical Distribution.—The historical geographic

range of short-nosed kangaroo rats is only partly known

from museumand literature records and recentstudies at

a few sites. There has notbeen a comprehensive study to

define historical distribution, but the inhabited area was

greater than 1,000,000 hectares (2,471,044 acres).

Short-nosed kangaroo rats occupied arid grassland and

shrubland associations along the western half of the

Valley floor and hills on the western edge of the Valley

from about Los Banos, Merced County, south to the

foothills ofthe Tehachapi Range and extending east and

northward inland above the edge of the Valley floor to

aboutPosoCreek, north of Bakersfield (Figure 58). They

also occurredon the CarrizoPlain and the upperCuyama

Valley (Grinnell 1920, 1922, Boolootian 1954, Hoffmann

1974, Hall 1981, Williams and Kilburn 1992, Williams

et al. 1993b, Hafner 1979, Williams 1985).

Current Distribution.—Current occurrences are

incompletely known because there has not been a

comprehensive survey for the species. Yet relatively

intensive trapping surveys at several historically

occupied siteswith extant natural communitiesshow that

populations mostly are small, fragmented, and widely

scattered. Recent large-scale survey and trapping efforts

include: the Panoche Region of Fresno and San Benito

Counties (D.F. Williams unpubl. data, Endangered

Species Recovery Program unpubl. data); Cantua Creek,

Fresno County (Williams et al. 1995, Williams and

Tordoff 1988); the Kettleman Hills, Kings County

(Williams et al. 1988); western Kern County (Anderson

et al. 1991, EG&G Energy Measurements 1995a,b);

CarrizoPlain NaturalArea (Vanderbilt andWhite 1992,

Williams et al. 1993b, Endangered Species Recovery

Program unpubl. data); andCuyama Valley (Endangered

Species Recovery Program unpubl. data). Populations

are known from around the edge of Pleasant Valley

(Coalinga area),Fresno County; a few, scattered spotsin

the Kettleman and Lost Hills, Kings and Kern Counties;

the Lokern, ElkHills, San Emigdio, and WheelerRidge

regions of western Kern County; the Carrizo Plain

Natural Area; and the Caliente Mountains at the north

edge of the Cuyama Valley.

Occupied habitats for areas known to support shortnosed kangaroo rats have not been completely mapped,

and there are relatively large areas that offer potential

habitat for the species that have not been surveyed.

However, because onlya few thousand acresof historical

habitat on the Valley floorremain undeveloped, and this

species occupies many of the same general areas

occupied by giant kangaroo rats, but with a different

patternof habitat use,the extant occupied area is unlikely

to be more than about 12,000 to 15,000 hectares (30,000

to 37,000 acres}—itis probably considerably less. The

larger estimate represents about 1.5 percent of the

estimated historical habitat. Even if there was twice this

amount ofcurrently occupied habitat and only 80 percent

as much historical habitat, the currently occupied area

only would be about 3.75 percent of historical habitat.

Food and Foraging.—Short-nosed kangaroo rats

have essentially the same diet and foraging behavior as

the other subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat

(Eisenberg 1963).

Reproduction and Demography .—Captive-bred

short-nosed kangaroo rats had a gestation period of 32

days and an average litter size of 2.3 (mode = 2). Litter

mass at birth averaged 7.6 grams(0.27 ounce). Females

showed a postpartum (soon after giving birth) estrus

(Eisenherg and Issac 1963). In captivity, a young female

conceived at 12 weeks of age and produced two young

148
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Figure 58. Distributional records for the short-nosed kangaroo rat (Dipodomysnitratoides brevinasus).

149
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

(Eisenberg and Issac 1963).

The reproductive season at higher elevations, such as

on the Carrizo Plain NaturalArea, is about 2 to 3 months

shorter than on the Valley floor (see Tipton kangaroo rat

account), with estrus commencing in late February or

March and ending by May most years, though

reproduction may continue through Augustin years with

a prolonged wet spring. Most females appear to have

onlya single litter, and young-of-the-year females appear

to have reproduced only when there is a prolonged wet

season (Williams et al. 1993b, Williams and Nelson in

press, Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl.

data). Like othersubspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo

rat, populations of the short-nosed kangaroo rat undergo

dramatic population fluctuations, and sometimes

disappear from an area (Williams et al. 1993b,

Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl. data).

On the Elkhorn Plain, the population has fluctuated,

primarily in response to varying rainfall and plant

productivity (Figure 59).

Behavior and Species Interactions.—Behavior of

short-nosed kangaroo rats was studiedextensively in the

laboratory and compared to other members of the family

Heteromyidae (Eisenberg 1963). Individuals usually

live solitarily except when females are in estrus and

tolerate the presence of a male.

Speciesinteractions are essentially the same asforthe

Fresno and Tipton subspecies. Short-nosed kangaroo

rats cancoexist withgiant kangaroo rats only wherethere

are scattered shrubs, and on the periphery of giant

36

30

626

j.20

U

• 15 .0

E

~ 10

z

0

Figure 59. Number of short-nosed kangaroo rats captured

during August censuses, ElkhomPlain. Census periods were 6

daysin duration. The Y2 axis shows mean net productivity per

square meter (Williams et al. 1993a, Endangered Species

Recovery Program unpubl. data).

kangaroo rat colonies on relatively steep, rocky slopes

(Williams and Tordoff 1988).

Activity Cycles.—Short-nosed kangaroo rats are

nocturnal and active year round. They do not become

dormant. They frequently appear above ground shortly

aftersunset and before dark (Tappe 1941, D.F. Williams

unpubl. data). They were not captured in the morning

hours after sunrise on the Elkhorn Plain, butwere taken in

the evening before sunset (Williams and Tordoff 1988).

In captivity, short-nosed kangaroo rats showed no

difference in activity under simulated full-moon and

new-moon conditions (Lockart and Owings 1974).

Habitat and Community Associations.—Shortnosed kangaroo rats historically were found mostly on

flat and gently sloping terrain and on hilltops in desertshrub associations, primarily saltbushes and California

ephedra. On the western slopes of the Temblor Range,

San Luis Obispo County, they also occur sparingly on

steep, rocky hillsides among chaparral yucca, ephedra,

and other shrubs, up to about 840 meters (2,750 feet)

(Vanderbilt andWhite 1992, Williams and Tordoff 1988,

D.F. Williams unpubl. data). On the Elk Hills Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California, they are most

abundant on flatter terrain with shrub densities between

about 0.1 and 0.17 persquare meter(0.1 to 0.2 per square

yard), as opposed to hilly terrain with higher shrub

densities (EG&GEnergy Measurements 1995a,b).

Short-nosed kangaroo rats generally occupygrassland

with scattered shrubs and desert-shrub associations on

friable soils. They inhabit highly saline soils around

Soda Lake, on the Carrizo Plain, and less saline soil

elsewhere. On the Valley floor, south of Los Banos,

Merced County, small populations, whose taxonomic

~ identity is uncertain (exilis or brevinasus) live on levees

secure from winter flooding, then move into seasonally

~floodediodine bush shrublands during the summer

~months,where at least some individuals reproduce

2 (Johnson and Clifton 1992). In the Panoche Valley, San A.

~Benito County, short-nosed kangaroo rats are found on

a. gentle slopes and rolling, low hilltops where some shrubs

are present (Hawbecker 1951). Over most of their

current range they are generally more numerous in

lighter, friable soils such as the sandy bottoms and banks

of arroyos and other sandy areas (Williams and Tordoff

1988, D.F. Williams unpubl. data).

Reasons for Decline.—The main cause for decline of

short-nosed kangaroo rats was the extensive agricultural

August Census

150
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

developments of the 1960s through 1970s within their

range, made possible by the Central Valley and State

Water projects. Loss of the best habitats and the largest

populations they supported,togetherwith fragmentation

and isolation, and subsequent random catastrophic

events (e.g., drought, flooding, fire), have apparently

caused their elimination from some sitesstill undeveloped.

In limited areas, widespread broadcasting ofrodenticides

to control California ground squirrels (and sometimes

kangaroo rats) may have contributed to elimination of

some populations (Williams and Kilburn 1992).

Threats to Survival—Current and potential threats

cannot be adequately assessed without a more complete

understanding of current distribution and population

statuses. Yet, from what is known of the biology of the

species, the greatest threats probably are random

catastrophic events (e.g., drought, flooding, fire) and

inappropriate habitat management. Short-nosed kangaroo

rats appear to be particularly sensitive to buildup of too

much plant materialwhen grazing or otherland uses that

reduce plant cover and mulch accumulation are curtailed.

They also may be harmed by overstocking range land,

especially when itresults in heavybrowsing and death of

shrubs. Fires that destroy saltbushes may reduce habitat

quality forthe species. Thesefactors probably vary, with

lack of grazing or other vegetation management being

less important orunimportant in themost arid portions of

its range and most important in the wettest.

The largest existing population of short-nosed

kangaroo rats is in western Kern County in the Lokern

and Elk Hills region. Though several thousand acres are

in public ownership, relatively little of it is adequately

protected by title or statute. Privatization of the Naval

Petroleum Reserve #1 at Elk Hills could lead to greater

surfacedisturbance if ratesof exploration and production

are increased. Unless a substantial proportion of the

occupied habitat can be protected from development and

the habitat managed by appropriate land uses, additional

habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation could lead

to extinction of this population by random catastrophic

events (e.g., drought, flooding, fire).

Elsewhere, the only othersizablepopulation is on the

CarrizoPlain Natural Area. Though much of this is now

in public ownership, between one-third and one-half of

the land in the Natural Area has not been grazed since

acquisition. Another several thousand acres had been

cultivated since atleastthe 1 930s, some longer, and 0.1 to

1.0 meter (0.3 to 3 feet) of topsoil were lost during that

time (R. van de Hoek pers. comm., D.F. Williams unpubl.

observ.). Cultivation ceased on most parcels between

1987 and 1989. Whether or not short-nosed kangaroo

rats have recolonized any of the ground retired since is

not known. Much of it may have lost too much soil to

provide suitable habitat for this species.

On the CarrizoPlain NaturalArea, lack of grazing in

years of high plant productivity or other appropriate

habitat management poses an unknown level of threat to

conserving short-nosed kangaroo rats. Though

inappropriate management probably would not result

directly inelimination from the NaturalArea,it probably

would prevent the species’ population from reaching a

size and distribution that would adequately insulate it

from the negative effects of random catastrophic events

(e.g., drought, flooding, fire).

Conservation Efforts.—The short-nosed kangaroo

rathas no protected status. It wasremoved as a Category

1 candidate forFederal listing in 1995 (USFWS 1995b),

and is now considered a species of concern (USFWS

1996). Though little direct conservation action has been

taken for this species, it has benefited from surveys and

avoidance of impacts on Federal property (EG&G

Energy Measurements 1995a,b); land purchases for the

Carrizo Plain Natural Area by the State and Federal

governments; and from land purchases for mitigation

and nonmitigation in the Sand Ridge area (The Nature

Conservancy), Lokern area (California Energy

Commission, The Nature Conservancy, USBLM,

CDFG), and possibly elsewhere inthe Coalinga-Panoche

regions of Fresno and San Benito Counties (Table 2).

The short-nosed kangaroo rat also has benefited from the

California Energy Commission’s Ecosystem Protection

Program surveys and plans forthe Southern San Joaquin

Valley (Anderson et al. 1991), and its Biological

Resources Inventory of the Carrizo Plain Natural Area

(Kakiba-Russell et al. 1991).

The Bird and Mammal Conservation Program of the

CDFG, USBLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and Service

collectively have supported research on population

ecology and grazing impacts of kangaroo rats on the

Elkhorn Plain that has provided information on the

population dynamics of short-nosed kangaroo rats

(Williams et al. 1993b, Williams and Nelson in press,

Endangered Species Recovery Program unpubl. data).

Other important information has been gathered by

EG&G Energy Measurements (1995a,b) for the U.S.

Department of Energy during their small mammal

151
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

monitoring and habitat relationships studies on the Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California, and the California

Energy Commission’s small mammal monitoring

program in the Lokern Region (Anderson et al. 1991).

Conservation Strategy —The short-nosed kangaroo

rat will benefit from a detailed investigation of current

distribution and population status, a population

monitoring program, appropriate habitat management,

and habitat protection, particularly in western Kern

County, but probably also in the Panoche Region.

Habitat management prescriptions are likely to differ on

the Carrizo Plain Natural Area from those in western

Kern County, and studies to determine appropriate land

use and vegetation management regimes are needed in

both areas, and probably elsewhere. The long-term

protection of natural land in the Elk Hills Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California and the Lokern Area

are necessary to improve the status of the species.

Determining the causes and stopping or reversing the

decline in short-nosed kangaroo rat populations in

western Kings and Fresno Counties and eastern San

BenitoCounty also are elements of conservation. A final

component of the conservation strategy forthis species is

to restore and reintroduce short-nosed kangaroo rats to

lands retired from irrigated agriculture because of

drainage problems. Ideally one or more major blocks of

retired land can be connected by continuoushabitat along

major intermittent stream channels to the natural land in

the Panoche region.

Three main constituents of a conservation strategy for

short-nosed kangaroo rats are:

1. Determining how to enhance habitat for shortnosed kangaroo rats that lessens the severity of

cyclic population declines.

2. Consolidating and protecting blocks of suitable

habitat forshort-nosed kangaroo ratsin western

Kern, Kings, and Fresno Counties.

3. Restoringhabitat for short-nosed kangaroo rats

on farmland retired because of drainage

problems.

Retired land ideally should be of several thousand

acres each, minimally about 2,330 hectares (5,760acres)

with a core of atleast 800 hectares (about 2,000 acres)of

high quality habitat that is not subject to periodic

flooding from overflowing streams or sheet flooding

from torrential rain. They should provide topographic

and biotic diversity. The vegetation should be actively

managed by an appropriate level of livestock grazing to

prevent excessive accumulation of mulch and growing

plants until such time as optimum management

conditions are determined by scientific research. Large,

relatively square blocks will minimize edge with

agricultural lands and the consequent pest problems at

the agricultural interface.

Conservation Actions.—Needed to conserve shortnosed kangaroo rats, in priority of implementation, are:

1. Initiate and coordinate habitat management

studies for short-nosed kangaroo rats at sites

representing the range of existing habitat

conditions for the species, in the Carrizo Plain

Natural Area, Lokern / Elk Hills region, and

western Fresno County.

2. Protect existing habitat forshort-nosed kangaroo

rats in the Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California, Lokern area, and elsewhere in the

region.

3. Design and implement a range-widepopulation

monitoring program that measures population

and environmental fluctuations at sites

representative of the range of sizes and habitat

conditions for the species.

4. Inventory and assess existing natural land

within the historical range of the short-nosed

kangaroo rat to assess population status.

5. Develop and implement research on restoration

of habitat for short-nosed kangaroo rats on

retired irrigated land.

6. Include habitat needs of short-nosed kangaroo

rats in any plans by government to acquire and

restore drainage-problem lands within its

historical geographic range, particularly western

Fresno County.

7. Restore habitat on retired agricultural lands as

needed.

8. Reevaluate the status of the short-nosed

kangaroo rat within 3 years of recovery plan

approval.

152
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

4. Riparian Woodrat

(Neotomafuscipes riparia)

Taxonomy.—The riparian or San Joaquin Valley

woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes riparia, is one of 11

described subspecies of the dusky-footed woodrat

(Hooper 1938). Although some taxonomic studies of the

genus Neotoma have been completed in recent years, no

genetic analyses or further systematic revisions of the

species N. fuscipes have been published since Hooper’s

(1938) report.

Description —The riparian woodrat (Figure 60) is a

medium-sized (200 to400 grams; 7.05 to 14.11 ounces)

rodent with a stockier build and a tail that is well furred

(Hooper 1938, Williams et al. 1992) and not scaled,

compared to the coexisting, nonnative roof or “black”

rats (Rattus rattus).

Identification.—N. f riparia differs from other,

adjacent subspecies of woodrats by being larger, lighter,

and more grayish in color, withhind feet white instead of

dusky on their upper surfaces, and a tail more distinctly

bicolored(lighter belowcontrasting morewith the darker

dorsal color) (Hooper 1938).

Historical Distribution.—The type locality for the

riparian woodratis Kincaid’s Ranch, about 3 kilometers

(2 miles) northeast of Vernalis in Stanislaus County,

California (Figure 61). Hooper’s (1938, p. 223)

taxonomic analysis used only seven specimens, all from

the vicinity of the type locality, but he believed that “it

probably ranges south, along the river bottom lands, as

far as southern Merced County or northern Fresno

County, since the same environmental conditions

evidently prevail throughout this area.” Hooper further

pointed out that the range of the riparian woodrat was

Figure 60. Illustration of a riparian woodrat. Drawing by

Wendy Stevens ( © CSU Stanislaus Foundation).

disjunct by 1938 because no suitable habitat remained

between the type locality and the San FranciscoEast Bay

region, where two other subspecies(N.f perplexa andN.

f annectens) could be found. Hall and Kelson (1959)

assigned a specimenfrom El Nido, MercedCounty to this

subspecies on the basis of geography.

Current Distribution.—The range of the riparian

woodrat is far more restricted today than it was in 1938

(Williams 1986). The only population that has been

verified is the single, known extant population restricted

to about 100 hectares(250 acres)of riparian foreston the

Stanislaus Riverin Caswell Memorial State Park (Figure

61). Williams (1993) estimated the size of this

population at 437 individuals. Analysis of California

Department of Water Resources land use maps indicate

that there were approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) of

“natural vegetation” present along the San Joaquin River

near the type locality in 1988, though no woodrats have

been seen in that area. Today there is no habitat for

woodrats around El Nido, which is located about 8.9

kilometers (5.5. miles) east ofthe San Joaquin River,the

closest possible riparian habitat.

FoodandForaging.—Although some species have

more specialized diets than others (e.g., Stephen’s

woodrat, N. stephensi, feeds almost exclusively on

juniper), woodrats are, for the most part, generalist

herbivores. They consume a wide variety of nuts and

fruits, fungi, foliage and some forbs (Linsdale and Tevis

1951).

Behaviorand Species Interactions.—Dusky-footed

woodrats live inloosely-cooperative societies and have a

matrilineal (mother-offspring associations; through the

maternal line) social structure (Kelly 1990). Unlike

males, adjacent females are usually closely related and,

unlike females, males disperse away from their birthden

and are highly territorial and aggressive, especially

during the breeding season. Consequently, populations

are typically female-biased and, because of pronounced

polygynv (mating pattern in which a male mates with

more than one female in a single breeding season), the

effective population size (i.e., successful breeders) is

generally much smaller than the actual population size

(Kelly 1990).

Habitat and Community Associations.—Duskyfooted woodrats inhabit evergreen or live oaks and other

thick-leaved trees and shrubs (Kelly 1990, Williams et al.

1992). Riparian woodrats are common, however, where

153
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 61. Distributional records for the nparian woodrat(Neotomafuscipes riparia).

154
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

thereare deciduous valley oaks, but few live oaks. They

are most numerous where shrub cover is dense and least

abundant in open areas. In riparian areas, highest

densities of woodrats and their houses are often

encountered in willow thickets with an oak overstory

(Linsdale and Tevis 1951).

Dusky-footedwoodrats are well known fortheir large

terrestrial stick houses, some of which can last for 20 or

more years after being abandoned (Linsdale and Tevis

1951, Carraway and Verts 1991). At Caswell Memorial

State Park, riparian woodrats also make houses of sticks

and other litter (Williams 1993). At the Hastings

Reserve, Monterey County, dusky-footed woodrat

houses range from 60 centimeters (2 feet) to 150

centimeters (5 feet) in height, and can be 120 centimeters

(4 feet) to 240 centimeters (8 feet) in basal diameter.

Houses typically are placed on the ground against or

straddling a log orexposed roots ofa standingtreeand are

often located in dense brush. Nests also are placed in the

crotches and cavities of trees and in hollow logs.

Sometimes tree nests are constructed but this behavior

seemsto be more common inhabitat withevergreen trees

such as live oak (Williams et al. 1992).

Reasons for Decline.—Although there is still no

good estimate of the amount of riparian habitat remaining

in the San Joaquin Valley, it is only a vestige of what it

was 50 to 100 years ago. Thus, loss and fragmentation of

habitat are the principal reasons for the decline of the

riparian woodrat. Much of this loss was the result of the

construction of large dams and canals which diverted

water for the irrigation of crops and permanentlyaltered

the hydrology of Valley streams. More was lost through

cultivation ofthe river bottoms. Historically, cattle also

probably impacted riparian woodrat populations since

the thick undergrowth, which is particularly importantto

woodrats, is sensitive to trampling, browsing and grazing

by livestock.

Threats to Survival —The only known extant

population of riparian woodrat is small, with its size

limited by the available habitat. It is thus at an increased

risk of extinction because of genetic, demographic, and

random catastrophic events (e.g., drought,flooding, fire)

that threatens small, isolated populations. Because of its

breeding behavior, the effective size of woodrat

populations is generally much smaller than the actual

population size. This increases the risk of inbreeding

depression.

The woodrat population at Caswell Memorial State

Park is vulnerable to flooding of the Stanislaus River.

Because of its well-developed arboreality (ability to

climb in trees), the woodrat itself is not as sensitive to

flooding as some other brush-dwelling species (e.g., the

riparian brush rabbit). However, woodrat houses are

essential forsurvival and these can be severely impacted

by flooding, thus affecting population viability.

Conservation Efforts.—The riparian woodrat was

proposed for listing by the USFWS on November 21,

1997 (USFWS 1997). Although the only known

population has some protection by residing in Caswell

Memorial State Park, there are currently no conservation

efforts underway specifically to benefit the riparian

woodrat. The California Department of Parks and

Recreation, however, has supported some generalsmallmammal studies and studies on the woodratpopulation at

Caswell (Cook 1992, Williams 1993).

Conservation Strategy.—Unlike many othersensitive

species in the San Joaquin Valley, the life history of the

riparian woodrat is particularly well known through

studies on other subspeciesof the dusky-footedwoodrat,

particularly N.f luciana (Linsdale and Tevis 1951, Kelly

1990). However, using this information to develop a

conservation plan is hampered by a lack of data on the

current status and distribution of the species. Thus,

surveys along all river corridors throughoutits historical

range to identify and map remaining riparian habitat and

extant woodrat populations, if any are found, must be a

primary element of a conservation strategy for the

riparian woodrat.

Any conservation strategy for the riparian woodrat

should focus on a long-term goal of reducing the effects

of population fragmentation by establishing, wherever

possible, linkages (corridors) between remnants of

riparian habitat. If additional riparian woodrat

populations are discovered by surveys, priority should be

given to connecting occupied habitat patches. However,

if no additional populations are found, then convenient or

logical fragments will have to be reconnected and

reintroduction of the species will be an important

component of the conservation strategy.

Because much of the river bottom land in the San

Joaquin Valley is in private ownership, a concerted

outreach effort must be made to enlist the help of

landowners inthe conservation of riparian woodrats and

155
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

their habitat. Through progressive habitat conservation

plans and other existing programs (e.g., Riparian Habitat

Joint Venture, Partners for Wildlife Program, and the

evolving “safe-harbor” concept), incentives must be

provided toencourage the establishment or restoration of

riparian habitat.

All these conservation activities will depend on the

understanding and receptivity of private landowners.

Many of the private parcels of potential habitat for

riparian woodrats on the Stanislaus and lower San

Joaquin Rivers have federally-owned wildlife habitat

and flood easements, administered by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE). This is true of the entire

riparian corridor of the Stanislaus River downstream

from Caswell Memorial State Park in Stanislaus and San

Joaquin Counties. The COE must diligently inspect

parcels with wildlife easements and ensure that the

requirements of those easements are being met. Beyond

that, the development of an effective outreach and

incentive program focused on the owners of riparian

lands is a critical and early step of any conservation

strategy.

Conservation of the riparian woodrat may be

furthered by changes in the management of National

Wildlife Refuges in the San Joaquin Valley that will

make these refuges more hospitable to riparian species.

Such changes are specifically needed tohelp recover the

riparian brush rabbit (as discussed elsewhere inthis plan)

and the woodrat.

Conservation Actions.—Conserving the riparian

woodrat depends on good information on status and

distribution and sufficient protected habitat. To achieve

these goals requires these actions:

I. A survey and mapping of all riparian areas

along the San Joaquin River and its major

tributaries is of the highest priority. A costeffective survey can be carried out through a

combination of aerial photo interpretation,

selective truthing of photos on the ground, and

judicious trapping where permission isrequired

and given.

2. Develop in collaboration with owners of

riparian land and local levee-maintenance

districts an incentive program for preserving

cover and riparian vegetation.

3. Develop a plan for the restoration of riparian

habitat, the establishment of riparian corridors,

and the reintroduction, if necessary, ofriparian

woodrats to suitable habitat.

4. Initiate a genetic study of theCaswell Memorial

State Park woodrats, and any other riparian

woodrat populations that can be sampled, to

determine inbreeding levels; and devise a

procedure for ensuring that translocations

neither reduce genetic diversity in the parent

population nor unduly restrict it in the

translocated population.

5. Establish conservation agreements with willing

landownersthat do not already have conservation

easements, as appropriate and necessary, to

accomplish habitat restoration, linkage, and

reintroduction goals.

6. Begin efforts torestore and link riparian habitat,

and reintroduce woodrats, as appropriate.

Although the timing of these management actions

may depend on the development of additional

information through surveys, some combination of

actions will almost certainly be necessary for

conservation. Therefore to the extent possible, planning

for such action should go forward along with surveys.

Then appropriate management action can follow without

delay when surveys are finished.

5. Tulare Grasshopper Mouse

(Onychomys torridus tularensis)

Taxonomy.—The genus Onychomys was described

by Baird (1858). The southern grasshopper mouse was

described as Hesperomys (Onychomyr) torridus by

Coues (1874). The Tulare grasshopper mouse (0.

torridus tularensis), one of 10 currently recognized

subspecies, was described by Merriam (1904b) from the

type specimen collected near Bakersfield, Kern County,

California.

Description.—In general, mice of the genus

Onychomys have stout bodies withshort, relatively thick

tails(Figure 62). The pelage is sharply bicoloredwith the

head, back, and upper sides pale-brown to grayish or

pinkish cinnamon andthe underparts white and distinctly

different from the upper parts. The tail is usually

bicolored with a white tip (Hall and Kelson 1959,

156
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

McCarty 1975). Juvenile pelage is gray; adult pelage is

buffy or tawny; and the pelage of older individuals may

be gray, closely resembling subadults in color (Hall and

Kelson 1959). Within-species variation in adult coat

colormay be a result of adaptation tolocal environmental

conditions (McCarty 1975). The total body length of the

southern grasshopper mouse ranges from 119 to 163

millimeters (4.69 to 6.42 inches); tail length, 33 to 62

millimeters (1.30 to 2.44 inches); hind foot length, 18 to

23 millimeters (0.71 to 0.91 inch); and ear length from

notch, 11 to 18 millimeters (0.43 to 0.71 inch). Tail

length is usually more than halfthe length ofthe body (48

to 56 percent) (Hall and Kelson 1959).

The southern grasshopper mouse has five tubercles

(knob-like fleshy bumps) on the sole of each forefoot,

and four on each hind foot. The soles of the feet are

covered with fur from heel to the beginning of the

tubereles (McCarty 1975).

Identification.—The Tulare grasshopper mouse can

be told externally from coexisting species of whitefooted mice (Peromyscus spp.) by its relatively short,

club-like tail and larger forefeet (McCarty 1975).

Historical Distribution—The Tulare grasshopper

mouse historically ranged from about western Merced

and eastern San Benito Counties eastto Madera County

and south to the Tehachapi Mountains; on the east, they

ranged from Madera County south(Figure 63) (Newman

and Duncan 1973, Williams and Kilburn 1992).

Figure 62. Illustration of a Tulare grasshopper mouse.

Drawing by Wendy Stevens based on photos © by B. Moose

Peterson.

Current Distribution—Currently, Tulare

grasshopper mice are known tooccur along the western

margin of the Tulare Basin, including western Kern

County, Carrizo Plain Natural Area, along the Cuyama

Valley side of the Caliente Mountains, San Luis Obispo

County, and the Ciervo-Panoche Region, in Fresno and

San Benito Counties (Williams and Kilburn 1992, D.F.

Williams unpubl. data). Though there has not been a

comprehensive survey of existing potential habitat, there

are several large blocks of historical habitat on the floor

of the Tulare Basin where extensive trapping has

occurred, but no Tulare grasshopper mice have been

captured, such as Alkali Sink EcologicalReserve,Fresno

County, and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, Tulare

County (Endangered Species RecoveryProgram unpubl.

data). The only recent record is the capture of a

grasshopper mouse in 1994 at Allensworth Ecological

Reserve (CDFG in litt. 1998).

Foodand Foraging.— Southern grasshopper mice

eatmostly small animals, withinsectsforming the bulk of

their diets (Bailey and Sperry 1929, Chew and Chew

1970, Homeret al. 1964). Prey items include scorpions,

beetles, grasshoppers, pocket mice, and western harvest

mice. Other ingested animals include spiders, mites,

ants, insect cocoons, caterpillars,lizards, and frogs (Rana

sp.) (Homer et al. 1964). They also eat seeds. Captive

grasshopper mice stored sunflower seeds in their nest

boxes during the winter months. The cache was used

only when no other food source was available (Bailey

and Sperry 1929).

Reproduction and Demography .—Specific

information on the reproduction and the mating system

of Tulare grasshopper mice is unknown. For southern

grasshopper mice in general,breeding occurs throughout

the year in laboratory settings, but is seasonal in natural

populations (McCarty 1975). Gestation is between 27

and 32 days, withtwo to six young born per litter. In the

wild, Tulare grasshopper mice may produce up to three

littersper year. Most litters are born from May through

July, with a sharp decline inAugust (Taylor 1968). Both

male and female southern grasshopper mice care for the

young (Homer 1961).

The reproductive efficiency of female grasshopper

mice declines significantly following the first year.

Taylor (1968) reported that only 17 percent (8 of 47) of

females that bore young in the laboratory bred in their

second year, and only 2 percent (1 of 47) continued into

the third year. Female southern grasshopper mice rarely

157
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of theSan Joaquin Valley

Figure 63. Distributional records for the Tulare grasshopper mouse (Onvchomys torridus tularensis).

158
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

remain reproductively active in the laboratory after 2

years of age. The oldest female to successfully rear a

litter was 24 months old. The oldest male to sire a litter

was 31 months old (Pinter 1970). Southern grasshopper

mice survived inthe laboratory up to 3 years, but mice in

the wild probably live less than 12 months (Homer and

Taylor 1968).

Females appear to be sexually active for a single

breeding season, with a rapid onset of reproductive

senility following the first year. Females born early in

the year (April) may produce two or three litters prior to

the end of the breeding season. Females born laterin the

year would have the potential to produce up to six litters

in the following breeding season, but seasonality of

breeding probably reduces the actual number to one to

three litters. Distinct lulls in the testicular activity of

males during the breeding season also may contribute to

low population densities (Taylor 1963).

There is no information on demography or dispersal

of Tulare grasshopper mice. Generally, southern

grasshopper mice exist at relativelylow density and have

home ranges much larger than similarly-sized rodents

such as white-footed mice (McCarty 1975).

Behavior and Species Interactions.—The most

consistent social unitis reported to be a male-femalepair

with offspring in a burrow system within a wide home

range (McCarty 1975). Blair (1943) reported the home

range size of male southern grasshopper mice was 3.2

hectares (7.8acres), and that of females was 2.4 hectares

(5.9 acres). The nest of the southern grasshopper mouse

is typically located in a burrow system that may have

been abandoned by another small mammal (Bailey and

Sperry 1929, Hall and Kelson 1959).

Adult males are highly territorial and frequently

vocalize during nocturnal activity. Adult males emit a

high-pitched call,lasting several seconds, while standing

on the hind legs with head raised and mouth open. Calls

are less frequently given by females. Calling appears to

function as a territorial and spacing mechanism

(McCarty 1975).

Small mammals associated with Tulare grasshopper

mice include giant kangaroo rats, San Joaquin kangaroo

rats (all three subspecies), Heermann’s kangaroo rats,

California ground squirrels, San Joaquin antelope

squirrels, San Joaquin pocket mice, California pocket

mice, deer mice, harvest mice, and house mice

(Hawbecker 1951, D.F. Williams unpubl. data).

Predatorsof the Tulare grasshopper mouse are known

to include American badgers, San Joaquin kit foxes,

coyotes, and barn owls (Hawbecker 1951).

Activity Cycles.— Tulare grasshopper mice are

nocturnal and active year round. They probably do not

become dormant, atleast not forlong periods, though in

captivity individuals have exhibited short episodes of

torpor (D.F. Williams unpubl. observ.). Other aspectsof

activity of Tulare grasshopper mice are unknown.

Habitat and Community Associations.—Tulare

grasshopper mice typically inhabit arid shrubland

communities in hot, arid grassland and shrubland

associations (Williams and Kilburn 1992). There is little

information about the habitat requirements of the Tulare

subspecies. Habitats recorded in the literature include

Blue OakWoodland at450 meters (1,476feet) where itis

very rare (Newman and Duncan 1973), and Upper

Sonoran Subshrub Scrub (Hawbecker 1951). Other

reported habitats are alkali sink, dominated by one or

more saltbush species, iodine bush, seepweed, and paleleaf goldenbush; mesquite associations on the Valley

floor; saltbush scrub; Upper Sonoran shrub associations

dominated by California ephedra/Anderson desertthorn;

and grassland associations (primarily Arabian grass and

red brome) on the sloping margins of the San Joaquin

Valley and the Carrizo Plain region (Williams and

Tordoff 1988).

Reasons for Decline.—The habitat reduction,

fragmentation, and degradation accompanying settlement

and development of the Valley for agriculture are the

principal causes of decline of Tulare grasshopper mice.

Random catastrophic events (e.g. floods, drought

combined with their low reproductive rate and other

demographic factors probably are the most significant

factors in elimination of fragmented populations.

However, use of insecticides (first DDT and others, now

mainly malathion) on natural lands to control beet

leafhoppers could have contributed to the disappearance

of grasshopper mice from fragmented islands of natural

land on the Valley floor, both from direct and indirect

poisoning, and reduction of their staple food, insects.

Rodenticides targeted for ground squirrels and

insecticide drift from adjacent farmland may also have

been a factor in elimination of grasshopper mice from

fragmented parcels on the Valley floor.

159
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Threats to Survival.—Habitat fragmentation and

loss to cultivation, and, perhaps, inappropriate land

management, are the most serious threats to Tulare

grasshopper mice. The naturally low reproductive rate,

low population density, and large home range

characteristic of southern grasshopper mice (McCarty

1975) make this subspecies particularly vulnerable to

loss and fragmentation of habitat (Williams and Kilburn

1992). There are no current overall estimates of

population size for this subspecies.

Conservation Efforts—The Tulare grasshopper

mouse is not a candidate for Federal listing, but is

considered a species of concern (USFWS 1996).

Conservation Strategy —The Tulare grasshopper

mouse lives in the same communities as the listed

kangaroo rats, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San

Joaquin kitfox. Its habitat needs, then, are essentially the

same asthose of othermembers of this arid grasslandand

shrubland community assemblage. Protecting habitat for

the listed members of this assemblage should

simultaneously protect habitat for Tulare grasshopper

mice. Of greatest concern, however, is the apparent

elimination of populations on the Valley floor. Thisloss,

ifsubstantiated, suggests relatively high vulnerability to

extinction by random catastrophic events (e.g., drought,

flooding,fire) or use of pesticides on even relativelylarge

habitat areas. Effortneeds to be directed at reaching an

understanding of the environmental factors of islands

where extinction has occurred. Knowledge gained can

be used in refining a strategy for ensuring that the same

processes do not result in further eliminations and

eventual extinction ofthe entire metapopulation.

Conservation Actions.—Habitat protection needs

for Tulare grasshopper mice are essentially the same as

those for San Joaquin antelope squirrels and the three

subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Additional

measures of highest priority for conservation of the

Tulare grasshopper mice are:

1. Determine the current distribution and

populationstatusof Tulare grasshopper mice on

isolated blocks of historical habitat on the

Valley floor of the Tulare Basin.

2. Analyze the environmentalfeatures of inhabited

and uninhabited fragmented islands of natural

land on the Valley floor to determine factors,

including pesticide use,that might be associated

with survival and elimination.

3. Establish a range-wide monitoring program at

sites representative of the range of occupied

communities and areas.

4. As (if) habitat areas on the Valley floor are

increased in size by retirement of agricultural

land, restore habitat and reintroduce Tulare

grasshopper mice.

5. Include Tulare grasshopper mice in studies of

management and land uses on habitat of other

species of the same community associations.

6. Reevaluate the statusof the Tulare grasshopper

mouse within 3 years of recoveryplan approval.

6. Buena Vista Lake Shrew

(Sorex ornatus relictus)

Taxonomy.—The Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex

ornatus relictus)was described by Grinnell (1932b)from

thetype specimencollected near Buena Vista Lake, Kern

County,California. This shrewis one of nine subspecies

of the ornate shrew(Sorex ornatus) (Merriam 1895, Hall

1981, Junge and Hoffmann 1981).

The systematic status ofthe Buena Vista Lake shrew

is uncertain because only a few specimens have been

available for comparison and a review of the systematics

of the species has notbeencompleted (Maldonado 1992).

An evaluation of the systematics of the group, using

DNA analysis, is currently underway. Preliminary

results indicate that the Buena Vista Lake shrew is a

distinct evolutionary unit of ornate shrew(J. Maldonado

pers. comm.).

Description.—Ranges of external measurements

from the type specimen and two additional specimens

are: total length, 98 to 105 millimeters (3.86 to 4.13

inches); tail length, 35 to 39 millimeters (1.38 to 1.54

inches); hind foot length, 11.5 to 13 millimeters (0.45to

0.51 inch); and ear length from the notch, 6.5 to 8.5

millimeters (0.26 to0.33 inch). Weightsranged from 4.1

to 7.6 grams (0.14 to 0.27 ounce). The upper surface of

the Buena Vista Lake shrew is blackish-brown, with a

pepper-and-salt pattern of buffy brown and black, the

black predominating. The sides are more buff>’ brown

than the upper surface. The lower surface is smoke gray.

The tail is not noticeably bicolored and darkenstowards

the end, both above and below (Grinnell 1932b).

160
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of theSanJoaquin Valley

Ident~jication.—The Buena Vista Lake shrew

(Figure 64) differs externally from S. ornatus ornatus,

whose range surrounds that of 5. o. relictus. The

coloration of the Buena Vista Lake shrew is distinctly

darker, grayish-black, rather than brown. The body size

is slightly larger, but the tail is shorter. The teeth are

essentially the same, but the third and fifth unicuspids

(teeth behind the incisors that have a single main cusp)

are even smaller relative to the other teeth (Grinnell

1932b).

Historical Distribution.—The Buena Vista Lake

shrew formerly occurred in wetlands around Buena

Vista Lake, and presumably throughoutthe Tulare Basin

(Grinnell 1932b, 1933a; Williams and Kilburn 1984,

Williams 1986). As early as 1933, Grinnell (1933a)

found the distribution of this species to be much

restricted due to the disappearance of lakes and sloughs.

Since Grinnell’s (1932b) report, Buena Vista Lake and

the surrounding lakes and Valley Freshwater Marshes

have been drained and cultivated. Further, canals in the

area are steep-sided and kept free of vegetation

(Williams and Kilburn 1992).

Current Distribution.—Little is known about the

current distribution of the Buena Vista Lake shrew. It

was rediscovered in 1986 by Robert Hansen during

excavations on the Kern LakePreserve (Figure 65) (D.F.

Williams unpubl. observ,). The status of this population

was assessed inthe early 1 990s(CenterforConservation

Biology 1990, Maldonado 1992) and most recently in

1995 (Maldonado 1998). Two shrews were also

collected in 1992 and one in 1994 atthe Kern National

Wildlife Refuge (J. Allen pers. comm.). Water

management practices at the Refuge have focused on

waterfowl, and riparian habitat has notreceived adequate

water over the years to maintain riparian diversity

(Engler in litt. 1994). Any other extant populations

found within the Tulare Basin may or may not be

Figure 64. Illustration of a Buena Vista Lake shrew. Souce:

Daniel F. Williams.

representative of the Buena Vista Lake shrew. No other

recent recordsof this shreware known,thoughonly a few

biological surveys have included attempts to capture

shrews (Clark et al. 1982, Germano in litt. 1992, T. Kato

pers. comm., S. Taborpers. comm.).

Conservation Efforts.—The Buena Vista Lake

shrew is a Federal candidate for listing as threatened or

endangered (USFWS 1996), and is a California State

Mammalian Species of Special Concern (Williams

1986).

Food and Foraging.—The specific feeding and

foraging habits of the Buena Vista Lake shrew are

unknown. In general, shrews primarily feed on insects

and other animals, mostly invertebrates (Harris 1990,

Williams 1991, Maldonado 1992). Food probably is not

cachedand stored, sothe shrew mustforage periodically

day and night to maintain its highmetabolic rate.

Reproduction.—Nothing is known specifically

about the reproduction and mating system of the Buena

Vista Lake shrew. In general,the reproductive period of

the ornate shrew extends from late February through

September and early October (Rudd 1955,Brown 1974,

Rust 1978). The breeding season of the Buena Vista

Lakeshrew may begin in autumn and end with the onset

of the dry season inMay orJune. In high-qualityhabitat

in permanent wetlands, the breeding season may be

extended (Center for Conservation Biology 1990,

Williamsin litt. 1989). Upto two litters are produced per

year containing four to six young (Owens and Hoffman

1983).

Demography.—Little is known about population

numbers, home range, or territoriality of the Buena Vista

Lake shrew or ornate shrews in general. Twenty-five

Buena Vista Lake shrews were captured during four

trapping sessions from December 1988 through May

1989. Only one animal wasrecaptured (Freas 1990). In

captivity, ornate shrews defend nest sites (Newman

1976). Population densities of the taxonomically related

species, S. vagrans vagrans, in western Washington,

variedfrom about 25.8 per hectare (10.12per acre) in fall

and winterto 50.2 perhectare (20.32 per acre) atthe high

point in summer (Newman 1976). Though no values are

available for S. ornatus, trapping results suggest that S. o.

relictus exists at much lower densities, probably no more

than 10 to 15 per hectare (4 to6 per acre)atthe highpoint.

Assuming a density of 13 per hectare (5.3 per acre), and

a desired population size of no less than 5,000

161
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Figure 65. Recent distributionalrecords for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus).

162
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species oftheSanJoaquin Valley

individuals, approximately 400 hectares (1,000acres) of

occupied habitat would be required for long-term

conservation.

Behaviorand Species Interactions.—Pairs of ornate

shrews lived together in captivity without antagonism if

adequate food and water were provided (Owen and

Hoffmann 1983). Although shrews were not observed

burrowing in leaflitter on cage floors,they are thoughtto

burrow in natural settings (Rudd 1953). During hot

weather in dry habitats, the ornate shrew may restrict its

daytime activity to burrows of other animals (Pearson

1959).

Activity Cycle.—Ornate shrews are active day and

night (Pearson 1959, Newman and Rudd 1978, Rust

1978). Nocturnal activity predominates, especially

during the breeding season, in the Suisun shrew (So.

sinuosus; Rust 1978). The intensity and distribution of

activity within a 24-hour period varies with sexual

maturity (Rust 1978).

Habitat and Community Associations.—Ornate

shrews ingeneral tend to be associated with the structure

of the vegetation rather than withspecies composition of

the community (Owen and Hoffmann 1983). Buena

Vista Lake shrews occupied Valley Freshwater Marshes

on the perimeter of Buena Vista Lake and probably

occurred throughout the Tulare Basin (Williams 1986),

though most of the marshlands were drained or dried up

prior to the discovery of the shrew in 1932 (Grinnell

1932b). Recent captures on the Kern Lake Preserve

occurred in areas with a dense wetland vegetative cover

and an abundant layer of detritus (decomposed

vegetation) (Center for Conservation Biology 1990,

Maldonado 1992). Plant species associated within these

areas include Fremont cottonwood (Populusfremontii),

willows (Salix spp.), glasswort, alkali heath, wild-rye

grass Elymus sp.), and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus).

Animal species captured on the Preserve, butonly inthe

xerophytic community, were deer mice and California

pocket mice (Center for Conservation Biology 1990).

Reasons for Decline.—Loss and fragmentation of

habitat are the major causes for decline and threat to the

Buena Vista Lake shrew’s survival (Williams and

Kilburn 1984, 1992). The conversion of natural lands to

agriculture and diversion of fresh water supplies have

eliminated most of the riparian habitat that once

supported the shrew, reducing the subspecies to what

may be a single remaining population. By the early

1930s, the former Tulare, Buena Vista, Goose, and Kern

lakes were virtually dry and open for cultivation (Griggs

1992). Historical Buena Vista Lake now is cultivated,

and Kern Lake has been reduced to 13.4 hectares (33

acres) with a small pond and artificially-maintained

wetland, and a more xerophytic community of annual

and perennial saitbushes, salrgrass, and annual grasses

and forbs (Center for Conservation Biology 1990,

Williams and Kilburn 1992).

Threats toSurvival.—The Buena Vista Lake shrew

is a limited local endemic subspecies (Williams and

Kilburn 1992), has never been found to be locally

abundant, and lives in very restricted areas of marshy

wetland habitat (Bradford 1992). Because the sole

population is small (only 10 individuals as of 1995) and

occurs in a single small location (30 acres atthe former

Kern Lake Preserve), the Buena Vista Lake shrew is

extremely vulnerable to natural or human-made

environmental impacts. Kern LakePreserve is privately

owned by the J.G. Boswell Company, and was privately

managed by The Nature Conservancy untilrecently. The

partnership between The Nature Conservancy and J.G.

Boswell Company was terminated in early 1995, and

efforts by USFWS to negotiate a Conservation

Agreement with J.G. Boswell Company have failed

(Reed Tollefsun pers. comm., K. Freas pers. comm.).

Thus, the shrew’s only known habitat is without

protection, and there is a possibility that the watersupply

that maintains the pond and wetland plant community

will be diverted elsewhere for irrigated agriculture.

Elevated concentrations of selenium also represent a

serious human-made environmental threat to the Buena

Vista Lake shrew. Ornate shrews captured at Kesterson

National Wildlife Refuge showed seleniumconcentrations

three to twenty-five times greater than those found for

any other small mammal at the same site (Clark 1987).

High selenium levels have beenmeasured inevaporation

ponds within the agricultural lands immediately

surrounding the former Kern Lake Preserve (California

Department of Water Resources in litt. 1997). Potential

dietary selenium concentrations, from sampled aquatic

insects, are within ranges toxic tosmall mammals(Olson

1986, Skorupa et al 1996), and could potentially

adversely affect the shrew. Such effects could include,

but may not be limited to, reduced reproductive output or

premature death (Eisler 1985, Skorupa et al 1996). The

Buena Vista Lake shrew also faces high risks of

extinction from random catastrophic events (e.g. floods,

163
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of theSanJoaquin Valley

drought and inbreeding). There are no known viable

populations of Buena Vista Lake shrews outside the

former Kern Lake Preserve for recolonization if a

catastrophic event were to occur at this site. While the

species still occurs within its limited range, it is not

known whether or not the population is declining, how

habitat conditions may be affecting the population, nor

how small population size may be affecting genetic and

behavioral stability.

Conservation Efforts.—Establishment of the Kern

LakePreserve,through an agreement between the owner,

J.G. Boswell Company, and The Nature Conservancy

provided protection of habitat for the Buena Vista Lake

shrew and several candidate plant species from 1985 to

1995. The Nature Conservancy sponsored a population

census for the species on the Preserve in 1988-1989

(Center forConservation Biology 1990). More recently,

USFWS sponsored a study to determine currentstatus of

the shrew at the Preserve and to try to locate other

populations (J. Maldonado pers. comm.).

In 1994 and 1995, USFWS worked with the J.G.

Boswell Company and The Nature Conservancy in an

attempttoreverseThe Nature Conservancy’s decision to

no longer manage the Preserve. USFWS has been

working to develop a prelisting conservation agreement.

Currently, there is an impasse: there is no conservation

agreement forthe property and no active management of

habitat for the species that live there(JA. Medlin in litt.

1 995b).

Conservation Strategy. —The Kern Lake site should

be preserved in perpetuity for the Buena Vista Lake

shrew. In addition, greater efforts to locate and protect

other extant populations of Buena Vista Lake shrews

within the Tulare Basin are needed. Remnant patches of

suitable habitatthat might support the Buena Vista Lake

shrewinclude areas within the Buena Vista Lake Aquatic

Recreation Area,the Buena Vista Golf Course, and along

the Buena Vista Slough, Goose Lake Slough and the

Kern River west of Bakersfield (J. Maldonado pers.

comm., Williams in litt. 1994). Additional areas of

suitable moist locations that might provide remnant

shrew habitat occur within the Pixley National Wildlife

Refuge west of the former Tulare Lake bed, as well as

around the former Goose Lakebed (Harris 1990). Areas

south along Jerry Slough east of Buttonwillow Ridge

may provide remnant shrew habitat as well (P. Collins

pers. comm.).

Critical toconservation isthe establishment of habitat

that can support expansion and introduction efforts.

Areas appropriate for habitat establishment include

wetland areas within the Kern Water Bank Habitat

Conservation Plan. Wetland creation and water

conveyance facilities such as canals and ditches will

provide habitat for this species, although it is unlikely

that this habitat would become occupied inany other way

than by deliberate introduction. Introductions would be

under cooperative agreement withthe resource agencies

and Kern Water Bank Authority, or by other means

(USFWS in litt. 1997b). Two other areas are the State

Tule Elk Reserve near Tupruan, another area where

negotiations are underway to secure a permanent water

supply (J. Single pers. comm.), and the Kern National

Wildlife Refuge. Expansion of habitat, introduction

efforts, and the protection ofthe Buena Vista Lake shrew

should be an objective of any future National Wildlife

Refuge and Ecological Reserve development and

management plans.

The status of the Buena Vista Lake shrew should be

reevaluated within 3 years ofrecovery plan approval.

7. Riparian Brush Rabbit

(Sylvilagus bachmani riparius)

Taxonomy.—The brush rabbit was described as

Lepusbachmani by Waterhouse in 1838 and renamed L.

trowbridgii by Baird in 1855, and redescribed with the

currently acceptedspecific name of Sylvilagus bachmani

by Lyon in 1904 (Larsen 1993). The species is found

west of the Cascade-Sierra crest from the Columbia

River to the tip of Baja California (Williams and Basey

1986). Thirteen subspecies of brush rabbit are

recognized. The riparian brush rabbit, S. b. riparius, is

one of eight subspecies found in California. It was

described by Orr (1935) based on a specimen from the

west side of the San Joaquin River about 3 kilometers (2

miles) northeast of Vernalis in Stanislaus County,

California.

Description.—B rush rabbits are small, brownish

rabbits that can be distinguished from their relative, the

desert cottontail, by a smaller, inconspicuous tail and

uniformly colored ears (no black tip) (Figure 66). The

adult riparian brush rabbitis about300 to 375 millimeters

(10.58 to 13.23 inches) long, and can be distinguished

164
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

from other subspecies by its relatively pale color, gray

sides, darker back, and the factthat, viewed from above,

its cheeks protrude outward rather than being straight or

concave (Orr 1940).

Historical Distribution.—Historically, the riparian

brushrabbit is believed, based on the presence ofsuitable

habitat, to have been found associated with riparian

forests along portions of the San Joaquin River and its

tributaries on the Valley floor, from at least Stanislaus

County to the Delta (Orr 1935).

Current Distribution.—By the mid-1980s, the

riparian forest within the former range of the riparian

brush rabbit had been reduced to a few small and widely

scattered fragments,totaling about 2,100 hectares (5,189

acres). At 104.5 hectares (258.2 acres), Caswell

Memorial State Park, on theStanislausRiver in southern

San Joaquin County,is the largest remaining fragment of

suitable riparian forest (Warner 1984) and home to the

only extant population of riparian brush rabbit (Figure

67) (Williams and Base>’ 1986).

Food and Foraging.—Avoiding large openings in

shrub cover, riparian brush rabbits frequent small

clearings where they feed on a variety of herbaceous

vegetation, including grasses, sedges, clover, forbs,

shoots, and leaves. Grasses and other herbs are the most

important food for brush rabbits, but shrubs such as

California wild rose (Rosa californica), marsh baccharis

(Baccharis douglasii), andCalifornia blackberry (Rubus

ursinus) also are eaten. When available, green clover

(Trifolium wormskioldii) is preferred over all other foods

(Orr 1940).

I

h

Figure 66. Illustration of a ripanan brush rabbit. Drawing by

Wendy Stevens ( © CSU Stanislaus Foundation).

Reproduction and Demography.—Breeding of

riparian brush rabbits is restricted to approximately

January to May, putting this species at a competitive

disadvantage to the desert cottontails outside the park

that breed all year. Gestation is about 27 days, the usual

litter size is three or four, and females produce three to

fourlitters during the season. On average, a female may

produce 9 to 16 young each year. Although this is a

relatively high reproductive rate, it is lower than many

other cottontail species, and five out ofsix rabbits do not

survive to the next breeding season (Mossman 1955,

Chapman and Harman 1972).

The population at Caswell Memorial StatePark may

have reached its lowest numbers after a flood in 1976,

when survivors were removedto dry land from trees and

shrubs by Park personnel in boats. After flooding in

1986, the populationwas estimated at between 10 and 20

individuals (Williams 1988). In 1993 thepopulation was

estimated by Williams (1993) at 213 to 312 individuals,

and considered to be at carrying capacity under

prevailing environmental conditions. Surveys were

conducted inMay 1997 after extensive winterfloodingat

Caswell State Park. Although one riparian brush rabbit

wassighted, none were live-trapped. However,inthe fall

1997/spring 1998 trapping session, one riparian brush

rabbit male was live-trapped.

Behaviorand Species Interactions.—Brush rabbits

are closely tied to cover, and usually remain for several

secondsto minutesjustinside dense, brushy cover before

venturing into the open. They seldom move more than a

meter from cover, then remain motionless, watching for

signs of danger. When pursued, they leap back into the

cover of shrubs instead of heading into open ground

(Chapman 1974). They will not cross large, open areas,

and hence are unable to disperse beyond the dense brush

of the riparian forest at Caswell Memorial State Park

(Williams 1988).

The riparian brush rabbit can climb into bushes and

trees, though its climbing is awkward and its abilities

limited. This trait probably has significant survival

value, given that the riparian forests that are its preferred

habitat are subject to inundation by periodic flooding

(Chapman 1974, Williams 1988).

Individuals are intolerant of each other when they

come too close, but there is no well defined territoriality.

Young are more tolerant of approach by another rabbit

than are adults (Chapman 1974).

165
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 67. Distributionalrecords for the riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius).

166
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

When weather conditions are appropriate, individuals

spend considerable time in the early mornings and

afternoons on a log or a dry form (a resting place for a

rabbit) basking in the sun. Favored basking sites are a

fewinches from cover no more than about46 centimeters

(18 inches)aboveground, and protected by a partial, lowstratum canopy (Williams 1988, D.F. Williams unpubl.

observ.).

Common mammalian associates of riparian brush

rabbits are riparian woodrats, roof rats, western gray

squirrels (Sciurus griseus), American opossums

(Didelphis virginiana), striped skunks, feral cats (Felis

sylvestris), gray foxes, coyotes, and feral.dogs (Basey

1990, Williams 1988). Predators of riparian brush

rabbits include red-tailed (Buteojamaicensis), Swainson’s

(B. swainsoni), and red-shouldered hawks (B. lineatus),

owls, feral cats, gray foxes, coyotes, and dogs.

Activity Cycles.—Riparian brush rabbits are most

active during the twilight hours around dawn and dusk.

Depending on season, the main activity periods last2 to

4 hours. The least activity is from about 10:30 a.m. to

4:00p.m. (Chapman 1974).

Habitat and Community Associations.—Riparian

brush rabbits live in the brushy understory of Valley

riparian forests. Forest with a closed canopy, however,

generally lacks sufficient understory of shrubs for their

needs. Where mats of low growing wild roses, wild

grape (Vitis californica), and blackberries are found in

savanna-like settings, brush rabbits live in tunnels

through the vines and shrubs.

Sites inhabited by riparian brush rabbits usuallyhave

a mix of roses, blackberries, marsh baccharis, and grape

vines, with high volumes of roses and coyote bushes

(Baccharis sp.) in comparison to uninhabited sites.

There are significantly more ground litter and surface

area of roses and significantly fewer willows in the

canopy and understory (none) at sites inhabited by

ripanan brush rabbits than sites occupied by desert

cottontails. Presence of more surface litter and lack of

willows in the understory signify areas of higher ground

that are not flooded regularly or heavily (Williams and

Base>’ 1986).

ReasonsforDecline .—Twophenomenajointly have

been the primary cause of the decline of the riparian

brush rabbit. Both had their origin in the completion,

beginning in the 1940s, of large dams for irrigation and

flood control on the major rivers of the Central Valley.

The first was the destruction and fragmentation of the

San Joaquin Valley riparian forest by conversion to

various urban and agricultural uses, and its degradation

through a variety of other human activities. By the mid1980s, this community had been reduced to only about

5.8 percent of its original extent. There probably is less

today (Larsen 1993).

The second, more specific phenomenon was the

conversion of land within the floodplains from shrubdotted pasture land to vineyards, orchards, and row

crops, with attendant land clearing and leveling, and the

building and maintenance of levees. The land along

rivers no longer exhibits the small patches of shrubcovered upland that once provided rabbits refuge from

flooding and predation (Williams and Basey 1986,

Williams 1988).

Threats to Survival.—The primary threat to the

survival of the riparian brush rabbit is the limited extent

of its existing habitat and the fact that there is only one

extant population. Periodic flooding still occurs along all

major rivers in the Valley (Kindel 1984). The increased

predation to which these animals are exposed while

taking refuge on cleared levees (Nolan 1984) or in

exposed bushes ortrees contributes directly topopulation

decline and an elevated risk of extinction. With

behavioral restrictions on its freedom of movement (low

mobility) and the dearth of habitat suitably protected

from frequent floods down-stream of Caswell Memorial

State Park, there is little chance that individuals that

escape drowning or predation will meet mates or

reproduce.

The long-term suppression of fire in Caswell

Memorial State Park, combined withprolonged drought,

has caused the buildup of high fuel loads. The dense,

brushy habitat to which the rabbits are restricted is thus

highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfire that would

cause both high mortality and severe destruction of

habitat. Recovery of the riparian brush rabbit population

from such a devastating event would be improbable.

Like most rabbits,the riparian brush rabbit is subject

to a variety of common diseases, including tularemia,

plague, myxomatosis,silverwater,encephalitis, listeriosis,

Q-fever, and brucellosis. These contagious, and

generally fatal, diseases could be transmitted easily to

riparian brush rabbits from neighboring populations of

desert cottontails (Williams 1988). In a widespread,

167
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

genetically heterogeneous population, such an outbreak

would be of minimal concern. However, in this small,

remnant brush rabbit population, this kind of epidemic

could quickly destroy the entire population.

Dependence on nearly continuous shrub cover, low

mobility, and competition with the more fecund and

mobile desert cottontail (Ingles 1941, Chapman 1971,

Chapman and Wilner 1978) are significantthreats tothe

riparian brush rabbitinthe ecotone communities between

the riparian shrublands and the open, dry plant

communities of the San JoaquinValley (Williams 1986).

Given the biology and behavior of riparian brush

rabbits and the smallness and highly fragmented

distribution of the remnant of their habitat, natural

dispersal cannot be expected. Thomas (1990) suggested

that, to assure the medium- to long-term persistence of

birds or mammals, the geometricmean of population size

should be about 1,000 for species with normally varying

numbers and about 10,000 for species exhibiting a high

variability in population size. With its maximum

population size limited by the size of its habitat well

below either ofthese suggested minimums, the riparian

brush rabbit population is at a high risk of imminent

extinction from several consequent threats related to

population genetics and dynamics and environmental

variability.

Conservation Efforts.—In 1986, after surveys along

rivers within its historical range indicated that there was

only a single, small extant population in Caswell

Memorial State Park (Williams and Basey 1986), the

riparian brush rabbit was designated as a “Mammalian

Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG’s Wildlife

Management Division. It was given Federal category-i

candidate status by USFWS in 1985 (USFWS 1985d)

and remained a candidate for listing in USFWS’s most

recent Notice of Review (USFWS 1996). The riparian

brush rabbit was proposed for listing by the USFWS on

November21, 1997 (USFWS 1997). The subspecieswas

listed as endangered by the State of California in May

1994 (Title 14, Division 1, California Administrative

Code, Section 670.5, Animals of California declared to

be endangered or threatened).

Besides thepassive protection afforded to the species

by the status of Caswell as a State Park, the California

Department of Parks and Recreation funded a study of

ecology and habitat management of riparian brush

rabbits (Basey 1990, Williams 1988) and a small

mammal inventory (Cook 1992). California Department

of Parks and Recreation, Bureau of Reclamation, and

USFWS, through the Endangered Species Recovery

Program, fundeda populationassessmentin the winter of

1993 and 1996—1997 (Williams 1993). The California

Department of Parks and Recreation has expanded fire

trails in Caswell Memorial State Park, which provides

additional edge habitat for rabbits and better access to

fight fires. The agency also has an on-going control

program for feral animals, has curtailedground-squirrel

control (brush rabbits will eat treated bait meant for

ground squirrels), and is involved in ongoing planning

for habitat protection for wildlife in the park.

The only other management activity focused on the

riparian brush rabbit atthis time is a project to establish

an experimental population on the KingsRiver inFresno

County, outsideof the historical range of the subspecies.

This effort was initiated when the Endangered Species

Recovery Program suggested to the Bureau of

Reclamation that establishing a population of riparian

brush rabbits on public property along the Kings River

could be one option for partially meeting their mitigation

responsibilities under the Friant Biological Opinion.

Besides Bureau of Reclamation, potential participants in

this cooperative project include Caltrans, Endangered

Species Recovery Program, Fresno County, COE and

CDFG.

Conservation Strategy —For optimal survival of

riparian brush rabbits at Caswell Memorial State Park,

expansion of the existing park and management of

riparian brush rabbit habitat is necessary. Habitat

management includes revitalizing decadent shrubs,

reducing fire hazards, and providing refuges and

reducing predation during periodic flooding. Park

expansion, however, would require willingness from

adjacent landowners to sell or dedicate the property for

expansion of the riparian community, which has not been

the case in the past, and may not be a practical option.

Yet, even should this be achieved, expansion and

enhancementof habitat of the park will not be sufficient

to secure the survival of the species.

Importantto conservation of the riparian brush rabbit

is the establishment of other viable populations within its

historical range. Forsuccessful establishment, studies on

appropriate management, habitat restoration techniques,

and reintroduction or introduction methods are

important. Reintroduction methods may include

researching genetic diversity among remaining individuals

168
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

and implementing a captivebreedingprogram. Potential

translocation sites exist on State and Federal lands, and

lands covered by Federal wildlife habitat easements

along or adjacent to several stretches of the Stanislaus

and San Joaquin Rivers. Until new populations are

established, theremust be close and constant vigilance to

detect any immediate threat from fire, flooding, or

disease and to allow emergency action to prevent

extinction of the species.

The major problems with existing potential habitat

outsideCaswell Memorial State Park,includingthat with

wildlife habitat easements and part of the National

Wildlife Refuge system, are frequent flooding and lack

of sufficient connected habitat (Williams and Basey

1986). A substantial amount of this property could

become useable habitat for brush rabbits by providing

protection from flooding. Dikes or raised areas with

cover to shelter from high water, cessation of wood

cutting, and stopping the removal of logs and limbs, and

curtailment oflivestock grazing are needed alongseveral

stretches of the Stanislaus River downstream from

Caswell Memorial State Park.

An elementin the conservation strategy isrestoration

of riparian habitat on Bureau of Reclamation property

along the Kings River in Fresno County. This area is

outside the historical geographic range of the riparian

brush rabbit. Its importance is paramount, however,

because there is not anothersite in public ownership that

offersthe potential for quickly restoring sufficient habitat

to support a population. Establishment of a second

population is important to prevent a single flood,

wildfire, or other disaster from causing extinction of the

rabbit.

Conservation Actions.—Because ofthe smallsize of

remaining blocks of potential habitat, and the severely

limited dispersal capability of the riparian brush rabbit, it

is likely to require continuing special protection of its

habitat and population. Realization of this limitation

should remove barriers to the rapid establishment of as

many populations in remnant habitat as possible, and

sustaining those populations by reintroduction should

any one become extinct. In furtherance of these

objectives, the needed actions are:

1. Establish an emergency plan and monitoring

system to provide swift action to save

individuals and habitat at Caswell Memorial

State Park inthe eventof flooding, wildfire, or a

disease epidemic.

2. Develop and implement a cooperative riparian

brush rabbit conservation program that will

include, at a minimum:

a. Identifying and obtaining biological

information needed in management

decisions; researching captive breeding

methodology using surrogate species;

conducting genetic composition analysis

on the riparian brush rabbit population

priorto any captive breeding or introduction/

reintroduction (the objective is to ensure

the establishment of new populations

neither depletes the genetic diversity of the

source population nor unduly restricts

diversity in the newly established

population); and implementing the captive

breeding program.

b. A riparian brush rabbit management plan

for Caswell Memorial State Park that will

incorporate elements detailed by Williams

(1988; incorporated by reference) relating

to predator and pest control; fire lines and

access roads; campground, picnic, and

recreation areas; brush and fuel control;

mosquito abatement; habitat enhancement;

and expansion of the Park.

c. Establishment of at least three additional

wildpopulationsin the San Joaquin Valley,

in restored and expanded suitable habitat

within the rabbit’s historical range.

d. A monitoring program of all riparian brush

rabbit populations to assess population

trends and status.

e. A long-term reintroduction preplan for the

prompt re-establishment of eliminated

populations.

f. A cooperative program, to take effect once

the minimumof four protected populations

are established, to place excess young (or

other animals as appropriate) from

populations at carrying capacity onto

private parcels with suitable habitat where

owners are willing to enter into a

management agreement.

169
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

8. Le Conte’s Thrasher

(SanJoaquin Valley Population)

(Toxosto,na lecontei lecontei)

Taxonomy.—The genus Toxostoma is comprised of

10 species of thrashers, all of which are found in North

America,includingMexico. Mostthrasherspeciesbreed

in the arid southwestern United States and northwestern

Mexico. California species within the genus include Le

Conte’s thrasher (T. lecontei), California thrasher (T

redivivum), crissal thrasher (T. crissale), and Bendire’s

thrasher (T. bendirei) (Peterson 1990). The type

specimen of Le Conte’s thrasher was described by

Lawrence (1852) from a single specimen collected in

Yuma County, Arizona by John L. Le Conte. The

American Ornithologist’s Union, in 1957, recognized

two subspecies of T. lecontei: the desertthrasher (T. I.

arenicola) of the west coast of Baja California, and Le

Conte’sthrasher (T. 1. lecontei) of the San JoaquinValley

and Mojave and Colorado Deserts of California and

Nevada southward into northeastern Baja California,

Mexico, and points farther south; and the Sonoran Desert

of Utah, Arizona, and Mexico. In 1965, based on

plumage coloration, Phillips described the population of

LeConte’sthrasher foundin the San Joaquin Valley as T.

1. macmillanorum from four birds collected near

Buttonwillow, Kern County, California. Phillips (1965,

according to Sheppard 1973) described the San Joaquin

population as having a slightly darker crown than back,

with slightly lighter sides, flanks, and breast when

compared with the T. 1. arenicola. A comparison of

measurements between the T. I. arenicola and T. 1.

lecontei and the San Joaquin Valley population indicated

no significant difference (Sheppard 1973), andSheppard

concluded that T. 1. macmillanorum is a synonymof T. I.

lecontei.

The San Joaquin Valley population apparently is

isolated from other populations of Le Conte’s thrasher

and is resident; individuals do not migrate (Grinnell

1933b, Sheppard 1996). Sheppard (1973) suggested that

the exchange of genetic material between the San

Joaquin population and others probably does not occur.

RecentDNAanalysis(Zink andBlackwell asreported in

Sheppard 1996) found no mtDNA sequence differences

between the San Joaquin Valley population (T. 1.

macmillanorum) and other samples from the

southwestern United States. The T. 1. macmillanorum

subspecies recognition, Sheppard suggests, should be

withheld until some set of characters shows clear and

abrupt divergence from west Mojave and Colorado

desert populations.

Description.—The LeConte’s thrasher is a mediumsized songbird, about the same size as the northern

mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). The total length and

weights are nearly identical for both sexes: 240 to 280

millimeters (9.4 to 11 inches; Ridgway 1907)and 54.5 to

75.5 grams (1.9 to 2.6 ounces; Sheppard 1973). The Le

Conte’s thrasher has a plain grayish—orsandy—colored

body without wing bars orspots.

ldentiflcation.—TheLeConte’sthrasher (Figure 68)

is distinguishable from songbirds otherthan thrashers by

its long, nearly black, tail (about 12 centimeters, about

4.7 inches), and its distinctly-decurved black bill (about

2.7 centimeters, about 1 inch). The adult Le Conte’s

thrasher is distinguished from other thrashers by its

unspotted breast, pale buffy crissum (undertail feathers),

dark eye, lack of distinct superciliary stripe (above the

eye), and dark tail contrasting sharply with the much

paler body. The California and crissal thrashers are

larger and darker. The California thrasher has a

cinnamon crissum. The crissum of the crissalthrasher is

a deep chestnut color (Sheppard 1996). The San Joaquin

Valley population of Le Conte’s thrasher has a slightly

darker crown than back, and slightly lightersides,flanks,

and breast than the desertthrasher (Phillips 1965).

HistoricalDistribution.—Le Conte’sthrasher occurs

in two separate geographic areas: the Colorado and

Mojave deserts down into Baja California, Mexico,

where the species is widespread (Laudenslayer et al.

1992), and the southern San Joaquin Valley. Most Le

Conte’s thrashers are found between sea level and 1,150

meters (3,800 feet) (Sheppard 1973). The northernmost

location for Le Conte’s thrasher was Mono County,

California; the southernmost was on the west coast of

Figure 68. Illustration ofa Le Conte’ sthrasher. Drawing by

Wendy Stevens ( © CSU Stanislaus Foundation).

170
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Baja California. The historical range forthe San Joaquin

Valley population of Le Conte’s thrasher included the

west side of the San Joaquin Valley, from the Panoche

Mountains, Fresno County, in the north, to Maricopa,

Kern County, in the south (Figure 69) (Dobkin and

Granholm 1990). Grinnell (1933b) used a reverse “J”

shape to describe the range: the northern extentstopped

at Huron, the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley was

excluded, and neither the Carrizo Plain nor Cuyama

Valley were included. Sheppard (1970 and 1973) added

the Carrizo and Cuyama based on his personal

observations, addedthe Valley floor basedon specimens

near Wasco collected after Grinnell, and added the

PanocheMountains based on an observation by a birder.

Current Distribution.—The current distribution of

the San Joaquin Valley population of Le Conte’s

thrashers is determinedlargelyby the presence,structure,

and vigor of saltbush, proximity to other saltbush areas,

size of habitat fragment, and presence of California

thrashers. The picture is of a complex of islands with

relativelyinsurmountable distances of unsuitable habitat

separating them. Irrigation and land development have

eliminated a considerable amount of former habitat inthe

San Joaquin Valley, restricting the San Joaquin Valley

population of Le Conte’s thrashers to a small portion of

its former range (Laudenslayer et al. 1992). There are

five known and one potentially extant population areas.

Eacharea is a mosaic of habitats ranging from unsuitable

to fair habitat (only two of the five areas have good to

excellent habitat). A brief discussion of each area

follows:

1. McKittnck - Maricopa. This area extends from

Belridge just north of McKittrick, south to

Devil’s Gulch south of Maricopa, east to the

California Aqueductbetween Lokern Pumping

Station and Pentland, andwesttothe lowerthird

of the Temblor Mountains. This is by far the

largest and best habitat area. The highest

concentrations of Le Conte’s thrasher are near

McKittrick and Maricopa. The southwest

corner of the Belridge oil field has several

hundred acres of good habitat. Several pairs of

thrashers persisted here through the drought.

However, areas of unsuitable nesting habitat

exist. In early May 1997, a wildfire burned

40,000 acres in the area known as the Lokern,

including burning half of a grazing experiment

study area. On 22 July 1997, USBLM burned

another 1,000 acres on the LokernStudy Area to

keep the 4 square mile experimental area

similar. Bird data gathered just prior to the fire

in 1997 documented Le Conte’s thrashers

adjacentto sevenof eightplots while none were

detected inApril and May of 1998. Observations

of Le Conte’s thrashers several miles from the

study plotsindicate thatthe lack of observations

in 1998 in the study area islikely a result of the

nearly complete mortality of saltbush (charred

skeletons remain) and not a decline of the

species inthe local area (S. Fittonpers. comm.).

2. Lost Hills. This area extends north from

Highway 46 for less than 9.6 kilometers (6

miles) with the California Aqueduct as the

eastern boundary. Habitat patches are small and

highly fragmented with probably fewerthan 20

pairs of thrashers. Significant distances of

plowed ground separate this subpopulation

from the Maricopa and Kettleman Hills

subpopulations.

3. KettlemanHills. This area is from Highway 41

north to almost Jayne Road. The eastern

boundary is Interstate 5, and western boundary

is the near Highway 33. There is little good

habitat in the Kettleman Hills, probably

supporting fewer than 20 pairs. In the 1960s, J.

M. Sheppard (pers. comm.) estimated this

subpopulation to be 200 pairs. This area is now

entirely surroundedby plowed ground, however,

thereis good potential for habitat improvements

on all the domes of the Kettleman Hills and the

adjacent alluvial fans. Without grazing, the

Kettleman Hills accumulate a thick and tall

mulch that is generally avoided by Le Conte’s

thrashers. (Note: A 8,100 hectare (20,000acre)

wildfire, started from Interstate 5 in 1995,

typifies the threat of fire to this species’ habitat.

The fire destroyed most of the occupied habitat

on the Middle Dome of the Kettleman Hills

leaving habitat on only about half of the North

Dome from about Skyline Boulevard, State

Route 269, north to end of the hills (S. Fitton

pers. comm.)

4. Carrizo - Elkhorn Plain. This area is composed

of two subunits. One is the Elkhorn Plain,

extending from Wallace Creek in Panorama

Hills on the north, south toBeam Flat. The other

subunitis within the southern end of the Carrizo

171
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Figure 69. Distributional records forthe San Joaquin Valley population of Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei lecontei).

172
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Plain. The birds of these two subunits probably

come into contact with each other as well as

with LeConte’sthrashersfrom the McKittrick -

Maricopa area. Theymay also come in contact

with the Cuyama area birds. The Carrizo -

Elkhorn Le Conte’s thrashers overlap with

California thrashers.

5. Cuyama Valley. Since the time Sheppard

(1970) first found Le Conte’s thrashers in

Cuyama Valley, much of the habitat has been

overgrazed or converted to agriculture (J.

Sheppard pers. comm., S. Fitton pers. comm.)

Now, after extensive surveying,the species is

only found in a small area dominated by

ephedra, from the mouth of Ballinger Canyon

north to CA Highway 166. Many areas now

seemto support California thrashers. There are

probably fewer than 10 pairs of Le Conte’s

thrashersin the CuyamaValley (S.Fittonand L.

Saslaw unpubl. observ.). Ifthe alluvial fans east

of CA Highway 33 reverted to native

shrublands, Le Conte’s thrashers would no

doubt respond by expanding into the habitat. Le

Conte’s thrashers in the Cuyama Valley are

surrounded by excellent, occupied California

thrasher habitat as well as a nearly continuous,

narrow belt of California thrasher habitat along

the Cuyama River.

6. Panoche Mountains. Recent surveys, from

1989 to 1998, have not located Le Conte’s

thrashers north of Kettleman Hills (S. Fitton

unpubl. observ.). While some of the habitat

looks suitable, only California thrashers have

beenseen recently. Itis possible that LeConte’s

thrashers occur in the Panoche Mountains at

very low numbers and isolated from other

subpopulations.

Other areas that historically have had Le Conte’s

thrashers or appeartobe suitable and have beensurveyed

over several years, 1989 to 1998, without success are:

Panoche Hills, Panoche/Silver Creeks, Tumey Hills,

Antelope Hills, Sunflower Valley, alluvial fans on the

south side of Caliente Mountain, portions of the Carrizo

Plain, Warthan Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Guijarral Hills,

Skunk Hollow, Poso Creek north of Bakersfield, and

isolated patches of saltbush along Interstate 5 from

Stockdale Avenue north to Twisselman Road (S. Fitton

and L. Saslaw unpubl. data).

Food and Foraging.—The Le Conte’s thrasher

occupiesa highly specialized niche within the ecosystem

(Sheppard 1973). The Le Conte’s thrasher forages inthe

leaflitterundersaltbush plants, on the ground surface, or

5 to 7.6 centimeters (2 to 3 inches) into the substrate for

arthropods, including scorpions, spiders, beetles,

grasshoppers, and butterfly and moth larvae.

Occasionally, this species will feed on seeds, small

lizards, or other small vertebrates (Bent 1964, Sheppard

1970). LeConte’sthrashers are notknown to drink water;

their diet is their only source of water (Sheppard 1970).

Reproduction.—Singing starts in mid-autumn and

peaks in late December and January, as nest building

begins. The species is not migratory and pairs remain

together throughout the year. Mated pairs appear tohave

sitefidelity until one bird dies. Thick, dense, and thorny

desertshrubs (such as saltbush) are preferredfor nesting

sites (Sheppard 1996). Such plants are often along well

established drainages, or are older, well formed plants on

upland sites. Le Conte’s thrashers do not use habitats

without this structure (S. Fitton unpubl. data).

The breedingseason forLe Conte’s thrasher begins in

late January and extends through early June, with the

peakranging frommid-March tomid-April. Thisspecies

may have up to three broods during the reproductive

season. Clutch size is usually 3 or 4 eggs (range 2 to 5).

Eggs are incubated for 14 to 20 days by both parents.

Young fledge 12 to 20 days after hatching, withthe male

continuing to feed the young if the female is incubating

the next clutch. At approximately30 days old, fledglings

disperse approximately 400 meters (1,300 feet).

Dispersal movements may continue until the young are

clear of occupied territory(Sheppard 1970, 1996). Based

on dispersal of young, it is estimated that if isolated

habitat fragments are greater than 10 to 15 kilometers (6

to 9 miles) apart, colonization or recolonization may be

precluded (S. Fitton as reported in Sheppard 1996).

Demography.—Grinnell (1933b) estimated 2.3 pairs

per square kilometer (less than 1 pair per square mile)

near McKittrick, Kern County, California during late

February and March, when adults are less obvious.

Average January density at Maricopa was 4.6 pairs per

square kilometer (12 pairs per square mile) (Sheppard

1996). San Joaquin Valley Le Conte’sthrashers banded

near Maricopa used from 20 to 50 hectares (50 to 125

acres)perpairover 1 year(Sheppard 1973). Homerange

may varyin size and shapedepending on time ofyear and

interactions with neighbors. It is estimated that about 7

173
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

hectares (18 acres) are needed per pair for nesting

territory (Sheppard 1970). Since the late 1960s, densities

of the San Joaquin Valley population of Le Conte’s

thrasher have declined except in a few core areas

(Laudenslayer et al. 1992).

Behavior and Species Interactions.—The Le

Conte’s thrasher is a resident species, remaining year

round in suitable habitat. In general, the Le Conte’s

thrasher is a terrestrial bird,running among shrubs rather

than flying. flying occurs irregularly,such as during nest

building and when bringing food to the young. The Le

Conte’sthrasher is highly territorial through much of the

year. Males become less territorial during the summer

months when they are molting and young are dispersing.

The territory is most actively defended between early

December and earlyFebruary (Sheppard 1970, 5. Fitton

unpubl. data).

Potential competitors for food and nesting sites

include California thrasher, sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes

montanus), northern mockingbird, loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovician us), and greater roadrunner

(Geococcyx cal~fornianus) (Sheppard 1973). At

Maricopa, California, San Joaquin Valley Le Conte’s

thrashers and loggerhead shrikes often nest within 20

meters (65 feet) of each other (Sheppard 1973). Species

known to prey upon the eggs, young, and adults of Le

Conte’s thrashers include hawks, owls, greater

roadrunners, antelope ground squirrels, cats, dogs,

coyotes, and various species of snakes (Sheppard 1973).

Activity Cycle.—The San Joaquin Valley LeConte’s

thrasher is active during daylight, throughout the year.

Little or no activity takes place during periods of higher

temperatures (above 35 to 38 degrees Celsius [95 to 100

degrees Fahrenheit]) (Sheppard 1970).

Habitat andCommunityAssociations.—Le Conte’s

thrashers are generally found in open desert scrub, alkali

desert scrub, and desert succulent scrub. In the San

Joaquin Valley, the species is found primarily in habitats

dominated by saltbush, and often frequents desertwashes

and flats with scattered saltbush (Laudenslayer et al.

1992). Nesting habitat mainlyis intaller, bushiershrubs.

Sheppard (1970, 1973) found San Joaquin Le Conte’s

thrashers most commonly associated with sandy and

alkaline soils, but believed that, except for texture, soils

had little direct effect on the distribution of the species.

Withinthe Maricopa region, LeConte’sthrashers are

in contactwith California thrashers wherever patches of

willow and/or big saltbush are found, and along the

foothills of the Temblor Mountains wherever the slope

increases and eastwoodia and narrowleaf goldenbush

begin to dominate on north-facing slopes. California

thrashers occupymoister and shadierlocations (even as a

microclimate).

Reasonsfor Decline.—Habitat degradation and loss

to agriculture, urbanization, oil and gas development,

fire, and over-grazing by livestock are the primary

reasons for decline of the San Joaquin Valley population

of Le Conte’s thrasher (Laudenslayer et al. 1992).

Pesticides may have historically been responsible for

nesting failure. In Maricopa several clutches from 1968

to 1971 failed to hatch and DDT and DDE poisoning

were suspected (P. Owens as reported in Sheppard

1996). Prior to the 1972 ban, DDT spraying was

conducted in this area each winter.

Threats to SurvivaL—Because of the San Joaquin

Valley Le Conte’s thrasher’s limited mobility and

susceptibility tohabitat fragmentation and degradation,it

is vulnerable to becoming isolated and eventually

disappearing from a nesting area. The loss of expansive

areas of suitable nesting and foraging areas is a

considerable threat to the population of Le Conte’s

thrasher within the San Joaquin Valley. Though a

significant amount of saltbush-dominated communities

has beenconverted to agriculturalland use, thereremains

substantial acreage of annualrangelands on the westside

of the San Joaquin Valley that may be suitable for this

species. Whether these habitats are occupied depends on

the structure of the saltbush overstory, the size of the

habitat patch, and the connectivity among habitat

patches.

Much of theremaining habitat is predominately used

for livestock grazing and petroleumproduction. Suitable

saltbush structure can be eliminated by heavy livestock

grazing which mechanically damages plants and reduces

leaf litter. Many acres of suitable habitat have been

eliminated through grazing practices that remove

saltbush structure or restrict seedling establishment.

However, suitable habitat can be reestablished with

modification of livestock grazing practices that allows

forseedling establishment and the development of plants

greater than 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) in height and scattered

across the landscape. As was evidenced in the Carrizo

Plain following reestablishment of saltbush, Le Conte’s

thrasher will recolonize new saltbush stands.

174
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

Wildfires that burn large acreages of saltbushes

eliminate suitable Le Conte’s thrasher habitat. The

duration of such habitat loss may depend on fire

frequency, climatic conditions that favor saltbush

reestablishment, and livestock grazing practices. ‘While

fire kills saltbushes (D. Germano and L. Saslaw unpubl.

data), the site can be repopulated with saltbushes under

favorable climatic conditions and compatible grazing

practices (S. Fitton unpubl. data).

Dense cover of herbaceous vegetation, especially

introduced annual grasses and filaree that resultin thick

mats of dead vegetation, reduce foraging habitat for this

species and increases the risk of wildfire.

Oil and gas development continue to be a threat.

Intensive petroleum development that eliminates all

vegetative cover over large acreage eliminates Le

Conte’s thrasher habitat. However, light and moderate

petroleumactivities that maintain the saltbushcommunity

between wells and facilities, and tall saltbushes along

drainages, do provide substantialhabitat forthis species.

Most of the oil fields in the western foothills of the

southern San Joaquin Valley provide suitable thrasher

habitat. Oil sumps not properly maintained have proven

fatal to young and adults who become entrapped

(Sheppard 1996).

Brood parasitism by cowbird species (Molothrus

spp.) has not been widely noted, however, S. Rothstein

(as presented in Sheppard 1996) tested active LeConte’s

thrasher nests at Maricopa, to artificial introduction of

brown-headed cowbird(Molothrus ater) eggs. All of the

eleven thrasher pairs in the experiment accepted these

eggs as their own.

Conservation Efforts.—The San Joaquin Valley

population of Le Conte’s thrasher is not a candidate for

Federal listing, but is considered a species of concern

(USEWS 1996). It is also aCaliforniaSpecies of Special

Concern (Remsen 1978). No areas of habitat have been

set aside specifically for this thrasher. However,

conservation areas such as the CarrizoPlain set aside for

other speciesinjeopardy (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox, giant

kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, etc.) also have

benefited this species.

The maintenance of saltbush communities has been

identified as a management objective in theCarrizoPlain

Natural Area, Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California, on USBLM lands in western Fresno, Kings,

Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties, and at the Lokern

Area. The maintenance of saltbushes in drainage

channels and conservation of natural lands in the oil

fields are also being addressed in the Habitat

Conservation Plans. However, the lands in conservation

programs are a small percentage of the available habitat.

Conservation Strategy.—A systematic review,

distributional survey, and population monitoring of the

San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher are needed to clarify the

bird’s distributional and population statuses, potential

threats of endangerment (Laudenslayer et al. 1992), and

listing status,

Maintenance of the saltbush communities in the oil

fields will be a key component for conservation.

Management practices that avoid saltbush drainages,

minimize habitat disturbance, and promote reclamation

of degraded saltbush communities will aid in

conservation. Reintroduction of Le Conte’s thrashers

into patches of suitable saltbushlarger that 405 hectares

(1,000 acres) should be investigated.

Maintenance of remaining saltbush communities and

connecting fragmented stands of suitable habitat in

southwestern Kern County would significantly reduce

the threats to this species. Annual rangelands found on

deeper alluvial soils that are capable of supporting tall

stands of common saltbushes should be promoted on

public and private rangelands. Grazing management

practicesthat aid inthe establishment and maintenance of

common saltbush on suitable sites should be introduced

to livestock producers for management and economic

evaluation. Appropriate grazing management practices

on Federal, CDFG and other conservation lands should

be implemented to maintain suitable saltbush and

herbaceous structure. Key conservation areasinclude the

Naval Petroleum Reserve in California #2, Occidental of

Elk Hills, Lokern Area, USBLM lands around Taft and

Maricopa, and the Elkhorn Plain. If such provisions are

included and implemented in upcoming Habitat

Conservation Plans, long-term conservation probably

can be achieved.

The statusof the San Joaquin Valley populationof the

Le Conte’ sthrashershould be reevaluated within 5 years

of recovery plan approval or when new information is

available, whichever is less.

175
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

176
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Ill. RECOVERY

A. OBJ1ICTIVES

The overall objectives of this recovery plan are to

delist California jewelfiower, palmate-bracted bird’sbeak, Kern mallow, Hoover’s woolly-star, San Joaquin

woolly-threads, Bakersfield cactus, giant kangaroo rat,

Fresno kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed

leopard lizard, and San Joaquin kit fox; and achieve the

long-term conservation of lesser saltscale, Bakersfield

smallscale, LostHills saltbush, Vasek~ sclarkia, Temblor

buckwheat, Tejon poppy, diamond-petaled California

poppy, Munz’s tidy-tips, Comanche Point layia, Jared’s

peppergrass, Merced monardella, Merced phacelia, oil

neststraw, Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle, San Joaquin

dune beetle, Doyen’s dune weevil, San Joaquin antelope

squirrel, short-nosed kangaroo rat, nparian woodrat,

Tulare grasshopper mouse, Buena Vista Lake shrew,

riparian brush rabbit, and San Joaquin Le Conte’s

thrasher and other members of biotic communities

occupied by the listed species in the San Joaquin Valley

planning area.

Interim goals are to stabilize and protect populations

and toconductresearch necessary torefinereclassification

and recovery criteria and subsequently reclassify

California jewelfiower, palmate-bracted bird’s-beak,

Kern mallow, San Joaquin woolly-threads, Bakersfield

cactus, giant kangaroo rat, Fresno kangaroo rat, Tipton

kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San

Joaquin kit fox from endangered to threatened.

Reclassification will be appropriate when each taxon is

no longer indanger of extinction throughout a significant

portion of its range.

1. Ecosystem-Level Strategy

To meet the objective of delisting 11 species and

ensuring long-term conservation of 23 otherspecies, this

recovery plan uses an ecosystem-level strategy. This

strategy establishes a network of reserves and

conservation areasthat represents all natural communities

in San Joaquin upland ecosystems. Of necessity, the

ecosystem-level strategy is shaped by the realities of

existing communities; by available information on

biology, distribution, and population statuses; and by the

current and anticipated processes that will affect both

natural and human-altered landscapes. The strategy has

10 major elements:

a. The primary focus of recovery processes is on

publicly-owned lands whenever possible.

Where conservation of a species requires

preservation of private lands, it will be necessary

to seek cooperation from private individuals

and entities to sell lands or easements, or, to

enter into cooperative (voluntary) programs to

maintain and enhance habitat values for certain

species while traditional uses of the land

continue. Cooperativeprograms are emphasized

overland acquisition or easements.

b. Wherever possible, conservation efforts are

focused on fewer, larger blocks of land rather

than smaller, more numerous parcels. Several

advantages to this approach are enumerated by

the San Joaquin Valley Biological Technical

Committee (in litt. 1993). The most important

are that larger natural areas provide greater

species and physical diversities and larger, less

vulnerable species populations; minimize edge

between natural and developed land thereby

reducing pest and other problems at this

boundary; and reduce management costs.

c. Wherever possible and needed, blocks of

conservation lands should be connected by

natural land or land with compatible uses that

allow formovement ofspecies between blocks.

d. Greater emphasis is placed on two groups of

species as defined below:

1. Umbrella Species. The San Joaquin kit

fox occurs in nearly all the natural

communities used by other species

featured in this plan, but these others are

much more restricted in their choice of

habitats. The broad distribution and

requirement for relatively large areas of

habitat mean conservation of the kit fox

will provide an umbrella of protection for

many other speciesthat require less habitat.

Therefore, the San Joaquin kit fox is an

umbrella species for purposes of this

recovery plan. Many of its habitat

management and research needs are given

higher priority in recovery actions at the

177
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

ecosystem level than those of otherspecies

because it is one of the species that will be

hardest to recover. Fulfilling the San

Joaquin kit fox’s habitat management and

research needs also meets those of many

other species.

2. Keystone Species. The giant kangaroo rat

and,toa lesser extent,the subspecies of the

San Joaquin kangaroo rat are keystone

species in their communities (Shiffman

1994, Goldingay et. al. 1997). In most

places wherethey occur,theprecincts(area

over and immediately around the burrow

system) of giant kangaroo rats dominate

the landscape. The activities of these

animals promote more nitrogen-rich and

abundant growth of plants on the precincts

(Williams et al. 1993b). Their burrowing

modifies the surface topography of the

landscape and changes the mineral

composition of the soil. Their burrows

provide refuges and living places formany

small animals, including blunt-nosed

leopard lizards and San Joaquin antelope

squirrels (Williams and Kilburn 1991).

Their seed caching behaviors disperse and

plant seeds and alterthe floral composition

of the community (Schiffman 1994). Their

precincts provide a favored microhabitat

for the growth of California jewelfiowers

and San Joaquin woolly-threads (Cypher

1994a).

Giant kangaroo rats are the most abundant

mammal in their community, and are the

favored prey of San Joaquin kit foxes and

many other predators (Williams 1992).

The San Joaquin kangaroo rat has a similar

but less dramatic role in its communities

(Williams 1985). The giant kangaroo rat

and San Joaquin kangaroo rat, therefore,

are considered to be keystone species in

this recovery plan. Protection of these

keystone species is a high priority because

they provide important or essential

components of the biological niche

(meaning all the physical and biological

factors required for a particular species to

live, and its way of living) of some other

listed and candidate species.

e. Wherever and wheneverpossible, management

of habitat for featured species should be

achieved in harmony with traditional land uses

and processes such as seasonal livestock

grazing, low impact petroleum and mineral

exploration and extraction, and hunting and

wildland recreation.

f. For species vulnerable to traditional land uses,

and for those with highly restricted geographic

ranges and specialized habitat requirements,

thereis no recourse butto appropriately manage

their existing habitat in smaller, specialty

reserves of natural land, both within larger

conservation areas and as small reserves

surrounded by developed land.

g. Existing natural lands occupied by featured

species are targeted for conservation in

preference to unoccupied natural land and

retired farmland. This goal greatly reduces or

eliminates the need for expensive and untested

restoration work to make the land suitable for

habitation by these species.

h. Species for which sufficient, occupied natural

land does not exist, but is needed to increase

population size or promote movement between

populations, can be recovered by carefully

coordinating agricultural land retirement

programs with endangered species recovery.

Directing the location and size of blocks of

retired farmland can contribute greatly to the

potential success of recovery of some species

while minimizing costs and conflicts with other

land uses.

i. Forspecies such asthe San Joaquin kit fox that

canlive in or movethrough the farmland matrix,

enhancementofthose features of the landscape

that engender successful living and movements

from population centers on the larger islands of

naturallands on the Valley floorto the Valley’s

perimeter will greatly enhance the chances of

recovery. This linkage can be accomplished in

part through a safe harbor program that

promotes and enhances populations of some

species on and movements through farmland

while permitting incidental take of listed

species by fanning activities (Hawkins 1995,

KeystoneCenter 1995). A safe harbor program

178
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

was recently proposed for the San Joaquin

Valley by the AmericanFarmland Trust (ScottGraham 1994). The Endangered Species

Recovery Program has collaborated with the

American Farmland Trust in proposing a

focused safe harbor program featuring the San

Joaquin kit fox. This focused program is a

critical element ofthe recovery strategy.

j. This recovery strategy is complementary

wherever possible with ongoing Habitat

Conservation Plans and provides guidance to

local governments in the development of new

Habitat Conservation Plans.

This ecosystem-levelstrategyis inlargepart basedon

the biological imperatives for recovery of the San

Joaquin kit fox, the umbrella species for this recovery

effort. Section II.L.6 expands on this species’ recovery

goal: establishment of a viable kit fox metapopulation

through protection and management of a system of core

and satellite populations on public and private lands

throughout its range. Recovery of the kit fox will not

automatically lead to recovery of all other sensitive

species in San Joaquin Valley ecosystems. However, it

provides a blueprint for ecosystem recovery that will be

complemented by specific recovery actions on natural

communities for species with special needs that have

little relationship to kit fox recovery needs.

Implementation of thisstrategy retainsthe advantages of

ecosystem-level conservation: involving all segments of

society inrecoveryactions; preserving all or mostspecies

simultaneously; saving effort and money; and increasing

the chances that recovery efforts will succeed.

B. RECOVERY CRITERIA

Recovery criteria for listed plant and animal species

are summarized in Table 4. Site-specific protection

requirements to meet these delisting criteria are

summarizedin TableS. Measurestoensure conservation

of candidate species and species of concern are listed in

Table 6. For several of the species featured in this plan,

one or more categories of information needed toset firm

recovery or conservation criteria are not available,

necessitating interim criteria of stabilizing existing

populations and conducting research necessary to

determine reclassification or delisting criteria.

In Table 4, progress of species in achieving

population goals depends on monitoring showing

“stability” or “increasing numbers” during a precipitation cycle, which is a period when annual rainfall

includes average to 35 percent above-average through

greater than 35 percent below-average and back to

average or greater. The direction of change (average to

above or below average) is unimportantin this criterion.

Existing data for some arid-land species show that both

drought and periods of above-average precipitation

cause severe population declines if extended for more

than 1 year (Endangered Species Recovery Program,

unpubl. data). Because the populations of most or all

speciesincluded here fluctuatedramatically, stability is a

relative term meaning the statistically same population

size during the average phase of a precipitation cycle

(anticipated tobe about 20 years). Increasingpopulation

size means that the population has increased over the

previous or baseline year,measured during the specified

portion of a precipitation cycle. Range wide population

monitoring programs will have to be established for all

species tomeasure progress inmeeting recoverycriteria.

For species with existing data on population statuses

spanning 1 or more years, these data can be included in

measuring population recovery goals if it is deemed

scientifically valid and representative. Thus, some

species can be downlistedor delisted quickly once other

criteria, such as habitat protection, are met.

ListedPlant Species.—Delisting criteria for the plant

species currently listed as endangered include

requirementsforprotecting additional habitat, assurances

that protected sites are being managed appropriately, and

monitoring to show stable or increasing populations.

Attainment of downlisting or delisting criteria does not

automatically qualify a species for reclassification. A

status review must be conducted after the criteria have

been met to determine whether or not reclassification is

appropriate.

Plant Species of Concern.—Existing information

for the species of concern is insufficient at this time to

determine whether or not they qualify for listing as

endangered or threatened. Thus, the actions necessary

for these species include surveys in suitable habitat and

evaluation of threats. In certain cases, management

actions are recommended to counter known threats and

stabilize populations. Additional information on species

of concern also can be collected during field surveys.

179
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 4. Generalized Recovery Criteria for Federally-Listed Plants andAnimals.

Though not explicitly stated, delisting criteria include meeting all ofthe downlisting criteria. Range-wide

population monitoring shouldbe providedfor in all management plans. See individual species accounts for

discussion of recovery strategy and the introduction to this sectionfor a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species Recovery

Step

Secure and protect specified

recovery areas from

incompatible uses

Management Plan

approvedand

implementedfor

recovery areas that

include survival of the

species as an objective

Population

monitoring in

specified recovery

areas shows:

California

jewelfiower

Downlist to

threatened

Delist

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; 75 percent

of population and occupied habitat

in Santa Barbara Canyon

Ninety percent of population and

occupied habitat inSanta Barbara

Canyon; one population each on

the San Joaquin Valley floor and

eastern Valley foothills

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing

populations through

precipitation cycle

No decline after

downlisting, if

declining, determine

cause and reverse

trend

pahnate-bracted

bird’s beak

Downlistto

threatened

Delist

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public land; 75 percent or

more of population and occupied

area and upland nesting habitat for

pollinators within 300 meters (984

feet) of the population margins at

Spnngtown Alkali Sink; two or more

populations in the San Joaquin

Valley

Eight or more distinct populations,

including two or more in the San

Joaquin Valley; 90 percent or more

of the Spnngtown Alkali Sink

population and habitat

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing

populations through

precipitation cycle

No decline after

downlisting, if

declining, determine

cause and reverse

trend

Kern mallow Downlistto

threatened

Delist

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; 75 percent

of population and 75 percent of

occupied habitat inLokern

Ninety percent or more each of

population and occupied habitatin

Lokern; two or more distinct

populations outside the Lokern

Natural Area

For Lokern Area

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing

populations through

precipitation cycle

No decline after

downlisting, if declin

ing, determine cause

and reverse trend

Hoover’s woollystarDelist Seventy-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands ineach of the

four metapopulations; 260 hectares

(640 acres) or more of occupied

habitat on San Joaquin Valley floor

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing in

four metapopulations

and San Joaquin

Valley floor

population through

one precipitation

cycle; if declining,

determine cause and

reverse trend

180
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

TABLE 4. (continued). GeneralizedRecovery Criteriafor Federally-Listed Plants andAnimals.

Though not explicitly stated, delisting criteria include meeting all ofthe downlisting criteria. Range-wide

population monitoring shouldbe providedforin all management plans. See individual speciesaccountsfor

discussion of recovery strategy an4 the introduction to this sectionfor a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species Recovery

Step

Secure andprotect specified

recovery areas from

incompatible uses

Management Plan

approvedand implemented for

recovery areas that

include survival ofthe

species as an objective

Population monitoringin

specified recovery

areas shows:

San Joaquin

woolly-threads

Downlist to

threatened

Delist

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public land

Two hundred and sixty hectares (640

acres) or more of occupied habitat in

the Lost Hills; one or more other

sites on San Joaquin Valley floor of

260 hectares (640 acres) or more

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing in

all protected areas

through one

precipitation cycle

No decline after down

listing, if declining,

determine cause and

reverse trend

Bakersfield

cactus

Downl.istto

threatened

Delist

Ninety-five percent ofthe occupied

habitat on public land; 75 percent of

Bakersfield cactus clumps and 75

percent of the occupied habitat in the

Caliente-Bena Hills,Comanche

Point, Kern Bluff, Sand Ridge, and

WheelerRidge areas

Ninety percent of existing clumps

and occupied habitat inthe abovespecified areas; and the FullerAcres,

Cottonwood Creek, Granite Station,

and Kern Canyon populations; 100

or more clumps each in other

populations north and south of the

Kern River

For all protected areas

identified as importantto

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified as importantto

continued survival

Stable or increasing

populations at all

protected sites for a 5-

year period

All protected

populations show

evidence of reproduc

tion

giant kangaroo

rat

Downlist to

threatened

Delist

All occupied lands in Camzo Plain

NaturalArea and Ciervo-Panoche

NaturalArea; western KernCounty

areas, as specified inrecovery

strategy

One hundred percent of occupied

habitat on public lands in the

Cuyama Valley, San Juan Creek

Valley and Kettleman Hills

All protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

including the Carrizo Plain

NaturalArea

Public lands in Cuyama

Valley and Kettleman Hills

During 5-year period

no greater than 20

percent change in

population size during

years without drought

or greater than 35

percent above average

precipitation

Stable or increasing

populations forthe

Carrizo, Panoche, and

western Kern Co.

metapopulations

through one precipita

tion cycle

181
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 4. (continued). GeneralizedRecovery Criteriafor Federally-Listed Plants and Animals.

Though not explicitly stated, delisting criteria include meeting all ofthe downlisting criteria. Range-wide

population monitoring should be providedfor in all management plans. See individual species accountsfor

discussion of recovery strategy and the introduction to this sectionfor a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species Recovery

Step

Secure and protect specified

recovery areas from

incompatible uses

Management Plan

approved and implementedfor

recovery areas that

include survival ofthe

species as an objective

Population monitoring in

specified recovery

areas shows:

Fresno kangaroo

rat

Dowulistto

threatened

Delist

One hundred percent of occupied

habitat on public or conservation

lands at three or more distinct sites,

each no less than about 384 hectares

(950 acres) of usable habitat

One additional site with about 1,012

hectares (2,500 acres) or more of

occupied habitat,with a total ofno

less than 2,164 hectares (5,350 acres)

of occupied habitat

For all inhabited areas

identified as important to

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Population densities in

3 or more populations

do not fall below 2

kangaroo rats per

hectare (1 per acre)

and have a mean

density of 10 or more

per hectare (4 or

more/acre) dunng one

precipitation cycle

Protected sites have a

mean density of 10

kangaroo rats per

hectare (4 per acre)

during a complete

precipitation cycle

Tipton kangaroo

rat

Downlist to

threatened

Delist

Three or more distinct areas with

2,000 hectares(4,940 acres) or more

of contiguous, occupied habitat, with

30 percent each or more of the

minimum acreage in public or

conservation ownership

A total of 9,000 hectares (22,230

acres) hectares or more of occupied

habitat in public or conservation

ownership

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing

populations through

one precipitation cycle

Protected sites have a

mean density of 10

kangaroo rats per

hectare (4 per acre)

during a complete

precipitation cycle

blunt-nosed

leopard lizard

Downlistto

threatened

Delist

Five or more areas, each of about

2,428 hectares (5,997 acres) or more

of contiguous, occupied habitat,

including one each on: Valley floor in

Merced or Madera Counties; Valley

floor inTulare or Kern Counties;

foothills ofthe Ciervo-Panoche

NaturalArea, foothills of western

Kern County, and the Carrizo Plain

Natural Area

Three additional areas with about

2,428 hectares (5,997 acres) or more

of contiguous, occupied habitat, one

on the Valley floor, one along the

western Valley edge in Kings or

Fresno Counties, and one in Upper

Cuyama Valley

For all protected areas

identified asimportant to

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified asimportant to

continued survival

Each protected area

has a mean density of

two or more lizards

per hectare (one per

acre)through one

precipitation cycle

Eachprotected area

has a mean densityof

two or more lizards

per hectare through

one precipitation cycle

182
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

TABLE 4. (continued). Generalized Recovery Criteria for Federally-Listed Plants and Animals.

Though not explicitly stated, delisting criteria include meeting all ofthe downlisting criteria. Range-wide

population monitoring shouldbe providedfor in all management plans. See individual speciesaccountsfor

discussion ofrecovery strategy and the introduction to this sectionfor a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species Recovery

Step

Secure andprotect specified

recovery areas from

incompatible uses

Management Plan

approved and

implemented for

recovery areas that

include survival ofthe

species as an objective

Population

monitoring in

specified recovery

areas shows:

San Joaquin kit

fox

Downlistto

threatened

Delist

The three core populations, Carrizo

NaturalArea, western Kern County,

and Ciervo-Panoche Area; three

satellite populations

Several additional satellite

populations (number dependent on

results of research) encompassing as

much as possible of the

environmental and geographic

variation of the historic geographic

range

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

For all protected areas

identified as important to

continued survival

Stable or increasing

populations inthe

threecore areas

through one precipita

tion cycle; population

interchange between

one or more core

populations and the

three satellite

populations

Stable or increasing

populationsin the

threecore areas and

threeor more of the

satellite areas during

one precipitation cycle

183
Table 5. Site-SpecificProtection RequirementstoMeet Delisting Criteriaforthe SixFederally-ListedPlant and

Five Federally-ListedAnimalSpecies. Protection levels apply to any lands specified in the ownership column.

Species Site Name County Ownership Protection Level

California jewelfiower Camzo Plain

Kreyenhagen Hills

San Joaquin Valley

I. valley floor

2. eastern foothills

Santa Barbara Canyon

San Luis Obispo

Fresno

any

Santa Barbara

USBLM/CDFGIThe

Nature Conservancy

USBLM

any

USBLM/private

95 percent of occupied habitat

95 percent of occupied habitat

260 hectares (640 acres)

260 hectares (640 acres)

90 percent of plants and occupied habitat

Palmate-bracted

bird’s-beak

Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

Delevan National Wildlife Refuge

Sacramento National Wildlife

Refuge

San Joaquin Valley

1. Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve-Mendota Wildlife

Area

2. other (including western

Madera County)

Springtown Alkali Sink

Central Valley

Colusa

Colusa

ColusalGlenn

Fresno

any

Alameda

any

USFWS

IJSFWS

USFWS

CDFG

any

CDFG/City of

Livermore! Federal

Communications

Commission/private

any

95 percent of occupied habitat

95 percent of occupied habitat

95 percent of occupied habitat

95 percent of occupied habitat

260 hectares (640 acrcs)

90 percent of plants and occupied habitat

2 population, each about 260 hectares

(640 acres)

Kernmallow Lokern

other (if Kern mallow positively

identified elsewhere)

Kern

Kern

USBLM/Center for

Natural Lands

ManagementlCDFG/

private

any

90 percent of plants and occupicd habitat

2 populations, each about 260 hcctarcs

(640 acres)

00

0

a

•1

a

aa

a
Table 5 (continued). Site-SpecificProtection Requirements to MeetDelisting Criteriafor the Six Federally-listedPlant and Five Federally-Listed

Animal Species. Protection levels apply to any lands specified in the ownership column.

Species SiteName County Ownership Protection Level

Hoover’s woolly-star Antelope Plain-Lost Hills-Semitropic Kern USBLM/The Nature 75 percent of occupied habitat

Conservancy

Carrizo Plain-Elkhorn Plain-Temblor San Luis Obispo/Santa USBLM/CDFG/The 75 percent of occupied habitat

Range-Caliente Mountains- Barbara Nature Conservancy!

Cuyama Valley-Sierra Madre U.S. Forest Service

Mountains

Kettleman Hills Fresno/Kings USBLM 75 percent of occupied habitat

Lokern-Elk Hills-Buena VistaHills- Kern USBLM/CDFG/Coles 75 percent of occupied habitat

Coles Levee-Taft-Maricopa Levee Ecosystem

Preserve/U.S. Depart

ment of Energy/The

Nature Conservancy!

Occidental

San Joaquin Valley floor (may be any any 260 hectares (640 acres)

within above areas including Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve)

San Joaquin Carrizo Plain-Elkhorn Plain San Luis Obispo USBLM/CDFG/The 95 percent of occupied habitat

woolly-threads Nature Conservancy

Jacalitos Hills Fresno USBLM 95 percent of occupied habitat

Kettleman Hills Fresno/Kings USBLM 95 percent of occupied habitat

Lost Hills Kern private 260 hectares (640 acres)

Panoche Hills Fresno/San Benito USBLM 95 percent of occupied habitat

San Joaquin Valley floor (may be any any 260 hectares (640 acres)

within Lost Hills)

Bakersfield cactus Caliente-Bena Hills Kern private 90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

Comanche Point Kern private 90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

Cottonwood Creek Kern private 90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

Fuller Acres Kern private 90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

Granite Station Kern private 90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

00U’

0

0

N

0.

0

a0

0

0
Table 5 (continued). Site-Specqic Protection Requirements toMeet Delisting Criteriafor theSix Federally-Listed Plant andFive Federally-Listed

Animal Species. Protection levels apply to any lands specified in the ownership column.

Species Site Name County Ownership Protection Level

Bakersfield cactus

(continued)

Kern Bluffs

Kern Canyon

Metropolitan Bakersfield south of

Kern River

north of Kern River

Sand Ridge

Wheeler Ridge

Kern

Kern

Kern

Kern

Kern

Kern

private/Kern Co.

private

private

private

The Nature

Conservancy/private

private/California

Department of Water

Resources

90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

100 clumps

100 clumps

90 percent of clumps andoccupied habitat

90 percent of clumps and occupied habitat

Giantkangaroo rat Ciervo-Panoche NaturalArea

Western KernCounty

I. Lokem Area

2. Occidentalof Elk Hills

3. Naval Petroleum Reserve-2

4. Other areas with natural land

CarrizoPlain Natural Area

San Juan Creek Valley

UpperCuyamaValley

Kettleman Hills

Fresno, San Benito

Kern

San Luis Obispo!

Santa Barbara

Fresno/Kings

USBLM/CDFG/Private

USBLM/CDFG/

California Department

ofWaterResources!

U.S. Department of

Energy/The Nature

Conservancy/private

USBLM!CDFGiThe

Nature Conservancy

USBLM

entire metapopulation

90 percent of extanthistorical habitat

90 percent of extant historical habitat (all in

Buena Vista/McKittrick Valleys)

80 percent of extant historical habitat (all in

BuenaVistaValley)

80 percent ofextant historical habitat

entire metapopulation

Fresno kangaroo rat Western Madera County

Kerman& Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserves

Lemoore Naval Air Station

Madera

Fresno

Kings, Fresno

private

CDFG

Department of Defense

(U.S. Navy)

greater than or equal to 1,012 hectares (2,500

acres) ofoccupied habitat

greaterthan or equal to 384 hectares (950

acres) each of occupied habitat

greaterthan or equal to 384 hectares(950

acres) ofoccupied habitat

0

B’

a

‘-4, 0

N

B’ a

0.

‘0

~.4

0

aa

C-’

0

a

a
Table 5 (continued). Site-Specific Protection Requirements toMeet Delisting Criteriafor theSix Federally-ListedPlant andFive Federally-Listed

Animal Species. Protection levels apply to any lands specified in the ownership column.

Species Site Name County Ownership Protection Level

Tipton kangaroo rat Pixley National WildlifeRefugeAllensworth Natural Area

Semitropic Ridge NaturalArea

Kern Fan

Thlare, Kern

Kern

Kern

USFWS/CDFG/private

USFWS!CDFG/The

Nature Conservancy!

private

Kern County Water

Agency

greater than or equal to 2,000 hectares

(4,942 acres) of contiguous, occupied habitat

greater than or equal to 2,000 hectares

(4,942 acres) of contiguous, occupied habitat

greater than or equal to 2,000 hectares

(4,942 acres) of contiguous, occupied habitat

Blunt-nosed

leopard lizard

northern Valley floor

western edge of Valley

southern Valleyfloor

west-central edge of Valley

southern Valley floor

western KernCounty

Carrizo Plain Natural Area

UpperCuyamaValley

Merced or Madera

Fresno, San Benito

Tulare

Kings, Fresno

Kern

Kern

San Luis Obispo

San Luis Obispo/Santa

Barbara

private

USBLM/private

USFWS/CDFG/private

USBLM/private

USFWS/CDFG/The

Nature Conservancy!

California Department

ofWater Resources!

private

USBLM!CDFG!Kern

County WaterAgency!

California Department

ofWater Resources!

Department of Energy!

Center for Natural

Lands Management/

private

USBLM!CDFGiThe

Nature Conservancy

USFS!USBLM!private

greater than or equal to 2,428 hectares

(6,000 acres) contiguous, occupied habitat

greater than or equal to 2,428 hectares

(6,000 acres) contiguous, occupied habitat

greater than or equal to 2,428 hectares

(6,000 acres) contiguous, occupied habitat

greater than or equal to 2,428 hectares

(6,000 acres) contiguous, occupied habitat

greater than or equal to 2,428 hectares

(6,000 acres) contiguous, occupied habitat

greaterthan or equal to 2,428 hectares

(6,000 acres) contiguous, occupied habitat

entire metapopulation

entire metapopulation

00

0

B’

a

0

N

‘0

B’

a

0.

‘0

0

4-.’

a0

a

C-,

0

0

‘0

a
Table 5 (continued). Site-Speqflc Protection Requirements to Meet Delisting Criteriaforthe Six Federally-ListedPlant andFive Federally-ListedAnimal

Species. Protection levels apply to any lands specified in the ownership column.

Species Site Name County Ownership Protection Level

San Joaquin kit fox’ Ciervo-PanocheNaturalArea Fresno, San Benito USBLM!CDFG!private 90 percent of existing potential habitat

western Kern County Kern USBLM!CDFG!Kern

County WaterAgency!

California Department

of Water Resources!U.S.

Department of Energy!

Center for Natural

Lands Management/

private

CarrizoPlain Natural Area San Luis Obispo USBLM!CDFGJThe 100 percent of existing potential habitat

Nature Conservancy!

private

greater than or equal to 9 satellite 80 percent of existing potential habitat

populations:

northern range and Valleyedges Alameda, Contra Costa,

San Joaquin, Stanislaus

northern Valleyfloor Merced, Madera

central Valley floor Fresno

west-central Valley edge Fresno, Kings

southeast Valleyfloor Tulare, Kern various public and

Kettleman Hills Fresno, Kings, Kern private

southwestern Valley floor Kern

Salinas-PajaroRivers watershed Monterey, SantaBenito,

San Luis Obispo

upper CuyamaValley SantaBarbara, San Luis

Obispo

protection level: extinction probability of 5 percent for 300 years for entire population of the San Joaquin kit fox.

0000

0

0

N

‘0

B’

0.

‘0

C-.

0

a0

C-’ 0

0
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

TABLE 6. GeneralizedCriteria forLong-Term Conservation ofCalifornia-Listed and Federal Candidate

Species and Species ofConcern. Range-wide population monitoring shouldbe providedforin all management

plans. See individualspeciesaccountsfor discussion ofconservation strategy and the introduction

to this section for a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species

Secureand protect s

1)~Ifled

recovery areas from

incompatible US~5

Management Plan approved

and implementedfor recovery

areas that include survival of

the species as anobjective

~P”’~’~’ monitoring

~ SpeCified recovery

areasshows:

Lesser saltscale Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; five or

more populations, including one

or more each in Butte and Kern

Counties, and one in Fresno,

Madera, or Merced County

For all protected areas One thousand or more

individuals in yearsfavorable

for growth; all protected

populations arestable or

increasing through one

precipitation cycle

Bakersfield

smallscale

Five or more disjunct

populations

For all protected areas One thousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations arestable or

increasingthrough one

precipitation cycle

LostHills

saitbush

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; five or

more populations, including at

least oneeach in Fresno, Kern,

and San Luis Obispo Counties

For all protected areas Onethousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stableor

increasingthroughone

precipitation cycle

Vasek’s clarkia Five distinct populations

occurring in at least three

separate canyons

For all protected areas Onethousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasingthrough one

precipitation cycle

Temblor

buckwheat

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; five or

more populations, including one

each in Kern, Monterey, and San

Luis Obispo Counties

For all protected populations Onethousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasing through one

precipitation cycle

Tejon poppy Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; five or

more populations, including one

each on the east, south, and west

edges of the southern San

Joaquin Valley

For all protected sites One thousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasingthrough one

precipitation cycle

Diamond-petaled

California poppy

Fivc or more populations,

including one each in the

northern, central, and southern

portions of the historical

geographical range

For all protected sites One thousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasingthroughone

precipitation cycle

189
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Table 6. (continued). Generalized Criteriafor Long-Term Conservation ofCalifornia-Listed andFederal Candidate Species and Species ofConcern. Range-wide population monitoring shouldbe providedfor in all management

plans. See individual species accountsfor discussion of conservation strategy and the introduction to this sectionfor

a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species

Secure and protectspecified

recovery areas from

incompatible uses

Management Planapproved andimplementedfor recovery

areas that include survival of

the species asan objective

Population rnonitonng

in specified recovery

areas shows:

Comanche Point

Layin

Five or more populations,

including one eachinthe Bena

Hills, Comanche-TejonHills,

and on the San Joaquin Valley

floor

For all protected sites One thousand or more

individuals in years favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasing through one

precipitation cycle

Munz’s tidy-tips Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands;five or

more populations, including one

each in Fresno, Kern, and San

LuisObispo Counties and on the

southern San Joaquin Valley

floor in KernCounty

For all protected sites One thousand or more

individuals inyears favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasing through one

precipitation cycle

Jared’s

peppergrass

Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; five or

more populations of each of the

two subspecies, including at

least one population of the

Carrizo peppergrass subspecies

outside of the Camzo Plain

Natural Area

For all protected sites One thousand or more

individuals inyears favorable

for growth; all protected

populations are stable or

increasing through one

precipitation cycle

Merced

monardelia

Five or more populations For all protected populations One thousand or more

individualsinyears

favorable for growth; all

protected populations are

stable or increasing through

one precipitation cycle

Merced phacelin Five or more populations For all protected populations One thousand or more

individualsin favorable

years; all protected

populations are stable or

increasing through one

precipitation cycle

Oilneststraw Ninety-five percent of occupied

habitat on public lands; five or

more populations, including at

least one in Kern County

outside ofthe Elk Hills

For all protected populations One thousand or more

individuals in years

favorable for growth; all

protected populations are

stable or increasing through

one precipitation cycle

190
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Table 6. (continued). GeneralizedCriteriafor Long-Term Conservation of California-Listed andFederal Candidate Species andSpecies of Concern. Range-widepopulation monitoring shouldbe providedforin all management

plans. See individual species accountsfor discussion of conservation strategy and the introduction to thissection for

a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species

Secure and protect specified

recovery areasfrom

incompatible uses

Management Plan approved and implemented for recovery

areas that include survival of the species as an objective

Populationmonitoring

m specified recovery

areas shows:

Dune insects

(Ciervoaegialian

scarab beetle,

Doyen’s dune

weevil, San

Joaquin dune

beetle)

Five occupied sites for each

species (either as co-occupied or

allopatric sites) collectively

providing 150 hectares (370

acres) of inhabited sands and

sand dunes,with the smallest

inhabited site providing no less

than 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) ofsand

habitat, three of the sites must be

fully protected from development

For all protected populations Continuing presence at each

occupied site

San Joaquin

antelope squirrel

Carrizo Plain Natural Area,

Lokern-Elk Hills, and CiervoPanoche NaturalArea each have

a minimum of about 6,070

hectares (15,000 acres) of

occupied habitat; and Pixley

National Wildlife Refuge

Allensworth-Semitropic Ridge

Natural Areas each have of

minimum ofabout 2,400 hectares

(5,930 acres) of occupied habitat

For all populations on public and

conservation lands

Stable or increasing

populations through one

precipitation cycle

Short-nosed

kangaroo rat

Carrizo Plain Natural Area,

western Kern County, and

Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area,

each with 2,000 hectares (4,940

acres) or more of occupied

habitat; South Grasslands

population

For all populations on public and

conservation lands

Mean population density of

six or more kangaroo rats per

hectare during average years

inprecipitation cycle

Riparian

woodrat

Three or more areas of occupied

habitat each supporting 400 or

more individuals, with a total

population of 5,000 or more

independent individuals (i.e.,

excluding dependent young)

during average precipitation

years

For all populations Mean size of independent

population no less than 400

individuals in each

population in average years

through 1 precipitation cycle

Tulare

grasshopper

mouse

Those areas specified as the

habitat protection goals forthe

giant kangaroo rat and bluntnosed leopard lizard

For all protected areas Continuing presence on the

Carrizo Plain NaturalArea,

Lokern-Elk Hills area,

Ciervo-Panoche Natural

Area, and two blocks on the

Valley floor

191
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Table 6. (continued). Generalized Criteriafor Long-Term Conservation ofCalifornia-Listed and Federal Candidate Speciesand Species ofConcern. Range-wide population monitoring shouldbe providedforin all management

plans. See individualspecies accountsfor discussion of conservation strategy and the introduction to this section for

a discussion ofthe bases ofthe criteria.

Species

Secureand protectspecified

recovery areas from

incompatible uses

Management Plan approved

and implementedfor recovery

areas that include survival of the species as an objective

Population monitoring in specified recovery

areas shows:

Buena Vista

Lake shrew

Three or more disjunct occupied

sites collectively with at least

2,000 hectares (4,940 acres) of

occupied habitat

For all protected areas Continuing presence at

known occupied sites

Riparian brush

rabbit

Threeor more sites, each with no

less than 300 adults during

average years

For all protected sites Populations sizes of 300 or

more adults during average

years during a precipitation

cycle at each of 3 or more

sites

San Joaquin Le

Conte’s thrasher

Saltbush communities on public

lands, including Naval

PetroleumReserve in California2, Occidental ofElk Hills, the

Lokem Natural Area, and the

Carrizo Plain Natural Area; and

in southwestern Kern County

For all public lands and the

inhabited areas covered in the

KernCounty Valley Floor Habitat

Conservation Plan

Stable orincreasingthrough

one precipitation cycle

192
Recovery Planfor Upland Speciesofthe San Joaquin Valley

The strategy for plant species of concern is based on the

assumption that if populations remain throughout the

historical range, are secure from threats, and are not

declining, formal listing may not be necessary.

Listed Animal Species.—For listed animal species,

downlisting criteria are based on the assumption that

extinction is not imminent if potentially viable

metapopulations are found at three or more sites

representing different geographic and environmental

variations. In the absence ofspecific information to the

contrary, metapopulations are assumed to be potentially

viable if there is enough continuous, occupied habitatto

sustain 5,000 or more adults during average years in a

period when annual rainfall cycles from average or

above-average through below-average levels and backto

at least average. Criteria for individual species are

altered from this basic model by: the amounts of

potential or actual habitat in existence; information on

population dynamics (e.g., San Joaquin kangaroo rat

populations fluctuateso dramatically thatlarger average

population sizes are required); information on species

densities in various habitats; and extent of historical and

current geographic distribution. To the maximumextent

possible, recovery areas have been centered on or

confined to lands in public or conservation ownership.

Where this is not possible, existing natural lands (most

with limited development potential) first have been

targeted for protection.

CandidateAnimal SpeciesandSpeciesofConcern.—

Existing information for the riparian brush rabbit,

riparian woodrat, and Buena Vista Lake shrew is ample

to support a proposal tolist them underthe Act. Even for

these three species, where existing information is

sufficientto supportlisting asthreatened or endangered,

additional information on distribution and habitat is

needed to develop a complete conservation and

protection strategy and establish quantitative criteria for

their restoration or long-term conservation. Thus, the

actions necessary for these candidate species and other

species of concern include surveys in suitable habitat

and, for some, evaluation of threats. Management

actions to counter known threats are recommended in

individual accounts. The protection strategies for most

candidate animals and species of concern are based on

the assumption that if populations remain throughout

remnants of thehistorical range, aresecure from threats,

andare not declining, formal listing may not be necessary.

C. RECOVERY PRIORITIES

1.General Ranking Categories

Actions necessaryto recovera species are ranked in three

categories:

Priority 1—an action that must be taken to prevent

extinction or to prevent a species from declining

irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2—an action that must be taken to prevent

a significant decline in species population or habitat

quality or some other significant negative impact

short of extinction.

Priority 3—all other actions necessary to meet

recovery objectives.

In assigning priorities to protection of natural areas

andestablishment of reserves, each site was evaluated in

the context of all other sites supporting the species, and

the priority assigned based on the impact the

development ofthat sitealonewould have on the species

chances of recovery. For some of the larger sites, the

entire area may not warrantthe priority ranking of some

subset of sitesthat are importantto fewerspecies and for

which a speciality reserve may be needed. Yet, in the

absence of more information, the entire area was

assigned the highest priority. In making management

and administrative decisions, each site’s importance

must be considered inthe context of what has and islikely

to happen to all other sites, but those events cannot be

forecast now.

2. Priority Ranking Emphasis

The ecosystem-level strategy outlined in the

beginning of this chapter focuses on establishing a

networkof reserves and conservation areas by protecting

natural communities, strategically retiring farmland and

using afocused safe harbor program on private lands. In

this document, habitat protection means ensuring

appropriate uses of land to maintain and enhance species

habitat values. Habitat protection does not necessarily

require land acquisition or easement. There are many

other waysto achieve the sameend while keeping land in

private ownership and fostering continuing, traditional

193
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

uses that contribute to the local and national economies

(Keystone Center 1995).

To ensure appropriate uses of conservation and

mitigation land to maintain and enhance species habitat

values requires, in most cases, active management of the

land. To this date, land acquired in the Valley as

mitigation for project-related habitat losses, and some

parcels acquired from conservation funds, are mostly not

being actively managed to maintain or enhance listed

species populations. Therefore, if San Joaquin Valley

species are to be recovered, more emphasis must be

placed on habitat management. There already are

substantial historical habitats for a majority of species

featured in this plan in public ownership, though they

mostly are not sufficiently protected from catastrophes,

such as flooding and excessive soil erosion, nor

appropriately monitored and managed to maintain or

enhance populations of featured species. Developing

necessary habitat management procedures must not be

neglected in favor of acquisition of additional potential

habitat.

There are reasons to place increased emphasis on

habitat management research:

a. Change in ownership from private to public

usually is accompaniedby a change in land use.

For natural lands, the principal use typically is

ranching. Cessation of grazing upon purchase

has frequently been followed by decline of

listed speciespopulations (though the magnitude

is difficult to demonstrate on many parcels

because no baseline population censuses were

conducted before change in land use, and no

quantitative monitoring programs were

established). Grazing and other uses ofland that

affect the structure and composition of the

community may be important habitat elements

forthe objectspecies—until provenotherwiseit

is prudent to assume that if the species are

resident, the existing land uses (at some level)

do not pose an immediate threat to species

survival (Williams and Germano 1993).

b. Many parcels acquired as mitigation are too

small and scattered tomanage effectively. They

remain idle until critical masses of land and

management funds canaccumulate. Meanwhile,

habitat quality and species populations decline

or disappear, instead of increase.

c. When dealing with several listed species

affected by a permitted project,some may have

conflicting habitat management needs—

managing for one species or a guild (a group of

species with a common need for a particular

habitat or other niche component) may

negatively affect another species or guild

(Williams and Germano 1993). More and better

data are needed for developing a protection

strategy that ensures that all sensitive species

will benefitfrom selected management actions.

Forsome species, theirstatuses havedeteriorated toa

point where the only way they can be saved is by

immediate implementation of programs that employ

adaptive management (conduct important biological

research, monitor and evaluate outcomes; readjust

management direction accordingly). For many of the

other species, the risk is greatthat if information needs

are not attended to soon, their statuses will be similarly

jeopardized. Habitat management has high priority for

half of the 34 species, though atleast 11 of the other 17

alsohave habitat managementresearch as a high priority,

indicating that information is insufficient to develop

appropriate management prescriptions today.

194
Recovery Planfor Upland Species oftheSan Joaquin Valley

IV. STEPDOWN NARRATIVE

1Develop and implement a regional cooperative program and participation plan.

Development of a regional cooperative program coordinating local public andprivate landuse planningwith

State and Federal landuse planning, recovery planning, and biodiversity conservation is needed. From this

program, a participation plan shouldbe developed andimplemented to expedite and increase the chances of

recovery for listed species and ensure long-term conservation of the 23 other species covered in this recovery

plan.

1.1 Establish a regional cooperative program with participants from the public and private sector

(Priority 2).

Successful development of a regional cooperative program and preparation of a participation plan

requires involvement by public and private interests in the planning area. Interested parties at all

levels ofgovernment andin the private sectorshould be identified andtheir willingnessto participate

in a cooperative program determined. Once participants are identified, the program should be

initiated.

1.2 Develop and implement participationplans.

Participation plans shouldbe developedto implement recovery. These plansshouldinclude outreach

efforts to enhance the public’s understanding ofendangered species issues, economicincentives for

conservation of endangered species on private lands, guidance on mitigation banking and

establishment of large-scale Habitat Conservation Plans, focusedsafe harbor programs, and focused

retirement of drainage problem lands. Separate participation plans may be developed and

implemented for many of the tasks containedherein.

1.2.1 Develop and implement an outreach plan (Priority 2).

Outreachis animportant component of implementing this recovery plan. A plan shouldbe

developed by the regional cooperative program to provide factual information about

featured species and the recovery process to interested and affected landowners. An

important focus of outreach should be toward landowners with reported or potential

occurrences of featured species. For private lands with reported populations offeatured

species,landowners shouldbe apprised ofthe significance ofthe populations ontheir lands

andshouldbe provided withinformation about available conservation mechanisms,suchas

conservation easements and incentive programs (See Task 1.2.2). For private lands with

potential occurrences of featured species, permission should be sought from cooperative

landowners to conducton-site surveys. Ifsurveysidentify populations of featured species,

landowners should be apprised of their significance and offered incentives to continue

current landuses that support featured species habitat.

1.2.2 Develop and implement economic or other incentives for conservation and recovery on

private lands through the cooperative program and with other groups (Priority 2).

Economic andother incentive programs(relieffrom taxes, tax credits,tax deductible habitat

management expenses, Williamson Act, Conservation Reserve Program, Partners for

Wildlife, and others) are important to gaining the support and assistance of private

landowners in conserving and recovering species featured in this recovery plan (Hudson

1993, Dwyer et al. 1995, Keystone Center 1995, Eisner et al. 1995). As part of the regional

195
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

cooperative program, or through working with other groups, such programs should be

developed for the planning area. Incentive programs should play a role in protection of

habitat on privateproperty (SeeTask 2.1 and 2.2), andin establishinglinkages on the Valley

floor (Task 5.1) and elsewhere (Task 5.3).

1.2.3 Encourage and assist counties and owners of large amounts of natural lands in developing

and implementing large-area HabitatConservation Plans (Priority 2).

City and county governments are the primary agencies in deciding on land uses, and thus,

their involvement in any future recovery planning processes is critical. Habitat

Conservation Plans have been developed and others are being developed. The regional

cooperative program should promote similar initiatives in other counties in the planning

area. Assistance should also be provided to owners of large amounts of natural land.

1.2.4 Encourage and assist inthe development and implementationofmitigation banksseparately

or in conjunction with large-scale HabitatConservation Plans (Priority 2).

Mitigation banks should be promoted by the regional cooperative program as a means of

overcomingmany of the problems associated with mitigating forlost habitaton a piecemeal

basis, separately or in conjunction with large scale HabitatConservation Plans. Areas with

the greatest potential formitigation banks are western KernCounty (one established,another

in planning), the Coalinga and Ciervo-Panoche areas of western Fresno County, western

Madera County, and other, lightly-developed oil and gas-producing areas. However, all

large blocks of privately-owned natural land that are identified as importantin thisrecovery

plan should be considered.

1.2.5 Encourage and assist landowners and private interest groups in developing focused safeharbor programs (Priority 2).

Farminginterests,the CDFG, and USFWS are pursuing thedevelopment of generalized safe

harbor programs inCalifornia. To assistin endangered species recovery, specific programs

should be developed by the regional cooperative program or other groups. These programs

should be carried out in a controlled, experimental manner for the San Joaquin kit fox, and

perhaps other species on both irrigated and non-irrigated ground. Implementation of a

focused safe harbor program is one of several programs needed to establish linkages for

featured species between islands of natural habitat on the Valley floor (See Task 5.1).

Components of a pilot safe harbor program and areas to be targeted for San Joaquin kit fox

are outlined in Appendix E.

1.2.6 Coordinate retirement of farmlandswith drainageproblems withrecoveryneeds of featured

species (Priority 2).

Focused retirement of drainage problem lands is an important component of establishing

linkages between islands of natural habitat on the Valley floor for San Joaquin kit fox and

other featured species (See Task 5.1). The regional cooperative program should guide the

implementationof this land retirementprogram sothat priority is given to land retirementin

areas needed for endangered species recovery. Criteria for land retirement, restoration of

retired fannland, and guidelines for the program are provided in Appendix F.

2 Protect and secure existing populations.

Natural lands known toprovide habitat for listed and othersensitive species, should be protected and secured

196
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of theSan Joaquin Valley

from any identified threats in perpetuity. Protection of these habitat areas requires application of adaptive

management (See Task 6) to ensure species survival and recovery. Naturallands needing protection include

largeblocks of land that function as core areas forlisted species, and smaller blocks ofland, called ‘specialty’

reserves that are usually locations of populations of single species.

2.1 Protect and secure core habitat areas.

Table 7 lists all core areas, or largeblocks of land requiring protection. Public and conservation lands

listed in Table 7 should be adaptively managed to maximize their potential to support listed and

sensitive species. Private lands included in Table 7 should be protected through voluntary

conservation or management agreements (agreements in which a landowner agrees to manage

propertyin a specified way), easements or other mechanisms,then adaptivelymanaged.Management

plans should be developed for all protected areas.

Table 7. LargeBlocks orCoreAreasofNatural Lands TargetedforProtection. SeeFigure 70forthe location ofcore

habitatareas.

Task~ Locality County Species (targetin bold)’ Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.1 ElkHills

and Buena

Vista Valley

Kern hws, ons, ball, gkr,

sjkf, sjwt, tp, sjas, snkr,

tgm,sjlt

Department of Energy/Occidental!1

Chevron! secure long-term protection of

natural communities and featured species;

prevent disturbance of ons metapopulation.

2.1.2 Fort Hunter

Liggett!

Camp

Roberts

Monterey,

San Luis

Obispo

sjkf Department of Defense, California

National Guard! evaluate recent and

ongoing base operations and land

management studies on kit fox, prepare

management plans beneficial to kit fox.

2

2.1.3 Kern Fan

Element

Kern tkr, sjkf, ball, bvls,

hws, sjwt, bss, lss, lhsb,

gkr, tgm, sjlt

Kern Water BankAuthority/ protect, re-1

store and enhance upland and wetland

communities, introduce bvls and other

targeted species through cooperative

agreement. Also provides a linkage

between Lokern/Elk Hills and Tule Elk

Reserve/Kern River Parkway.

2.1.4 Western

Kern

County

(includes

Lokern)

Kern kin, ons, lhsb, ball,

sjas, gkr, snkr, tgm,

sjkf, sjlt, hws, tbw, jpg,

cjf, tp, sjwt

USBLM, Center for Natural Lands

Management, private/ preserve 80-90

percent of the existing natural lands below

about 500 meters (1,640 feet) between

Blackwell’s Corner and Maricopa. The

Lokern area is within the Kern County

Valley Floor HabitatConservation Plan

and a Chevron, USA, Inc. mitigation bank;

restore habitat forsjlt; prevent disturbances

of ons metapopulation.

197
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Task #

Locality County Species (target in bold)1 Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.5 Western

Madera

County

Madera pbbb, sjkf, bull, flr,

iss, lhsb

Private / continue traditional land uses

(natural gas extraction and cattle

grazing), possible groundwater recharge

and water banking site, an important link

in the chain of habitat islands on Valley

floor. Acquire title or easements for

appropriate parcels from willing sellers.

2.1.6 North

central

Fresno

County

Fresno pbbb, bnll, fl~r, sjkf Private/locatedbetween the San Joaquin

River, immediately north of the Alkali

Sink Ecological Reserve, and San Mateo

Road on the west, connects Alkali Sink

Ecological Reserve to the Chowchilla

Canal, an important link in the chain of

habitat islands on Valley floor. Acquire

title or easements for appropriate parcels

from willing sellers.

2

2.1.7 Pixley

National

Wildlife

Refuge/

Allensworth

Natural

Area

Tulare,

Kern

tkr, bnll, sjkf Private, public/includes the best and

only large remnants of Relictual Interior

Dune Grassland, variations of chenopod

scrub, and Haplopappus Shrubland in the

Tulare Basin. Acquire title or easements

for appropriate parcels from willing

sellers; restore habitat for tkr.

2.1.8 Northwestern

Merced

County

Merced lhsb, Iss, sjkf Public/includes Federal wildlife refuges

and waterfowl easement properties, State

game areas, and State parkland, provides

a vital linkage between Valley floor and

northwestern Valley edge; restore and

enhance natural communities by

practicing adaptive management, control

grazing; (riparian areas are listed

separately in Table 8).

3

2.1.9 Sandy

Mush

Road!

South

Grasslands

Area

Merced lhsb, ball, sjkf, Iss,

pbbb, flcr

Private/ a chain of habitat islands on the

valley floor, that together with

establishingValley floor linkages

through agricultural land, links Merced

County National Wildlife Refuges, State

areas and other natural lands with the

northeastern and northwestern edges of

the Valley and with natural areas to the

south. Acquire title or easements for

appropriate parcels from willing sellers.

2

198
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Task# Locality County Species (target in bold)’ Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.10 Kettleman Fresno, sjwt, bull, gkr, sjas, USBLM, private/ protect area from1

Hills Kings sjkf,snkr, tgm, ddw, development through acquisition or

hws,sjdb, sjlt easements from willing sellers; conduct

land survey to determine ownership of

site with ddw, major population center

for sjwt, hws.

2.1.11 Kern Kern hws, ball, sjas,sjkf, USFWS, State, private/ enhance natural 3

National tkr, bvls, mtt, lhsb, sjwt, communities by creation of areas of

Wildlife tgm refuge above historic flood levels fortkr,

Refuge! provides link for sjkf to Pixley/

Semitropic Allensworth area, designated as

Ridge preapproved acquisition area for the

Natural Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat

Area Conservation Plan. Manage and restore

appropriate habitat, and introduce bvls.

Acquire title or easements for

appropriate parcels from willing sellers.

2.1.12 Carrizo San Luis cjf, hws,jpg, tbw,sjwt, USBLM, State, The Nature1

Plain Obispo bull, gkr,sjas, sjkf, Conservancy, private! restore and

Natural snkr, tgm, sjlt, lhsb. enhance natural communities by

Area mtt practicing adaptive managerflent;

reintroduce featured species to suitable

habitat where appropriate.

2.1.13 Upper Santa cjf, hws, sjwt, bull, gkr, USBLM, private! protect natural lands 3

Cuyama Barbara, sjas, sjkf, snkr, tgm, sjlt from development through acquisition or

Valley San Luis easement from willing sellers; ensure

Obispo traditional rangeland uses continue while

protecting vulnerable plant populations

(Santa Barbara Canyon listed as a

speciality reserve area in Table 8).

2.1.14 Ciervo- Fresno, jpg, hws, sjwt, lhsb, USBLM, State, private/ protect natural1

Panoche San Benito mtt, bnll, gkr, sins, sjkf, lands from development through

Natural sjlt, snkr, tgm, casb, acquisition or easement from willing

Area sjdb sellers; ensure traditional rangeland uses

continue while monitoring and

protecting vulnerable plant and insect

populations.

2.1.15 Ki~yenhagen Fresno cjf, sjkf, snkr USBLM, private/ only known1

Hills population of cjf on public land east of

the inner Coast Ranges; continue

protecting cjf population and managing

rangeland in an adaptive manner.

199
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Task #

Locality County Species (target in bold)’ Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.16 Bitter

Creek

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Kern,

Ventura

sjas, sjkf, tgm USFWS/ restore and enhance natural

communities by practicing adaptive

management.

3

2.1.17 Kerman

and Alkali

Sink

Ecological

Refuges

Fresno pbbb, sjkf, flu’, bnll,

hws, Iss, lhsb

CDFG/restore and enhance natural1

communities by practicing adaptive

management; reintroduce fkr.

2.1.18 Mendota

Wildlife

Area

Fresno pbbb, sjkf, flu’, snkr,

bnll

CDFG/ manage appropriately for

featured species, develop specific

management agreement for areas not

managed for waterfowl.

3

2.1.19 Northwestem

portion of

kit fox

range

Alameda,

Contra

Costa

sjkf Mostly private/ maintain larger natural

areas identified in CDFG’s Framework

for Maintaining the San Joaquin Kit Fox

in the Northwestern Segment of its

Range (in litt. 1996), maintain beneficial

grazing practices.

2

‘Species

be — Balcersfield cactus; ball — Blunt-nosed leopard lizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena Vista Lake shrew; casb —

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf — California jewelfiower; cpl — Comanche Point layia; ddw — Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp —

Diamond-petaled California poppy; fkr— Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr— Giantkangaroo rat;hws — Hoover’s woolly-star; jpg — Jared’s

peppergrass; km — Kernmallow; lhsb — Lost Hillssaltbush; lss — Lessersaltscale;mm — Merced monardella; mp — Merced phacelia;

mtt — Munz’stidy-tips; ons — Oil neststraw; pbbb — Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak; tp — Tejon poppy;rbr — Riparian brushrabbit; rwr

— Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf — San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San

Joaquin kangaroo rat; sjlt — San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher; sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr — Short-nosed kangaroo rat;

tbw — Temblor buckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — Tipton kangaroo rat; vc — Vasek’s clarkia

200
Recovery Planfor Upland Species oftheSan Joaqurn Valley

Figure 70. Place locations for Tables7, 9, and 10.

201
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

2.2 Establish and protect specialty reserves.

Table 8 lists specialty reserves to be established. Figure 71 shows the general location of these

specialty reserves. Several of these specialty reserves are located within linkage areas (SeeTask 5).

Public and conservation lands listed in Table 8 should be adaptively managed to maximize their

potentialtosupport listed and sensitive species. Private lands included inTable 8 should be protected

through conservation or management agreements, acquisition, easements or othermechanisms,then

adaptively managed. Management plans should be developed for all protected areas.

Table 8. NaturalLands TargetedforProtectionas Specialty Reserves. See Figure 71 forthe locationofeachspecialty

reserve.

R~UY

Task#

Locality (Map Symbol -Figure7l) County Species (target in hold)’ Landowner/Comments Priority

2.2.1 Woodland

(A)

Yolo pbbb City of Woodland! develop and

implement habitat restoration,

enhancement and management plan.

2.2.2 Springtown

Alkali Sink

(B)

Alameda pbbb CDFG, City of Livermore, Federal1

Communications Commission, private!

enhance habitat, develop and implement a

plan to restore natural hydrology,

establish cooperative management pro

gram; greatest genetic diversity for pbbb.

2.2.3 Lower

Stanislaus

River

(C)

San

Joaquin,

Stanislaus

rbr, rwr COE/review and enforce wildlife habitat1

easements downstream from the City of

Ripon, restore riparian habitat, provide

additional flood and fire protection;

prepare emergency preplan for habitat

protection at Caswell State Park;

reintroduce rbr, rwr.

2.2.4 San Joaquin

River

National

Wildlife

Refuge (D)

Stanislaus rbr, rwr USFWS-Private/ restore riparian habitat,

provide additional flood and fire

protection; reintroduce rbr, rwr.

2.2.5 San Joaquin

River

Riparian

Communities

(E)

Merced rbr, rwr, sjkf CDFG, California Department of Parks1

and Recreation, USFWS/ restore riparian

habitat, manage grazing, provide

additional flood and fire protection,

upland habitat may provide linkage;

reintroduce rbr, rwr.

2.2.6 Lemoore

Naval Air

Station (F)

Kings fkr, bnll, sjkf Navy/ enlarge and restore habitat area by

retiring adjacentfannland on the base.

202
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

RftXIIU7

Task#

Locality (Map Symbol

-Figure7t)

County Species (target in bold)’ Landowner/Comments Priority

2.2.7 North of Kings flcr, bnll, sjkf Private/ preserve as grazing land; possible1

Tulare Lake mitigation bank sites.

Bed (G)

2.2.8 Granite Kern bc Private/isolated from metropolitan 2

Station (H) Bakersfield population, potential contribu

tion to taxonomic information, maintain

currentland uses.

2.2.9 Devil’s Den Kern hws, jpg, cjf, tbw, bnll, Private, USBLM/ maintain compatible 2

Area (I) sjkf, snkr, sjas, sjlt, tgm land uses

2.2.10 Lost Hills- Kern sjwt, lhsb, mtt, hws, Private/also provides an importantlink 2

Buena Vista sjkf, snkr, bnll, tkr, sjas between natural lands along the western

Slough (J) edge of the Valley and natural landsin the

Semitropic and Pixley-Allensworth areas;

one of largest metapopulations of sjwt.

2.2.11 Jerry Kern Iss, hws Private/southeast of Goose Lake bed; 2

Slough to southernmost population ofIss, maintain

Highway 58 current land uses.

(K)

2.2.12 Greater Kern bc, bnll, sjkf Private, CDFG/ maintain existing land 2

Bakersfield, uses of oil production and grazing, avoid

North of the or fence plant populations.

Kern River

(L)

2.2.13 Fairfax Kern bc Private/ type locality for var. kemii, fence 2

Road- fragmented populations.

Highway

178-

Highway

184 (M)

2.2.14 Kern Bluffs Kern bc, sjkf, bnll, snkr Private, CDFG/ fence to exclude off-road1

(N) vehicles from the wash area; monitor

vegetation to determine effects of

changing the grazing regime.

2.2.15 Fuller Acres Kern bc Private/lowest elevation remaining 2

(0) occurrence of bc,last remnant of once

extensive population.

203
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Task#

Locality

(Map Symbol

-Figure7l)

County Species (target in bold)’ Landowner/Comments Priority

2.2.16 Mouth of

Kern

Canyon (P)

Kern bc Private! population contains considerable

morphological variation, maintain current

land uses.

2

2.2.17 Cottonwood

Creek(Q)

Kern bc Private, CDFG/ only site in association

with cottonwoods, one of few sites with

typical var. treleasei, maintain current

land uses.

2

2.2.18 Bena HillsCaliente

Hills (R)

Kern ye, bc, cjf, cpl, tp Private/ delimited innorth by Walker1

Basin, south by Highway 58, southeast by

Caliente, and west by Valley floor, type

locality of bc, only known location of vc,

maintain current land uses.

2.2.19 Sand Ridge

(5)

Kern be, sjwt, sjkf, snkr Centerfor Natural Lands Management,

CDFG, private! one of two largest

metapopulations of bc, expand reserve,

protect natural lands from off-road

vehicles, sand mining, and conversion.

2.2.20 ComancheTejon Hills

(T)

Kern epl, tp, be, sjkf, bnll,

snkr

Private! maintain current land uses.1

2.2.21 Kern LakeGator Pond

(U)

Kern bvls, bss, cpl Private! only known population of bvls1

and bss, restore hydrology and wetland

vegetation; protect and secure permanent

water supply.

2.2.22 MettlerWheeler

Ridge (V)

Kern be, bnll, snkr, sjkf Private, California Department of Water1

Resources, Wildlands Conservancy! one

of largest metapopulations of bc.

2.2.23 Upper

Cuyama

Valley,

Santa

Barbara

Canyon (W)

Santa

Barbara

cjf, hws, sjwt, bnll,

gkr, sjas, sjkf, snkr,

tgm

USBLM, private! largest extant1

population of cjf.

2.2.24 Interstate 5/

California

Highway

41(X)

Kings ddw Caltrans! protect habitat on1

Caltrans right-of-way.

204
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

Task#

Locality

(Map Symbol

-Figure7l)

County Species (target in bold)1 Landowner/Comments Priority

2.2.25 Colusa,

Delevan,

and

Sacramento

National

Wildlife

Refuges (Y)

Colusa,

Glenn

pbbb, lss USFWS/ develop and implement1

management plans; largest population of

pbbb.

2.2.26 Lawrence

Livermore

Laboratory!

Site 300 (Z)

Alameda dpcp Department of Energy! develop and1

implement a management plan for dpcp.

‘Species

bc — Bakersfield cactus; ball — Blunt-nosedleopardlizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena Vista Lakeshrew; casb —

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf — California jewelfiower; cpl — Comanche Point layia; ddw — Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp —

Diamond-petaled Californiapoppy; fkr — Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr — Giant kangaroo rat; hws — Hoover’s woolly-star;jpg — Jared’s

peppergrass; km — Kernmallow;lhsb — LostHillssaltbush; lss— Lesser saltscale; mm — Merced monardella; mp — Merced phacelia;

mtt— Munz’stidy-tips; ons — Oil neststraw; pbbb — Palmate-bractedbird’s-beak;tp—Tejon poppy; rbr— Riparian brush rabbit; rwr

— Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf — San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San

Joaquin kangaroo rat; sjlt — San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher;sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr — Short-nosed kangaroo rat;

tbw — Temblor buckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — Tipton kangaroo rat; vc — Vasek’s clarkia

205
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Figure 71. Locations ofspecialty reservestargeted for protection (see Table 8).

206
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

3 Determine distributions and population statuses of featured species.

Data on distribution and population numbers of most featured species are insufficient for development of

management prescriptions and to implement other conservation measures. Surveys are a high priority for 22

of the 34 species and are an important priority for 9 others in this plan. Integrated programs (e.g., surveying

an area for multiple species when possible) should be developed and implemented to increase efficiency and

reduce costs.

3.1 Establish a programand protocol for general and directed surveys for covered species (Priority 1).

A coordinated program should be developed to effectively conduct surveys for featured species. A

protocol should be established for directed botanical surveys (i.e., for species whose flowering or

season of growth differs from the majority of plants) and general surveys for plants and animals.

3.2 Conduct general and directed surveys as needed.

Table 9 summarizes survey and population census needs forfeatured species. Directed and general

botanicalsurveys are needed on remaining naturallands throughoutthe planning area, but especially

along the eastern and southern edgesof the Valley foothills. Forfeaturedanimal species, information

on occurrence and statusis minimal alongthe eastern and southern edgesof the Valley, in the Merced

grasslands, and in the Salinas River and Pajaro River watersheds. Obtaining reliable distributional

and population data for the San Joaquin kit fox is a high priority.

Table 9. Survey and Population Census Needsfor Featured Species by Geographic Area or Community in the San

Joaquin Valley Planning Area. See Figure 70for the location ofspecfic survey areas.

Comments ~Priori

Multispecies Plant Surveys

Number Area (additional featured species

3.2.1 Comanche-Tejon Hills tp, cpl (bc) Kern Co. 1

3.2.2 Caliente-Bena Hills cjf, vc, tp, cpl (bc) Kern Co. 1

3.2.3 Rancheria Gulch/Adobe

Canyon

cjf, vc, tp, cpl (be) Kern Co. 2

3.2.4 southern Valley alkali sinks lss, bss, & lhsb

cpl, mtt

Kern Co., summer-fall

Kern Co., spring

2

2

3.2.5 alkali sinks in San Joaquin

Valley north of Kern County

pbbb, lss, lhsb

mtt, jpg

Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera,

Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin,

Alameda, andContra Costa

Counties [summer-fall]

Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera,

and Merced Counties [spring]

2

2

3.2.6 alkali sinks in Sacramento

Valley

pbbb, iss Sacramento, Solano, Yolo, Sutter,

Colusa, Butte, and GlennCounties

2

207
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Task

Number Area

Target Species1

(additional featured species

known or possible)

Comments Priori

3.2.7 Occidental of Elk Hills lhsb, tp, ons (cjf, kin,

hws, sjwt, tbw)

Kern Co. 1

3.2.8 west side ofsouthern San

Joaquin Valley (Maricopa to

McKittrick, including Buena

Vista Valley and Naval

Petroleum Reserve in

California-2)

cjf, kin, lhsb, tp, ons

(hws, sjwt, tbw)

Kern Co. 1

Single Species Plant Surveys

1~~

3.2.9 Cottonwood Pass cjf Kern and Kings Counties 2

3.2.10 historic locations outside of

Elk Hills

tbw Kern, San Luis Obispo, and

Monterey Counties

2

3.2.11 Salt Creek tp Kern Co. 2

3.2.12 historic locations dpcp San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus,

Alameda, Contra Costa, and

Colusa Counties

1

3.2.13 historic locations in San Luis

Obispo County

mtt San Luis Obispo Co. 2

3.2.14 historic locations jpg San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and San

Benito Counties

2

3.2.15 suitable habitat in historic range mm Merced and Stanislaus Counties

3.2.16 historic locations mp Merced Co. 2

Multispecies Animal Surveys

3.2.17 sand and sand dune

communities, northwestern San

Joaquin Valley

cash, sjdb, ddw Contra Costa, San Joaquin,

Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, San

Benito Counties

3

3.2.18 upland vertebrates, northern

Valley floor

bnll, fkr, sjkf (pbbb,

lss, lhsb)

central Merced, W. Madera, central

Fresno Counties; summer toearly fall

1

3.2.19 upland vertebrates, southern

Valley floor

bnll, tkr, lkr, sjkf, sjlt,

tgm (iss, bss, lhsb)

Kings, Tulare, Kern Counties;

summer to early fall

3

3.2.20 upland vertebrates, central

western Valley edge

bnll, gkr, snkr, sjas,

sjkr, sjlt, tgm

Fresno, San Benito Counties;

late spring to early fall

3

3.2.21 upland vertebrates, Kettleman

Hills

bnll, gkr, snkr, sjas

sjkr, sjlt, tgm

Fresno, Kings, Kern Counties;

late spring to early fall

2

208
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Task

Number Area

Target Species

(additional featured species

known or possible)

Comments Priority

3.2.22 upland vertebrates,

southwestern Valley edge

bnll, gkr, snkr, sjas

sjkr, sjlt, tgm

Kings, Kern Counties from south

of Pleasant Valley to south of

Maricopa; late spring to early fall

3

3.2.23 upland vertebrates, southeast

and southern Valley edge

bnll, snkr, sjas, sjkr,

sjlt, tgm

Kern Co. from Maricopa

southward and eastward, then

northward to the Kern River; late

spring to early fall

3

3.2.24 upland vertebrates, Cuyama

Valley

bnll, gkr, snkr, sjas sjkr,

sjlt, tgm

Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis

Obispo Counties; late spring to

early fall

3

3.2.25 upland vertebrates, San Juan

Creek watershed

bnll, gkr, snkr, sjas sjkr,

sjlt, tgm

San Luis Obispo Co.;late

spring to early fall

3

3.2.26 riparian species rbr, rwr San Joaquin, Stanislaus Counties 1

Single Species Animal Surveys

3.2.27 northwestern portion of range

and northwestern Valley edge

sjkf Contra Costa, Alameda, San

Joaquin, Stanislaus Counties

3

3.2.28 northeastern Valley edge sjkf Stanislaus, Merced, Madera

Counties

3

3.2.29 Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area sjlt Fresno, San Benito Counties 3

3.2.30 southern Valley wetlands bvls (lss, bss, lhsb) Kern, Tulare Counties 1

3.2.31 southeastern Valley edge sjkf Tulare, Kern Counties, north of

Kern River

3

3.2.32 Salinas River and Pajaro River

watersheds

sjkf San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San

Benito Counties

2

Species

be — Bakersfield cactus; bnll — Blunt-nosed leopard lizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena Vista Lake shrew; casb —

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf — California jewelfiower; cpl — Comanche Point layia; ddw — Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp —

Diamond-petaledCalifornia poppy;fkr— Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr—Giant kangaroo rat; hws — Hoover’s woolly-star;jpg—Jared’s

peppergrass; km — Kernmallow; lhsb — Lost Hillssaltbush; lss — Lesser saltscale;mm — Merced monardella; mp — Merced phacelia;

mtt — Munz’s tidy-tips; ons — Oil neststraw; pbbb — Palmate-bractedbird’s-beak; tp— Tejon poppy; rbr — Riparian brush rabbit; rwr

— Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf — San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San

Joaquin kangaroo rat; sjlt — San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher; sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr — Short-nosed kangaroo rat;

tbw — Temblor buckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — Tipton kangaroo rat; vc — Vasek’s clarkia

209
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of theSanJoaquin Valley

4 Conduct importantresearch and monitoring.

Table 10 lists importantresearch and monitoring needsfor covered species by geographic area or community.

Habitat surveys and population monitoring for covered species are priorities in most geographic areas. Most

research on population biology and habitat management for several species can be combined into single

programs, reducing costs, increasing coverage and strengthening quality of ecosystem-level management.

Large blocks of public land provide the best setting for control and execution of scientifically valid research

on featured species biology and habitat management. Seed banking is included in Table 10 with research and

monitoring of plant species where known populations of plants occur. Combining all ofthese tasks by study

area reduces overall costs. When seed banking is identified as a recovery action, seed collections must be

representative of the source populations and must not deplete them. Detailed guidelines for seed collection

have been published by the Center for Plant Conservation (1991). See the recovery strategy section of each

species account forfurther details on species-specific research and monitoring needs.

Table 10. Demographic and Other Research and Monitoring Needsfor FeaturedSpecies in Upland andRiparian

Communities ofthe SanJoaquin Valley PlanningArea. TBD = tobe determined, N/A = notapplicable. See Figure

70 for the location ofresearch areas.

Raxuiuy

Task#

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target Species’ Comments Priority

4.1 Santa Barbara Canyon,

Santa Barbara Co.

effects of grazing + census +

monitoring + reproduction &

demography + identity of pollinators

+ seed banking (all tasks for cjt)

2

4.2 Cuyama Valley, Santa

Barbara & San Luis

Obispo Counties

census (snkr) + monitoring (bnll,

gkr. sjas, sjlt)

4.3 Carrizo Plain Natural

Area, San Luis Obispo

Co.

competition from exotics (cjf,sjwt) +

census (cjf, jpg, mtt,lhsb) +

monitoring (cjf,sjwt, hws,jpg, mtt,

lhsb, tbw) + reproduction &

demography (cjf, sjwt) + identity of

pollinators (cjf) + seed banking (cjf)

+ pesticide effects on pollinators (cjO

cjf, sjwt censuses &

reproduction & demography

partly completed; fire effects

on cjf and grazing effects on

sjwt will be studied on same

plots as for animals

2

4.4 CarrizoPlain Natural

Area, San Luis Obispo

Co.

effects of fire (cjf, ball, gkr, sjas,

snkr, tgm) + effects of grazing (sjwt,

ball, gkr,sjas, snkr, sjlt, tgm) +

competition from Heermann’s

kangaroo rat (snkr) + census (ball,

gkr, snkr) + monitoring (ball, gkr,

snkr, sjas, sjlt, tgm) + reproduction

& demography (ball, snkr)

ball & gkr censuses &

reproduction & demography

partly completed

2

210
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of theSanJoaquin Valley

Rewiuy

Task#

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target Species1 Comments Priority

4.5 Carrizo Plain Natural

Area, San Luis Obispo

Co.

effects of fire +effects of grazing +

census + monitoring + reproduction &

demography (all tasks forsjkf)

the wider-ranging kit fox

requires different experimental

design than for more sedentary

animals & plants though some

actions inhabitat management

can be combined for cost

savings

2

4.6 Carrizo Plain Natural

Area, San Luis Obispo

Co.

mating & social systems (gkr) some aspects ofresearch

completed or in progress

3

4.7 Kern Lake, Kern Co. competition from exotics + census +

reproduction & demography + seed

banking (all tasks for bss)

4.8 Kern Lake, Kern Co. census (bvls) + monitoring (bss,

bvls) + reproduction & demography

(bvls)

bss can be monitored at same1

time as bvls is monitored

4.9 Kern Lake, Kern Co. systematics & genetics (bss) 2

4.10 Lokern, Kern Co. competition from exotics (kin) +

census (kin) + monitoring (kin, hws,

lhsb) +reproduction & demography

(kin) + identity of pollinators (kin)

kin reproduction &

demography partly completed;

grazing & fire effects on km

will be studied on same plots

as for animals

2

4.11 Lokern, Kern Co. effects of grazing (kin, gkr, snkr,

sjas, sjkf, sjlt, tgm) + effects of fire

(km. gkr, snkr,sjas, sjkf, sjlt, tgm)

+ census (gkr, sjkf, sjlt) + monitoring

(gkr, tgin, snkr, sjas,sjkf, sjlt) +

reproduction & demography (bull)

gkr census in progress at one1

site; bnll reproduction &

demography could be

investigated at Elk Hills

Buena Vista Valley in addition

or in place of this site.

4.12 Lokern, Kern Co. pesticide effects on pollinators (kin),

insect prey base (bnll, tgm, sjlt), &

targeted species (bnll, tgm, sjlt)

4.13 Elk Hills-Buena Vista

Valley area, KernCo.

competition from exotics (ons) +

census (ons) + monitoring (hws. ons)

+ reproduction & demography (ons) +

characteristics of microhabitat (ons)

+ life history (ons) + seed banking

(otis)

211
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

R~uiuy

Task#

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and TargetSpecies’ Comments Priority

4.14 Elk Hills-Buena Vista

Valley area, Kern Co.

competition from Heermann’s

kangaroo rat (snkr) + census (sjlt) +

monitoring (gkr, snkr,sjas, sjlt, tgm)

+ effects of grazing (bnll, gkr, snkr,

sjas, sjlt, tgm)

entire region from Elk HillsMcKittrick Valley southward

through Maricopa area, but

centered on Naval Petroleum

Reserves in California

2

4.15 Elk Hills-Buena Vista

Valley area, Kern Co.

census + monitoring + reproduction &

demography + dispersal + effects of

grazing (all tasks for sjkf)

entire region from Elk HillsMcKittrick Valley southward

through Maricopa area, but

centered on Naval Petroleum

Reserves in California; the

wider-ranging kit fox requires

different experimental design

though some actions in habitat

management can be combined

for cost savings

2

4.16 Metropolitan

Bakersfield

reproduction, demography, and1

dispersal (sjkf)

4.17 Lost Hills, Kern Co. monitoring (hws, sjwt, lhsb) +

reproduction & demography (sjwt)

2

4.18 Kern Bluffs + Kern

Canyon + metro

Bakersfield + Granite

Station, Kern Co.

effects of grazing + effects of off-road

vehicle control (be, snkr, sjkf) (Kern

Bluffs) + census + monitoring +

reproduction &demography + iden

tity of pollinators (all tasks for be)

2

4.19 Sand Ridge (be) +

Bena- Caliente (be,

ye), Kern Co

competition from exotics +effects of

off-road vehicle control (be, snkr,

sjkO(Sand Ridge, be; Bena Hills, ye)

+ effects of fire (Sand Ridge, bc) +

census (be, ye) + monitoring (be, ye,

snkr, sias, sjkf) + reproduction &

demography (be, ye) + identity of

pollinators (be) + seed banking (ye)

4.20 Sand Ridge or Wheeler

Ridge

pesticide effects on pollinators (be) 2

4.21 Wheeler Ridge +

Comanche Point +

Cottonwood Creek +

FullerAcres, Kern Co.

effects of grazing (Wheeler Ridge) +

census + monitoring +reproduction &

demography +identity of pollinators

(all tasks for be)

monitoring for be at Wheeler

Ridge & Comanche Point can

be combined with animal

monitoring for cost savings

(see next task)

2

4.22 Wheeler Ridge +

Comanche Point, Kern

Co.

monitoring (bnll, snkr,sikI) 3

212
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Task#

Study ~

(if appbcable)

Tasks and Target Species’ Conunents Priority

4.23 All inhabited sites,

Kern Co.

systematics & genetics (be) 3

4.24 Alameda, Kern, Kings,

Monterey, Santa

Barbara, San Luis

Obispo, Tulare, &

Ventura Counties

systematics & genetics (km) includes geographic range of

Parry’s mallow

2

4.25 Pixley National

Wildlife RefugeAllensworth Ecological

Reserve, Tulare Co.

competition from Heerman’s

kangaroo rat (tkr) + effects of grazing

(bnll, tkr) + effects of fire (bnll, tkr)

+census (bull,tkr, sjkf) +

monitoring (bnll, tkr, sjkf) +

reproduction & demography (bnll,

tkr)

census for bull, tkr partly1

completed; some aspects of

grazing and fire management

for tkr in progress; some

aspects of reproduction and

demography for bull, tkr

completed or inprogress

4.26 Pixley National

Wildlife RefugeAllensworth Ecological

Reserve, Kern National

Wildlife RefugeSemitropic Ridge

Natural Area, Kern &

Tulare Counties and

agricultural lands as

appropriate

dispersal + movements + diet +

reproduction & demography + use of

agricultural fields + use of artificial

dens (all tasks for sjkf) + census +

monitor + reproduction &

demography (all tasks for bvls)

habitat management studies1

for bnll, tkr (see preceding

task) will provide some

information for habitat

management for sjkf

4.27 Kettleman Hills, Kings

Co.

monitoring + census + reproduction &1

demography + life history + land use

effects (all tasks for ddw)

4.28 Kettleman Hills-Devils

Den, Fresno, Kings, &

Kern Counties

competition from exotics(sjwt) + census (jpg) +monitoring (hws,jpg, sjwt)

+ reproduction & demography (sjwt)

2

4.29 Kettleman Hills, Kings

& Fresno Counties

monitoring (bnll, gkr,snkr, sjas,

sjkf, sjlt)

habitat management studies

(grazing, fire) & population

monitoring are in progress

3

4.30 Lemoore Naval Air

Station, Kings Co.

effects of grazing + effects of fire +

census + monitoring (all tasks for flu’)

in progress1

4.31 Kreyenhagen Hills,

Fresno Co.

effects of grazing (ejf) + competition

from exotics (ejf) + census (cjf) +

monitoring (cjf, tgm, snkr,sjlt,

sjkf)+ reproduction & demography

(ejf) + identity of pollinators (ejO+

seed banking (eji) + pesticide effects

on pollinators

priority is for cjf tasks;

monitoring for other species

can be accomplished during

trips to study cjf

2

213
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of theSan Joaquin Valley

Rauiuy

Task #

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target Species1 Comments Priority

4.32 Jacalitos Hills, Fresno

Co.

monitoring + reproduction &

demography (all tasks for sjwt)

2

4.33 Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve, Fresno Co.

census (pbbb) + monitoring (pbbb,

hws, bnll, sjkf, possibly fkr) +

reproduction & demography (pbbb) +

seed banking (pbbb)

monitoring is priority I if fkr

is rediscovered or

reestablished there

2

4.34 Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve & Kerman

Ecological Reserve,

Fresno Co.

census (Kerman Ecological Reserve;

Iss,lhsb) + monitoring (Kerman

Ecological Reserve; Iss, lhsb, ball,

possibly flu’) + competition from

Heermann’s kangaroo rat (flu’)

4.35 W. MaderaCo. census (pbbb, Iss) + monitoring

(pbbb, Iss, ball, sjkf, possibly flu’) +

reproduction & demography (pbbb,

ball) + seed banking (pbbb)

pbbb blooms and sets seeds in

summer to early fall, so life

cycle overlaps much of period

for studying bnll

2

4.36 W. Madera Co. +

Woodland, Yolo Co.

genetics (pbbb) 2

4.37 Ciervo-Panoche

Natural Area,Fresno &

San Benito Counties

land use effects (casb,snlu’) +

census (jpg, snkr) + monitoring

(sjwt, jpg, easb,sjdb) +

reproduction & demography (sjwt,

easb, sjdb) + life history (easb, sjdb)

gkr census completed 2

4.38 Ciervo-Panoche

Natural Area,Fresno &

San Benito Counties

census (sjkf) + monitoring (ball, gkr,

snkr, sjas, sjkf, tgm)

sjkf census partly completed

(northern portion of area)

2

4.39 all sites, Fresno, Kern,

Kings, Merced, & San

Luis Obispo Counties

systematics (lhsb) study directed at relationship

of CarrizoPlain Natural Area

population

3

4.40 all sites, Merced Co. systematics (mp) 3

4.41 all sites, Kern,

Monterey, & San Luis

Obispo Counties

systematics (tbw) 3

4.42 San Luis Island,

Merced Co.

census + monitoring (lhsb) 2

4.43 riparian communities,

San Joaquin &

Stanislaus Counties

population census (rbr, rwr) +

monitoring (rbr, rwr) + captive

breeding research (rbr) +

experimental introduction and

reintroduction (rbr, rwr)

214
Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley

Ravwwy

Task#

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target Species’ Comments Priority

4.44 Northwest portion of

range, Valley fringes on

eastern & northwestern

sides (ContraCosta,

Alameda, San Joaquin,

Stanislaus, Merced,

Fresno, Kings, Kern, &

Tulare Counties)

census + monitoring (sjkf) 2

4.45 Camp Roberts,

Monterey & San Luis

Obispo Counties

land use effects + dispersal + census

+ monitoring + investigate reasons

for recent population declime (sjkf)

some aspects of land use

effects & monitoring are in

progress

2

4.46 Ft. Hunter Liggelt,

Monterey Co.

land use effects + dispersal + census

+ monitoring + investigate reasons

forrecent population decline (sjkf)

some aspects of land use

effects & monitoring are in

progress

2

4.47 Springtown, Alameda

Co.

effects of grazing + monitoring +

reproduction & demography + seed

banking (all tasks for pbbb)

2

4.48 Springtown, Alameda

Co.

hydrologic study (pbbb) study ongoing

4.49 Sacramento National

Wildlife Refuge

complex + Woodland;

Colusa, Glenn, & Yolo

Counties

competition from exotics (National

Wildlife Refuges only) + monitoring

+ reproduction & demography +

seed banking (all tasks for pbbb)

2

4.50 currently verified sites

in Butte, Kern, and

Merced Counties

census + monitoring (Iss) 2

4.51 all sites metapopulation genetics (boll) 3

4.52 all sites metapopulation genetics (sjkf) some aspects of study

completed or in progress

2

4.53 all sites population genetics (bvls) genetics studies must be

conducted prior to

reintroduction efforts to ensure

that animals taken to establish

new populations are

genelically representative of

the parent population without

depleting the genetic diversity

of the parent population

2

215
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Rau~uy

Task#

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target 1 Comments Priority

4.54 all sites population genetics (rbr) genetics studies must be1

conducted priorto

reintroduction effortsto

ensure that animals taken to

establish new populations are

genetically representative of

the parent population without

depleting the genetic diversity

of the parent population

4.55 all sites population genetics (rwr) genetics studies must be1

conducted prior to

reintroduction efforts to

ensure that animals taken to

establish new populations are

genetically representative of

the parent population without

depleting the genetic diversity

of the parent population

4.56 TBD effects of pesticide use & drift (bvls) potential sites are Kern Lake

& Kern National Wildlife

Refuge

2

4.57 TBD kit fox-red fox-coyote interactions

(sjkf)

depending on survey results

implement control methods as

needed

2

4.58 TBD direct & indirect effects of rodenticide

use (sjkf’)

potential sites are the Pixley

National Wildlife Refuge

Allensworth Natural AreaKern National Wildlife

Refuge area & the Lokern

Elk Hills area

3

4.59 TBD census + monitoring + seed banking

(bss)

depends on survey results

4.60 TBD census + monitoring (cpl) depends on survey results 2

4.61 TBD census + monitoring + seed banking

(dpcp)

depends on survey results1

4.62 TBD census + monitoring + seed banking

(Iss)

depends on survey results1

4.63 TBD census + monitoring + seed banking

(mm)

depends on survey results1

216
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

RaDIuy

Task #

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target Species1 Comments

4.64 TBD census + monitoring (mp) depends on survey results 2

4.65 TBD census + monitoring (mtt) depends on survey results 2

4.66 TBD census + monitoring (tp) depends on survey results 2

4.67 TBD census + monitoring + seed banking

(vc)

depends on survey results 1

4.68 N/A salinity effects on plant structure (bss) laboratory study 3

4.69 N/A effects of beet leatbopper control

(casb, ddw, sjdb)

laboratory study 2

4.70 N/A publish scientific name & description

(ddw)

establishing scientific validity

of species status & formal

naming are importantin

setting prioritiesfor recovery

funding

3

4.71 N/A matrix projection modeling (eji) modeling should show that all

protected populations are selfsustaining

3

4.72 N/A matrix projection modeling (pbbb) modeling should show that all

protected populations are selfsustaining

3

4.73 N/A matrix projection modeling (kin) modeling should show that all

protected populations are self

sustaining

3

4.74 N/A matrix projection modeling (sjwt) modeling should show that all

protected populations are selfsustaining

3

4.75 N/A matrix projection modeling (be) modeling should show that all

protected populations are selfsustaining

3

4.76 N/A single-metapopulation viability

analysis (gkr)

Model should show no greater

than a 5-percent probability of

extinction over a 200-year

period in each of the three

largest metapopulations;

preliminary modeling in

progress

3

217
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Ra~iuy

Task #

Study Area

(if applicable) Tasks and Target ~ Comments Priority

4.77 N/A single-metapopulation viability

analysis (fkr)

Model should show no

greater than a 5-percent

probability of extinction over

a 200-year period for the

entire population;

preliminary modeling in

progress

3

4.78 N/A single-metapopulation viability

analysis (tkr)

Model should show no

greater than a 5-percent

probability of extinction over

a 200-year period forthe

entire population;

preliminary modeling in

progress

3

4.79 N/A single-metapopulation viability

analysis (bnll)

Model should show no

greater than 5-percent

probability of extinction over

a 200-year period forfive or

more ofseven populations;

preliminary modeling in

progress

3

4.80 N/A refine spatially-explicit

metapopulation viability analysis

(sjkf)

Model should show no

greater than 5-percent

probability of extinction for

entire subspeciespopulation

in 300 years; preliminary

modeling in progress

3

4.81 Lawrence Livermore

Laboratory, Site 300

census + monitoring + seed banking1

(dpcp)

4.82 TBD effects of selenium (bvls) Potential sites are Kern Lake

and Kern National Wildlife

Refuge

2

Species

bc — Bakersfield cactus; bnll — Blunt-nosedleopard lizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena Vista Lake shrew; casb —

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf — California jewelfiower; cpl — Comanche Point layia; ddw — Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp —

Diamond-petaled Californiapoppy; fkr— Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr — Giant kangaroo rat; hws — Hoover’s woolly-star; jpg — Jared’s

peppergrass; km — Kern mallow;lhsb — Lost Hillssaitbush; lss — Lessersaltscale; mm — Merced monardella; mp — Merced phacelia;

mtt — Munz’s tidy-tips; ons — Oil neststraw; pbbb — Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak; tp — Tejon poppy;rbr — Riparianbrushrabbit; rwr

— Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf — San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San

Joaquinkangaroo rat; sjlt — San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher; sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr— Short-nosed kangaroo rat;

tbw — Temblor buckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — Tipton kangaroo rat; vc — Vasek’s clarkia

218
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

S Maintain and establish linkages in existing natural lands and between islands of habitat on the Valley floor

and natural lands around the fringe of the Valley.

To preventgenetic isolation of populations of listed and sensitive specieson the Valley floor from populations

in the surrounding foothills, or the isolation of kit fox populations in any part oftheir range, linkages should

be maintained and!or established through management or conservation agreements, incentive programs,

zoning, acquisition, easements, or other mechanisms.

5.1 Establish linkages between isolated islands of habitat on the Valley floor and natural lands in the

surrounding foothills.

Table it describeslinkage areas on the Valley floor and Figure 72 shows their location. For linkages

of natural habitat,such asthe ChowchillaCanal and Kern River,the primary goal isto enhancenatural

habitat without compromising the primary function of these waterways. To establish linkages in

farmlands, two programs are recommended: 1) focused retirement ofdrainage problem farmlandsand

subsequent restoration of natural habitat, (see Task 1.2.6); and 2) focused implementation of a

voluntary “safe harbor” program that would establish wildlife friendly habitat areas on active

farmlands (see Task 1.2.5). The resulting linkages would be a mosaic of existing natural lands, retired

and restored farmland, and active farmlands with associated wildlife habitat areas.

Table 11. Valley Floor Linkage Areas. See Figure 72 forthe location of each linkage area.

II&(UIUY

Task #

Locality County Species (target in bold)1 Landowner/Comments Priority

5.1.1 Western

Fresno

County

(Valley

floor west

of Fresno

Slough and

San Joaquin

River)

Fresno sjkf, snkr, bnll, hws,

lhsb, Iss, pbbb, gkr

Private farmland! located between

natural lands of western Fresno County,

in the Monocline Ridge-Tumey HillsPanoche Hills area and Mendota Wildlife

Area and western Madera County, retire

strategic parcels to provide continuous

link of natural lands; one target area for

retirement and safe harbor program is

along Panoche Creek

2

5.1.2 Garces

Highway

Kern,

Tulare

bnll, tkr, sjkf, sjas, tgm Private farmland! located between Kern

National Wildlife Refuge-Semitropic

Ridge Natural Area and Pixley

Allensworth Natural Area

2

5.1.3 Highway 43 Tulare bnll, tkr, sjkf Private farmland! located between

Creighton Ranch andPixley-Allensworth

Natural Area

3

5.1.4 Semitropic

Ridge to

Lost Hills

Kern sjkf Private farmland! links to Garces

Highway corridor

3

5.1.5 Kettleman

Hills to

Anticline

Ridge

Fresno,

Kings,

Kern

bnll, sjkf, snkr, tgm, sjlt Private farmland!links with Coalinga

and Guijarral Hills and rest of natural

lands on the west edge of the Valley.

2

219
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

R~I1IUY

Task #

Locality County Species (target in bold)1 Landowner/Comments Priority

5.1.6 Kern River

Alluvial

Fan Area

Kern sjkf, tkr City of Bakersfield, Private/develop and

implement management plan to protect

and enhance natural values while

maintaining flood-protection features,

connecting corridor for sjkf movements

across the southern Valley.

3

5.1.7 Chowchilla

Canal

Madera pbbb, bull, fkr, sjkf COF! enhance habitat values without

compromising primary function, links

Wildlife Areas, National Wildlife

Refuges, and grasslands areas.

2

5.1.8 Sandy

Mush Road

Merced lhsb, bull, sjkf, Iss,

pbbb, fkr

Private/links Merced County National

WildlifeRefuges and State areas with the

northeastern and northwestern edges of

the Valley and with natural areas further

south in Madera andFresno Counties.

2

5.1.9 Poso Creek Kern sjkf Kern County, Private! links natural lands

in the Sierra foothills on the east and

Kern National Wildlife Refuge on the

west.

3

Species

bc — Bakersfield cactus; bnll — Blunt-nosed leopard lizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena VistaLake shrew; casb —

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf — California jewelflower; cpl — Comanche Point layia; ddw — Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp —

Diamond-petaled California poppy; fkr — Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr — Giantkangaroo rat; hws — Hoover’s woolly-star; jpg — Jared’s

peppergrass; km — Kernmallow;lhsb — Lost Hillssaltbush; Iss — Lessersaltscale; mm — Merced monardella;mp — Merced phacelia;

mtt — Munz’s tidy-tips; ons — Oil neststraw; pbbb — Palmate-bractedbird’s-beak; tp — Tejon poppy; rbr — Riparianbrushrabbit; rwr

— Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf — San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San

Joaquinkangaroo rat; sjlt — San JoaquinLeConte’s thrasher; sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr — Short-nosed kangaroo rat;

tbw — Temblor buckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — Tipton kangaroo rat; vc — Vasek’s clarkia

220
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Figure 72. General locations ofareas targeted as Valleyfloor linkages between natural communities (ree table 12).

221
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

222
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

5.2 Reintroduce featured species to enhanced and restored habitat within linkages where necessary

(Priority 3).

Once habitat restoration and enhancement has been accomplished in protected areas, appropriate

featuredplant and animal species should be reestablished ifthere areno adjacent source populations.

Species such as Hoover’s woolly-star, San Joaquin kit fox, kangaroo rats, and blunt-nosed leopard

lizards have potential for reestablishment on restored farmlands.

5.3 Maintain linkages of natural lands aroundthe fringe of the Valley and elsewhere for San Joaquin kit

fox and other listed and sensitive species.

Table 12 describeslinkage areas on the fringe ofthe San Joaquin Valley and inadjacent valleysto the

west. Figure 73 depicts linkage areas in the foothills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley.

Maintenance of these linkages could be achieved through zoning, safe harbor programs (Task 1.2.5),

easements, or other mechanisms.

Table 12. Linkage Areas Around the San Joaquin Valley Edge and Elsewhere. See Figure 73 for the location of

linkage areas around the San Joaquin Valley.

Task #

Locality County Speciesi

(target in bold)

Landowner/Comments Priority

5.3.1 NortheastValley

edge to MaderaFresno County line

San Joaquin,

Stanislaus,

Merced,

Madera

sjkf, mp, mm Mostly private! grassland and oak

savanna communities, preserve 90

percent of existing natural lands,

maintain grazing and other compatible

land uses

3

5.3.2 Northwest Valley

edge to Santa Nella

San Joaquin,

Stanislaus,

Merced

sjkf Mostly private! grassland and oak

savanna communities, maintain

grazing and other compatible land uses

2

5.3.3 East and Southeast

Valley edge,

Fresno-Tulare

County boundary

south to Kern

River, Kern County

Tulare, Kern sjkf, bnll, sjas,

snkr, tgm, cjf,

bc, tp, ons

Mostly private! grassland and oak

savanna communities, urbanization,

maintain grazing and other compatible

land uses

2

5.3.4 Western Valley

edge, Santa Nella

to Panoche Creek

Merced, Fresno sjkf, jpg, lhsb,

mtt, sjas, snkr

Mostly private! grassland and

shrubland communities, maintain

grazing and other compatible land uses

2

5.3.5 Western Valley

edge, Panoche

Creek to Ciervo

Wash

Fresno sjkl, jpg, hws,

sjwt, boll, gkr,

sjas, snkr, tgm,

sjlt

Mostly private! grassland and

shrubland communities, maintain

grazing andother compatible land uses

2

5.3.6 Western Valley

edge, Ciervo Wash

to Coalinga

Fresno sjkf, jpg, hws,

sjwt, boll, gkr,

sjas, snkr, tgm,

sjlt

Mostly private! grassland and shrubland communities, maintain grazing

and other compatible land uses

2

223
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Task Locality # County Species’ (targetin bold) Landowner/Comments Priority

5.3.7 Western Valley

edge, Coalinga to

McKittrick

Fresno,

Kings,

Kern

sjkf, ejf,jpg,

hws, lhsb, ons,

sjwt, bull, gkr,

sjas, snkr, tgm,

sjlt

Mostly private! grassland and shrubland

communities, maintain grazing and other

compatible land uses

2

5.3.8 Southwest,

Southern, and

Southeastern

Valley edge,

McKittrick south to

Maricopa, east and

north to Kern River

Kern sjkf, be, epl,

hws, ons, tp,

ye, sjwt, bnll,

gkr, sjas, snkr,

tgm, sjlt, cjf,

lhsb, km

Mostly private! grassland and shrubland

communities, maintain grazing and other

compatible land uses

2

5.3.9 Salinas/Pajaro

River watershed to

San Joaquin Valley

Monterey,

San Benito,

San Luis

Obispo

sjkf Private, public! grassland and shrubland

communities, preserve and enhance

habitat and linkage to the San Joaquin

Valley via the Est.rella River and San

Juan Creek watersheds,to the Carrizo

PlainNatural Area, San Joaquin Valley

and KettlemanHills area, maintain

grazing and other compatible land uses

2

5.3.10 Cuyama Valley to

Carrizo Plain

Natural Area

through lower

portions ofCaliente

Mountains

San Luis

Obispo

hws, boll, gkr,

sjas, snkr, sjkf

Private, public! grassland and shrubland

communities, maintain grazing and other

compatible land uses

3

5.3.11 Estrella River

watershed

San Luis

Obispo,

Monterey

dpcp, tbw, sjkf Private! maintain grazing and other

compatible land uses

3

5.3.12 San Juan Creek

watershed

San Luis

Obispo

sjkf, bnll, gkr,

sjas, snkr, tgm,

dpcp, sjwt, tbw

Private! provides a significant portion of

the natural lands linking Salinas Valley

and CarrizoPlain Natural Area

populations ofthe sjkf, maintain area in

its current mosaic of dryland grain farms

and ranch lands, many farmlands in the

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Conservation Reserve Program

3

Species

bc — Bakersfield cactus; bnll — Blunt-nosed leopard lizard; bss — Bakersfield smallscale; bvls — Buena Vista Lake shrew; cash —

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle; cjf — California jewelfiower; cpl — Comanche Point layia; ddw — Doyen’s dune weevil; dpcp —

Diamond-petaledCalifornia poppy; flr — Fresno kangaroo rat; gkr — Giant kangaroo rat; hws — Hoover’s woolly-star;jpg — Jared’s

peppergrass; km — Kernmallow;lhsb — Lost Hillssaltbush;Iss — Lesser saltscale;mm — Merced monardella; mp — Merced phacelia;

mtt — Munz’stidy-tips; ons — Oil neststraw; pbbb — Palmate-bractedbird’s-beak;tp — Tejon poppy; rbr — Riparian brush rabbit; rwr

— Riparian woodrat; sjas — San Joaquin antelope squirrel; sjdb — San Joaquin dune beetle; sjkf — San Joaquin kit fox; sjkr — San

Joaquin kangaroo rat; sjlt — San JoaquinLe Conte’s thrasher;sjwt — San Joaquin woolly-threads; snkr — Short-nosed kangaroo rat;

tbw — Temblorbuckwheat; tgm — Tulare grasshopper mouse; tkr — Tipton kangaroo rat; vc — Vasek’s clarkia

224
JfJOf UMNF CO

FRFSNO CO

SAN LUIS OLWP

0 10 YE 30 40

0 70 20 3 0 40 so 60 m 80

Kilomaters

Public lands: Federal, State 81 Conservation lands (some lands

unsuitable for species addressed in this plan) m

Drainage problems areas

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Areas along the valley’s edges within which a contiguous band of San Joaquin Valley Multispecies Recovery Plan study area

natural lands and wildlife-compatible farmlands should be maintained 2,’

v+I3 Proposed Specialty Reserve areas Existing and proposed Habitat Conservation Plans

I,

. ,

1 Proposed areas where connectivity and linkages should be promoted
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

226
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

6 Apply adaptive management to protected areas (Priority 3).

Revise or develop new management plans for protected habitat. All featured species require research on a

vanety of land management topicsto develop the most effectiveprescriptionsfor managing protected habitat.

Once appropriate research has beenconducted, results should be applied to protected areas. Based on results

of research and monitoring, existingmanagement plans should be revisedor newplans developed tomaximize

the value of protected habitat for featured species.

7 If necessary, reintroduce selected featured species to appropriate habitat within their historic range.

Several featured species may require reintroduction to appropriate habitat within their historic range if

surveying efforts do not discover enough extant populations to meet delisting criteria. Specific sites for

reintroducing these species are currently unknown.

7.1 Reintroduce Doyen’s dune weevil to appropriate habitat (Priority 3).

Sites for reintroduction depend on results of life history studies as well as surveying for extant

populations and identifying suitable habitat for reintroduction.

7.2 Propagate and reintroduce Bakersfield smallscale to appropriate habitat (Priority 1).

Ifpopulations of pureBakersfield smallscale are identified through research orsurveys, propagatethe

species in the greenhouse to produce a sufficient amount ofseed, then reintroduce tohistoric habitat

on the Valley floor.

7.3 Reintroduce Comanche Point layia to appropriate habitat (Priority 2).

Using seed collected from populations in the wild or stored in seed banks, reintroduce Comanche

Point layia to appropriate habitat on the Valley floor.

7.4 Propagate and reintroduce California jewelfiower to appropriate habitat (Priority 2).

Propagate California jewelfiower in greenhouses to produce sufficient seed, then reintroduce to

appropriate habitat within the historic range, including the Valley floor.

7.5 Reintroduce Vasek’s clarkia to appropriate habitat (Priority 2).

Propagate Vasek’s clarkia ingreenhouses to produce sufficient seed, then reintroduce to appropriate

habitat within the historic range.

7.6 Propagate and reintroduce diamond-petaled California poppy to appropriate habitat (Priority 1).

Propagate diamond-petaled California poppy in greenhouses to produce sufficient seed, then

reintroduce to appropriate habitat within the historic range.

7.7 Propagate and reintroduce Merced monardella to appropriate habitat (Priority 1).

Propagate Merced monardella in greenhouses to produce sufficient seed, then reintroduce to

appropriate habitat within the historic range.

7.8 Reintroduce riparian brush rabbit, riparian woodrat, Buena Vista Lake shrew, if necessary.

7.8.1 Reintroduce riparian brush rabbit to appropriate habitat in conjunction with captive

propagation (Priority 1).

227
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

7.8.2 Reintroduce riparian woodrat to appropriate habitat (Priority 1).

7.8.3 Reintroduce Buena Vista Lake shrewto appropriate habitat (Priority 1).

8 Periodically review the status of candidates and species of concern to determine if listing as endangered or

threatened is necessary.

One of the objectives of this recovery plan is to ensure the long-term conservation of candidates and other

species of concern by carrying out tasks specific to the needs of these species. However, if these tasks are not

undertaken within a reasonable amount of time, listing of many of these species may be appropriate, thereby

providing the protection of formal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Table 13 lists the species

requiring this status review and the time frame for conducting this review.

Table 13. Status Review Requirements for Candidates and Other Species of Concern Featured in this Recovery

Plan.

Reeover3r

Task#

Species Federal Status Needed Review Priority

8.1 Lesser saltscale species ofconcern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.2 Bakersfield

smallscale

species of concern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan

approval

3

8.3 Lost Hills saltbush species of concern reevaluate status within 10 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.4 Vasek’s clarkia species of concern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan

approval

3

8.5 Temblor

buckwheat

species of concern reevaluate status within 10 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.6 Tejon poppy species ofconcern reevaluate status within 10 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

~

8.7 Diamond-petaled

California poppy

species of concern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.8 Comanche Point

layia

species of concern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.9 Munz’s tidy-tips species of concern reevaluate status within 10 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.10 Jared’s

peppergrass

species of concern reevaluate status within 10 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

8.11 Merced

monardella

species of concern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan

approval or when surveys completed, whichever is less

3

228
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Reeovey

Task#

Species Federal Status Needed Review Priority

status within 10 years of recovery plan

when surveys completed, whichever is less

8.12 Merced phacelia species of concern reevaluate

approval or

3

8.13 Oil neststraw species of concern reevaluate

approval

status within 5 years of recovery plan 3

status within 5 years of recovery plan

when new information is available,

is less

8.14 Ciervo aegialian

scarab beetle

species of concern reevaluate

approval or

whichever

3

status within 5 years of recovery plan

when new information is available,

is less

8.15 San Joaquin dune

beetle

species of concern• reevaluate

approval or

whichever

3

8.16 Doyen’s dune

weevil

species of concern reevaluate

approval

status within 3 years of recovery plan 3

8.17 San Joaquin

antelope squirrel

species of concern reevaluate

approval

status within 3 years of recovery plan 3

8.18 Short-nosed

kangaroo rat

species of concern reevaluate

approval

status within 3 years of recovery plan 3

8.19 Tulare

grasshopper

mouse

species of concern reevaluate

approval

status within 5 years of recovery plan 3

8.20 Buena Vista Lake

shrew

Candidate reevaluate status within 3 years of recovery plan

approval

3

8.21 San Joaquin Le

Conte’s thrasher

species of concern reevaluate status within 5 years of recovery plan 3

approval or when new information is available,

whicheveris less

229
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

230
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Prioritiesin the Implementation Schedule are arranged

in two tiers. Priority numbers (column 1 of the schedule) are the priorities defined in section IV. Priority numbers are organized into tiers or levels of descending priority—that is, within a tier all tasks with the same priority number are of approximately equal priority, butTier1 tasks have higher priority than Tier-2 tasks, and so on

within that priority rank. Where possible, tasks within a

tier are ordered indescendingpriority, atleastinthe sense

that one or more tasks may have to be started or completed before another task can be accomplished. Yet it

should be apparent that no linear hierarchy can suitably

express the complex interrelationships between tasks. To

accomplish the goal of recovering the ecosystems of

which they are parts, and consequently this suite of species, all tasks have to be successfully executed.

Some tasks likely will take considerable time to complete, and some are going to be much more difficult to

accomplish because they involve more diverse interest

groups. Tasks that are mostly or solely within the jurisdiction of governmental agencies are listed before other,

similartasks involving private entities because the former

should be more easily accomplished at lower costs and

will putthe focus of recovery actions on public lands and

agencies. Many of the research tasks are best combined

into single research programs for both economy and timeliness, but are listed separately for purposes of costing.

Definition of task priorities:

Priority 1—An action that must be taken to prevent

extinction or prevent the species from declining

irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2—An action that must be taken to prevent a

significant decline in species population or habitat

quality, or some other significant negative impact short

of extinction.

Priority 3—All other actions necessary to meet the

recovery objectives.

Definition of task durations:

Continual—A task that will be implemented on a routine

basis once begun.

Ongoing—A task that is currently being implemented

and will continue until action is no longer necessary.

Unknown—Either task duration or associated costs are

not known at thistime.

Key to Acronyms used inthe

Implementation Schedule

Responsible parties:

BOR—Bureau of Reclamation

Caltrans—California Department of Transportation

CANG—California Army National Guard

CDFA—California Department of Food & Agriculture

CDFG—California Department of Fish & Game

CDPR—California Department ofParks & Recreation

CDWR—California Department of Water Resources

CEC—California Energy Commission

CEPA—California Environmental Protection Agency

COE—Army Corp of Engineers

CPNA—Carrizo Plain Natural Area

DOD—Department of Defense

DOE—Department of Energy

ER—Ecological Reserve

KWBA—Kern Water Bank Authority

KCWA—Kern County Water Agency

local—local government

NAS—Naval Air Station

NPRC—Naval Petroleum Reserves in California

NWR—National Wildlife Refuge

ROW—Right of way

TBD—To Be Determined

TNC—The Nature Conservancy

USBLM—Bureau of Land Management

USDA—Department of Agriculture

USFS—ForestService

USFWS—Fish & Wildlife Service

USN—Navy

231
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier, tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Tk ~ Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — — —

Total

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

2.1.1 Protect habitat &at Elk secureHillsisted andspecies Buena

Vista Valley

ongoing DOE/USFWS/ Occidental 5 2 1 1 05

12.1.4

Protect natural lands on Valley

floor & piedmont slopes of

western Kern Co.

ongoing

CDFG/CDWR/

USFWS/

USBLM

1.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25

This task is for

administrative actions

only; depends on 1.2.2

12.1.7 Protect natural land in the Pixley NWR-Allensworth NA area ongoing USFWS/ CDFGI local TBD Partly depends on 1.2.2

12.2.3

Protect & restorc riparian habitat

for riparian brush rabbits and woodrats on Stanislaus River,

particularly at Caswell State Park

6 years

COEIUSFWS/ CDFG/CDPR 8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

I2.2.6

Expand, restore, & protect Fresno

kangaroo rat habitat at Lemoore

NAS

ongoing USN/USFWS 10 1.3 3.5 2 2

Includes management

research, retirement of

agricultural ground, &

adaptive management

12.2.19

Protect natural land & establish

specialty reserve for Bakersfield

cactus at Sand Ridge

ongoing

USFWS/ CDFG/

CO~~NCI

local

TBD

Depends partly on 1.2.2;

protection ongoing

4.43

Conduct multipic research tasks

tbr riparian species in San

Joaquin & Stanislaus Counties

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/

CDPR

TBD 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Monitoring ongoing;

census indefinitely

114.54

Conduct population genetics

research on the riparian brush

rabbit

2 years

USFWS/

CDFG/

CDPRICOE

0 8 0 4 0 4

Conduct population genetics research on the riparian woodrat 2 years USFWS/ CDFG/

CDPR/COE

0 8 0 4 0 4

a

~1

a

(5

‘5

a

a

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier~ tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Iescription Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— —— ——

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

2 2.1.12 Protect, restore & enhance the Carrizo Plain Natural Area ongoing USBLM/ CDFG/TNC/

private

30 5 5 5 5

2 2.1.14 Protect natural lands in the Ciervo- Panoche Natural Area ongoing CDFG/ USBLM/ private 18 3 3 3 3 Depends partly on 1.2.2

2 2.1.15 Protect & manage natural lands adaptively in the Kreyenhagen Hills ongoing USBLM/ private 2 0.5 05 05 0.2 Depends partly on 1.2.2

2 2.1.17

Protect & manage lands

appropriately in the Kerman &

Alkali Sink ERs

ongoing CDFG 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 05

12 2,2.1

Protect & enhance habitat for

palmate-bracted bird’s beak on City

of Woodland propcrty

ongoing USFWS/local TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

2 2.2.2

Protect, restore, & enhance habitat

for palmate-bracted bird’s beak at

Sprintown Alkali Sink

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2, 4.47

2 2.2.24

Protect habitat for Doyen’s dune

weevil in Caltrans ROW, conduct

survey to determine land ownership

ongoing Caltrans 0 75 0 25 0.25 0 25

2 3.1

Establish a program & protocol for

general & directed surveys for

featured species

1 year

USFWS/

CDFG/

USBLM

I I

Relates to program

establishment and protocol

development only

12 4.11

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for multiple animal

& one plant species in the Lokern

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/

USBLM/

CDWRI

CEC/private

9.0 2 5 7.5 1 6 1.7

Research for 5-year

minimum; monitoring

ongoing

2 4.16

Conduct multiple research tasks on

San Joaquin kit fox in Metropolitan

Bakersfield

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/county TBD

‘5

a

•1

a

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

a

5-’

S.

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, california. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (In $100,000 units)

— — — — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

2 4.26

Conduct multiple research task on

the kit fox and census and

demography data on the Buena

Vista Lake shrew in southern

Tulare & northern Kern counties

5 years

USFWS/

CDFG/

BOR

5.2 I I I 1.1

2 4.30 Conduct research tasks multipleat Lemoore habitat related NAS

for Fresno kangaroo rat

6-10

years

USN/USFWS/

USBLM

8.85 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.6 USBLM prescribed assistance burningwith

12 4.34

Conduct multiple research tasks in

the Kerman & Alkali Sink ERs for multiple plant & animal

species

ongoing USFWS/ 1.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Monitoring ongoing;

research 5 years

2 4.48 Research hydrology at Springtown Alkali Sink 3 yearsUSFWS/local/ private 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 Study ongoing

2 4.81 Census, diamond-petaled monitor, California & bank seeds poppyof

at Lawrence Livermore Lab

ongoing DOEIUSFWS/ CDFG 0.3 0.15 0.15 Monitoring ongoing

3 2.1.3

Protect, restore, & enhance upland

& wetland communities on Kcm

Fan Elemcnt for Bakersfield

smallscale, & other species, and

consider habitat enhancement and

introduction of Buena Vista Lake

shrew

5 years

USFWS/BORI

KWBA/

KCWAI

private

1 1 1 I

In conjunction with

development of waterbanking facilities; depends

partly on 1.2.2

3 2.1.5 Protect natural lands in western Madera Co. TBD US’~S/BORI CDFG/private TBD

Privately owned grazing

land; depends partly on 1.2.2

3 2.1.10 Protect natural land in Kettleman Hills ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/ CDFG/

CDPR/BOR

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

‘5

N

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

5-,

(5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Duration

Responsible

N~es

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

—Total — — — —

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

3 2.2.22

Protect natural land & establish

speciality reservc for Bakersfield cactus at Mcttler-Wheeler Ridge

area

ongoing CDWR/local CDFG/ TBD Partly depends on 1.2.2

3 3.2.1

Conduct surveys for target plant

species in the Comanche-Tejon

1-lills

3 years CDFG

0.45 0.15 0 15 0 15

3 3.2.2 Conduct surveys for target plant species in the Caliente-Bena Hills 3 years

USFWS/

CDFG/ USBLM 0.45 0.15 0 15 0 15

3 3.2.4

Conduct surveys for target plant

species in southern Valley alkali

sinks in summer-fall

3 years

USFWS/

CDFG/

USBLM

0.45 0.15 0.15 0.15

3 3.2.5

Complcte surveys for target plant

species in Valley alkali sinks

north of Kern Co. in summer-fall

3 years USFWS 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1

3 3.2.7 Conduct surveys for target plant species at Elk Hills ongoing Occidental 0 45 0 15 0 15 0 15 Complete DOE requirement

3 3.2.8

Conduct surveys for target plant

species on the west side of the

southern Valley

3 ycars

USFWS/

USBLM/

CDFG

0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

3 3.2.12

Conduct surveys in historic

locations for the diamond-petaled

California poppy

3 years

USFWS/

USBLM/

CDPG

06 02 02 02

3 3.2.15

Conduct surveys for Merced

monardella in suitable habitat

within historic range

3 years

USFWS/COE/

CDFG

045 0.15 0 15 0 15

3 3.2.26

Conduct surveys for riparian

species in San Joaquin &

Stanislaus Counties

3 years

I

FWS/COE/

CDFG

06 0 2 0 2 0.2

‘5

N

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description Task Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

Total —FY01 —FY02 —FY03 —FY04

Costs

Comments/Notes

3 3.2.30

Conduct survcys for Buena Vista

Lake shrew in southern Valley

wetlands (includes target plant

species)

3 years

USFWS/

CDFG/BORI

KWBA

0.6 0.2 0 2 0 2

3 4.19

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for multiple species in the Sand Ridge &

Bena-Caliente area

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/COE/

TNC

5 1 I I I Monitoring ongoing; research 5 years

3 4.27

Conduct multiple research tasks

for Doyen’s dune weevil in the

Kettleman Hills

5 years USFWS/

Caltrans

1 0.1 0.2 0.3 03

3 7.6

Propagate diamond-petaled

California poppy in greenhouses & reintroduce to appropriate

habitat as necessary

TBD USFWS/ CDFG 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 Depends on finding seed

sources

3 7.7

Propagate Merced monardella in

greenhouses & reintroduce to

appropriate habitat as necessary

TBD USFWS/

CDFG

0.5 Depends on finding extant

population

4 2.2.4

Protect, restore, & enhance

habitats for riparian brush rabbit & riparian woodrat on San

Joaquin River NWR

10 years USFWS/COE/ local 8 2.5 1 1

4 2.2.5

Protect, restore & manage riparian

& upland habitat along the San

Joaquin River in Merced Co.

IS years

USFWS/COE/

BORICDFG/

CDPRIIocaI

10 0.5 2 2

14 2.2.7

Protect natural land north of the

Tulare Lake Bed for Fresno kangaroo rats & other species in

Kings Co.

TBD

USFWS/

CDFG/ local/private TBD Private grazing land

4 2.2.14

Develop specialty reserve for

Bakersfield cactus in Kern Bluffs

area

TBD

USFWS/

CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

0’,

‘5

N

~0

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

C-,

5-’

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description Task Duration Responsible Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — — — Totsl

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

4 2.2.21

Protect & restore natural

communities at Kern Lake for Buena Vista Lake shrew &

Bakersfield smallscale

5 years USFWS/BORI KWBA/ private 5 2 1 1 0.5 Depends on 1.2.2

4 2.2.23

Protect natural communities for

California jewelfiower & other featured species at Santa Barbara

Canyon

TBD

USFS/FWS/

CDFG/BLM/ private TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

4 2.2.25

Develop & implement

management plans for palmate- bracted bird’s-beak at Colusa,

Delevan, & Sacramento NWRs

ongoing FWS 5.8 2.2 0 9 0 9 0.9 monitoring Research 5 years; ongoing

4 2.2.26

Develop & implement

management plan for diamond- petaled California poppy at

Lawrence Livermore Lab

ongoing DOE 1 3 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 2

4 4.7

Conduct multiple research tasks

on Bakersfield smallscale at Kern

Lake

5 years

USFWS/ CDFG/

local/

private

1 1 1

4 4.8

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for the Buena Vista

Lake shrew at Kern Lake

ongoing

USFWS/BOR/

KWBA

1 0.5 0 5 0 5 0 1

4 4.25

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring of multiple animal species at Pixley

NWR/Allensworth ER

ongoing USFWS/CDFG 10 2 2 2 2

Monitoring ongoing; research 6 years

4 7.2

Propagate Bakersfield smallscale

in greenhouses & reintroduce to

appropriate habitat as necessary

TBD

USFWS/

CDFG/

local/private

0.8 0 3 0 3 0 2 Depends on survey results

‘5

a

N

a.

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

a

a

‘5
Implementation Schedule for UplandSpecies, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priori~’ Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section Ill.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Resp~~ible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

F Comments/Notes

FY01

5 2.2.18

Protect natural land in Bena Hills

Caliente Hills & develop

speciality reserves for multiple plant species ongoing

USFWS/

private TBD Depends on 1.2.2

5 2.2.20

Protect natural land in ComancheTejon hills & develop speciality

reserves for multiple plant species

ongoing private

TED Depends on 1.2.2

15 3.2.18

Conduct surveys for upland

vertebrates on the northern Valley

floor

3 years

USFWS/

CDFG

0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1

5 4.12 Conduct pesticide related research for multiple species in the Lokern 5 years

USFWS/

CDFG/ USBLM/

CDFA/CEPA

12.5 2.5 25 25 25

4.13

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for oil neststraw & Hoover’s woolly-star in the Elk

Hills-Buena Vista Valley area

ongoing USFWS/COE/ private 7.455 1.515 1 485 1 485 1 485

Monitoring ongoing;

prevent disturbance; research 5 years

5 4.59

Census, monitor & bank seeds of

any populations of Bakersfield

smallscale

TED

USFWS/CDFG/

CDWR/local/

private

TBD

5 4.61

Census, monitor & bank seeds of

any populations of diamondpetaled California poppyTBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

I4.62 Census, monitor & bank seeds of

any populations of lesser saltscale TBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

15 4.63

Census, monitor & bank seeds of

any populations of Merced

monardella

TED USFWS/CDFG TBD

‘5

N

a.

C-,

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

C-,

4.-’

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, california. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tie,; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priorii’~ Numbers are the priorities defined in Section 111.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

4.67 Census, monitor & bank seeds of

any populations of Vasek’s clarkia TBD USFWS/ CDFG TBD

5 7.8.1

Reintroduce riparian brush rabbit

in conjunction with captive

propagation

TBD

FW~,’

CDFG

TBD

5 7.8.2 Reintroduce riparian woodrat TBD CDFG TBD

7.8.3 Reintroducc Buena Vista Lake shrew TBD CDFG TBD

2 1 1.1

Devclop regional cooperative

program that coordinates land use planning & biodiversity

conservation

ongoing

USFwS/ CDFG/

BOR/ USBLM/

others

TBD 1 1 1

2 1 1.2.1 Dcvelop & implement an outreach plan ongoing USFWS/ others TBD 0.5 04 03 0.3

2 1 1.2.2

Develop economic incentives for

conserving listed species & natural

communities on private lands

TBD

USFWS/

CDFG/

private

TBD Depends on legislation

2 I 1.2.6

Coordinate retirement of farmlands

with drainage problems with

recovery nccds of featured species

TBD

BORIUSFWS/

CDWR

TBD I I I

2 1 2.1.6 Protect natural lands in northcentral Fresno Co. ongoing USEWS/BOR TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 1 2.1.19

Protect & maintain compatible

land uses in the northwestern

portion of the kit fox range

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/

local/private

TBD Partly depends on 1.2.2

2 1 2.2.8

Develop specialty reserve for

Bakersfield cactus in Granite

Station area

TBD

USFWS/

private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

“0

‘5

a

5-’,

a

0.

‘5

‘5

‘5

a

a

4.-’ 0

a

a

a

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, L’alifornia. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate———(in $100,000 units)

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

F Comments/Notes

FY01

2 1 4.1

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for California jeweltiower in Santa Barbara

Canyon

ongoing

USFS/

USFWS/ USBLM/

CDFG

1.7 0.975 0.2 0 525 Monitoring ongoing

2 1 4.3

Conduct multiple rescarch &

monitoring tasks for multiple

plant species on the Camzo Plain

ongoing

USFWS/

CDFG/

BLM/TNC

TBD 2.75 1.45 1.25 2.45

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 I 4.4

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for multiple animal species on the Carrizo

Plain

ongoing

USBLM/

USFWS/

CDFG/TNC

TBD 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Monitoring ongoing; research for 5 years

2 I 4.5

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for the kit fox on

the Carrizo Plain

ongoing

USBLM/

USFWS/

CDFG/TNC

9.8 1.75 1.5 1.5 1 7

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-6 years

2 1 4.57

Determine interactions & effects

on kit foxes of red foxes, coyotes,

& feral dogs, and implement

control methods as needed

5 years USFWS/

CDFG 8.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 1 8

2 1 5.3.9

Maintain & enhance habitat for

San Joaquin kit fox in Salinas

River-Pajaro River watersheds

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

USBLM/local/

private

TBD Dcpends on 1.2.2

2 2 1.2.3

Encouragc & assist local entities

in developing & implementing

large-area HCPs

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private/

USBLM

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

2 2 1.2.4

Encourage & assist in

development & implementation of

mitigation banks

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private/

USBLM

TBD

2 2 1.2.5

Encourage & assist land owners

& private interest groups in

developing safe-harbor programs

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

‘5

N

a.

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Thsk Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section 111.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — —— —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

2 2 2.1.2 Protect San Joaquin kit fox habitat on Camp Roberts & Fort Hunter Liggett ongoing DOD/CANG/ USEWS TBD

2 2 3.2.3

Conduct surveys fortarget plant

species at Rancheria Gulch/Adobe

Canyon

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.35 0.2 0 15

2 2 3.2.4

Conduct surveys for target plant

species in southern Valley alkali

sinks in spring

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.4 0 2 0 2

2 2 3.2.5

Conduct surveys for target plant

species in Valley alkali sinks north of

Kern County in spring

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.4 0 2 0 2

2 2 3.2.6

Conduct surveys for target plant

species in alkali sinks in the

Sacramento Valley

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.4 0 2 0 2

2 2 3.2.9 Conduct surveys for California jeweltiower at Cottonwood Pass 2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.2 0 1 0 1

2 2 3.2.10

Conduct surveys for Temblor

buckwheat in historic locations

outside of Elk Hills

2 years US~VS/CDFG/ USBLM 045 0.25 0.2

2 2 3.2.11 Conduct surveys for Tejon poppy in the Salt Creek area 2 years USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM 02 01 01

2 2 3.2.13

Conduct surveys for Munzs tidy-tips

in historic locations in San Luis

Obispo Co.

2 years

USFWS/CDFG/

USBLM

0 2 0.1 0.1

2 2 3.2.14 Conduct surveys for Jared’s

peppergrass in historic locations 2 years

USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM 04 0 2 0 2

2 2 3.2.16 Conduct surveys for Merced phacelia in historic locations 2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.2 0 I 0 I

2 2 4.24 Conduct systematics & genetics research on Kern mallow 2 years USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM 07 04 03

‘5

4.-’,

N

a.

‘5

‘5

4.~

a-

‘5

5-’

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Thsk Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

Comments/Notes Total

Costs FY01

———

FY02 FY03 FY04

2 2 4.36

Conduct genetics research on

palmate-bracted bird’s-beak populations in Woodland & W.

Madera Co.

2 years LJSFWS/CDFG 0.6 0,4 0.2

2 2 4.45

multiple research tasks &

Conduct

monitoring for the kit fox at Camp

Roberts

ongoing

DOD/CANG/

USFWS

TBD I I I

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 2 4.46

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring forthe kit fox at Fort

Hunter Liggett

ongoing DOD/USFWS TBD I I I I

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 2 5.1.7

Enhance natural values of

Chowehilla Bypass easement properties as a linkage for listed

species

ongoing USFWS/COE/ BOR TBD 0.2 0.1

Graze outer banks of

levees; should generate revenue

2 3 2.1.9

Protect & enhance natural lands in

Sandy Mush Road & S. Grasslands

areas, Merced Co.

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 2.2.9 Protect natural land for multiple plant species in the Devil’s Den area ongoing USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 2.2.10

Protect natural land for multiple

plant species in the Lost Hills-Buena

Vista Slough area

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

USBLM

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 2.2.11

Protect natural land for Hoover’s

woolly-star & lesser saltscale in

Jerry Slough/Hwy 58 area

ongoing USFWS/CDFG TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 2.2.12

Protect natural land for Bakersfield

cactus & other species in Greater

Bakersfield, north of Kern River

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 2.2.13

Protect natural land for Bakersfield

cactus in Fairfax Road-Hwy 178-

Hwy 184 area

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

‘5

N

a.

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

5-’

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section 111.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Respo~ble

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

2 3 2.2.15

Protect natural land for

Bakersfield cactus in the Fuller

Acres area

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 2.2.l6

Protect natural land & establish

speciality reserve for Bakersfield

cactus at Mouth of Kern Canyon

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local TBD 0.25

Depends on 1.2.2; cost for

fencing

2 3 2.2.17

Protect natural land for

Bakersfield cactus in the

Cottonwood Creek area

ongoing USFWS/CDFG TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 3 4.10

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for multiple

plant species in the Lokern

ongoing

USFWS/

IJSBLM/

CDFG/

CDWRICEC/

private

TBD 1.55 1.43 1.43 1.18

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 3 4.14

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for multiple animal species in the Elk HillsBuena Vista Valley area

ongoing USFWS/DOE/ Private 7.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Research for 5 years

minimum; monitoring ongoing

2 3 4.15

Conduct multiple research &

monitoring tasks for San Joaquin kit fox in the Elk Hills-Buena

Vista Valley area

ongoing DOE/ 10 2 2 2 2 Monitoring ongoing;

research for 5 years

2 3 4.56

Research the effects of pesticide

usc & drift on Buena Vista Lake

shrews

5 years

CDFA/CDFG/

CEPA/

USFWS

1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

2 3 5.1.1

Restore habitat & habitat linkages

for kit foxes on the Valley floor,

western Fresno Co.

TBD

BOR/USFWS/

BLM/private

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

2 3 5.1.5

Link Kettleman Hills with

Guijarral & Coalinga Hills &

Anticline Ridge by restoring &

protecting habitat for upland

species

ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/

CDFG/

private/local

TBD I I I Depends partly on 1.2.2

‘5

‘-4,

N

a.

‘5

‘5

44

‘-4,

‘5

5-’

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — —

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Total Comments/Notes

Costs

2 3 5.3.8

Protect grass & shrubland

communities on southwestern

Valley edge from McKittrick to

Maricopa & eastward & northward

to Kern River, east of Bakersfield

ongoing

USBLM/

USFWS/

CDFG/

CDWR/

others

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 4 3.2.21 Conduct surveys for upland vertebrates in the Kettleman Hills 3 yearsUSFWS/ USBLM/ CDFG 0.7 0 3 0 2 0 2

2 4 3.2.32

Conduct surveys for kit fox in the

Salinas River & Pajaro River

watersheds

3 years USFWS/CDFG 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3

2 4 4.9

Conduct systematics & genetics

research on Bakersfield smallscale

at Kern Lakc

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.6 0.4 0.2

2 4 4.17

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for multiple plant

species in thc Lost Hills

ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/

CDFG

2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 4 4.20

Conduct research on pesticide

effects on pollinators of

Bakersfield cactus

3 years

USFWS/CDFA/

CDFG/CEPA/

USBLM

0.65 0.25 0.25 0.15

2 4 4.21

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for Bakersfield cactus at Wheeler Ridge & other locations

in Kern Co.

ongoing USFWS/ CDWR/CDFG TBD 5.425 3.725 ~ ~ Monitoring ongoing; research 5-10 years

2 4 4.28

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for multiple plant species at Kettleman Hills &

Devil’s Den

ongoing USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM TBD 1.525 1.45 1.45 1.45 Monitoring research 5-6ongoing; years

2 4 4.31

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for multiple plant &

animal species at the Kreyenhagen

Hills

ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/ private 5 1 I I

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5 years

‘5

4-,,

N

a.

‘5

‘5

44

‘-4,

a-

‘5

Ci~

‘-4

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

tPriority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task ~ Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — —

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

T Comments/Notes

Total

Costs

2 4 4.32

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for San Joaquin

woolly-threads at Jacalitos Hills

ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/

private

TI3D 0.225 0.15 0.15 0 15

Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 4

Conduct multiplc research tasks &

monitoring for palmate-bracted bird’s-beak & multiple animal

species at Alkali Sink ER

ongoing USFWS/CDFG 10 2 2 2 2

2 4 4.35

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for multiple plant &

animal species in W. Madera Co.

TBD USFWS/BOR TBD 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 5 Monitoring ongoing;

research 5-10 years

2 4

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for multiple plant &

animal species in the CiervoPanoche area

5 years

USFWS/

USBLM/ CDFG 1.5 0 3 0 3 0 3 03

2 4 4.38

Conduct censuses for kit fox &

monitoring for multiple animal

species in the Ciervo-Panoche area

ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/

CDFG

TBD 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 Monitoring ongoing

2 4 4.42

Census & monitor Lost Hills

saltbush population at San Lois

Island

ongoing USFWS TBD 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Monitoring ongoing

2 4 4.44

Census & monitor kit fox in the

NE. & NW. Valley fringes & in

the NW. portion of the range

ongoing USFWS/CDFG TBD 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Monitoring ongoing

2 4 4.47

Conduct multiple research tasks

for palmate-bracted bird’s-beak at

Springtown

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD 3 3 1 8 1 8 1.8 research 5-10 years

Monitoring ongoing;

2 4

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring for palmate-bracted bird’s-beak at Woodland &

Sacramento NWR complex

ongoing USFWS 8 77 1 87 1 72 1 72 1.72 Monitoring ongoing; research 5 years

CJI

‘5

4-,,

N

a.

‘5

‘5

4-,,

a-

‘5

4-,

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section lV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Dt~

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — — —

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

2 4 4.50

Conduct censuses & monitoring of

lesser saltscale populations in

Butte, Merced, & Kern counties

ongoing USFWS TBD 0.2 0.15 0.15 0 IS

2 4 4.52

Conduct metapopulation genetics

research on the San Joaquin kit

fox

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.6 0.4 0.2

2 4 4.53

Conduct population genetics

research on the Buena Vista Lake

shrew

2 years USFWS/private 0.8 0.4 04

2 4 4.60 Census & monitor any populations of Comanche Point layia TBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

2 4 4.64 Census & monitor any populations of Merced phacelia TBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

2 4 4.65 Census & monitor any populations of Munz’s tidy-tips TBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

2 4 4.66 Census & monitor any populations of Tejon poppyTBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

2 4 4.82 Research the effects of selenium on Buena Vista Lake shrews 5 years USFWS/CDFG /CEPA 1.5 0.3 0 3 0 3 0 3

2 4 5.1.2

Establish linkage along Garces

Hwy Corridor for multiple animal species

TBD USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2 and 1.2.6

2 4 5.1.8

Establish linkage between

northwestern & northeastern Valley edges through the Sandy

Mush Road area

TBD local/private USFWS/CDFG/ TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 4 5.3.2

Protect San Joaquin kit fox habitat

in northwestern San Joaquin

Valley edge

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

.a~.

‘5

-I

a.

‘5

‘5

a-

‘5

C-,

4.-’

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section 111.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — —

Total FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Costs

Comments/Notes

2 4 5.3.3

Protect grassland & oak savanna on

east & southeastern edge of Valley

for several listed species

ongoing

IJSFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 4 5.3.4

Protect grass & shrubland

communities on western Valley

edge, Santa Nella to Panoche Creek

TBD

USFWS/CDFG/

USBLM TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

2 4 5.3.5

Protect grass & shrubland

communities on western Valley edge, Panoche Creek to Ciervo

Wash

TBD USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM TBD Depends on 1.2.2

2 4 5.3.6

Protect grass & shrubland

communities on western Valley

edge, Ciervo Wash to Coalinga

TBD

USFWS/CDFG/

LJSBLM/local TBD

1.2.2

Depends on

2 4 5.3.7

Protect grass & shrubland

communities on western Valley

edgc, Coalinga to McKittrick

TBD

USFWS/CDFG/

USBLM/local TBD

Depends on 1.2.2

2 4 Reintroduce Comanche Point layia in appropriate habitat as necessary TBD USFWS/CDFG TBD

2 4 7.4

Propagate California jewelfiower in

greenhouses & reintroduce to

appropriate habitat as necessary

TBD IJSFWS/CDFG TBD 0 30 0 25 Propagation costs

2 4 7.5

Propagate Vasek’s clarkia in

greenhouses & reintroduce to

appropriate habitat as necessary

TBD USFWS/CDEG TBD 0.30 0.25 Propagation costs

2 5 4.18

Conduct multiple research tasks &

monitoring on Bakersfield cactus at Kern Bluffs & other locations in

Kern Co.

o

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/ local/private TBD ~ 8 3 825 ~ 6 3 6 Monitoring OngOing research 5-10 years

2 4.69 Study effects of beet leafhopper control on beetle species 3 yearsCDFA/ CDFG/CEPA 1 04 0.3 03

‘5

9$

‘-4,

N

Ba.

‘5

‘5

44

4-,,

a-

‘5

4.-,

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedule for UplandSpecies, San Joaquin Valley, California. Thsk Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

~ration

Responsible

Parties

—

Cost Estimate — —(in $100,000 —units) —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

3 1 2.1.13

Protect natural lands & traditional

rangeland uses in the Upper

Cuyama Valley

ongoing

USFS/

USBLM/

USFWS

TBD Depends on 1.2.2

3 I 2.1.16

Protect & properly manage listed

species habitat at Bitter Creek

NWR

ongoing USFWS TBD

3 I 2.1 .18 Protect & properly manage listed species habitat at Mendota WA ongoing CDFG TBD

3 AQO Refine metapopulation viability

analysis for the kit fox 3 years USFWS/CDFG 0.9 0.3 0 3 0 3

Requires census and

demography data not yet available

3 1 5.1.9

Establish & enhance linkage

between Kern NWR & Sierran foothills through the Poso Creek

area

ongoing USFWS/COE/ USBLM/local/

private

TBD

3

8.1 Conduct status review of lesser saltscale I year USEWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys andcensuses

3 I 8.2 Conduct status review of Bakersfield smallscale I year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Dependscensuses on surveys and

3

8.4 Conduct status review of Vasek’s clarkia I year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys andcensuses

3 1 8.7 Conduct status review of diamond- petaled California poppyI year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 1 8.8 Conduct status review of Comanche Point layia I year USFWS 0.1 0. I Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 I 8.11 Conduct status review of Merced monardella I year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 1 8.13 Conduct status review of oil neststraw I year USEWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

‘5

9$

4-,,

N

Ba.

‘5

‘5

~4,

a-

‘5

I—

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor UplandSpecies, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

3 1 8.16 Conduct status review of Doyen’s dune weevil 1 year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 1 8.17 Conduct status review of San Joaquin antelope squirrel 1 year USFWS/CDFG 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and censuses

3 1 8.18 Conduct status review of short- nosed kangaroo rat 1 year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 1 8.20 Conduct status review of Buena

Vista Lake shrew

1 year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 2 3.2.17

Conduct surveys for sand dune

beetles in sand & sand dune communities of the northwestern

Valley

3 years

USFWS/ USBLM 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25

3 2 3.2.19

Conduct surveys for upland

vertebrates on the southern Valley

floor

3 years

USFWS/

CDFG/

USBLM

0.9 0 3 0 3 0 3

3 2 3.2.20

Conduct surveys for upland

vertebrates on the central western

Valley edge

3 years

USFWS/

CDFG/

USBLM

0.6 0 2 0 2 0 2

3 2 3.2.22

Conduct surveys for upland

vertebrates on the southwestern

Valley edge

3 years

USFWS/

CDFG/

USBLM/DOE

0.9 0 3 0 3 0 3

2 3.2.23

Conduct surveys for upland

vertebrates on the southeast &

southern Valley edge

3 years

FWS/CDFG/

BLM

0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

3

2 3.2.24 Conduct surveys for upland vertebrates in the Cuyama Valley 3 years

USFS/FWS/ CDFG/BLM 0 6 0 2 0 2 0.2

3 2 3.2.25

Conduct surveys for upland

vertebrates in the San Juan Creek

watershed

3 years

USFWS/USDA/

USBLM

0.9 03 03 03

Includes USDA

easement lands

‘C

‘5

‘5

4-,,

N

Ba.

‘5

‘5

4-,,

a-

‘5

4.-,

0

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

3 2 3.2.27

Conduct surveys for kit fox in the

northwestern portion of range &

northwestern Valley edge

3 years USFWS/CDEG 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3

3

2 3.2.28 Conduct surveys for kit fox on the northeastern Valley edge 3 years

USFWS/BOR’ CDFG 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3

3 2 3.2.29 Conduct surveys for kit fox in the Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area 3 years

USFWS/ USBLM/

CDFG

0.9 0.3 0 3 0 3

Year I already accomplished

3 2 3.2.31 Conduct surveys for kit fox on the southeastern Valley edge 3 years

USFWS/CDFG/ BOR 1.0 0.4 03 03

3 2 4.2

Conduct censuses for short-nosed

kangaroo rats & monitor populations of multiple animal

species in the Cuyama Valley

ongoing

USFWS/

USFS/private USBLM/ 03 0.1 0 I 0 1 Census for 3 years; monitoring ongoing

3 2 4.6

Conduct research on mating &

social systems of the giant

kangaroo rat at the Carrizo Plain

2 years

USFWS/CDFG/

USBLM

0.6 0.3 0 3

3 2 4.22

Monitor populations of multiple

plant & animal species at Wheeler

Ridge & Comanche Point

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

CDWR

TBD 0.1 0 1 0 1 0 1

3 2 4.29

Monitor populations of multiple

animal species at the Kettleman

Hills

ongoing

USFWS/

USBLM/

CDFG/CDWR

TBD 0.1 0 1 0 1 0 1

3 2 4.39 Conduct systematics research on Lost Hills saltbush 2 years

USFWS/ USBLM/ CDFG 0.5 0.25 0 25

3 AAA Conduct systematics research on

Merced phacelia

2 years USFWS/CDFG/

COF

0.5 0.25 0 25

3 2 4.41 Conduct systematics research on Temblor buckwheat 2 years

USFWS/ USBLM/ CDFG 0.5 0.25 0.25

Cu

0

‘5

‘5

9$

B4-,,

N

Ba.

‘5‘5

‘544

4-,,

a-

‘5

4.-,

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are of approximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task Description Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Coip~entsINotes

3 2 4.51

Conduct metapopulations genetics

research on the blunt-nosed

leopard lizard

2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.8 0.4 0.4

3 2 4.58

Conduct research on the direct &

indirect effects of rodenticides on

kit fox

5 years

CDFA/CEPA/

USFWS/CDFG 10 2 2 2 2

3 2 4.68 Study the effects of salinity on the structure of Bakersfield smallscale 2 years USFWS/CDFG 0.4 0 2 0 2

3 2 4.71

Conduct matrix projection

modeling for California

jewelflower

1 year USFWS 0.15 0.15

3 2 4.72

Conduct matrix projection

modeling for palmate-bracted

bird’s-beak

1 year USFWS 0.15 0.15

3 2 4.73 Conduct matrix projection modeling for Kern mallow 1 year USFWS 0.15 0.15

3 2 4.74

Conduct matrix projection

modeling for San Joaquin woollythreads1 year USFWS 0.15 0.15

3

2 4.75 Conduct matrix projection modeling for Bakersfield cactus 1 year USFWS 015 015

3 2 4.76

Conduct a single-metapopulation

viability analysis on the giant

kangaroo rat

1 year

USFWS/DOE/

USBLM/CDFG

0 3 0 3

3 2 4.77

Conduct a single-metapopulation

viability analysis on the Fresno

kangaroo rat

1 year

USFWS/CDFG/

USN

0 3 0 3

3 2 4.78

Conduct a single-metapopulation

viability analysis on the Tipton

kangaroo rat

1 year USFWS/CDFG 0.2 0 2

Assumes analyses of

Tipton & Fresno

subspecies done together

CA

‘5

9$

B4-,,

N

Ba.

‘5

‘544

4-.,

a-

‘5

4.-,

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Pnority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description

Task

Dti

Responsible

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

— — —

FY02 FY03 FY04

Total Comments/Notes

Costs

F

FY01

3 2 4.79

Conduct a single-metapopulation

viability analysis on the bluntnosed leopard lizardI year USFWS/CDFG 0.3 0.3

3 2 5.1.6

Enhance & manage Kern River

alluvial fan area to ensure use &

movement by kit foxes & Tipton

kangaroo rats

ongoing USFWS/CDFG/ KWBA/KCWA/ local TBD 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.25

3 2 5.3.10

Maintain & enhance habitat

linkages for upland species

between CPNA & Cuyama Valley

ongoing

USBLM/

USFWS/

CDFG

TBD 0.1 0 1 0 I 0.1

3 2 5.3.11

Maintain habitat linkage for

upland species in the Estrella

River watershed

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local/private

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

3 2 5.3.12

Maintain & enhance habitat

linkages for upland species in the San Juan Creek watershed, San

Luis Obispo Co.

ongoing USFWS/USDAI CDFG/local/

private

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

3 3 2. 1.8

Protect Federal wildlife refuges &

waterfowl easement properties, State wildlife areas & State park

land, NW. Merced Co.

ongoing USEWS TBD

3 3 2.1.1 1

Protect natural land in Kern

NWR-Semitropic Ridge Natural

Area

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

CEC/TNC/

private

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

and 1.2.6

3 3 4.70

Publish scientific name &

description of Doyen’s dune

weevil

TBD private 0.25 0.25

Costs (page) of scientific

publication

3 5.1.3

Protect & restore habitat & habitat

linkages along Hwy 43 Corridor

for Tipton kangaroo rat, bluntnosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin

kit fox, & other species

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/

local

TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2

and 1.2.6

CA

‘5

‘5

9$

B4-,

N

Ba.

Cd,

‘5

‘5

‘544

4-,,

‘5

4.-,

.0

‘5
Implementation Schedulefor Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those ofSection IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number

Task ~riptio~ Task

Duration

Responsible

Parties

CostEstimate (in $100,000 units)

— — — — —

Total

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Comments/Notes

~

Protect & restore habitat & habitat

linkages for San Joaquin kit foxes

between Lost Hills & Semitropic

Ridge

ongoing USFWS/CDFG/ local TBD Depends partly on 1.2.2 and 1.2.6

3 3 7.1 Reintroduce Doyen’s dune weevil to appropriate habitat if necessary5 years USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM TBD 0.3 0.15 0.15 0 15 Monitor reintroduction for at least 5 years

3 4 4.23

Conduct systematics & genetics

research at all inhabited sites of

Bakersfield cactus

2 years USFWS 0.65 0.35 0.3

3

4 5.2 Reintroduce restored featured species to habitat within linkages TBD USFWS/CDFG/ USBLM TBD

3 4 5.3.1

Protect San Joaquin kit fox habitat

in northeastern San Joaquin Valley

edge

ongoing

USFWS/CDFG/ TBD Depends on 1.2.2

local/private

3 4 6

Revise or develop new

management plans for protected

areas

TBD TBD TBD

3 4 8.3 Conduct status review of Lost Hills salthush 1 year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.5 Conduct status review of Temblor buckwheat 1 year USFWS 0 1 0 1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.6 Conduct status review of Tejon

poppy

1 year USFWS 0.1 0 1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.9 Conduct status review of Munz’s tidy- tips 1 year USFWS 0.1 0 1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.10 Conduct status review of Jared’s

peppergrass

1 year USFWS 0 1 0 1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.12 Conduct status review of Merced phacelia 1 year USFWS 0 1 0 1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

A

‘5

9$

-v

a

~4,

N

Ba

a.

‘0

‘5

‘5

44

0

4-,,

a-

‘5

a

5-.

0

.0

S.

‘5
Implementation Schedule for Upland Species, San Joaquin Valley, California. Task Numbers are those of Section IV

Within a Priority Tier; tasks are ofapproximately equal priority. Priority Numbers are the priorities defined in Section III.

Priority

Number

Priority

Tier

Task

Number Task Description Duration Task Responsible Parties

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units)

Total — — —

Costs FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

F Comments/Notes

FY01

3 4 8.14

Conduct status review of Ciervo

aegialian scarab beetle I year USBWS 0.1 0.1

Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 A Conduct status review of San

Joaquin dune beetle year ~

~

~

Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.19 Conduct status review of Tulare

grasshopper mouse

1 year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys and

censuses

3 4 8.21 Conduct status review of San Joaquin LeConte’s thrasher 1 year USFWS 0.1 0.1 Depends on surveys andcensuses

‘5

9$

CA.I~.

B4-,

-I

Ba.

‘5

‘5

44

9-4,

a-

‘5

5-.

.0

‘5
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

VI. REFERENCES

A. References Cited

Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon, and California. Volume 1.

Ophioglossaceae to Aristolochiaceae: ferns to birthworts. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 538 pp.

1944. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. Volume II. Polygonaceae to

Krameriaceae: buckwheats to kramerias. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 635 Pp.

1951. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. Volume III. Geraniaceae to

Scrophulariaceae: geraniums to figworts. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 866 pp.

Abrams, L., and R.S. Ferris. 1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. Volume

IV. Bignoniaceae to Compositae: bignonias to sunflowers. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 732 pp.

Allred, K., D.F.Williams, and D.J. Germano. In press. Habitatrelationships of giant kangaroo rats on the CarrizoPlain

Natural Area. California Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program,

Conservation Sec. Rep.

Alpert, P. 1995. Incarnating ecosystem management. Conserv. Biol. 9:952-955.

AI-Shehbaz, l.A. 1973. The biosystematics of the genus Theylpodium (Cruciferae). Contrib. Gray Herb. 204:1-148.

Alverson, W.S., W. Kuhlman, and D.M. Waller. 1994. Wild forests: conservation biology and public policy. Island

Press, Washington, DC, 300 pp.

The American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. Le Conte’s Thrasher. Pp. 424—429 in The A.O.U. Check-List of North

American Birds. Fifth Edition. Port City Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland. pgs. 424—429.

Anderson, R.L., L.K. Spiegel, and K.M. Kakiba-Russell. 1991. Southern San Joaquin Valley ecosystems protection

program: natural lands inventory and maps. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 41 pp. + maps.

Archon, M. 1992. Ecology of the San Joaquin kitfox in western Merced County, California. M.A. thesis, California

State Univ., Fresno, 62 pp.

Bailey, V., and C.C. Sperry. 1929. Life historyand habitsof the grasshopper mice, genus Onychomys. U.S. Dept.Agric.

Tech. Bull. 145:1-19.

Baird, S.F. 1858. Mammals. Reports ofexplorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practical and economical route

for a railroad from the MississippiRiver tothe PacificOcean. U.S. Dept. Interior, Washington, DC 8(1): 1-757.

Baldwin, B.G., and S.J. Bainbridge. 1993. Layia. Pp. 300-303, in The Jepson manual: higherplants of California (J.C.

Hickman, ed.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Balestreri, A.N. 1981. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox at Camp Roberts, California, 1981. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Dept.

Army, Engineering, Environmental, and Natural Resources Office. California Polytechnic State Univ., San

Luis Obispo, 30 pp.

Basey, G.E. 1990. Distribution, ecology, and population status of the riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani

riparius). M.S. thesis, California State Univ., Stanislaus, Turlock, 76 pp.

255
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Bates, D.M. 1992. Gynodioecy, endangennent, and statusof Erernaiche kernensis (Malvaceac). Phytologia 72:48-54.

1993. Eremalche. P. 748, in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman, ed.). Univ.

California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Bell, H.M. 1992. San Joaquin kit fox survey and management options for East Bay Regional Park District’s Black

Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and Round Valley Regional Park. East Bay Regional Park District,

Oakland, CA, 26 pp.

1994. Analysis of habitat characteristics of the San Joaquin kitfox in it’s northern range. M.A. thesis, California

State Univ., Hayward, 90 pp.

Bell, H.M., JA. Alvarez, L.L. Eberhardt, and K. RaIls. 1994. Distribution and abundance of San Joaquin kit fox.

California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec., Unpubl. Rep.

Benson, L.D. 1969. The native cacti of California. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 243 pp.

1982. The cacti of the United States andCanada. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 1044 pp.

Bent, A.C. 1964. Life histories of North American nuthatches, wrens, thrashers, and their allies. DoverPubl., Inc.,New

York, 475 pp. + 90.

Berry, W.H., JR. Scrivner, T.P. OFarrell, C.E. Harris, T.T. Kato, and P.M. McCue. t987a. Sources and rates of

mortality of the San Joaquin kit fox, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, CA, 1980-1986. Rep. No.

EGG 10282-2 154, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 34 pp.

Berry, W.H., T.P. O’Farrell, T.T. Kato, and P.M. McCue. 1987b. Characteristics of dens used by radiocollared San

Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. U.S. Dept.

Energy Topical Rep. No. EGG 10282-2 177, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 32 pp.

Berry, W.H., W.G. Standley, T.P. O’Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1992. Effects of military-authorized activities at Camp

Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, California. Rep. No. EGG 10617-2159, EG&G Energy

Measurements Group, Goleta, CA, 15 pp.

Best, T.L. 1991. Dipodomys nitratoides. Mammal. Species 38 1:1-7.

1993. Patterns of morphologic and morphometric variation in heteromyid rodents. Pp. 197-235, in Biology of

the Heteromyidae (H.H. Genoways and J.H. Brown, eds.). Amer. Soc. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 10:1-719.

Best, T.L., and L.L. Janecek. 1992. Allozymic and morphologic variation among Dipodornys insularis, Dipodomys

nitratoides, and two populations of Dipodornys merriami (Rodentia:Heteromyidae). Southwestern Nat. 37:1-

8.

Best, T.L., AS. Titus, C.L. Lewis, and K. Caesar. 1990. Ammospermophilus nelsoni. Mammal. Species 367:1-7.

Bittman, R. 1985. Classification of biotic themes. Unpubl. Rep., National Natural LandmarksProgram, South Pacific

Border Region, The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA.

1986a. Element preservation plan for Cordylanthus palmatus. Unpubl. Rep., The Nature Conservancy, San

Francisco, CA, 7 pp.

1986b. Element conservation plan: Eschscholzia rhombipetala. Unpubl. Rep., The Nature Conservancy, San

Francisco, CA, 11 pp.

256
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Blair,W.F. 1943. Populations of the deer mouse andassociated smallmammals inthe mesquite association ofsouthern

New Mexico. Contnb. Lab. Vert. Biol. Univ. Michigan 21:1-40.

Blaisdell, F.E. 1939. A new species of Coelus. Entomol. News 50:16-18.

Boolootian, R.A. 1954. An analysis of subspecific variationsin Dipodomys nitratoides. J. Mammal. 35:570-577.

Bormann, B.T., et al. 1994. Volume V: a framework for sustainable-ecosystem management. U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, Portland, OR, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR331,61 pp.

Bowen, C. 1986. Kern Lake Preserve: a continuing study of the life history of Atriplex tularensis and the alkali sink

scrub community. Unpubl. Rep., The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, 50 pp.

1987. Segregation of Opuntia treleasei and Opuntia treleasei var. kernii from Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei

(Cactaceae). Unpubl. Manuscript, 9 pp.

Boyce, MS. 1992. Population viability analyses. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:481-506.

1993. Population viability analysis: adaptive management forthreatened and endangered species. Trans. 58th

N.A. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 58:520-527.

Bradford, D.F. 1992. Biogeography and endemism inthe Central Valley of California. Pp. 65-80, in Endangered and

sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California: their biology, management, and conservation (D.F.

Williams, S. Byrne, and TA. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

Brandegee, T.S. 1894. Two undescribed plants from the coast range. Zoe 4:397-398.

Braun, SE. 1983. Home range and activity patterns of the giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens. M.S. thesis, Univ.

Minnesota, Minneapolis, 61 pp.

1985. Home range and activity patterns of the giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens. J. Mammal. 66:1-12.

Briden, L.E., M. Archon, and D.L. Chesemore. 1987. Ecology of the San Joaquin kit fox in western Merced County.

California State Univ., Fresno, 16 pp.

Britton, N.L., and J.N. Rose. 1920. The Cactaceae. Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC, Publication 248, 1:1-236.

Brown, R.J. 1974. Sexual dimorphism in the pelvic girdle of the ornateshrew, Sorexornatus. Wasmann J. Biol. 32:99-

104.

Buechner, M. 1989. Preliminary population analysis based on RAMAS/a, a population modelling program, bluntnosed leopard lizard. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Sacramento, CA.

Buck, R.E. 1993. Caulanthus. Pp. 410-4 12, in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman, ed.).

Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Burdon,J.J., and D.R. Marshall. 1981. Biological control and the reproductive mode of weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 18:649-

658.

Burger, J.C., and SM. Louda. 1994. Indirect versus direct effects of grasses on growth of a cactus (Opuntiafragilis):

insect herbivory versus competition. Oecologia 99:79-87.

257
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Byrne, 5. 1987. Rare and endangered wildlife species of the Ultrapower-Ogle 115kV transmission line project area.

Unpubl. Rep., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA, 19 pp. + Appendices.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. At the crossroads, a report on California’s endangered and rare fish

and wildlife. Sacramento, 147 pp.

• 1985. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard essential habitat update, July 1, 1984 - September, 30, 1985. California Dept.

Fish and Game, Sacramento, Job EF84 11-1.

• 1987. Los Banos Grandes project - 1986 annual progress report. Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 28 pp.

• 1995. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, Electronic form.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1984. Environmental assessment of curly top virus control in

California, 1984-1989. Sacramento, CA, Curly Top Virus Manage. Prog., 32 pp. + Appendices.

CaliforniaDepartment of WaterResources. 1974. Status of the San Joaquin Valley DrainageProblems. Bull. No. 127-

74, Sacramento, 66 pp.

California Native Plant Society. 1988a. California native plant statusreport: Atriplex vallicola. CaliforniaNative Plant

Society, Sacramento, 4 pp.

1988b. California native plant status report: Monardella leucocephala. California Native Plant Society,

Sacramento, 4 pp.

Carraway, L.N., and B.J. Verts. 1991. Neotomafuscipes. Mammal. Species 386:1-10.

Center forConservation Biology. 1990. An investigation of the distribution and abundance of the Buena Vista shrew,

Sorex ornatus relictus, at Kern Lake Preserve. Final Rep., The Nature Conservancy, Stanford Univ., CA, 8

pp.

1991. Conservation of the palmate-bracted bird’s-beak: a most unusual endangered wetland annual. Cent.

Conserv. Biol. Update 5(2):l-2.

1993. Studies of Cordylanthuspalmatus at the Springtown alkali sink, Livermore,California. Stanford Univ.,

Stanford, CA, 56 pp.

1994. Conservation of the palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, Cordvlanthuspalmatus. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA,

71 pp. + Appendices.

Center for Natural Lands Management. 1993. Draft master management plan Lokern and SemitropicRidge Preserves

Kern County, California. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy by The Center for Natural Lands

Management, Sacramento, CA, 106 pp. + unnumbered appendices.

Center for Plant Conservation. 1991. Appendix. Genetic sampling guidelines for conservation collections of

endangered plants. Pp. 225-238, in Genetics and conservation of rare plants (D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger,

eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 283 pp.

Chapman, JA., 1971. Orientation and homing of the brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachrnani). J. Mammal. 52:686-699.

1974. Sylvilagus bachmani. Mammal. Species 34:1-4.

Chapman, J.A., and A.L. Harman. 1972. The breeding biology of a brush rabbit population. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:816-

823.

258
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Chapman, JA., and G.R. Willner. 1978. Sylvilagus audubonii. Mammal. Species 106:1-4.

Chesemore, D.L. 1980. Impact of oil and gas development on blunt-nosed leopard lizards. U.S. Bureau Land

Management, Bakersfield, CA, Final Rep., Contract No. YA-512-CT9-l 18, 83 pp.

1981. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard inventory final report. U.S. Bureau Land Management, Bakersfield, CA,

Contract No. YA-553-CTO-5l, 143 pp.

Chesemore, DL., and W.M. Rhodehamel. 1992. Ecology of a vanishing subspecies: the Fresno kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis). Pp. 99- 103, in Endangered and Sensitive Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley,

California (D.F. Williams, S. Byrne,and T.A. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388

pp.

Chew, R.M., and A.E. Chew. 1970. Energy relationships of the mammals of a desert shrub (Larrea tridentata)

community. Ecol. Monogr. 40:1- 21.

Chuang,T.I., and L.R. Heckard. 1971. Observations on root parasitism in Cordylanthus (Scrophulariaceae). Amer. J.

Bot. 58:218-228.

1973. Taxonomy of Cordylanthus subgenus Hemistegia (Scrophulariaceae). Brittonia 25:135-158.

—. 1993. Cordylanthus. Pp. 1027-103 1, in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman, ed.).

Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Clark, C. 1986. Eschscholzia lemmonii subsp. kernensis (Papaveraceae), a new combination for the Tejon poppy.

Madroijo 33:224-225.

1993. Papaveraceae. Pp. 810-8 16, inThe Jepson manual: higherplants of California (J.C.Hickman, ed.). Univ.

California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Clark, DR., Jr. 1987. Selenium accumulationin mammals exposed to contaminated California irrigation drainwater.

Sci. Total Environ., 66:147—168.

Clark,R.A. 1991. Environmental assessment ofcurly top virus control inCalifornia, 1991-1995. California Dept.Food

and Agriculture, Sacramento, 75 pp. + Appendices.

Clark, T.W. and D. Zaunbrecher. 1987. The greaterYellowstone ecosystem: the ecosystem conceptinnaturalresource

policy and management. Renew. Resour. J. 5:8-16.

Clark, W.A., SM. Juarez, and D.L. Chesemore. 1982. Nature Conservancy small mammal inventory on the Paine

Wildflower Preserve and the Voice of America in Kern County, California. Unpubl. Rep., The Nature

Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, 47 pp.

Coats, R., M.A. Showers, and B. Pavlik. 1993. Management plan for an alkali sink and its endangered plant

Cordvlanthus palmatus. Environmental Manage. 17:115-127.

Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names forNorth American amphibians and reptiles. Third

edition. Soc. Stud. Amphib. Reptiles. Herpetol. Circ. 19:1-41.

Colliver, G.W. 1993. Biosphere reserves: searching for a sustainable future in the San Joaquin-Southern Sierra

biogeocuhural region. MA. thesis, California State University Stanislaus, Turlock, 316 pp.

Colliver, G.W., Ellen Cypher, D.F. Williams, PA. Kelly, and C.D. Johnson. 1995. Critical needs plan for the Friant

Division Biological Opinion. Endangered Species Recovery Planning Program,Fresno, CA, 163 pp.

259
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Constance, L. 1979. Rareplant statusreport: Phacelia ciliatavar. opaca. California NativePlant Society, Sacramento,

2 pp.

Cook, R.R. 1992. An inventory of the mammals of Caswell Memorial State Park. California Dept. Parks and

Recreation, Lodi, Final Rep., 30 pp.

Cope, E.D. 1900. The crocodilians, lizards, and snakes of North America. Ann. Rep., Board of Regents Smithsonian

Institution, year ending June 30, 1898. U.S. Nat. Mus. 2:t51-1294.

Costanza, R.,B .G. Norton, and B .D. Haskell, eds. 1992. Ecosystem health: newgoals for environmental management.

Island Press, Washington, DC, 269 pp.

Coues, E. 1874. Synopsis of the Muridae of North America. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 26:173-196.

Coulter, J.M. 1896. Preliminary revision of the North American species of Echinocactus, Cereus, and Opuntia.

Contrib. U.S. National Herbarium 3:434- 435.

Coville, F.V. 1893. Botany of the Death Valley expedition. Contr. U.S. Nat. Herb. 4:182.

Cowles, RB., and C.M. Bogert. 1944. A preliminary study of the thermal requirements of desertreptiles. Bull. Amer.

Mus. Nat. His. 83:264-296.

Culbertson, A.E. 1934. Rediscovery of Dipodoinys nitratoides exilis. J. Mammal. 15:161-162.

1946. Observations on the natural history of the Fresno kangaroo rat. J. Mammal. 27:189-203.

Cypher, B.L., and J.H. Scrivner. 1992. Coyote control to protect endangered San Joaquin kit foxes at the Naval

Petroleum Reserves, California. Pp. 42-47, in Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference (JE.

Borrecco and R.E. Marsh, eds.). Univ. California, Davis, 415 pp.

Cypher, E.A. 1994a. Demography of Caulanthus caI~fornicus, Lembertia congdonii, and Eriastrum hooveri, and

vegetation characteristics of endangered species populations in the southern San Joaquin Valley and the

Carrizo Plain Natural Area in 1993. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 50 pp. +

photographs.

1994b. Progress report on 1994 grazing studies for Kern mallow and San Joaquin woolly-threads. U.S. Bureau

Land Management, Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 22 pp.

Danielsen, K.C., TM. Austin, and C. Lee-Wong. 1994. Field inventory of Caulanthus californicus (California

jewelfiower) in Los Padres National Forest. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Goleta, CA, Unpubl.

Rep., 31 pp.

Dobkin, D., and S.L. Granholm. 1990. Le Conte’sthrasher. Pp. 536-537, in California’s wildlife. Vol. II, Birds (D.C.

Zeiner, W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds.). California Dept. Fish and Game,

Sacramento, 731 pp.

Doyen, J.T. 1976. Biology and systematics of the genus Coelus (Coleoptera: Tentyriidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc.

49:595-624.

Dragoo, J.W., J.R. Choate, T.L. Yates, and T.P. O’Farrell. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among

North American arid-land foxes. J. Mammal. 71:318-322.

269
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Dwyer, L.E., D.D. Murphy, and P.R. Ehrlich. 1995. Property rights case law and the challenge to the Endangered

Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 9:725-741.

Ecological Society of America. 1995a. Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the endangered

species act. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC, 21 pp.

1995b. Scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecologcial Society of America, Washington, DC, 40 pp.

EG&G Energy Measurements. 1992. Endangered species program Naval Petroleum Reserves in California - annual

report FY90. EGG 10617-2118, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 50 pp.

1995a. Endangered species program Naval Petroleum Reserves in California annual reportFY93. U.S. Dept.

Energy Topical Rep. No. EGG 11265-2047, EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, NV, 51 pp.

1995b. Endangered species program Naval Petroleum Reserves in California—annual report FY94.

EGGi 1265—1162, EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, NV, 59 pp.

1996. Endangered species and cultural resources program Naval Petroleum Reserves in California—annual

report FY95. EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, NV 62 pp.

Egoscue, H.J. 1956. Preliminary studies of the kitfox in Utah. J. Mammal. 37:35 1-357.

1962. Ecology and life history of the kit fox in Tooele County, Utah. Ecology 43:481-497.

1975. Population dynamics of the kit fox in western Utah. Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 74:122-127.

Eisenberg, J.F. 1963. The behaviorof heteromyid rodents. Univ. CaliforniaPubl. Zool. 69:1-100.

Eisenberg, J.F., and DE. Isaac. 1963. The reproduction of heteromyid rodents in captivity. J. Mammal. 44:61-67.

Eisler,R. 1985. Seleniumhazards tofish, wildlife, andinvertebrates: a synopticreview. ContaminantHazard Reviews

Report no. 5. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.

Eisner, T., J. Lubchenco, E.O. Wilson, D.S. Wilcove, and M.J. Bean. 1995. Building a scientifically sound policy for

protecting endangered species. Science 268:1231-1232.

Elliot, D.G. 1904. Catalogue of mammals collected by E. Hellerin southern California. Field Columbian Mus. PubI.

91, Zool. Series 3:271-321.

Engler, A., and K.A.E. Prantl. 1934. Chenopodiaceae. Naturl. Pflanz. Ed. 2, 16C:506-507.

Engler, J., and K. Chapin. 1993. Summary report 1993 endangered species projects Kern National Wildlife Refuge

complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Delano, CA.

Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc. 1997. Endangered species and cultural resources program Naval Petroleum

Reserves in California—annual reportFY96. EAST 96-1, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc.,Tupman, CA, 56

pp.

1998. Endangered species and cultural resources program Naval Petroleum Reserves in California—annual

reportFY97. EAST 98-1, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., Tupman, CA, 39 pp.

Epling, C.C. 1925. Monograph of the genus Monardella. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 12:1-106.

261
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

ESA Planning and Environmental Services. 1986a. Caliente Creek stream group investigation. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Sacramento, CA, Contract No. DACWO5-85-0061, Unpubl. Rep., 6lpp.

1986b. San Joaquin pipeline biological assessment. Unpubl. Rep., San Francisco, CA, 142 pp.

Everett, R., P. Hessburg, M. Jensen, and B. Bormann. 1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume

I: executive summary. U.S. Dept.Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation,Portland,

OR, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-317, 61 pp.

Ferris, R.S. 1918. Taxonomy and distribution of Adenostegia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 45:399-423.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol. Applic. 3:202-205.

Freas, K.E., and D.D. Murphy. 1988. Taxonomy and the conservation of the critically endangered Bakersfield

saltbush, Atriplex tularensis. Biol. Conserv. 46:3 17- 324.

1990. An investigation of the distribution and abundanceof the Buena Vista Lake shrew, Sorex ornatusrelictus,

at the Kern Lake Preserve. Report to The Nature Conservancy, The Center for Conservation Biology,

Stanford University, Stanford, California. 6 pp.

1991. The endangered Bakersfield saltbush. Fremontia 19(2):15-18.

Frost, D.R, and J.T. Collins. 1988. Nomenclatural notes on reptiles of the United States. Herpetol. Rev. 19:73-74.

George Lawrence and Associates. 1988. A biological assessment: Rio Bravo rare cactus report. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 20 pp.

Germano, D.J., and D.F. Williams. 1992. Cambelia sila. (Blunt-nosed leopard lizard). Reproduction. Herpet. Rev.

23:117.

1993. Recovery of the blunt-nosed leopard lizard: past efforts, present knowledge, and future opportunities.

Trans. West. Sec. WildI. Soc. 28:38-47.

1994a. Gambelia sila (blunt-nosed leopard lizard). Cannibalism. Herpet. Rev. 25:26-27.

1994b. Population ecology of blunt-nosed leopard lizards in 1994 on the Elkhorn Plain, San Luis Obispo

County, California. U.S. Bureau Land Managment, Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 32 pp.

Germano, D.J., D.F. Williams, andW. Tordoff III. 1994. Effect of drought on blunt-nosed leopard lizards(Gambelia

sila). Northwest. Nat. 75:11-19.

Germano, D.J., and W. M. Rhodehamel. 1995. Characteristics of kangaroo rats in fallow fields of the southern San

Joaquin Valley. Trans. Western Section of The Wildlife Society 31:40—44.

Goldingay, R.L., PA. Kelly, and D.F. Williams. 1997. The kangaroo rats of California: endemism and conservation

of keystone species. Pacific Conservation Biology 3:47—60.

Gordon, RD., and O.L. Cartwright. 1977. Four new species of Aegialia (s. str.) (Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae) from

California and Nevada sand dunes. J. Washington Acad. Sci. 67:42-48.

1988. North American representatives of the Tribe Aegialiini (Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae:Aphodiinae).

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 37 pp.

262
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Grant, V. and K.A. Grant. 1965. Flower pollination in the phlox family. Columbia University Press, New York, 180

pp.

Gray, A. 1867. Characters of new plants of California and elsewhere, principally of those collected by W. H. Brewer

and W. H. Bolander in the State Geological Survey. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and

Sciences VII:327-401.

1883. Contributions to North American botany. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

19: 1-96.

Greene, E.L. 1885. Bull. Calif. Acad. 1:71.

1891. Flora Franciscana. San Francisco.

1897. Flora Franciscana: an attempt toclassify and describe the vascular plantsof middleCalifornia. Doxey and

Co., San Francisco, CA, p. 441.

1906. Madronella. Leafi. Bot. Observ. Crit. 1:168-169.

Griffiths, D., and R.F. Hare. 1906. Prickly pear and other cacti. New Mexico Dept. Agric. Bull. 60:81.

Griggs,F.T. 1992. The remaining biological diversity of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Pp. 11—15, inEndangered

and sensitive speciesof the San Joaquin Valley, California: their biology, management, andconservation. D.F.

Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado (eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento.

Griggs, FT., J.M. Zaninovich, and G.D. Werschkull. 1992. Historic native vegetation map of the Tulare Basin,

California. Pp. 111-118, in Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California: their

biology, management, and conservation (D.F. Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado, eds.). California Energy

Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

Grinnell, J. 1920. A newkangaroo rat from the San Joaquin Valley, California. J. Mammal. 1:178-179.

1921. Revised list of the species in the genus DipodomYs. J. Mammal. 2:94-97.

1922. A geographical study of the kangaroo rats of California. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 24:1-124.

1932a. Habitat relations of the giant kangaroo rat. J. Mammal. 13:305-320.

1932b. A relic shrew from central California. Univ. California PubI. Zool. 38:387-388.

1933a. Review of the Recent mammal fauna of California. Univ. California PubI. Zool. 40:71-234.

1933b. The Le Conte thrashers of the San Joaquin. Condor 35:107-114.

Grinnell, J., and J.S. Dixon. 1918. Natural history of the ground squirrels of California. Bull. California State Comm.

Hort. 7:597-708.

Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. Vol. 2. Univ. California Press,

Berkeley.

Grumbine, R.E. 1992. Ghost bears: exploring the biodiversity crisis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 290 pp.

1994a. What is ecosystem management. Conserv. Biol. 8:27-38.

263
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

ed. 1994b. Environmental policy and biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC, 415 pp.

Hafner, D.J. 1981. Evolution and historical zoogeography of antelope ground squirrels, genus Ammospermophilus

(Rodentia: Sciuridae). Ph.D dissertation, Univ. New Mexico, Albuquerque, 225 pp.

Hafner, MS. 1979. Density, distribution, and taxonomic status of Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Merriam, 1894

(Rodentia - Heteromyidae). California Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Draft Final

Report, 17 pp.

Hagen, K.K. 1986. Habitats of Sacramento and Antioch anthricid beetles (Coleoptera: Anthricidae). California Dept.

Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 40 pp.

Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 710 pp.

1981. The mammals of North America. Second ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1:1-600 + 90.

Hall, ER., and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York, 1:1-546 + 79.

Hall, F.A. 1983. Status of the San Joaquin kitfox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, atthe Bethany wind turbine generating site,

Alameda County, California. Unpubl. Rep., California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, 34 pp.

Hall, H.M., and F.E. Clements. 1923. The North American species of Artemisia, Chrysothamnus, and Atriplex.

Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 326:235-346.

Hall, R.J., and D.R. Clark. 1982. Responses of the iguanid lizard Anolis carolensis to four organophosphorus

pesticides. Env. Pollution (Series A) 28:45-52.

Hansen, R.B. 1988. Porterville urban area boundary biotic survey. Unpubl. Rep., Hansen’s Biological Consulting,

Visalia, CA, 219 pp.

Harris, J. 1990. Ornate shrew, Sorex ornatus. Pp. 12- 13, in California’s wildlife, Vol. III: Mammals (D.C. Zeiner,

W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds.). California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, 407

pp.

Harris, J.H. 1993. Diet of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, Arnrnospermosphilus nelsoni. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, San Simeon, CA, National Tech. Info. Serv. Rep. No. PB9S-123378, 14 pp.

Harris, J.H., and D.M. Stearns. 1991. Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the

San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988-89. CaliforniaDept. Fish and Game, Nongame Birdand Mammal Section

Rep., 91-02:1-37.

Hawbecker, A.C. 1944. The giant kangaroo rat and sheep forage. J. WildI. Manage. 8:161-165.

1947. Food and moisture requirements of the Nelson antelope ground squirrel. J. Mammal. 28:115-125.

1951. Small mammal relationships in an Ephedra community. J. Mammal. 32:50-60.

1953. Environment of the Nelson antelope ground squirrel. J. Mammal. 34:324-334.

1958. Survival and home range in the Nelson antelope ground squirrel. J. Mammal. 39:207-2 15.

1975. The biology of some desert-dwelling ground squirrels. Pp. 277-303, in Rodents in desert environments

(I. Prakash andP.K. Ghosh, eds.). Dr. W. Junk, by., Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands, 624 pp.

264
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Hawkins, D. 1995. Safe harbors. End. Species Bull. 20(3):l0-ll.

Heckard, L.R. 1977. Rare plant status report: Cordylanthus palmatus (Ferris) Macbride. California Native Plant

Society, Sacramento, 3 pp.

Hekkala, E.R. 1995. Mating system of the endangered giant kangaroo rat. Unpublished thesis, San Francisco State

University.

Henne, D. 1995. Taking an ecosystem approach. End. Species Bull. 20:6-9.

Henry, L. 1995a. Elk Hills sale offers pluses, minuses. The Bakersfield Californian, Sunday, 30 July:DI-D2.

1995b. Elk Hills sale keeps hitting political snags. The Bakersfield Californian, Sunday, 30 July:DI-D2.

Hickman, J.C. 1993. Polygonaceae. Pp. 854-895, in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman,

ed.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Hitchcock, C.L. 1936. The genus Lepidium in the United States. Madroiio 3:265-320.

Hoffman, M.W. 1985. Distribution, abundance, and behaviorof Fresno and Heermann’s kangaroo ratsin west-central

Fresno County, California. M.A. thesis, California State Univ., Fresno, 76 pp.

Hoffman, M.W., and DL. Chesemore. 1982. Distribution and status ofthe Fresno kangaroo rat, IJipodomysnitratoides

exilis. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame WildI. Invest., Draft Final Rep. 32 pp.

Hoffmann, W.M. 1974. The Fresno kangaroo rat study. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Spec. WildI.

Invest., Final Rep., W-54-4, Job 11-5.4, 23 pp.

1975. Geographic variation and taxonomy of Dipodomys nitratoides from the California San Joaquin Valley.

MA. thesis, California State Univ., Fresno, 75 pp.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities ofCalifornia. California Dept.Fish

and Game, Sacramento, 156 pp.

Holling, CS., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York, 377 pp.

Holmstead, G. 1993. Distribution, ecology, and management of Hoover’s wooly-star(Eriastrum hooveri) on the Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California. Unpubl. manuscript, EG&G Energy Measurements, Tupman, CA, 56 pp.

Holmstead, G.L., and D.C. Anderson. 1993. Reestablishment of Hoover’s wooly-star (Eriastrum hooveri) following

disturbance. Unpubl. manuscript, EG&G Energy Measurements, Tupman, CA, 25 pp.

Holsinger, K.E. 1985. A phenetic study of Clarkia unguiculata Lindley (Onagraceae) and its relatives. System. Bot.

10(2): 155-165.

Hooper, E.T. 1938. Geographical variation inwood rats of the species Neotornafuscipes. Univ. California Pubi. Zool.

42:213-246.

Hoover, R.F. 1937. Endemism in the flora of the Great Valley of California. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California,

Berkeley, 76 pp.

1938. New Californian plants. Leaf. West. Bot. 2:130-131.

265
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

• 1966. Miscellaneous new names for California plants. Leaf. West. Bot. 10:337-350.

• 1970. The vascular plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 350 pp.

Homer, BE. 1961. Paternal care of the young and convulsive seizures inthe grasshopper mouse. Amer. Zool. 1:360.

Homer. B.E., and J.M. Taylor. 1968. Growth and reproductive behavior in the southern grasshopper mouse. J.

Mammal. 49:644-660.

Homer, B.E., J.M. Taylor, and HA. Padykula. 1964. Food habits and gastric morphology of the grasshopper mouse.

J. Mammal. 45:513-535.

Howell, J.T. 1936. Two new Californian plants. Leaf. West. Bot. 1:22 1-222.

Howell, J.T., and E.C. Twisselmann. 1963. Leaf. West. Bot. 10:42.

Hudson, W.E., ed. 1993. Building economic incentives into the Endangered Species Act. Spec. Rep., Defenders of

Wildlife. 123 pp.

Ingles, L.G. 1941. Natural history observations on the Audubon cottontail. J. Mammal. 22:227-250.

Jennings, MR. 1987. Annotated check list of the amphibians and reptiles of California. Second edition. Southwest.

Herpet. Soc. Spec.Publ. 3:1- 48.

Jensen, C.C. 1972. San Joaquin kit fox distribution. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep.,

18 pp.

Jensen, D.B., M.S. Torn, and J. Harte. 1993. In our own hands: a strategy for conserving California’s biological

diversity. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 302 pp.

Jensen, M.E., and P.S. Bourgeron, eds. 1994. Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. U.S.

Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318, 376

pp.

Jepson, W.L. 1914. A flora of California. Associated Students Store, University of California, Berkeley. p.436.

1943. A flora of California. Associated Students Store, University of California, Berkeley, 3(2):160-168.

Johnson, C.D., and S.D. Clifton. 1992. The systematic and population statuses of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys nitratoides) in Merced County, California. Pp. 139-142, inEndangered and sensitive species of

the San Joaquin Valley, California (D.F. Williams, S. Byrne, and TA. Rado, eds.). California Energy

Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

Johnson, D.E. 1993. Lembertia. P. 303, in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman, ed.). Univ.

California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Johnson, WE., and RE. Selander. 1971. Protein variation and systematics in kangaroo rats (genus Dipodomys).

Systematic Zool. 20:377-405.

Jokerst,J.D. 1993. Monardella. Pp. 718-722, inThe Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman, ed.).

Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

266
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Jones, L. 1980. Distributional study of the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Gambelia silus, in the southern San Joaquin

Valley, California. Contract No. YA-512-CT9-97, U.S. Bureau Land Management, Bakersfield, CA.

Jones, W.T. 1988. Density-related changes in survival of philopatric and dispersing kangaroo rats. Ecology 69: 1474-

1478.

1989. Dispersal distance and the range of nightly movementsin Merriam’s kangaroo rats. J. Mammal. 70:27-34.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1977. Ground squirrel control, Fort OrdComplex, Fort Ord, California. U.S. Dept.

Army, HQ 7thInfantry Division,Fort Ord, Sacramento,CA, FinalEnvironmentalImpact Statement, Contract

No. DACAO5-77-C-0006, 412 pp.

1981. Rare and endangered wildlife survey within the California Aqueductright of waymilepost 155.64 tomile

post 293.45. California Dept. Water Resources, Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 29 pp.

Junge, JA., and R.S. Hoffmann. 1981. An annotatedkey to the long-tailed shrews (genus Sorex) of the United States

andCanada, with notes on Middle American Sorex. Occas. Papers Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kansas 94:1-48.

Kakiba-Russel, K., E. Hubert, and L.K. Spiegel. 1991. Carrizo Plain Natural Area biological resources inventory:

sensitive species accounts. California EnergyCommission and The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento, 247 pp.

Kato, T.T. 1986. Survey of potential habitat for the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), in the

Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obispo County, California. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2124, EG&G Energy

Measurements, Goleta, CA, 24 pp. + Appendix.

Kato, T.T., and T.P. O’Farrell. 1986. Biological assessment of the effects of petroleum production at maximum

efficient rate, NavalPetroleum Reserve #1 (Elk Hills), KernCounty,California, on the endangered blunt-nosed

leopard lizard, Gambelia silus. U.S. Dept. Energy Topical Rep. No. EGG 10282-2108, Santa Barbara

Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 63 pp.

Kato, T.T., B.R. Rose, and T.P. O’Farrell. 1987a. Diet ofthe blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Gambelia silus on Naval

Petroleum Reserves #1 and #2, KernCounty,California. U.S. Dept. Energy Final Rep.No. 10282-2188, Santa

Barbara Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 16 pp.

1987b. Distribution, abundance, and habitat use of the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard on the Naval

Petroleum Reserves, Kern County, California. U.S. Dept. Energy Final Rep. No. EGG 10282-2185, Santa

Barbara Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 44 pp.

Kearney, T.H. 1951. The American genera of Malvaceae. Am. Midl. Nat. 46:93-131.

1956. Notes on Malvaceae. VIII. Eremalehe. Madrofio 13:241-272.

Keck, D.D. 1935. Studies upon the taxonomy of the Madinae. Madroiio 3:4-18.

Kelly, PA. 1990. Population ecology and social organization of dusky-footed woodrats, Neotomafuscipes. Ph.D.

dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley, 191 pp.

Kelly, PA., K.D. AlIred, H.P. Possingham, and D.F. Williams. 1995. Draft extinction risk assessment for the San

Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica). 108 pp.

Kerr, A. 1995. Ecosystem management mustinclude the most human of factors. Bioscience 45:378-378.

267
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

KeystoneCenter, The. 1991. Biological diversity on Federallands: reportofa Keystone policy dialogue. The Keystone

Center. 96 pp.

Keystone Center, The. 1995. Keystone dialogue on incentives to protect endangered species on private lands. Final

Rep., The Keystone Center. 47 pp.

Kindel, F. 1984. Riparian protection from Corps of Engineers projects. Pp. 895-898, in California riparian systems

ecology, conservation, and productive management (RE. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, eds.). Univ. California

Press, Berkeley, 1053 pp.

Knapp, D.K. 1975. The Fresno kangaroo ratstudy. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento,WildI. Invest., Final

Rep., Proj. W-54-R-7, Job 1-1.8, 21 pp.

1978. Effects of agricultural development in Kern County, California, on the San Joaquin kit fox in 1977.

California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame WildI. Invest., Unpubl. Rep., 57 pp.

Koos, K.A. 1977. The Fresno kangaroo rat population survey, 1977. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento,

Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Final Report, Project E-l-l, Job IV-l.l, 10 pp.

1979. Food relationships of an alkali sink rodent community. Unpubl. M.A. thesis, California State Univ.,

Fresno, 45 pp.

Kuchler, A.W. 1977. The map of the natural vegetation of California. Pp. 909-938 + supplement, in Terrestrial

vegetation of California (MG. Barbour and J. Major, eds.). John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1002 pp.

Lacordaire, J.T. 1863. Histoire naturelledes insectes. Genera des coleopteres, ou expose methodique et critique de tous

les genres proposesjusqu’ici dans cet ordre d’insectes. Librairie encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, France, 6:1-

637.

LaRoe, E.T. 1993. Implementation of an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation. Pp. 3-6, in

Exploring an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation (J. Tasse, ed.). Spec. Iss. End. Spec.

Update 10:1-62.

Larsen, C.J. 1993. Status review of the riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) in California. California

Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec. Rep. 93-12, 39 pp.

Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr., A.S. England, S. Fitton, and L. Saslaw. 1992. The Toxostorna thrashers of California: species

at risk? Trans. West. Sec. WildI. Soc. 28:22-29.

Laughrin, L. 1970. San Joaquin kitfox: its distribution and abundance. California Dept.Fish and Game, Sacramento,

WildI. Manage. Branch, Admin. Rep. No. 70-2, 20 pp.

Lawrence, G. 1987. A status report - Rio Bravo hydroelectric site grass fire impact on - rare cactus. Unpubl. Rep.,

Borcalli, Ensign, and Buckley, Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, CA, 5 pp.

Lawrence, G.N. 1852. Description of newspecies of birds, of the generaToxostomaWagler,Tyrannula Swainson, and

Plectophanes Meyer. Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist. N.Y. 5:121-124.

Lee, K.N., and J. Lawrence. 1986. Adaptive management: learning from the Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife

program. Envir. Law 16:431-460.

Leonelli, 5. 1986. An investigation of the taxonomic status of Erernaiche kernensis C. B. Wolf (Malvaceae). MS.

thesis, Univ. California, Long Beach, 65 pp.

268
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Lewis, H. 1993. Clarkia. Pp. 786-793, inThe Jepson manual: higher plantsof California (J.C. Hickman, ed.). Univ.

California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Lewis,J.C., K.L. Sallee, andR.T.Golightly,Jr. 1993. Introduced red fox inCalifornia. CaliforniaDept.Fish and Game,

Sacramento, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec., Rep. 93-10:1-70, 70 pp.

Lewis, R. 1992. Eriastrum hooveri field inventory. U.S. BureauLand Management, Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl. Rep.,

116 pp. + maps.

1993. Lembertia congdonii field inventory. U.S.Bureau LandManagement, Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl.Rep., 80

pp. + maps.

1994. Eriastrum hooveri field inventory. U.S. Bureau LandManagement, Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 120

pp.

1997. 1997 field inventory forLayia heterotricha, Layia ‘nunzii, Layia discoidea, Lepidiumjarediissp.jaredii,

Acanthomintha lanceolata, CarrizoPlain Natural Area, ClearCreekManagement Area. U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 18 pp. + maps.

Linsdale, J.M., and L.P. Tevis, Jr. 1951. The dusky-footed wood rat. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 664 pp.

Lockart, R. B., and D. W. Owings. 1974. Moon-related surface activity of bannertail (Dipodomys spectabilis) and

Fresno (D. nitratoides) kangaroo rats. Animal Behaviour 22:262-273.

Macbride, J.F. 1919. Reclassified or newspermatophytes - chiefly North American. Contrib. Gray Herbarium 59:28-

39.

Madrone Associates. 1979. Liquid products pipeline, storage andrailroad loading facility (Dept. of Energy project 12)

biological assessment, blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Crotaphytus[=Gambelia]silus), Naval Petroleum Reserve

No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County, California. U.S. Dept. Navy, San Bruno, CA, Final Proj. Rep., 60 pp. +

Appendices.

Maldonado, J.E. 1992. A review ofthe population statusof the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) in the

Tule Elk Reserve. Unpubl. Rep., Dept. Biology, Univ. California, Los Angeles, 29 pp.

1998. The population status of the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus). University of California,

Los Angeles. Unpubl. Rept., 15 pp.

Mason, H. L. 1945. The genus Eriastrum and the influence of Bentham and Hooker upon the problem of generic

confusion inthe Polemoniaceae. Madrono 8:65-91.

Mayer, KE., and W.F. Laudenslayer,Jr., eds. 1988. A guide towildlife habitats ofCalifornia. CaliforniaDept. Forestry

andFire Protection, Sacramento, 166 pp.

Mazer, S.J., and B.A. Hendrickson. 1993a. Demography, ecology, and reproductive biology ofCalifornia jewelfiower

(Caulanthus cal~fornicus: Brassicaceae). California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento,Unpubl. Rep., 113 pp.

1 993b. Demography and reproductive biology of San Joaquin woollythreads (Lembertia congdonii:Asteraceae).

California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 54 pp.

Mazer, S.J., G. LeBuhn, and D.E. Meade. 1993. Demography and reproductive biology of Kern mallow (Eremaiche

kernensis:Malvaceae). California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 300 pp. + Appendices.

269
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

McCarty, R. 1975. Onychomys torridus. Mammal. Species 59:1-5.

McCue,P.M.,T. Kato, ML. Sauls, and T.P.O’Farrell. 1981. Inventory of San Joaquin kitfox on land proposed as phase

II, Kesterson Reservoir, Merced County, California. Rep. No. EGG 1183-2426, EG&G Energy

Measurements, Goleta, CA, 16 pp.

McGrew, J.C. 1979. Vulpes macrods. Mammal. Species 123: 1-6.

Menges, ES. 1986. Predicting the futureof rare plant populations: demographic monitoring and modeling. Natural

AreasJ. 6:13-25.

1991. The application of minimum viable population theory toplants. Pp. 45-61, in Genetics and conservation

of rare plants (D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger,eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 283 pp.

Mercure, A.K., K. Ralls, K.P. Koepfli, andRB. Wayne. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids; mitochondrial

DNA differentiation ofswift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313-1328.

Merriam, C.H. 1888. Description of a new fox from southern California. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 4:135-138.

1893. Descriptions of eight newground squirrels of the genera Spermophilus and Tamiasfrom California, Texas,

and Mexico. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 8:129-138.

1894. Preliminary descriptions of eleven new kangaroo rats of the generaDipodomys and Perodipus. Proc. Biol.

Soc. Washington 9:109-116.

1895. Synopsis of the American shrews of the genus Sorex. N. Amer. Fauna 10:57-98.

1902. Three new foxes of the kit fox and desert fox groups. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 15:73-74.

1904a. Newand little known kangaroo rats of the genus Perodipus. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 17:139-145.

1904b. Four new grasshopper mice, genus Onychomys. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 17:123- 125.

Messick, T.C. 1987. Research needs for rare plant conservation in California. Pp. 99-108, in Conservation and

management of rare and endangered plants: proceedings of aCalifornia conference on the conservation and

management of rare and endangered plants (T.S. Elias, ed.). California NativePlant Society, Sacramento, 630

pp.

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Steering Committee. 1994. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat

Conservation Plan. Bakersfield, CA, 96 pp.

Miriam Green Associates. 1993. Phase I report - sensitive species. Interim South Delta project. U.S. Bureau

Reclamation, Sacramento, CA, 375 pp.

Mitchell, D. 1988. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to list Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia

treleasei). California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Unpubl. Rep., 8 pp.

Mitchell, DL. 1989. Geophysical survey line plant study: Lokern area, KernCounty, California. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,

Bakersfield, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 16 pp.

Moe, M. 1989. Report on field surveys of known occurrences of Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei. Unpubl. Rep.,

California State Univ., Bakersfield, 4 pp.

270
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Montanucci, R.R. 1965. Observations on the San Joaquin leopard lizard, Crotaphytus wislizenii silus Stejneger.

Herpetologica 2 1:270-283.

1967. Further studies on leopard lizards, Crotaphytus wislizenii. Herpetologica 23:119-126.

1970. Analysis of hybridization between Crotaphytus wislizenii and Crotaphytus silus (Sauria:Iguanidae) in

California. Copeia 1970:104-123.

Montanucci, R.R., R.W. Axtell, and H.C. Dessauer. 1975. Evolutionary divergence among collared lizards

(Crotaphytus), with comments on the status of Gambelia. Herpetologica 31:336-347.

Morefield, J.D. 1992. Three new species of Stylocline (Asteraceae:Inuleae) from California and the Mojave Desert.

Madrofio 39:114-130.

1993. Stylocline. Pp. 348-349, in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C. Hickman, ed.). Univ.

California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Morrell, S.H. 1971. Life history of the San Joaquin kitfox. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Spec. Wildl.

Invest., Unpubl. Rep., 25 pp.

1972. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 58:162-174.

1975. San Joaquin kit fox distribution and abundance in 1975. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento,

Wildl. Manage. Branch, Admin. Rep. No. 75-3, 28 pp.

Mossman, AS. 1955. Reproduction of the brush rabbit in California. J. WildI. Manage. 19:177-184.

Mosquin, S., K. Ralls, D.F. Williams, and R. Fleischer. In press. Genetic variation in relation to colony size in giant

kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) populations. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame Bird

and Mammal Conserv. Prog., Conserv. Sec. Rep.

Mullen, R.K. 1981. Elk Hills endangered species program. Environmental assessment of the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard, Crotaphytussilus, Phase 2, 1980. U.S. Dept. EnergyTopical Rep. No.EGG 1183-2417, Santa Barbara

Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 45 pp.

Munz, P.A. 1958. California miscellany lV. Aliso 4:87- 100.

1968. Supplement to aCalifornia flora. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 224 pp.

Munz, PA., and D.D. Keck. 1959. A California flora. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1681 pp.

National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Prepublication copy. National Research

Council, Washington, DC, 162 pp. + Appendices.

Nelson, J.R. 1983. Statussummary of Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei. California Energy Commission, Sacramento,

Draft Rep., 8 pp. + Appendices.

Newman, JR. 1976. Population dynamics of the wandering shrew Sorex vagrans. Wasmann J. Biol. 34:235-250.

Newman,J.R., and R.L. Rudd. 1978. Minimum and maximummetabolic rates ofSorexsinuosus. Acta Theriol. 23:371 -

380.

271
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Newman, T.F., and DA. Duncan. 1973. Vertebrate fauna of the San Joaquin Experimental Range, California: a

checklist. U.S. Dept.Agriculture, Forest Service, Fresno, CA, PacificSouthwestForest RangeExper. Station,

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-6:l-17.

Niehaus, T. 1977. Rare plant status report: A triplex tularensis Coville. California NativePlant Society, Sacramento,

3 pp.

Nolan, M.F. 1984. Vegetation on USArmy Corps of Engineers project levees in theSacramento/San Joaquin Valley,

California. Pp. 538-547, in California riparian systems ecology, conservation, and productive management

(R.E. Warner and KM. Hendrix, eds.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1053 pp.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press,

Washington, DC, 416 pp.

Noss, R., M. Scott, and E.T. LaRoe. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of

loss and degradation. Biological Report 28, National Biological Service, Washington, DC, 58 pp.

O’Farrell, T.P. 1980. Elk Hills endangered and threatened species program, phase 1 progress summary. U.S. Dept.

Energy Topical Rep. No. EGG 1183-2403, Santa BarbaraOperations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta,

CA, 19 pp.

O’Farrell, T.P. 1984. Conservation of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica on the Naval

Petroleum Reserves, California. Acta Zool. Fennica 172:207-208.

O’Farrell, T.P., and L. Gilbertson. 1979. Ecology of the desert kit fox, Vulpes macrotis arsipus, in the Mojave Desert

of Southern California. Bull. South. California Acad. Sci. 85:1-15.

O’Farrell, T.P., and T.T. Kato. 1980. Relationship between abundance of blunt-nosed leopard lizards, Crotaphytus

silus, and intensity of petrolcum field developmentin Kern County, California, 1980. U.S. Dept. Energy Rep.

No. EGG 1183-2413, Santa Barbara Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 42 pp. +

Appendices.

1987. Biological assessment of the effects of petroleum production activities, Naval Petroleum Reserves in

California, on the endangered giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2183, Santa

Barbara Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 30 pp.

O’Farrell, T.P., and N.E. Matthews. 1987. Five-year resurvey for endangered species on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1,

(Elk Hills) Kern County, California. 1987. Santa BarbaraOperations, EG&G EnergyMeasurements, Goleta,

CA, 33 pp. + Appendix.

O’Farrell,T.P., and P.M. McCue. 1981. Inventoryof San Joaquin kitfox on USBLM lands in the western San Joaquin

Valley—final report. Rep. No. EGG 1183-2416, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 36 pp. +

Appendices

O’Farrell, T.P., and M.L. Sauls. 1987. Biological survey of Naval Petroleum Reserve #2 (Buena Vista), Kern County,

California. U.S. Dept. Energy Topical Rep. No. 10282-2166, Santa Barbara Operations, EG&G Energy

Measurements, Goleta, CA, 51 pp. + Appendices.

O’Farrell, T.P., P. McCue, and T. Kato. 1981. Potential of USBLM lands in western Fresno and eastern San Benito

and MontereyCounties, California as criticalhabitats forthe endangered San Joaquin kitfox, Vulpesmacrotis

mutica, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Crotophytus silus. U.S. Dept. Energy Rep. No. EGOl 138-2440-S727-R-US- 11, Santa Barbara Operations, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 99 pp.

272
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

O’Farrell, T.P., et al. 1987a. Distribution of the endangered giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens, on the Naval

Petroleum Reserves, KernCounty, California. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2 173, Santa Barbara Operations, EG&G

Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 30 pp.

O’Farrell, T.P., W.H. Berry, and G.D. Warrick. 1987b. Distribution and statusof the endangered San Joaquin kit fox,

Vulpes macrotis mutica, on Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts, California. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2 194,

EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 69 Pp.

O’Farrell, T.P., T.T. Kato, P.M. McCue, and M.L. Sauls. 1980. Inventory of San Joaquin kit fox on USBLM lands in

southern and southwestern San Joaquin Valley—final report. Rep. No. EGG 1183-2400, EG&G Energy

Measurements, Goleta, CA, 74 pp. + Appendices.

Olson, O.E. 1986. Selenium toxicity in animals with emphasis on man. J. Am. College Toxicol., 5:45—70.

Olson, T.E., and D.L. Magney. 1992. Distribution of sensitive plant and wildlife species along transmission line

corridors in southwestern San Joaquin Valley, California. Pp. 169-184, in Endangered and sensitive species

of the San Joaquin Valley, California: their biology, management, and conservation (D.F. Williams, S. Byrne,

and T.A. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

O’Neal, G.T., J.T. Flinders, and W.P. Clary. 1992. Behavioral ecology of the Nevada kit fox (Vulpes macrotis

nevadensis) on a managed desert rangeland. Current Mammal. 1:443-481.

Orloff, 5G., A.W. Flannery, and K.C.Belt. 1993. Identification ofSan Joaquin kitfox tracks on aluminum trackplates.

California Fish and Game 79:45-53.

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. WildI. Soc. 22:60-70.

Osborn, M.M., P.G. Kevan, and M.A. Lane. 1988. Pollination biology of Opuntia polyacantha and Opuntia

phaeacantha (Cactaceae) in southern Colorado. Plant Syst. Evol. 159:85-94.

Orr, R.T. 1935. Description of three newraces of brush rabbit from California. Proc. Biol.Soc. Washington 48:27-30.

1940. The rabbits of California. Occas. Papers California Acad. Sci. 19:1-227.

Owen, J.G., and R.S. Hoffmann. 1983. Sorex ornatus. Mammalian Species 212:1-5.

Parfitt, B.D., and M.A. Baker. 1993. Opuntia. Pp. 452-456, inThe Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J.C.

Hickman, ed.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Parker, W.S., and E.R.Pianka. 1976. Ecological observations on the leopardlizard (Crotaphytuswislizenii) indifferent

parts of its range. Herpetologica 32:95-114.

Pastor, J. 1995. Ecosystem management, ecological risk, and public policy. Bioscience 45:286-288.

Patterson, R.W. 1993. Eriastrum. Pp. 826-828,in The Jepson manual: higher plantsof California (J.C. Hickman, ed.).

Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Patton, J.L., H.MacArthur, and S.Y. Yang. 1976. Systematic relationships of the four-toed populations ofDipodomys

heermanni. J. Mammal. 57:159-163.

Paveglio, F.L., and S.D. Clifton. 1988. Selenium accumulation by San Joaquin kit foxes and coyotes in the Kesterson

National Wildlife Refuge area—draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Los Banos, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 59 pp.

273
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Payson, E.B. 1923. A monographic study of Thelypodium and its immediate allies. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 9:233-324.

Pearson, OP. 1959. A traffic survey of Microtus- Reithrodontomys runways. J. Mammal. 40:169-180.

Pennell, F.W. 1947. Some hitherto undescribed Scrophulariaceae of the Pacific states. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.

Philadelphia 99:155-199.

Peterson, R.T. 1990. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA, 432 pp.

Philippi, T. 1993. Bet-hedging germination of desert annuals: beyond the first year. Amer. Nat. 142:474-487.

Phillips, A.R. 1965. Notas sistematicas sobre ayesMexicanus, III. Revista de laSociedad Mexicana Historia Natural

25:217-242.

Pierce, W.D. 1975. The sand dune weevils of the genus Trigonoscuta with a correlation of their anatomy to the

geological history of our coast lines. L.A. Co. Nat. Hist. Museum, Los Angeles, CA, 77 pp.

Pinkava, D.J.,L.A. McGill, T. Reeves, and MG. McLeod. 1977. Chromosomenumbers insome cactiof western North

America—Ill. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:105-110.

Pinter, A.J. 1970. Reproduction and growth for two species of grasshopper mice (Onychomys) in the laboratory. J.

Mammal. 51:236-243.

Potter, M. 1993. California Dept. Fish and Game, Hanford. Draft report on endangered species studies on the

Allensworth Ecological Reserve.

Presley, G. 1994. Draft Lokern natural area conceptual area plan. Draft Rep., CaliforniaDept. Fish and Game, Visalia,

13 pp. + Appendix.

QUAD Consultants. 1997. Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve 1996 annualreport. ARCO Western Energy,Bakersfield,

CA, Unpubl. Rep.

Questa Engineering Corporation. 1997. Hydrology: existing conditions and planning recommendations for the north

Livermore planning area, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Alameda County Planning Department

and the City of Livermore, 22 pp. + Appendices.

Ralls, K., and P.J.White. 1991. Kit fox-coyote relationships in the CarrizoPlainNatural Area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento, CA, Ann. Rep., 6 pp.

1995. Predation on endangered San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. J. Mammal. 276:723-729.

Randall, JA. 1997. Social organization and communication in Dipodomys ingens. Report for Research during 1995—

96, Permit PR-799486, on the endangered giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens, to U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service.

Reese, E.A., T.T. Kato, W.H. Berry, and T.p. O’Farrell. 1992. Ground penetrating radar and thermal images applied

to San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, CA.

U.S. Dept. of Energy Topical Report, No. EGG 10617—2162, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations, National

Technical Service, Springfield, VA.

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird species ofspecial concern inCalifornia. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento,

Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. 78-1, S4pp.

274
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Reveal, J.L. 1989. Eriogonoid flora of California (Polygonaceae: Eriogonoideae). Phytologia 66:295-414.

Ridgway, R. 1907. The birds of North and Middle America. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 50:1-973.

Rohwer, S.A., and DL. Kilgore, Jr. 1973. Interbreedingin the arid-land foxes, Vulpes ye/ox and Vulpes macrods. Syst.

Zool. 22:157-165.

Rollins,R.C. 1971. Protogyny inthe Cruciferae and notes on Arabis andCaulanthus. Contrib. Gray Herbarium 201:3-

10.

1993. Brassicaceae [Cruciferae]. Pp. 392-448 inThe Jepson manual: higher plantsofCalifornia(J.C. Hickman,

ed.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Rudd, R.L. 1953. Notes on maintenance and behavior ofshrews in captivity. J. Mammal. 34:118-120.

1955. Age, sex, and weight comparisons in three species of shrews. J. Mammal. 36:323-338.

Rust, A.K. 1978. Activityrhythmsin the shrews, Sorex sinuosus Grinnell and Sorex trowbridgiiBaird. Amer. Midland

Nat. 99:369-382.

Salwasser, H. 1991. In search ofan ecosystemapproach toendangered species conservation. Pp. 247-265,inBalancing

on the brink of extinction: the Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future (K.A. Kohm, ed.). Island

Press, Washington, DC, 315 pp.

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 1990. A management plan for agricultural subsurface drainage and related

problems on the westside San Joaquin Valley. California Dept. Water Resources, Sacramento, 183 pp.

San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program. 1979. Agricultural drainage and salt management in the San

Joaquin Valley. Final Rep., U.S. Bureau Reclamation, California Dept.WaterResources, andCalifornia State

Water Resources Control Board, Fresno, 140 pp.

Sargeant, AB., and S.H. Allen. 1989. Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes. J. Mammal. 70:631-633.

Scarabeus Associates. 1989. Biologicalinventory for the endangered speciesCoelusgracilis Blaisdell 1939, Aegialia

concinna Gordon & Cartwright 1977, and Trigonoscuta doyeni (M.S.).U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento, CA, Final Rep., 22 pp.

Schemske, D.W., B.C. Husband, M.H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, IM. Parker, and J.G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating

approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584-606.

Schiffman, P.M. 1994. Promotion of exotic weed establishment by the endangered giant kangaroo rats (Dipodomys

ingens) in a California grassland. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:524-537.

Scott, J. M., et al. 1993. GAP Analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr.

123: 1-41.

Scott-Graham,E. 1994. AmericanFarmland Trust: a proposal for incentive-driven habitat creation and enhancement

on farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley underthe Federal Endangered Species Act. Draft Rep., Visalia, CA,

34 pp.

Scrivner, J.H. 1987. Summary and evaluation of the coyote control program on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern

County, California, 1987. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2186, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 13 pp.

275
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Scrivner, J.H., and C.E. Harris. 1986. Summary and evaluation of the coyote control program, Naval Petroleum

Reserve #1, Kern County, California, 1986. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2125, EG&G Energy Measurements,

Goleta, CA, 28 pp.

Scrivner, J.H., T.P. O’Farrell, T.T. Kato, and M.K. Johnson. 1987a. Diet of the San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis

mutica, on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California, 1980-1984. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2168,

EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 26 pp.

Scrivner, J.H., T.P. O’Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1987b. Dispersal of San Joaquin kit foxes, Vulpes macrotis mutica, on

Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2 190, EG&G Energy

Measurements, Goleta, CA, 32 pp.

Shaw, W.T. 1934. The ability of the giant kangaroo rat as a harvester and storer of seeds. J. Mammal. 15:275-286.

Sheppard, J.M. 1970. A study of the Le Conte’s thrasher. California Birds 1:85-94.

1973. An initial study of Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). M.A. thesis, California State University,

Long Beach, 134 pp.

1996. Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) inThe birds of North America,No. 230 (A. Poole and F. Gill,

eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’s Union,

Washington, D.C.

Silveira,J. 1996. Arena Plains National Wildlife Refuge and Sunrise Ranch annotated plantlist. Unpubl. manuscript,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Willows, CA., 11 pp.

Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s inventory of rare and endangered

vascular plants of California. Fifth edition. Spec. Publ. No. 1, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,

CA, 338 pp.

Skinner, M.W., et al. 1995. Research needs for conserving California’s rare plants. Madroflo 42:211-241.

Skorupa, J.W., Morman, S.P., and J.S. Sefchick-Edwards. 1996. Guidelines for interpreting selenium exposures of

biota associated with non-marine aquatic habitats. Technical Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Sacramento Office, Sacramento, CA.

Slocombe, D.S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-basedmanagement: development of theory, practice, and research for

planning and managing a region. Bioscience 43:612-622.

Smith, H.M. 1946. Handbook of Lizards. Lizardsof the United States and Canada. ComstockPublishingCo., Ithaca,

NY, 557 pp.

Souls, M. 1994. A California rescue plan. Defenders FALL:36-39.

Spears, E.E., Jr. 1987. Island and mainland pollination ecology of Centrosema virginianum and Opuntia stricta. J.

Ecol. 75:351-362.

Spiegel, L.K., and R.L. Anderson. 1992. Southern San Joaquin Valley ecosystem protection program: natural lands

inventory. Pp. 249-261, in Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (D.F.

Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

Spiegel, L.K., and M. Bradbury. 1992. Home range characteristics of the San Joaquin kit fox in western Kern County,

California. Trans. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 28:83-92.

276
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Spiegel, L.K, J. Tom, M. Disney, and T. Dao. In press. Reproduction of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis inutica)

in undeveloped and oil developed habitats of Kern County, California. In, Studies of San Joaquin kit fox in

undeveloped and oil developed areas. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.

Standley, P.C. 1916. Chenopodiales. North American Flora 21:33-72.

Standley, W.G., W.J. Berry, T.P. O’Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1992. Mortality of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis

mutica) at CampRoberts Army National GuardTraining Site, California. Rep. No. EGG 10617-2157,EG&G

Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, l9pp.

Stanley, T.R. 1995. Ecosystem management and the arrogance of humanism. Conserv. Biol. 9:255-262.

Stebbins, J.C. 1993. Status survey of Monardella leucocephala (Lamiaceae) in the San Joaquin Valley, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 16 pp. + Appendices.

Stebbins, J.C., T.E. Mallory, WO. Trayler, and G.W. Moise. 1992. Botanical resourcesreport: California Aqueduct

- San Joaquin Field Division, Dept. of Water Resources. California Dept. Water Resources, Sacramento,

Unpubl. Rep., 28 pp. + Appendices.

Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill BookCo., Inc., NY, 536 pp.

1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,

MA, 336 pp.

Stejneger, L. 1890. Annotated list of reptiles and batrachians, with descriptions of new species. North Amer. Fauna

3: 103-118.

1893. Annotated list of the reptiles and batrachians collected by the Death Valley Expedition in 1891, with

descriptions of new species. North Amer. Fauna 7:159-228.

Stock, A.D. 1971. Chromosome evolution in the genus Dipodomys and its taxonomic and phylogenetic implications.

J. Mammal. 55:505-526.

Swick, C.D. 1973. Determination of San Joaquin kit fox range in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Tulare

Counties, 1973. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Spec. Wildl. Invest., Unpubl. Rep., 15 pp.

Tanner, W.W., and B.H. Banta. 1963. The systematics of Crotaphytus wislizenii, the leopard lizards. Part 1. A

redescription of Crotaphytuswislizenii wislizeniiBaird and Girard, and a description of a new subspecies from

the Upper Colorado River Basin. Great Basin Nat. 23:129-148.

Tappe, D.T. 1941. Natural history of the Tulare kangaroo rat. J. Mammal. 22:117-148.

Tasse,J.,ed. 1993. Exploring an ecosystem approach toendangered species conservation. Spec. Iss. End.Spec. Update

10: 1-62.

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, 1400 pp.

Taylor, D.W. 1988. The California jewelfiower: one of California’s most endangered plants. Fremontia 16:18-19.

Taylor, D.W. 1989. Status survey of San Joaquin woolly-threads (Lembertia congdonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 27 pp. + Appendices.

277
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe SanJoaquin Valley

Taylor, D.W., and RE. Buck. 1993. Distribution of San Joaquin woolly-threads (Lembertia congdonii) inthe vicinity

of Lost Hills, Kern County, California. Lost Hills Utility District, Lost Hills, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 17 pp.

Taylor, D.W., and W.B. Davilla. 1986. Status survey of three plants endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent

areas, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 131 pp.

Taylor, D.W., J.M. Miller, and R.B. Mosely. 1990. Endangered plant survey for the PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion

Project, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. PacificGas Transmission Company, San Francisco, CA,

Unpubl. Rep.

Taylor, J.M. 1963. Reproductive mechanisms of the male grasshopper mouse. J. Exp. Zool. 154:109-124.

1968. Reproductive mechanisms of the female southern grasshopper mouse, Onychomys torridus Iongicaudus.

J. Mammal. 49:303-309.

Taylor, W.P. 1916. A new spermophile from the San Joaquin Valley, California, with notes on Ammospermophilus

nelsoninelsoni Merriam. Univ. California PubI. Zool. 17:15-20.

Tear, T.H., J.M. Scott, PH. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are

criticisms supported by data? Conserv. Biol. 9:182-195.

Thomas, A. 1990. A comparison of an exact and a simulation method for calculating gene extinction probabilities in

pedigrees. Zoo Biology 9:257-274.

Tollefson, R. 1992. Unpubl. Monitoring Rep., Atriplex tularensis, The Nature Conservancy, Weldon, CA, 5 pp.

Tollestrup, K. 1976. A standardized method of obtaining an index of densities of blunt-nosed leopard lizards,

Crotaphytus si/us. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 11 pp. + Appendices.

1979a. Distribution of Gambelia silus (blunt-nosed leopard lizard) in the western foothills of the San Joaquin

Valley. U.S. Bureau Land Management, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 18 pp.

1979b. The ecology, social structure, and foraging behavior of two closely related species of leopard lizards,

Gambelia si/us and Gambelia wislizenii. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley.

1982. Growth and reproduction in two closely related species of leopard lizards, Gambelia si/us and Gambelia

wislizenii. Amer. Midl. Nat. 108:1-20.

1983. The social behavior of two closely related leopard lizards, Gambelia si/us and Gambelia wislizen ii. J.

Tierpsychol. 62:307-320.

Toumey, J.W. 1901. Opuntia. Pp. 1143-1152,in Cyclopedia of American horticulture, Vol.111: N-Q(L.H. Bailey, ed.).

Macmillan, New York, 2016 pp.

Turner,F.B., JR. Lannom, PA. Medica, and G.A. Hoddenbach. 1969. Density and composition of fenced populations

of leopard lizards (Crotaphytus wislizenii) in Southern Nevada. Herpetologica 25:247-257.

Twisselmann,E.C. 1956. A floraof the Temblor Range and the neighboring part of the San Joaquin Valley. Wasmann

J. Biol. 14:161-300.

1967. A flora of Kern County, California. Univ. San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 395 pp.

1969. Status of the rare plants of Kern County. California Native Plant Soc. Newsletter 5(3):l-7.

278
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Uptain, C., W.A. Clark, and S.M, Juarez. 1985. Mark-recapture population estimates and visitation indices for the

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Gambe/ja si/us, at the 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.

1992. Population structureof blunt-nosed leopard lizards (Gambelia si/us) at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge,

Tulare County, California. Pp. 28 1-286, in Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley,

California (D.F. Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388

pp.

Uptain, C.E., P.A. Kelly, and D.F. Williams. 1998. Final report on the conservation of the Doyen’s dune weevil

(Trigonoscuta sp.). Unpubl. Rep., l2pp.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Management plan for the Panoche/Coalinga area of critical environmental

concern. U.S. Dept. Interior, U.S. Bureau Land Management, Bakersfield, CA, 29 pp.

1993 Draft Caliente resource management plan and environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. Interior, U.S.

Bureau Land Management, Bakersfield, CA, 833 pp. + Maps.

1995. Carrizo Plain Natural Area management plan. U.S. Dept. Interior, U.S. Bureau Land Management,

Bakersfield, CA, 182 pp.

1996a. Caliente resource management plan. U.S. Dept. Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

Bakersfield, CA, 158 pp.

1996b. Caliente RMP final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, Bakersfield, CA, 158 pp.

U.S. Bureau of LandManagement, California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3, and The Nature Conservancy.

1995. Carrizo Plain Natural Area plan. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, CA 179 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native fish and wildlife. Endangered species. Fed. Register 32:4001.

1978. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered species or threatened species status

and critical habitat for 10 beetles. Fed. Register 43:35637-35643.

1980a. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard recovery plan. U.S. Fish Wildl. Service, Portland, OR, 62 pp.

I 980b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: withdrawal of an expired proposal for listing of eight

North American beetles. Fed. Register 45:65137.

1983. San Joaquin kit fox recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, 84 pp.

1985a. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, 85 pp.

l985b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status and critical habitat

for the Fresno kangaroo rat. Fed. Register 50:4222-4226.

1985c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered status for the giant kangaroo rat.

Fed. Register 50:32585-32587.

1985d. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; [notice of] review of vertebrate wildlife. Fed. Register

50(18 l):37958-37967.

279
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

• 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered status for Cordv/anthuspa/rnatus

(palmate-bracted bird’s-beak). Fed. Register 50:28870-28873.

• 1987. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the giant kangaroo

rat. Fed. Register 52:283-288.

• 1988. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife and plants; determination ofendangered status for the Tipton kangaroo

rat. Fed. Register 53:25608-25611.

1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal notice of review. Fed. Register 54:554-578.

1990. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of endangered or threatened status forfive

plants from the southern San Joaquin Valley. Fed. Register 55:29361-29370.

1994a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal candidate review for listing as endangered or

threatened species; proposed rule. Fed. Register 59:58982-59028.

1994b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of interagency cooperative policy for the

ecosystem approach to the Endangered Species Act. Fed. Register 59:34273-34274.

• 1995a. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation. Washington, DC.

1995b. Endangered and threatened species; notice of reclassification of 32 candidate species. Fed. Register

60:34225-34227.

1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates for

listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review. Fed. Register 61:7596-7613.

1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered status for the riparian brush rabbit

and riparian woodrat. Fed. Register 62(225):62276-62282

Vanderbilt-White, C. A., and P. J. White. 1992. Population status of the short-nosed kangaroo rat on the CarrizoPlain

Natural Area, California. Trans. West. Sec. WildI. Soc. 28:30-33.

Vasek, F.C. 1977. Phenotypic variation and adaptation in Clarkia Section Phaeostoma. System. Bot. 2:251- 279.

Waithman, J.D. 1974a. San Joaquin kit fox distribution inthe California counties ofSanta Barbara, Kings, Tulare, and

Kern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 19 pp.

1974b. Aerial evaluation of San Joaquin kit fox populations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA,

Unpubl. Rep., 6 pp.

Waithman, J., and A. Roest. 1977. Taxonomic study of the kit fox, Vulpes macrotis. J. Mammal. 58:157-164.

Walker, B. 1995. Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. Conserv. Biol. 9:747-752.

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McGraw-Hill, New York, 374 pp.

Walters, C.J., andC.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scalemanagement experiments and learningby doing. Ecology 71:2060-

2068.

Warner, D. 1976. The effects of grazing on Dipodomys nitratoides exilis, in an alkali sink community. M.A. thesis,

California State Univ., Fresno, 91 pp.

280
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Warner, RE. 1979. The California riparian study program. Phae I: background studies and program design for phase

II. California Department ofFish and Game, Planning Branch, 179 pp.

Warner, R.E. 1984. Structural, floristic, and condition inventory ofCentral Valley riparian systems. Pp. 356-374, in

California riparian systems ecology, conservation, and productive management (RE. Warner and KM.

Hendrix, eds.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1053 pp.

Watson, 5. 1880. Botany, Volume II. Geological survey of California, John Wilson and Son, University Press,

Cambridge, MA, 559 pp.

Werschkull, GD., F.T. Griggs, and J.M. Zaninovich. 1984. Tulare Basin protection plan. The California Nature

Conservancy, San Francisco, 103 pp.

Westmann, W., K.P. Preston, and L.B. Weeks. 1985. Sulphur dioxideeffects on the growth ofnative plants. Pp. 264-

280, in Sulfur dioxide and vegetation (W.H. Winner, H.A. Mooney, andRA. Goldstein, eds.). Stanford Univ.

Press, Stanford, CA, 593 pp.

White,P.J., and K. RaIls. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of kit foxesrelative to changing prey availability.

J. WildI. Manage. 57:861-867.

White,P.J., K. Ralls, and RA. Garrott. 1994. Coyote-kit fox spatial interactions based on radio-telemetry. Canadian

J. Zool. 72:1831-1836.

White,P.J.,C.A. Vanderbilt-White, and K. RaIls. 1996. Functional and numericalresponses ofkitfoxes toa short-term

decline in mammalian prey. J. Mammal.

White, RE. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA, 368 pp.

Wilcove, D. 1993. Getting ahead of the extinction curve. Ecol. Applic. 3:218-220.

Wilcove, D.S., and R.B. Blair. 1995. The ecosystem management bandwagon. Trends in Evolution and Ecology

10:345-345.

Wilken, D.H., R.R. Halse, and R.W. Patterson. 1993. Phacelia. Pp. 69 1-706,in The Jepson manual: higher plants of

California (J.C. Hickman, ed.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.

Williams, D.F. 1980. Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat.

California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame WildI. Invest., Final Rep. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48 pp.

Williams, D.F. 1985. A review of the population status of the Tipton kangaroo rat, Dipodornys nitratoides nitratoides.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Endangered Species Office, CA, Final Rep., 44 pp.

1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Dept. Fish and Game, WildI. Manage.

Div., Admin. Report 86-1:1-112.

1987. Fresno kangaroo rat workbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, 29 pp.

1988. Ecology and management ofthe riparian brush rabbit inCaswell Memorial State Park. California Dept.

Parks and Recreation, Lodi, Final Rep. Interagency Agreement 4-305-6 108, 38 pp.

1990. Assessment of potential habitat for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard and San Joaquin kit fox in western

Madera County, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office, Sacramento, CA, 31

pp.

281
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

1991. Habitats of shrews (genus Sorex) in forest communities of the western Sierra Nevada, California. Pp. 1-

14, in The biology of the Soricidae (J.S. Findley and T.L. Yates, eds.). Mus. SouthwesternBiol. Spec. PubI.

1:1-91.

1992. Geographic distribution and population status of the giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens (Rodentia,

Heteromyidae). Pp. 30 1-328, inEndangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (D.F.

Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

1993. Population censuses of riparian brush rabbits and riparian woodrats at Caswell Memorial State Park

during January 1993. California Dept. Parks and Recreation, Lodi, Final Rep., 15 pp.

Williams, D.F., and G.E. Basey. 1986. Population statusof the riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius).

California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal

Section Rep., 21 pp.

Williams, D.F., and D.J. Germano. 1991. Effects of livestock grazingon endangered species at Pixley NationalWildlife

Refuge, Tulare County,California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, KernNational WildI. Refuge, Delano, CA,

Order No. 10181-11764(BW), 33 pp.

1993. Recovery of endangered kangaroo rats in the San Joaquin Valley, California. 1992 Trans. West. Sec.

Wildl. Soc. 28:93-106.

Williams, D.F.. and KS. Kilburn. 1984. Sensitive, threatened, and endangered mammals of riparian and other wetland

communities in California. Pp. 950-956,in California riparian systems ecology, conservation, and productive

management (RE. Warner and KM. Hendrix, eds.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1035 pp.

1991. Dipodomys ingens. Mammal. Species 377:1-7.

1992. The conservation statusof the endemic mammals of the San Joaquin Faunal Region, California. Pp. 329-

348, in Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (D.F. Williams, S. Byrne, and

TA. Rado, eds.). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 388 pp.

Williams, D.F., and S. Nelson. In press. Population studies of giant kangaroo rats on the Carrizo PlainNatural Area,

San Luis Obispo County, California. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Bird and Mammal

Conserv. Rep.

Williams, D.F., and W. Tordoff III. 1988. Operations and maintenance schedule: Elkhorn Plain Ecological Reserve,

San Luis Obispo County, California. California Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame-Heritage Program,

Sacramento, CA, Final Rep. 71 pp.

Williams, D.F., M.K. Davis, and L.P. Hamilton. 1995. Distribution, population size, and habitat features of giant

kangaroo rats in the northern segment of their geographic range. California Dept. Fish and Game, Bird and

Mammal Conservation Program, Rep. 95-01, 38 pp.

Williams,D.F., RH. Genoways, and J.K. Braun. 1 993a. Taxonomy. Pp. 38-196, in Biology of the Heteromyidae (H.H.

Genoways and J.H. Brown, eds.). Amer. Soc. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 10: 1-719.

Williams, D.F., DI. Germano. and W. Tordoff III. 1993b. Population studies of endangered kangaroo rats and bluntnosed leopard lizards inthe Carrizo Plain Natural Area,California. California Dept.Fish and Game, Nongame

Bird and Mammal Sec., Rep. 93-01:1-114.

Williams, D.F., W. Tordoff III, and J.H. Harris. 1988. San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni)

study - 1988. Final Rep. FG-7398, Endangered WildI. Prog., CaliforniaDept. Fish andGame, Sacramento, 62

pp.

282
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Williams, D.F., J. Verner, H.F. Sakai, and J.R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California

spottedowl. Pp. 207-221, inThe California spottedowl: a technical assessment of its currentstatus (J. Verner,

et al., eds.). U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep.

PSW-GTR- 133:1-285.

Wolf, C.B. 1938. California plant notes: II. Occas. Papers Rancho Santa Ana Bot. Garden Series 1(2):44-90.

Yaffee, S.L, AF. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P.W. Hardy, S.M. Maleki, and BE. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem managementin

the United States: an assessment of current experience. University of Michigan and the Wilderness Society.

Island Press, Washington, DC, 3S2pp.

Zoellick, B.W., T.P. O’Farrell, P.M. McCue, C.E. Harris, and T.T. Kato. 1987a. Reproduction of the San Joaquin kit

fox on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Elk Hills, California, 1980-1985. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2144, EG&G

Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 42 pp.

Zoellick, B .W., T.P. 0’ Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1 987b. Movements and home range of San Joaquin kitfoxes on the Naval

Petroleum Reserves, Kern County, California. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2184, EG&G Energy Measurements,

Goleta, CA, 38 pp.

283
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

B. Personal Communications

Allen, J., Wildlife Biologist, Kern National Wildlife Refuge, Kern Co., CA.

Anderson, R.L., California Energy Commission, Bakersfield, CA.

Berry, W., Cal Poly University, San Luis Obispo, located at Camp Roberts.

Brode, J., California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Brown, K., Environmental Specialist, Calif. Dept. Water Resources, Bakersfield, CA.

Carter, S., Botanist, U.S. Bureau Land Management, Caliente Resource Area, Bakersfield, CA.

Clendenen, D., Manager, Wind Wolves Preserve, Maricopa, CA.

Collins, P., Curator, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Cypher, B.L., Program Manager, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., Endangered Species and Cultural Resources

Program, Tupman, CA.

Delgado, B., Botanist, U.S. Bureau Land Management, Hollister Resource Area, Hollister, CA.

Dyer, D., Manager, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center, Lockeford, CA.

Fabion, R., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, CA

Fitton, S., Biologist, U.S. Bureau Land Management, Hollister Resource Area, Hollister, CA.

Foote, H.L., Div. Plant Industry, Control and Eradication, California Dept.Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.

Freas, K., Senior Ecologist, CH2M Hill, Sacramento, CA.

Germano, D.J., Research Associate, Dept. of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield, CA.

Getz, V., Biological Consultant, Jones and Stokes, Sacramento, CA.

Gustafson, J., Wildlife Biologist, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program, California Dept. Fish and Game,

Sacramento, CA.

Hinshaw, G., Preserve Manager, Centerfor Natural Lands Management, Bakersfield, CA.

Hinshaw, J., Scientist III, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., Endangered Species and Cultural Resources Program,

Tupman, CA.

Holtsford, T., Assistant Professor, Div. Biological Sciences, Univ. Missouri, Columbia.

Howald, A., Plant Ecologist, California Dept. Fish and Game, Yountville.

James, T., Director, Kern County Planning Dept., Bakersfield, CA.

Johnson, M., California LivingMuseum, Bakersfield, CA.

284
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Juarez, S., Wildlife Biologist, California Dept. Water Resources, Visalia. CA.

Kato, T., Environmental Protection Division, Lawerence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Lewis, R., Ecologist, U.S. Bureau Land Management, Caliente Resource Area, Bakersfield, CA.

Maldonado, J., Biologist, Dept. Biology, Univ. California, Los Angeles.

Marovich, R.A., Pesticide Registration Branch, California Dept. Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.

Mensik, G., Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Willows, CA.

Mitchell, D., Consulting Biologist, Bakersfield, CA.

Morefield, J., Botanist, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City.

Murphy, T.D., Dept. Biology, California State University, Bakersfield, CA.

Patton, J. L., Curator of Mammals, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Univ. California, Berkeley.

Potter, M., California Dept. of Fish and Game, Fresno, CA.

Presley, G., California Dept. of Fish and Game, Fresno, CA.

Rado, TA., Biological Consultant, Riverside, CA.

Ralls, K., Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.

Rathbun, G., Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, San Simeon, CA.

Reed, R., Anadromous Habitat Restoration Coordinator, California Dept. ofFish and Game, Fresno, CA.

Schlorff, R., Wildlife Biologist, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program, California Dept. Fish and Game,

Sacramento, CA.

Shelton, J., Wildlife Biologist, California Dept. Water Resources, Fresno, CA.

Sheppard, J.M., 3359 Cranberry South, Laurel, MD 20724-24 19

Single, J., Wildlife Biologist, Caifornia Dept. Fish and Game, Fresno, CA.

Sleeper, EL., Dept. Biology, California State Univ., Long Beach.

Spiegel, L.K., California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.

Tabor, S., Biological Consultant, Bio Environmental Associates, Bakersfield, CA.

Taylor, D., Senior Botanist, BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA.

Tollefson, R., Preserve Manager, The Nature Conservancy, Kern River Preserve, KernCounty, CA.

Van de Hoek, R., Graduate student, California State Univ., Northridge.

285
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Vanderbilt-White, CA., Doctoral Student, Univ. California, Davis.

White, P.J., Cal Poly Research Biologist, Camp Roberts Endangered Species Study Group, San Luis Obispo, CA.

Wilson, S., Botanist, QUAD Consultants, Bakersfield, CA.

Yoerg, S., Dept. of Psychology, Univ. California, Berkeley.

York, D., Biologist, Caltrans, Fresno, CA

Zikratcb, T., Office of Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner, County Civic Center, Visalia, CA.

286
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

C. In bitt. References

Beebler, R. 1994. Letter from Area Manager, Bureau Land Management, Hollister Resource Area, Hollister, CA to

Ellen Cypher, Research Ecologist, San Joaquin Valley Endangered Species Recovery Planning Program,

Bakersfield, CA., 2 pp.

Bowen, C. 1987. Letter to Jim Bartel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, 8 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1984. Management plan - Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, revised

September, 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Endangered Species Office, Sacramento, CA, Preliminary

draft.

1996. Framework for maintainingthe San Joaquin kitfox in the northern segment of its range. Unpubi. Report

and map.

1998. Comment letter on Draft Recovery Plan for Upland Species of San Joaquin Valley, CA.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1998. Commentletter on Draft Recovery Plan for Upland Species of

San Joaquin Valley, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1997. Tulare Basin resource assessment—preliminary report.

Memorandum Report. San Joaquin District, Fresno.

California Natural Diversity Data Base. 1997. Rarefind II (electronic form). California Dept. of Fish and Game,

Sacramento, not paginated.

Clark, C. 1979. Interdepartmental memorandum, Univ. California, Davis, I p.

Doran, K. 1993. Map of grazing regimes on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area. Bureau Land Management, Caliente

Resource Area, Bakersfield, CA, Ip.

Engler, J.D. 1994. Report of activities—Status ofthe Buena Vista Lake shrew at Kern National Wildlife Refuge. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Kern Co., CA.

Germano, D.J. 1992. 1991 population surveys of protected vertebratespecies at Tule ElkState Reserve, Kern County,

California. California Dept. Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

Hewett, R. 1987. Letter from Sand Ridge Preserve Manager, Weldon, CA., to James J. McKevitt, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, 2 pp.

Le Fevre, M. 1976. 1976 leopard lizardcensus summary. U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Pinos Ranger District, Los Padres

National Forest.

Lewis, R. 1993. California native species field survey form. Caulanthus californicus. Ca. Dept. Fish and Game,

Sacramento, Unpublished forms, 20 pp.

1994. California native species field survey form Lepidium jaredii. Ca. Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento,

Unpublished forms, 2 pp.

1995. California native species field survey form. Eriogonum temblorense. Ca. Dept. Fish and Game,

Sacramento, Unpublished forms, 12 pp,

287
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Medlin, JA. 1995a. Letter from Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, to James Killen,

U.S. Dept. Energy, Tupman, CA, 2 pp.

1995b. Letter from U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento,CA,to D.C.Tristao,J.G. Boswell Co.,Corcoran,

CA, 2pp.

Patton, J.L. 1994. Determining the distribution and status of the Fresno kangaroo rat: a proposal for meeting critical

needs. U.S. Bureau Reclamation, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. grant proposal, 16 pp.

San Joaquin Valley BiologicalTechnical Committee. 1993. A biological frameworkfor natural lands and endangered

species in the southern San Joaquin Valley. May 1993 Draft, Bakersfield, CA, 51 pp.

Thorp, R.W. 1998. Comment letter on Draft Recovery Plan for Upland Species of San Joaquin Valley, CA.

U.S. Bureauof LandManagement. 1994. Report on implementationduring 1994 of USFWS’ terms and conditions and

conservation recommendations forlivestock grazing in selected allotmentsin the Hollister Resource Area (as

described in Biological Opinion l-l-92-F-5) and request for informal section 7 consultation on proposed

efforts for 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, Unpubl. Rep., 36 pp. + Maps.

U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1985. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat protection - land protection plan. Region 1,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

1991. Biological opinion for the Friant Division water contract renewals. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement,

Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, CA, 47 pp. + Appendices.

1992a. Report on the status of Category 1 dune beetles. Unpubl. memorandum (Judy Jacobs), April 1,

Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, CA, 5 pp.

1992b. Beetles from California and Nevada. Unpubl. Memorandum (Chris Nagano), April 17, 1992, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 6 pp.

1993. Effects of 16 vertebrate control agents on threatened and endangered species. Biological Opinion, U.S.

Fish andWildlife Service, Washington, DC, 172 pp.

1 995a. Biological opinion forinterim renewal contract. 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA,

160 pp.

1995b. A habitat conservation plan to encourage the voluntary restoration and enhancement of habitat for the

red-cockaded woodpecker on private and certain other land in the Sandhills of North Carolina by providing

“safe harbor” to participating landowners, 26 pp.

1997a. Biological opinion for renewal of a five year pesticide use permit for use of malathion to control curly

top virus. Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, CA. 47 pp. + Appendices.

1997b. Intra-Service section 7 consultation and conference on issuance of section l0(a)(l)(B) incidental take

permits to Kern Water Bank Authority, for the development, operation, and maintenance of the Kern Water

Bank, and the Kern WaterBank Conservation Bank, Kern County, California.

Williams, D F 1989. Letter to R. Schlorff, California Dep. Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 2 pp.

1994. Draft scope of work—Population status and habitat associations of the Buena Vista Lake shrew. San

Joaquin Valley Endangered Species Recovery Planning Program,Fresno, CA.

288
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Williams, D.F., and P.A. Kelly. 1994a. Distribution and population status of the giant kangaroo rat: 1994-95.

California Dept. Fish and Game, Birdand Mammal Conserv. Prog., Sacramento, Unpubl. Research Proposal,

7 pp.

1994b. Habitat management for Fresno kangaroo rats at Lemoore Naval Air Station. Draft Scope of Work,

Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Dept. Navy, San Bruno, CA, 6 pp.

1 994c. Distribution and population statusof the Fresno kangaroo rat: 1994-95. California Dept.Fish and Game,

Bird and Mammal Conserv. Prog., Sacramento,Unpubl. Grant Proposal, 8 pp.

289
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

VII. APPENDIX

A. LIST OF SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS

Common Name Scientific Name

PLANTS

Alkali daisy

Alkali heath

Alkali peppergrass

Alkali sacaton

Anderson desert thorn

Annual fescue

Arabian grass

Arabian grass species

Arrowscale

Bakersfield cactus

Bakersfield smallscale

Baltic rush

Beavertail cactus

Big saltbush

Bladderpod

Booth’s evening primrose

Bractscale

Brittlescale

California blackberry

California buckwheat

California ephedra

California filago

California jewelfiower

California juniper

California poppy

California wild rose

Carrizo peppergrass

Chaparral yucca

Cheesebush

Chinese lantern phacelia

Clover species

Comanche Point layia

Common saltbush

Common spikeweed

Common tidy-tips

Coulter’sjewelfiower

Coyote bush

Coyote-mint

Crownscale

Desert mallow

Lastheniaferrisiae

Frankenia sauna

Lepidium dictyotum

Sporobolus airoides

Lycium andersonii

Vulpia microstachys

Schismus arabicus

Schismus spp.

A triplex phyllostegia

Opuntia basilaris var. irreleasei

Atriplex tularensis

Juncus balticus

Opuntia basilaris

A triplex lentiformis

Isomeris arborea

Camissonia boothii

Atriplex serenana

Atriplex depressa

Rubus ursinus

Eriogonum fasciculatum

Ephedra californica

Filago californica

Caulanthus californicus

Juniperus californica

Eschscholzia cal~fornica

Rosa californica

Lepidiumjaredii ssp. jaredii

Yucca whipplei

Hymenoclea salsola

Phacelia ciliata

Trifolium spp.

Layia leucopappa

A triplex polycarpa

Hemizonia pun gens

Layiaplatyglossa

Caulanthus coulteri

Baccharis sp.

Monardella villosa

A triplex coronata

Eremaiche exilis

290
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

A. List ofScientific and Common Names ofPlants and Animals (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Diamond-petaled California poppy

Douglas’ coyote bush

Eastwoodia

Eastwood’s buckwheat

Everlasting neststraw

Ephedra

Farewell-to-spring

Fiddleneck

Filaree

Fremont poplar

Frying pans

Glasswort

Goldenbush

Goldfields

Greasewood

Green clover

Green ephedra

Gunsight clarkia

Haplopappus species

Heartscale

Hillside daisy

Hispid bird’s beak

Hollisteria

Honey mesquite

Hoover’s woolly-star

Idria buckwheat

Iodine bush

Jared’s peppergrass

Jones’ tidy-tips

Kern mallow

Large-leaved filaree

Leafy-stemmed coreopsis

Lemmon’s poppy

Lesser saltscale

Lost Hills saltbush

Many-flowered eriastrum

Marsh baccharis

Matchweed

Merced monardella

Merced phacelia

Microseris

Mouse-tail fescue

Eschscho/zia rhombipetala

Baccharis douglasii

Eastwoodia elegans

Eriogonum eastwoodianum

Stylocline gnaphaloides

Ephedra spp.

CIarkia cylindrica

Amsinckia spp.

Erodium spp.

Populusfremontii

Eschscho/zia Iobb,i

Salicornia subterminalis

Ericameria, Hap/opappus, and Isocoma spp.

Lasthenia californica

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Trjfo/ium wormskioldii

Ephedra viridis

Clarkia unguiculata

Hap/opappus spp.

A triplex cordulata

Mono/opia lanceolata

Cordy/anthus mo//is ssp. hispidus

Hollisteria lanata

Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana

Eriastrum hooveri

Eriogonum vestitum

A/lenro/fea occidentalis

Lepidiumjaredii

Layiajonesii

Erema/che kernensis

Erodium macrophyl/um

Coreopsis ca//iopsidea

Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. lemmonii

Atriplex minuscula

Atriplex va//icc/a

Eriastrum p/ur~florum

Baccharis doug/asii

Gutierrezia cal~fornica

Monarde/la leucocephala

Phacelia ciliata var. opaca

Microseris doug/asii

Vulpia myuros

291
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

A. List ofScientific and Common Names ofP/ants and Animals (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Mulefat

Munz’s tidy-tips

Narrowleaf goldenbush

Oil neststraw

One-sided bluegrass

Pacific blackberry

Pale-leaf goldenbush

Palmate-bracted bird’s beak

Panoche peppergrass

Parish’s brittlescale

Parry’s mallow

Parry’s saltbush

Peppergrass

Pickleweed

Pine bluegrass

Purple needlegrass

Quailbush

Red brome

Red maids

Red-stemmed filaree

Ripgut brome

Saltbush

Salt grass

San Benito thornmint

San Joaquin woolly-threads

Scalebroom

Scratchgrass

Seepweed

Shadscale

Shepherd’s purse

Sierra monardella

Slender wild oats

Snowy eatonella

Soft chess

Spiny saltbush

Springville clarkia

Sun cups

Tejon poppy

Temblor buckwheat

Temblor clarkia

Tufted poppy

Vasek’s clarkia

Baccharis salicifo/ia

Layia munzii

Ericameria linearifolia

Stylocline citroleum

Poa secunda ssp. secunda

Rubus vitifolius

Isocoma acradenia var. bracteosa

Cordy/anthus palmatus

Lepidiumjaredii ssp. album

Atriplex parishii

Erema/che parryi ssp. parryi

Atriplex parryi

Lepidium nitidum

Sa/icornia subterininalis

Poa secunda

Nasse/la pulchra

Atriplex lentiformis

Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens

Calandrinia ciliata

Erodium cicutarium

Brotnus diandrus

A triplex spp.

Distich/is spicata

Acanthomintha obovata

Lembertia congdonii

Lepidospartum sp.

Muhlenbergia asperifolia

Suaeda moquinii

Atriplex confertifo/ia

Capsel/a bursa-pastoris

Monarde/la candicans

Avena barbata

Eatonella nivea

Bromus hordeaceus

A triplex spinifera

Clarkia springvil/ensis

Camissonia californica

Eschscholzia /emmonii ssp. kernensis

Eriogonuni temb/orense

Clarkia temb/oriensis

Eschscholzia caespitosa

Clarkia temb/oriensis ssp. ca/ientensis

292
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

A. List ofScientific and Common Names ofPlants and Animals (continued)

Conimon Name Scientific Name

White Sierran layia

Wild barley

Wild grape

Wild oats

Wild-rye

Willow species

Wind poppy

Winterfat

Woolly goldfields

Yellow pincushion

Layiapentachaeta ssp. a/bida

Hordeum sp.

Vitis ca/ifornica

Avenafatua

Elymus sp.

Salix spp.

Stylomecon heterophylla

Krascheninnikovia lanata

Lasthenia minor

Chaenactis glabriuscula

ANIMALS

American badger

American kestrel

American opossum

Barn owl

Beeflies

Bendire’s thrasher

Black-tailed hare

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

Bobcat

Buena Vista Lake shrew

Bumblebee

Bumblebee

Bumblebee

Burrowing owl

California condor

California ground squirrel

California pocket mouse

California thrasher

California whiptail

Chukar

Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle

Coachwhip

Coast horned lizard

Common king snake

Coyote

Crissal thrasher

Deer mouse

Desert cottontail

Desert thrasher

Domestic dog

Taxidea taxus

Falco sparverius

Marsupialia virginiana

Tyto a/ba

Bombyliidae

Toxostoma bendirei

Lepus cal~fornicus

Gambelia sila

Felis rufa

Sorex ornatus relictus

Bombus californicus

Bombus occidenta/is

Bombus vosnesenskii

Athene cunicularia

Gymnogyps californianus

Spermophilus beecheyi

Chaetodipus cal~fornicus

Toxostoma redivivum

Cnemidophorus tigris

Alectoris chukar

Aegialia concina

Masticophisflagellum

Phrynosoma coronatum

Lampropeltis getulus

Canis latrans

Toxostomadorsale

Peromyscus maniculatus

Sy/vilagus audubonii

Toxostoma /econtei arenicola

Canisfamiliaris

293
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

A. List of Scientific and Common Names ofPlants and Anima/s (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Doyen’s dune weevil

Dusky-footed woodrat

Feral cat

Fresno kangaroo rat

Giant garter snake

Giant kangaroo rat

Glossy snake

Golden eagle

Gopher snake

Gray fox

Great-horned owl

Greater roadrunner

Heermann’s kangaroo rat

Honey bee

House mouse

Le Conte’s thrasher

Loggerhead shrike

Long-nosed leopard lizard

Long-tailed weasel

McKittrick pocket mouse

Merriam’s kangaroo rat

Mountain plover

Native bees

Northern mockingbird

Ornate shrew

Red-shouldered hawk

Red-tailed hawk

Red fox

Riparian brush rabbit

Riparian woodrat

Roof rat

Sage thrasher

Salt marsh harvest mouse

San Joaquin antelope squirrel

San Joaquin dune beetle

San Joaquin kangaroo rat

San Joaquin kit fox

San Joaquin Le Conte’s thrasher

San Joaquin pocket mouse

Short-eared owl

Short-nosed kangaroo rat

Side-blotched lizard

Solitary bee

Trigonoscuta sp.

Neotoma fuscipes

Fe/is sylvestris

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis

Thamnophis gigas

Dipodomys ingens

Arizona elegans

Aqui/a chrysaetos

Pituophis melano/eucus

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Bubo virginianus

Geococcyx ca4fornianus

Dipodomys heermanni

Apis mel/ifera

Mus musculus

Toxostoma /econtei

Lanius ludovicianus

Gambelia wislizenji

Mustelafrenata

Perognathus inornatus neglectus

Dipodomys merriami

Charadrius montanus

Apoidae

Mimulus po/yg/ottus

Sorex ornatus

Buteo lineatus

Buteo jamaicensis

Vulpes vulpes

Sylvilagus bachmani riparius

Neotomafuscipes riparius

Rattus rattus

Oreoscoptes montanus

Reithrodontomys raviventris

Ammospermophilus nelsoni

Coleus graci/is

Dipodomys nitratoides

Vulpes macrotis mutica

Toxostoma /econtei/econtei

Perognathus inornatus

Asioflammeus

Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus

Uta stansburiana

Diadasia australis ssp. cal(fornica

294
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

A. List ofScientific and Common Names ofPlants and Animals (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Solitary bee Diadasia laticauda

Solitary bees Synha/onia spp.

Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus

Spiny lizard species Scelporus spp.

Spotted skunk Spilogalegracilis

Stephen’s woodrat Neotoma stephensi

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Suisun shrew Sorex ornatus sinuosus

Swainson’s hawk Butec swainsoni

Swiftfox Vulpes velox

Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides

Tulare grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus tularensis

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus ca/ifornicus dimorphus

Western gray squirrel Sciurus occidenta/is

Western harvest mouse Reirhrodontomys mega/otis

Western long-nosed snake Rhinochei/us lecontei

Western rattlesnake Crota/is virdis

White-footed mouse species Peromyscus spp.

295
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

B. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

achene

adaptive management

alkali scald

alkali sink

alluvialfan

apomixis

arid

auditory bullae

biological niche

biosystematic study

bisexual

bract

brummate

Caltrans

calyx

CDFG

chenopod

Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area

ciliate

cismontane

clumps

COE

corolla

a tiny dry fruit with one seed

a long-term repeated process of gradually modifying management techniques

based upon the results of modeling and research

barren area with a surface crust ofsalts

drainage basin with soil high in soluble salts

fan-shaped area of soil deposited where a mountain stream first enters a valley or

plain

seed set without fertilization

dry

boney capsules containing the middle and inner ears

all the physical and biological factors required for a particular species to live and

its way of living

research that uses evidence from several disciplines to determine the appropriate

taxonomic placement and relationship to other species.

having both male and female parts (said of a flower)

a leaf-like structure that is associated with a flower; may be green or colored

dormancy in animals whose body temperature varies with their environment

California Department of Transportation

the group of leaf-like structures(sepals) ina flower immediately below the petals

California Department ofFish & Game

a plant in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae)

natural lands along the western edge of the Valley and in the contiguous foothills

and coastal range, from the Panoche Hills and Valley, Fresno and San Benito

Counties, south to Anticline Ridge near Coalinga, Fresno County

having stiff hairs along the margin

west of the Sierra Nevada crest (literally on this side of the mountains)

groups of cactus pads that are rooted at the same point

Army Corps of Engineers

the set of petals in a flower whether separate or fused

Term Definition

296
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

B. Glossary ofTechnical Terms (continued)

Term Definition

crissum

cnptogamic crust

diskflorets

demography, demographic

ear pinnae

effective dispersal

Endangered Species

Recovery Program

endemic, endemism

entire

estrus

extant

eye-spots

florets

forb

guild

gular

gynodioecy

habitat protection

halophyte

hemiparasitic

host plant

hydrologic regime

undertail feathers

a layer of moss, lichen, and algae on the soil surface

tiny tubular flowers that are clustered in the center of a flower head, like a common

daisy

the study of populations with reference to birth and death rates, size and density,

distribution, migration, and other vital statistics

external ear flaps

dispersal of genes

a cooperative research program on biodiversity conservation in central

California, administered by California State University, Stanislaus Foundation

restricted in occurrence to a stated site or area (e.g., endemic to California)

untoothed or smooth (said of the margin of a leaf]

periodic physiological state in female mammals that immediately precedes

ovulation; heat

still in existence

rounded structures on cactus pads that contain barbed bristles

tiny flowers characteristic of the asterfamily

broad-leaved herb

meaning a group of species with a common need for a particular habitat or other

niche component

throat area

a state of certain plant populations characterized by a mixture of plants with

flowers having only female parts and plants with flowers having both male and

female parts (adjective: gynodioecious)

ensuring appropriate uses of land to maintain and optimize species habitat values

planttolerant of alkaline and saline soils

obtaining water and nutrients from the roots of other plants then manufacturing

food through photosynthesis (noun: hemiparasitism)

the source of water and nutrients for a parasitic plant

seasonal water cycles and movements

297
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San .Joaquin Valley

B. Glossary ofTechnical Terms (continued)

Term Definition

keystone species

leaf axi/

lips

/obes

matri/in eal

matrix projection modelling

metapopu/ation

microhabitat

mitigation bank

mosaic

occurrences

pad

pa/mate

phenology

pistil/ate

playa

poikilothermic

polygvny

postpartum

precinct

species that have key roles in shaping the environmentthat affects the presence

or absence of other organisms; usually the presence of a keystone species

leads to a greater variety ofspecies

the point where a leaf is attached to a stem

groups of fused petals that differ in appearance

free tips of flower or leafparts that are fused at the base

tracing ancestral descentthrough the maternal line

a mathematical technique that uses life history data to identify critical stages in

the life cycle of an organism and project population growth rates (Menges 1986,

Schemske et. al. 1994)

scattered groups of plants or animals that may function as a single population

due to occasional interbreeding

localized areas with unique conditions due to small-scale variations in physical

features of the landscape

large blocks of land preserved, restored, and enhanced for purposes of

consolidating mitigation for and mitigating in advance for projects that take

listed species

interspersed patches of vegetation each dominated by a different species

collection sites separated by 0.4 kilometers (0.25 miles) or more

the fleshy flattened green steIn of a cactus

deeply divided into finger-like segments (usually in reference to leafshape)

timing of different stages in the life cycle of a plant

having only female reproductive parts (said of a flower)

a shallow temporary lake that may form in alkali sinks

having a body temperature that varies with the temperature of its surroundings

(cold-blooded animals)

mating pattern in which a male mates with more than one female in a single

breeding season

soon after giving birth

area over and around the burrow system of a giant kangaroo rat in which most

activity takes place

298
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

B. G/ossar) ofTechnica/ Terms (continued)

Term Definition

ravflorets

Sa/inas-Pajaro Region

savanna

scrub

stamen

style

superciliary stripe

taxon

tubercle

type specimen

t-~pe locality

umbrella species

unicuspids

vegetative reproduction

USBLM

USFWS

western Kern Countx’

tiny flowers with flattened fused petals that occur near the margin of a flower

head in a member of the Aster family (e.g., the petals of a common daisy)

areas of the Salinas River and Pajaro River watersheds with habitat for kit foxes

a combination of grassland and woodland in which the trees are widely scattered

shrubland dominated by shrubs less than 2 meters (6 feet) tall

the male reproductive part of a plant

part of the female reproductive system of a plant

a stripe above the eye

a taxonomic unit of any rank, often used to refer to an entity that is considered

by some to be a subspecies and others to be a species (plural: taxa)

a wart-like projection

the individual plant or animal that was the basis for the original description of a

scientific name

the site from which a type specimen was collected

a speciesthat lives in many biotic communities or has broad habitat requirements

that if provided for and protected will protect the habitat of many other species

teeth behind the incisors that have a single main chewing surface (cusp)

the production of new plants from sources otherthan seed (e.g., from cuttings or

root runners)

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Elk Hills, Buena Vista Valley, Buena Vista Hills, Lokern Natural Area, and

adjacent natural lands

299
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

C. PRIORITIES FOR RECOVERY OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECtES

FEDERAL REGISTER 48(221):519

Degree of Threat Recovery Potential Ta~tonomy Priority Conflict*

High

High Monotypic Genus 1

iC

1

High Species 2

2C

2

High Subspecies 3

3C

Low Monotypic Genus 4

4C

4

Low Species 5

SC5

Low Subspecies 6

6C6

Moderate

High Monotypic Genus 7

7C

High Species 8

8C8

High Subspecies 9

9C

Low Monotypic Genus 10

1 OC

10

Low Species 11 I IC

11

Low Subspecies 12

I 2C

12

Low

High Monotypic Genus 13 1 3C13

High Species 14

1 4C

14

High Subspecies 15

I SC

15

Low Monotypic Genus 16 I 6C

16

Low Species 17 1 7C

17

Low Subspecies 18

1 8C

18

* C=Conflict with human activities.

300
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

D. LISTED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION WHICH ARE NOT

FEATURED IN THIS RECOVERY PLAN. CT = State listed as threatened, CE = State /istedas endangered,

CR = State listed as rare, FC = Federal candidate, PE= Federa/ proposed as endangered, PT = Federal proposed

as threatened, FE = Federal listed as endangered, FT Federal listed as threatened.

Species

Status

CA USA

Recovery

Plan

Distribution and Habitat 1

large-flowered fiddleneck

(Amsinckia grandifiora)

CE ~ Yes NW. SJV; Cismontane woodland, Valley and

foothill grasslands

Kaweah brodiaea

(Brodiaea insign is) CE None No

Tulare County; Cismontane woodland, Valley and

foothill grassland / granitic or clay

Chinese Camp brodiaea

(Brodiaea pallida)

CE PE No Tuolumne County; Valley and foothill grassland

(vernal streambeds, serpentinite)

succulent owl’s-clover

(Castilleja campestris ssp.

succulenta)

CE FT In Progress N. SJV; Vernal pools

Hoover’s spurge

(Chamaesyce hooveri)

None FT’ In Progress N. SJV, SV; Vernal pools

Springville clarkia (Clarkia

springvi/lensis) CE PT No

Tulare County; Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,

Valley and foothill grassland

Delta button-celery

(Eryngium racemosum)

CE None No N. SJV; Riparian scrub (vernally mesic clay

depressions)

Contra Costa wallflower

(Erysimum capitatum ssi.

angustatum)

CE FE Yes

Antioch Dunes, NW. SJV; stabilized riverine

dunes / sand and clay

striped adobe-lily

(Fritillaria striata)

CT PT No S. SJV; Cismontane woodland, Valley and

foothill grassland / adobe

Contra Costa goldfields

(Lasthenia conjugens)

None FE In Progress N. Coast, S. SV, N. SJV, San Francisco Bay, N. Salinas Valley, S. Coast; Valley grassland, vernal

Mason’s lilaeopsis

(Li/aeopsis mason ii)

CR None No Delta Region, S. SV, N. SJV; tidally-inundated

freshwater and brackish water marshes

Antioch Dunes eveningprimrose (Qenothera

de/toides ssp. howellii)

CE FE Yes

Antioch Dunes, NW. SJV; stabilized riverine

dunes / sand and clay

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt

grass (Orcuttia maequa/is) CE FT In Progress SJV; Vernal pools

hairy Orcutt grass

(Orcuttia pi/osa)

CE FE In Progress N. SJV, SV; Vernal pools

Hartweg’s goldensunburst

(Pseudobahia bahiifo/ia)

CE ~ N North-central SJV, S. SV; Cismontane woodland,

Valley and foothill grassland / clay

San Joaquin adobe

sunburst (Pseudobahia

peirson ii)

CE FT No

South-central SJV; Cismontane woodland, Valley

and foothill grassland

301
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

D. Listed and Candidaie Species Occurring in the San Joaquin Valley Region Which are Not Featured in this

Recovery Plan (continued). CT = State listed as threatened, CE = State listed as endangered, CR = State listed as

rare, FC = Federal candidate, PE = Federal proposed as endangered, PT = Federal proposed as threatened,

FE = Federal listed as endangered, FT = Federal listed as threatened.

Species

Status

CA USA

Recovery

Plan

Distribution and Habitat

Keck’s checker-mallow

(Sidalcea keckii) None PE No

Central SJV; Cismontane woodland, Valley and

foothill grassland

Green’s tuctoria (Tuctoria

greenei)

CR FE In Progress SJV, SV; Vernal pools

California vervain

(Verbe,ia californica) CT PT No

Tuolumne County; Cismontane woodland, Valley

and foothill grassland

Crustaceans

Conservancy fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta conservatio)

None FE In Progress SV, N. SJV; Vernal pools in valley grassland

longhorn fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta

longiantenna)

None FE In Progress

SJV; Vernal pools in Valley and foothill

grassland and Chenopod scrub

vernal pool fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta lynchi)

None FT In Progress SV, SJV; Vernal pools in Foothill grassland and

Chenopod scrub

vernal pool tadpole shrimp

(Lepidurus packardi)

None FE In Progress SV, N. SJV; Vernal pools in Valley grassland

Insects

Lange’s metalmark

butterfly (Apodemia

niormo langei)

None FE Yes

Antioch Dunes, NW. SJV; buckwheat in Valley

grasslands / sands

Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle (Desmocerus

ca/ifornicus dimorphus)

None FT Yes

SV, SJV, riparian communities; requires

elderberry bushes for larval development

Amphibians

California tiger salamander

(Ambystoma ca/iforniense) None FC In Progress

N. SJV, S. SV, Bay Area, Central Coast, Central

Coastal Ranges; aquatic larval stage in Vernal

poo1s, adults in Valley and foothill grassland, Cismontane woodland, Chaparral, Coastal shrub

scrub

California red-legged frog

(Rana aurora drayton ii)

None FT In Progress

SV, N. SJV, Coastal Ranges, N., Central, and S.

Coast; amphibious in ponds, creeks, marshes, and

other freshwater and wetland

Reptiles

Alameda wbipsnake

(Masticophis latera/is

euryxanthus)

None FT No

East Bay area in Contra Costa and Alameda

Counties; Chaparral, coastal scrub, Valley and

foothill grassland; pine/oak woodlands

giant garter snake

(Thamnophis gigas) CT FT In Progress

SV, SJV; amphibious in freshwater streams,

sloughs, and marshes on Valley floor

302
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

D. Listed and Candidate Species Occurring in the San Joaquin Valley Region Which are Not Featuredin this

Recovery Plan (continued). CT = State listed as threatened, CE = State listed as endangered, CR = State listed as

rare, FC = Federal candidate, PE =Federa/ proposed as endangered, PT = Federal proposed as threatened,

FE = Federal listed as endangered, FT = Federa/ listed as threatened.

Species

Status

CA USA

Recovery

Plan

Distribution and Habitat 1

Birds

Aleutian Canada goose

(Branta canadensis

leucopareia)

None FT Yes SV, N. SJV (winter range); marshes, lakes, ponds,

pastures, and croplands on Valley floor

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo

swainsoni) CT None No

CV, Modoc Plateau and scattered desert areas;

riparian, certain crops, isolated trees for nesting

mountain plover

(Charadrius montanus) None FC No

SJV and adjacent lowlands, Imperial Valley, Gulf

Coast (wintering grounds); Valley and foothill grassland, Chenopod scrub

western yellow-billed

cuckoo (Coccyzus

americanus occidenta/is)

CE None No

S. British Columbia to CA and NV and Mexico

(breeding season); dense riparian forest and

woodlands (breeding habitat)

southwestern willow

flycatcher (Empidonax

traillii estimus)

CE FE In Progress

CV and east Slope of Sierra Nevada (breeding

range); willow thickets, other shrubby riparian

associations.

American peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum)

CE FE Yes S. Canada, U.S.A., N. Mexico (historical breeding range); habitat highly variable, feed mainly on

small to medium-sized birds

greater sandhill crane

(Grus canadensis tabida) CT None No

British Columbia S. and E. to NE. CA, OR, MI

(breeding); CA and TX (winter); cultivated fields, marshes, Valley grasslands (winter)

California condor

(Gynmogyps californianus)

CE FE Yes

S. SJV (recent), Transverse Range and adjacent

lowlands; range widely; feed on carcasses of large

mammals including livestock

bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) CE FT Yes

Alaska to Mexico (historical range), SJV mostly

for wintering; mostly associated with rivers and lakes

California black rail

(Latera//us jamaicensis

coturniculus)

CT None In Progress

W. Central lowland CA to N. Baja California

(historic); coastal and freshwater marshes

bank swallow (Riparia

riparia)

CT None Yes CA lowlands, CV (breeding), S. Amer. ~winter);

nest in holes in steep or vertical river banks /

sandy to silt loam soils preferred for digging nests

least Bell’s vireo (Vireo

be/hi pusillus) CE FE Yes

Lowlands of S., Central CA (historic; probably

extirpated from CV); Deciduous riparian forest

with cottonwood and willow composition and

thick shrub understory

SJV—San Joaquin Valley; SV—Sacramento Valley; CV—Central Valley

303
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

E. SAFE HARBOR PROGRAMS

A Safe Harbor Agreement is a voluntary agreement

between one or more private or nonfederal landowners

and the USFWS to restore, enhance or maintain habitats

for listed species, proposed species, candidates or other

speciesof concern. Underthe Agreement,the landowner

would be provided assurances that additional land use

restrictions as a result of their voluntary conservation

actions would not be imposed by the USFWS. If the

Agreement provides a net conservation benefit to the

covered species and the landowner meets all the terms of

the Agreement, the USEWS would authorize the

incidental taking of covered species to enable the

landowner to return the enrolled lands to agreed upon

conditions.

Several variations of a safe harbor program are

needed to assist in endangered species recovery in the

San Joaquin Valley. A general program is needed

Valley-wide to encourage farmers to voluntarily create,

maintain, and enhance habitat for wildlife and native

plants within the farmland mosaic. This program is

needed both to increase the value of farmlands for

wildlife and to engender trust between farmers and the

regulatory agencies. It could apply to islands of natural

lands and retired farmland as well as actively farmed

ground. The general program, however, should not

include enhancement of kit fox habitat unless it is set

within an experimental framework with scientificallyacceptable levels of baseline measurements of habitat

and populations; careful, frequent quantitative monitoring;

and provisionsto assessrisks of the programin attracting

and enhancing numbers of redfoxes and their impacts on

kitfoxes. Different criteria and monitoring requirements

(by resourcemanagement agencies) are needed on lands

that currently support listed species compared to lands

with no existing endangered species.

1. Components of a Pilot Safe Harbor Program

A more specific safe harbor program, directed at

enhancing kit fox populations within the agriculturalnatural lands mosaic on the Valley floor and the

movement of foxes between the larger populations both

on the floor andaround the Valley’s edge is needed. This

program must begin on a small scaleand be set within an

experimental framework with scientifically acceptable

procedures for measurement or identification of:

a. baseline population numbers and habitat, and

changes inpopulation sizes with changes in cultural

practices and habitat enhancements;

b. proportion of foraging time in different crops and in

crops with different cultural practices;

c prey numbers associated with different crops and

cultural practices;

d. food habits (including types of crop plants eaten);

e. home range size andconfiguration withidentification

of landscape features used as movement paths;

f. dispersal movements;

g. population recruitment;

h. denning sites and structure of dens;

i. effects of the program on red foxes, habitat features

associated with red foxes, and interactions between

red foxes and kit foxes, if any.

The greatest concern is that though this program

seems importantfor kitfox recovery, efforts at enhancing

kit fox populations on the Valley floor may actually

enhance red fox numbers, which may prey on and

displace kit foxes from these areas. Thus, the program

has a real, but unknown probability of doing more harm

than good for recovery of kit foxes. It should only be

implemented as a tightly-controlled scientific experiment.

2. Target Areas for San Joaquin Kit Fox

Safe Harbor Program

Areas where safe harbor programs can potentially

contribute substantially to recovery of kit foxes are:

a. Farmland and small islands of natural lands along

the northwest edge of the San Joaquin Valley from

south of Los Banos in Merced County to the Delta

region in San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra Costa

Counties;

b. Natural lands supporting grasslands and oak

savanna in eastern Stanislaus, Merced, and Madera

Counties;

304
RecoveryPlanfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

c. Naturalland and farmland in Merced County in the

area along Sandy Mush Road and farmland linking

the natural lands along Sandy Mush Road with the

natural lands to the east in southern Merced and

Madera Counties;

d. Natural land and farmland along the San Joaquin

River and Chowehilla Bypass between the wildlife

refuges in Merced County and the natural lands in

western Madera County;

e. Farmland inwestern Fresno County along the major

flood channels of ephemeral streams draining the

coastal ranges to the San Joaquin River-Fresno

Slough in the center of the Valley; and on any retired

farmlands in the area that remain in private

ownership after retirement;

f. Farmland that is periodically not farmed for more

than 2 or 3 years at a time along the western edge of

the Valley in Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties;

g. Farmland and natural lands along the Highway 46

Corridor between natural lands west of Blackwell’s

Corner, Kern County, and natural lands in the

Semitropic Ridge Area;

h. Farmland and natural lands between the Semitropic

Ridge Area and the Pixley-Allensworth Natural

Area, along the Garces Highway corridor;

i. Farmland and natural lands within the PixleyAllensworth Natural Area and between this area and

Creighton Ranch Preserve to the north;

j. Farmland and natural lands along Poso Creek

between natural lands in the Sierra foothills on the

east and Kern NationalWildlife Refuge on the west;

k. Natural land and farmland along the Estrella River

tributaries in San Luis Obispo County;

I. Natural land and fannland elsewhere in the Salinas

River watershed in San Luis Obispo and Monterey

Counties.

m. Natural land along the Kern River within the

Bakersfield metropolitan area and westward.

n. Natural land and farmlands between the Kettleman

Hills and Anticline Ridge in Fresno County.

o. Naturalland along San Juan Creekfrom Shandon on

the northwest, southeastward along the tributaries of

the Creek’s watershed, including dryland grain

fields in the Conservation Reserve program.

p. San Joaquin Valley foothills with grassland and

saltbush scrub communities from western Madera

County southward tothe southern end of the Valley,

then eastward and northward through Tulare

County; and on the northeast in eastern Madera,

Merced, and Stanislaus Counties.

q. Natural lands in the Cuyama River watershed

between about Cottonwood Canyon on the west,

eastward and southward to the vicinity of Ballinger

and Santa Barbara Canyons, including the lower

reaches of the canyons where habitats for featured

species are found.

Much of the planning area may eventually be

included in safe harbor programs for the San Joaquin kit

fox, but a phased approach is recommended. The first

phase must be carefully controlled and needs to identify

the farmland features and cultural practices that are

associated with success in terms of kit fox survival,

population recruitment, and dispersal movements, as

well as any negative effects from alien red foxes. Later

phases should be instituted first in areas identified as

being important in promoting connectivity between

major kit fox populations and include features identified

as of positive value to the program objectives. These

would be phased in as landowner participation and

funding warrant. At all phases of the program,

scientifically acceptable monitoring and analysis should

be conducted. This is important to evaluate the efficacy

of the programs and their contributions to recovery, and

to identify and ward off potential problems such as those

associated with red foxes.

305
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

F. RETIREMENT OF FARMLAND WITH DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

Retirement of irrigatedfarmland is one component of

the plan to manage the drainage-related problems along

the center and western side of the San Joaquin Valley

(San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 1990; HR429,

1992). The State of California also has a retirement

program (San Joaquin Valley Drainage Relief Act, 1992,

SB 1669) directly linked to water marketing. The

program is intended to be self-supporting once an initial

State appropriation provides for farmland purchase.

Land retirement and selling of water rights will then

provide the fundsto sustain the program. Both programs

can contribute greatly to recovery of several listed

species if operated to solve endangered species recovery

and drainage problems as two principal objectives. The

nature of the State program makes it most applicable to

acquiring smaller, strategic parcels next to natural lands

that can provide linkages between larger blocks of

natural lands. It could be operated in conjunction with

mitigation programs for large-areaHabitatConservation

Plans such as for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area and

the Kern County Valley Floor. The Federal program is

better suited to creating large blocks of retired farmland

within Central Valley Project areas that will support kit

foxes (the umbrella species) and populations of

associated listed and candidate species and species of

concern.

1. Criteria for Federal Land

Retirement Program

Drainage Problems and Selenium Contamination.—

The Land Retirement Program is being implemented

primarily to manage drainage-relatedproblems, including

those associated with selenium. Selenium is an naturally

occurring element that is highly toxic if levels in the

environment and biota become elevated. Contaminant

concentrations on retired lands should be monitored to

ensure that concentrations are not becomingelevated. To

prevent adverse effects to listed species and species of

concern in the San Joaquin Valley, the following

monitoring and conditions should be met prior to

management of these lands for listed species:

a. Determine baseline groundwater conditions of lands

being retired at the time of or prior to purchase.

Baseline groundwater conditions should include:

depth to groundwater and selenium concentration in

groundwater.

b. To ensure that biological integrity can be safely

maintained on retired lands, a monitoring program

should be implemented. The monitoring program

should include collection of data on a seasonal basis

for: soil salinity, depth to groundwater, groundwater

contaminant concentrations (e.g., selenium),

groundwater flow paths, contaminant concentrations

(e.g., selenium and mercury) in standing water that

persists more than 30 days, contaminants (e.g.,

selenium) in the biota, including invertebrates, small

mammals, and kit foxes or coyotes (if present).

Groundwater monitoring wells may be needed to

assess groundwater movement. This monitoring

program should identify the potential for adverse

effects to sensitive species and evaluate safety of

retired lands for these species. Monitoring data

should be compared with the following Land

Retirement Program performance standards:

1) depth to groundwater and selenium concentration

in groundwater should not show an increasing

trend over 5 years of monitoring;

2) standing water that persists more than 30 days

should not exceed 2 ug/L (parts per billion)

selenium and 2 ng/L (partspertrillion) mercury in

solution on a total recoverable, unfilteredbasis;

3) mean concentrations of selenium in invertebrates

should not exceed 2.5 ug/g(parts per million) on a

dry weight basis;

4) rodent hair concentrationsshould not exceed 5 ug/

g (partsper million) on a dry weight basis or rodent

blood concentration should not exceed 0.5 mg/L

(parts per million) on a wet weight basis;

5) blood from kit foxes or coyotes should not exceed

I mg/L (parts per million) on a wet weight basis.

The monitoring program should be performed for a

period of at least 5 years or longer as determined

necessary by the USFWS. Thesedata should be provided

to the USFWS’s Contaminants and Endangered Species

Divisions, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, and

Realty Division annually for review. Any measures

identified by the USFWS necessary for remediation

should be implemented including acquiring water for

306
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

dilution of toxic contaminant concentrations in surface

water and ground water.

c. The Service would accept title of retired land only

when it has been shown that the performance

standards above have been met for 5 years (or as

determined by the USFWS’s Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office Contaminants Division). If the

performance standards are exceeded for any parcels

acquired under the Land Retirement Program, those

lands should not be managed as habitat for listed

species.

EndangeredSpecies Recovery.— Qualifying criteria for

the Federal Land Retirement Program should include

endangered species recovery. Currently, the primary

criteria qualifying land for retirement are improving

water conservation and the quality of agricultural

wastewater. Endangered species recovery objectives

that should be considered assecondorder criteria include

the following:

a. Retirement of farmland should contribute torecovery

of the San Joaquin kit fox and its associated

communities. Any potential contaminant issues

should be addressed.

b. Land should be retired in blocks instead of scattered

parcels. This minimizes “edge” with neighboring

farmland and thereby minimizes pest and other

problems at the interface between cultivated and

natural ground. Blocksshould be as large as possible;

ideally no less than about 2,023 to 2,428 hectares

(5,000 to6,000 acres). This would provide habitat for

three toeight or more families of foxes and contribute

to minimizing edge.

c. Blocks ideally should be circular or square in shape.

This also minimizes edge.

d. Blocks should be positioned near or within areas with

artificial or natural structures serving as potential

corridors for movement of kit foxes. The course of

Panoche Creekbetween the edge of the Valley and the

natural lands in the Valley’s center in Fresno and

Madera Counties is one obvious potential corridor.

Other potential corridors would be flood-control

channels, other dry stream beds, canals, aqueducts,

and drainage ditches.

e. Blocks ideally should be connected to natural lands

on the western edge of the valley by continuous

undeveloped land or other natural movement

corridors. This may require purchase and retirement

of some lands without serious drainage problems, or

substantial enhancement of kit fox habitat on

farmlands through a focused safe harbor program.

f. Blocks should contain few or no highways or major

roads. Vehiclesstriking kitfoxes are amajorcauseof

their mortality. Large areas with few roads or with

only low speed traffic minimize losses.

2. Restoration of Retired Farmland

Given sufficient time, little restoration would be

needed to reestablish a natural community providing

habitat for kitfoxes and othertarget species. However, to

maximize utility for recovery and minimize potential

pest problems on neighboring farms, some active

restoration is needed:

a. Construction of artificial dens for kit foxes.

Successful designs exist.

b. Seeding native barley, and other plants of annual

grassland and chenopod scrub communities of the

San Joaquin Valley. These are readily available and

some seeding will occur naturally. The main

objectives would be to provide ground cover to

minimize occurrence of major weeds of croplands

and reduce soil erosion, and provide cover and food

for small animals serving as prey for foxes and

raptors.

c. Creating areas of higher elevation to lessen sheet

flooding in leveled fields.

d. Retention and plantingof additionaltrees at clustered

sites to provide roosting and nesting habitat for

raptors.

3. Guidelines for Land Retirement Program

Maximizing success of this proposed Federal

retirement program (and the State program) requires

developing trust and cooperation of neighboring land

owners. A successful program should:

a. Provide exemption from incidental take (take that is

incidental to, and not the purpose of,the carrying out

of an otherwise lawful activity) for neighbors. There

is precedence forthis type of programestablished by

USFWS’s Safe Harbor Program for the red307
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe Sat, Joaquin Valley

cockaded woodpecker in the Southeastern U.S.

(USFWS in litt. 1995b). A similarprogram has been

proposed for farmers in the San Joaquin Valley who

enhance habitat for listed species (Scott-Graham

1994).

b. Be implemented within an experimental environment

where its effectiveness can be adequately assessed

and adjustments made, as needed.

308
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

G. SUMMARY OF AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE

DRAFr RECOVERY PLAN FOR UPLAND SPECIES OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

I. Summary of the Agency and Public Comment

Process

On September 31, 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) released the Draft Recovery Plan for

Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California

(Draft Plan) for a 120-day comment period ending on

January 28, 1998, to Federal agencies, state and local

governments, and members of the public (60 FR 2155-

56). On September 30, 1997, a press release was issued

by the Sacramento Fish andWildlife Office announcing

the availability of the Draft Plan for public review, and

the dates of a series of Open Houses. Over 700 Draft

Plans were distributed to county, State and Federal

agencies, libraries, and interested parties. The Open

Houses were held to present the Draft Plan tothe public,

answer questions, and seek written comments. The

public Open Houses were held in December of 1997 in

three counties within the San Joaquin Valley: Kern,

Fresno, and Stanislaus. On February 4, 1998, based on

requests from interested groups the public comment

period was extended an additional 60 days.

This section provides a summary of general

demographic information including the number of letters

receivedfrom various affiliations. Dr. KatherineRalls of

the Smithsonian Institute, Dr. David Germano of

California State University Bakersfield, and Dr. Jay

Sheppard, formerly withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife, were

requested to peer review the Draft Plan. A complete

index of those who commented, by affiliation, is

available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 100, Sacramento,

California 95821. All letters of comment on the Draft

Plan are kept on file inthe Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office.

The followingis a breakdown of the number of letters

received from various affiliations:

Federal agencies - 6

State agencies - 6

local governments - 2

academia/professional - 10

business industry - 3

agricultural interests - 8

water interests - 4

environmental/conservation organizations - 4

A total of 43 letters were received, each containing

varying numbers of comments. Many letters provided

suggestions for clarity, most of these suggestions were

included inthefinal plan. Some comments provided new

information and some challenged the Draft Plan. New

information was included in the final plan if it was

important to a recovery task. The remainder of

comments were considered, noted, and principal

comments were included for response. The following

section is a summary of the principal comments and the

USFWSs’ responses to those comments. We thank all

those who commented.

II. Summary of Comments and USFWS Responses

Public Involvement Process

Comment: The USFWS did not follow their own

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

policies regarding thedevelopment of recoveryplans and

involvement ofstakeholders as published in the Federal

Register in June, 1994.

Response. The concept of a multispecies recovery plan

for the San Joaquin Valley, and the formation of the

recovery team predates the Federal Register notice of

June, 1994. Beginning in 1996, during the development

of the draft, the USFWS began holding meetings with

interested parties to discuss major strategies of the Draft

Plan. The interested parties included the California

Department of Water Resources, the Tulare County

Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee, the

California Department of Fish and Game, Natural

Resource Conservation Service, and species experts.

Comment: A plan of this scope cannot be achieved

without the support and participation of both public and

private interests.

Response. Beginning in the Executive Summary the

Plan recognizes the need for public involvement and the

need for incentives to encourage this involvement. The

Plan recommends the establishment of a regional,

cooperative public/private recovery plan implementation

team to enlist the participation of all stakeholder groups

and interested parties. The Introduction acknowledges

that if recovery istobe achieved...”trust, partnership, and

common purpose must be established amongst

309
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

government agencies, ranchers, farmers, developers,

conservationists, urbanites, and other citizens of the

Valley”. The following sections ofthe Planprovide more

detail on the way these partnerships will be encouraged;

IV. Stepdown Narrative (pg. 195-230), Appendix E.

SafeHarbor Programs (pg. 304-305), and AppendixF.

Retirement of Farmland withDrainage Problems(pg.

306-308).

Executive Summary

Comment: What were the reasons behind including or

excluding certain species from the Draft Plan’?

Response: Certain specieswere excluded from the Draft

Plan because they were not listed by the State or Federal

government atthe time of the Draft Plan’s inception (San

Joaquin spearscale, big tarweed), or had ranges far

beyond the San Joaquin Valley (hispid bird’s beak,

mountain plover, San Joaquin coachwhip, tri-colored

blackbird, southwestern willow flycatcher and yellowbilled cuckoo), or were entire community types that far

exceeded the geographic distribution of the featured

species (e.g., sycamore alluvial woodland community).

Certain species were included even thoughquestions

remain about their genetic makeup because the intent

behind including these species was to preventtheir being

listed which would then necessitate further protection

(Bakersfield smallscale, Le Conte’s thrasher).

Conservation efforts for these species typically includes

research into the species genetic makeup, behavior, and

geographical distribution. The results of this research

will provide the basis for the USFWS’s determination as

to their uniqueness.

Certain species remain in the Plan, even though

during the plan’s creation, new evidence indicated that

the species was more widespread than was originally

thought (Hoover’s woolly-star), because they have not

yet been downlisted or removed from the endangered

species list.

The San Joaquin kit fox and the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard were included in the Draft Planbecause during the

periodic review by the USFWS of theirexisting recovery

plans, the USFWS determined that revisions to those

plans were needed. Based on the USFWS’s review of

both species unstable population status, continuing

threats to recovery, and limited achievement of reaching

original recoveryplan goals,the USFWS determinedthat

these two species warranted inclusion in the Plan.

Comment: Focusing on loss of habitat as the primary

cause of species endangerment fails to acknowledge the

role that negligence, mismanagement of habitat, and

inadequate control of invasive, exotic organisms have

played in the degradation of remaining available habitat.

Response. The USEWS recognizes the importance of

managing lands forlisted species, and doesrecognize the

inadequacy of some previous management programs,

however, the USFWS believes that thePlan is built, both

on the successes and failures ofprior research,directions,

and actions. Within the Plan the term “habitat

protection” means ensuring appropriate uses of land to

maintain and optimize species habitat values.

Comment: Which species do not fall under the San

Joaquin kit fox umbrella?

Response. Plant species that are not covered or only

partially covered under the San Joaquin kit fox umbrella

are the palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, Bakersfield cactus,

Vasek’s clarkia, Temblor buckwheat, Tejon poppy,

diamond-petaled California poppy, Merced monardella,

andMerced phacelia. Animal species not covered by the

kit fox umbrella include the riparian brush rabbit, the

riparian woodrat, and certain locations for the three dune

beetle species. Specialty reserves have been designated

toaddress the needsof both plant and animal species that

are not covered by the kit fox umbrella by virtue of their

range or habitat specificity.

Introduction

Comment: Relate this Draft Plan to other plans, current

or future, for other listed species which are also found

within the San Joaquin Valley.

Response: The table with this information has been

inserted into the final Plan as Appendix D.

Comment: Define “natural”, it is unclear in the text if

nonnative grasslands are included in this definition.

Response. Natural lands are those that have not been

cultivated in recent years and retain a semblance of the

natural community that historically occurred there.

310
Recovery Planfor Upland Species of the SanJoaquin Valley

Comment: The DraftPlan does not fully incorporate an

ecosystem approach. The Draft Plan should addressthe

numerous other species of concern, all native annual

plant species, the interactions of these natives with nonnative plant species, and incorporation of otherliterature

covering related species, similarhabitats and/orrelevant

ecological principles and processes, and the negative

effect introduced herbivores havehad on the native flora.

Response: The commenter suggests a document that

would be beyond the scope, policy, and budget of the

USFWS. The USFWS has the responsibility under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), “to

provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which

endangered species and threatened species depend may

be conserved,...” In 1994, the USFWS and the National

Marine Fisheries Service issued six joint policies

regarding implementation of the Act. The third policy

addresses the need to “focus on groups of species

dependent on the same ecosystem.” It directs the

USFWS to“implement recovery plansformultiple listed

and candidate species”.

Comment: How much of the remaining 5 percent of the

San Joaquin Valley, that is not urban or agricultural,

would needto be protected tomeet the goals ofthe Draft

Plan?

Response. The exact acreage of remaining natural lands

on the Valley floorthat are needed forrecoverycannot be

determined atthis time. The amount needed will depend

on a number of factors, including how successfully

public lands are managed, if mechanisms are developed

to move kit foxes through existing agricultural land, and

the role that other developed lands can contribute to

species conservation.

Comment. Provide a brief account of the significant

limitations of the GAP Data Set, especially for valley

communities, as Figure 3 likely over-estimates Natura/

Lands.

Response: Figure 3 is a generalization of the California

Gap Analysis data from the University of California at

Santa Barbara. The University’s coverage was

developed with state and regional level analysis in mind.

It does not provide spatial resolution of individual stands

of vegetation.

The coverage is considered a draft product subject to

revision based on additional field work and review by

local experts. The Minimum Mapping Unit for upland

sitesis 100 hectares(250 acres) and for wetland sitesis 40

hectares (100 acres). This resolution was selected by the

University in light of the objective to map landscape

mosaics rather than individual stands as the appropriate

level for protection of biodiversitywithin the entire state.

Species Accounts

Comment: The Draft Plan does not say how many

members of a species need to exist to insure perpetual

survival.

Response: It is the USFWS’s National Policy to

quantify recovery criteria, whenever possible. The

Recovery Criteria are discussed inthe Plan under section

III. RECOVERY. The Plan does not specify numbers

of individuals for many of the species because their

natural behavior makes them difficult to count, and they

experience significant natural population fluctuations.

Rather, the quantitative criteria are the site-specific

protection requirements as listed inTables Sand 6. Many

ofthe plant species combine both numbers of individuals

and site-specific protection requirements. Some species

may have specific research tasks assigned which will

assist in quantifying recovery criteria in the future.

Comment. The species accounts need updating.

Response: Many of the species accounts in the Draft

Plan were written priorto 1995, the USFWS has updated

the portions of species accounts that are necessary to

understand or clarify a recovery issue, task, or priority.

Comment: Absent protection of the remaining,

undeveloped portions of the Springtown Alkali Sink

Preserve watershed, it is unlikely that this population of

palmate-bracted bird’s-beak will remain stable and

viable over the long term.

Response: The USFWS realizes the importance of

protecting the integrity of the Springtown watershed and

has been actively working with the City of Livermore in

protecting the hydrology of the area through the North

Livermore General Plan.

Comment: Because Hoover’s woolly-star is proposed

for delisting, a recovery strategy is not necessary.

Response: The recovery planning process and

311
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

development of a delisting proposal for Hoover’s

woolly-star have been progressing simultaneously.

Intensive surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management and U.S. Department of Energy in recent

years indicate that Hoover’s woolly-star is more

widespread, abundant, and more resilient to perceived

threats than previously thought. This new information

suggests that this species may no longer need protection

under the Act. Protection of Hoover’s woolly-star will be

in partthrough the commitment from the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management to “maintain the species in sufficient

numbers and distribution such that listing of the species

will never again be necessary”. This new biological

information, together with existing protective measures

on public lands, allows the USFWS to consider delisting

Hoover’s woolly-star. However, because the delisting

has not been proposed or finalized at this time, the

USFWS must include Hoover’s woolly-star in this

recovery plan.

Comment: It seems arbitrary and capricious to prescribe

recoverycriteria for populations that are notknown to be

declining (such as the foothill populations).

Response: Unlike animals, plants are not listed by

population; the entire species is listed. Thus, recovery

strategies for Hoover’s woolly-star address the entire

range of the species. Populations that are not in decline

will contribute to recovery without changes in

management, whereas declining populations will require

more intensive efforts to ensure their long-term

conservation.

Comment: It is conjecture that the privatization of the

U.S. Department of Energy’s Naval Petroleum Reserve

#1 could lead to greater surface disturbance if rates of

exploration and production are increased.

Response: Increased production is not conjecture, as

Occidental Petroleum has already expressed its intent to

drill additional wells and conduct exploratory activities

throughoutElk Hills. Although low-to-moderate levels

of petroleumproduction appeartobe compatible withthe

continued existence of Hoover’s woolly-star and other

listed species, there is no evidence that high-density oil

fields maintain suitable habitat over the long-term.

Comment: The species account for the Bakersfield

smallscale does not clearly indicate the presence of a

resident population at the Kern Lake Preserve nor does

subsequent discussion clearly indicate Bakersfield

smallscale as a separate species.

Response. These have been clarified in the final version

of the Plan.

Comment: Based on the community associations

described in the species account, the East Bay Regional

Park District suggeststhat there are foursuitable sites for

recovery of the diamond-petaled California poppy in the

East Bay (Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve,

Roddy Ranch, Los Vaqueros Watershed, and in the

Altamont Creek watershed).

Response: The USFWS appreciates the interest of the

East Bay Regional Park Districtinthe conservation of the

diamond-petaled California poppy, and has included

those sites in Table 3 and the Conservation Strategy

section.

Comment: In regard to protection of lands, those lands

currently occupied by giant kangaroo rats should receive

priority overlands that are not currently occupied by the

species (pg 91, item c should be moved to the bottom of

the list).

Response: The giant kangaroo rat has intermittently

occupied these periodically-farmed areas in western

Fresno and eastern San Benito Counties. Protecting

these lands could allow the giant kangaroo ratto expand

inthat area. For thisreason, these lands are considered to

be a higher priority than the smaller, fragmented

populations in the Cuyama Valley, Kettlemen Hills, or

San Juan Creek Valley.

Comment: No mention is made in the Draft Plan about

the effect of the California ground squirrel on the giant

kangaroo rat.

Response: There is some evidence that the California

ground squirrel may displace the giant kangaroo rat,

however, this is usually on a temporary basis, and over

the long-term, has not significantly affected this species.

Comment. Provide an estimate for the number of

hectares that historically would have been suitable

habitat for the Fresno kangaroo rat.

Response: An accurate estimate of the amount of

historical Fresno kangaroo rat habitat cannot be

calculated. There has been a long history of land

conversionin the range of the Fresno kangaroo rat, 140 to

150 years in some cases. Also, the subspecies range did

include wetlands and other natural communities that did

312
Recoi’ery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

not support Fresno kangaroo rats. Our best guess is that

a significant portion of the historical range (probably 50

to 70 percent) was suitable habitat

Comment: If the San Joaquin kit fox preys on listed

kangaroo rat species, why is there no mention of

controlling the San Joaquin kit fox through a predator

control effort.

Response: Because the San Joaquin kit fox is an

endangered species, predation by kit foxes on kangaroo

rats is not likely to be a significant limiting factor on

kangaroo rat populations, and, therefore, controlling kit

fox numbers would be unsound.

Comment: There is no mention of recent genetics work

which tends to lump Tipton kangaroo rats and shortnosed kangaroo rats,but supports the subspecies division

relative to short-nosed and Fresno kangaroo rats.

Response. The genetic studies referred to by the

commenter have not been completed at this time,

therefore, it is premature to speculate about their

conclusions. Because of the extreme difficulty of finding

Fresno kangaroo rat populations in their primary historic

range, researchers have been required to use museum

specimens. Thorough analyses of these specimens is a

lengthy process.

Comment: The blunt-nosed leopard lizard had a

previous recovery plan, canthe successes and failures be

quantified, particularly with regard to acreage.

Response: The original recovery plan for the bluntnosed leopard lizard was written in 1980. The prime

objective of the 1980 recovery plan was to restore and

maintain blunt-nosed leopard lizard populations at or

above the 1979 levels. This included determining

distribution of the lizardonbothpublic and private lands,

mOnitoring’ land use changes and population changes,

investigating effects of insect and rodent control

programs, and preserving specific ‘units” of habitat

(through lease, fee title, purchase, easement, landowner

agreement or zoning).

The recovery plan designated twenty “HabitatUnits”

as “essential”, giving 10 of those priority for protection.

The 10 areas equaled 150,000 acres of private lands. The

recovery plan determined that in addition to the public

lands designated as essential, 30,000 acres of the 150,000

acres of private land would need to be preserved to delist

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. To date less than 10,000

acres of the designated 150,000 acres has been preserved,

however, an estimated 74,144 acres have been lost.

In addition many other goals of the 1980 recovery

plan have not been met. Forexample, the effects of oil

and gas operations on blunt-nosed leopard lizards were

not evaluated to the extent that they were forthe kit fox.

Comment. Clarify if blunt-nosed leopardlizards occupy

ground squirrel burrows, the text is confusing.

Response: They inhabit both antelope squirrel and

California ground squirrel burrows.

Comment: San Joaquin kit fox had a previous recovery

plan. Can the successes and failures be quantified?

Response. In the 1983 Recovery Plan for the San

Joaquin kit fox, six Recovery Tasks were proposed. The

first was to reduce or reverse the rate at which habitat of

the kitfox is being lost by initiating a program ofessential

habitat management, protection, and acquisition.

Although no specific “program” was initiated, there was

a coordinated effort by agencies and nonprofit

organizations to acquire and manage lands for this

purpose. The goal was to protect a total of 25,000 acres

in western Kern County and the Carrizo Plain in eastern

San Luis ObispoCounty. To date, the targethas been met

only for the Carrizo Plain.

The second task was to acquire additional

information necessary to understand the ecological life

historyrequirements of the kit fox and todetermine their

compatibility with human activities such as petroleum

field developments, grazing, rodent control programs,

and agricultural expansion. Many research programs

were developed in the intervening years to answer just

such questions. As of 1983 there were only 13

documents with information on the San Joaquin kit fox.

Today there are hundreds of papers, either published in

technical journals or as reports to agencies. The U.S.

Department of Energy and the California Energy

Commission both conducted multiple year research into

the effect ofdiffering oil production levels on a varietyof

kit fox natural history aspects. The U. S. Department of

the Army conducted similar studies with regard to the

effects that military exercises would have on kit foxes.

Recently the Endangered Species Recovery Program

began studying the use of agricultural lands by kitfoxes,

and grazing research undertaken by the U.S. Bureau of

313
Reco~ery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Land Management and the U.S. Geologic Survey will

provide insightsinto the effects of grazingon kitfox prey

abundance. Recent work on urban kit fox population

ecology in Bakersfield is shedding new light on the

potential forthis populationto contribute torecovery. No

specific research has been conducted on the effects of

different rodent control programs on the San Joaquin kit

fox.

The third task was to restore degraded essential

habitats by enhancing natural routes and rates of

vegetation. Although much of the land protected under

task 1 has been managed for San Joaquin kit fox, it has

not reached or retained the goal of 1.4 adult kit foxes per

acre.

Task four was to monitor progress of recovery by

determining changes in kit fox distribution and

abundance, habitat losses or gains, rates of habitat

restoration, and acquisition of new information

concerning kit foxes. Unfortunately, as is mentioned in

the Plan, there has not been a range wide survey to

determine kit fox distribution and abundance. Individual

monitoring programs do provide yearly data on local

distribution and abundance. In part, due to this yearly

information, it became clear to the USFWS that the 1983

Recovery Plan for the kit fox needed to be revisited and

updated, hence the inclusion of the kit fox in the Plan.

The fifth task was to investigate the feasibility of

reintroductionsin portions of the original range of the kit

fox. Minimal research has been conducted on this task.

The sixth task was to develop strategies for

integrating Recovery Plan objectives into development

and management goals for the southern San Joaquin

Valley. As mentioned in the Plan there has been, and

continues to be, much progress on this task. Habitat

Conservation Plans, Biological Opinions, and Resource

Management Plans, all take into account goals for kit fox

recovery.

Comment: It is unclearfrom the Draft Plan whether the

concern is that there is inadequate information to

determine if enhancement of farmland habitat for

wildlife will benefit the nonnative red fox over the San

Joaquin kit fox, or whether it is established that

enhancement activities for the kit fox would also benefit

the red fox. Ifenhancement activities would also benefit

red fox, then red fox control will have to be an integral

part of the overall recovery strategy.

Response: TheEndangered SpeciesRecovery Program

is currently studying the use of agricultural land by both

species. Results of this study will guide the direction of

management. Any redfox control program would needto

be done in a selective manner.

Comment: Not provided is anyjustification for the need,

location, and widthof the actuallinkage corridors for the

San Joaquin kitfox shown on Figure 73.

Response. The Plan does discuss the need for linkage

corridors, and the general locations are indicated on

Figure 73. Specific locations, within the larger general

area, and the eventual width and shape of the linkage

corridors is dependant on the amount of state and

federally owned land, the amount of natural lands, and

the willingness of landowners to voluntarily enter into

cooperative agreements to preserve natural lands or to

reestablish habitat on retired farmland.

Comment: Fort Hunter Liggett has a very small

population to be considered “important” (no foxes

sighted in the last 2 years and fewerthan a dozen known

on post at any giventime). CampRoberts populations are

also at extremely low levels and possibly below the

necessary number required to recover. Additional

recovery efforts may be needed here, including

determining why the fox population is declining, and

considering a reintroduction program for these two sites.

Response: This information has beentaken into account

and necessary adjustments made in the final Plan.

Comment: In the San Joaquin kit fox Population

Ecology and Management section, what does

“fluctuations in vital rates and spatial parameters of

populations” mean. (pg. 133, within v.)?

Response: Fluctuations in vital rates and spatial

parameters of populations refers to population

demography, including reproduction, mortality,

survivorship, recruitment into the population and

dispersal. These are basic parameters of population

ecology.

Comment: Another measure that should be considered

under the San Joaquin kit fox Population Ecology and

Management section, is to study the persistence and

demographics of kit foxes in urban areas such as

Bakersfield. Protection measures for foxes in urban

areas should also be developed and implemented.

314
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Response: This information has beentaken into account

and necessary adjustments made in the final Plan.

Comment: The Draft Plan may only provide limited

protection for the dune community insects and it is not

clear by what method the number of protected sites,

acreages, and locations were chosen.

Response: Locations highlighted in the Plan are sites

where populations of the dune community insects are

known to occur. If additional populations are found, the

USFWS will pursue incentives for conservation.

Comment: Due to the low numbers of riparian brush

rabbits, hasthe USFWS considered an artificialbreeding

recovery program in which individuals trapped in the

future would be added to the breeding program?

Response: The dangerous decline in riparian brush

rabbit numbers has been a result of the last few years of

extensive and persistent flooding. Adjustments have

beenmade inthe finalPlan torespond tothe urgent needs

of this species.

Recovery

Comment: The Draft Plan should make clearer that the

goal of any recovery plan is to recover the species, not

just to reclassify the listed status.

Response: Within the OBJECTIVES of Section III.

RECOVERY, the Plan states that the overall objectives

of this recovery plan are to delist the federally listed

species. Downlisting from endangered to threatened is

usually the first step in the delisting process. This

reclassification is an indicator that “the species is on the

road to recovery”, however, protection afforded by the

Endangered Species Act is still in effect. Thisprotection

remains in place until the best scientific and commercial

data available indicate that protection is no longer needed

for the species’ long-term survival.

Comment: It is not clear in Table 4 Generalized

Recovery Criteria for Federally-Listed Plants and

Animals, whether or not the required protected recovery

areas overlap with other species requirements or if the

acreage of each species is additive to the overall

requirement of the Draft Plan.

Response. Table 4 provides information for delisting for

each individual species. Iflisted species overlap in their

locations, the acreage’s would not be additive. The

species with the lower acreage would, therefore, be

included inthe larger acreage aslong asthe other criteria,

such as occupation, were met. These acreage amounts

are also not additive to the “overall requirement”, they

are the pieces of the overall requirement.

Comment: The Draft Plan fails to adequately describe

the “site specific management actions” that may be

necessarytoachieve the plan’s goal for the conservation

and survival ofthe species” (16 U.S.C. § 1533(0(1 )(B)(I)).

Response. Areas in need of protection have been

identified in Tables 5 and 6. Site specific management

actions have been addressed where possible, and where

not addressed, specific management actions will be

tailored to the area once the identified management

related research tasks are completed (see Table 10).

Comment: The Draft Plan fails to describe “objective,

measurable criteria” which “would result in a

determination...that the speciesbe removedfrom the list”

(16 U.S.C. § 1533(Q(l)(B)(ii).

Response: It is the USFWS’s National Policy to

quantify recovery criteria, whenever possible. The

Recovery Criteria are discussed in the Plan undersection

III. RECOVERY. The Plan does not specify numbers

of individuals for many of the species because their

natural behavior makes them difficultto count, and they

experience significant natural population fluctuations.

Rather, the quantitative criteria are the site-specific

protection requirements as listed inTables S and 6. Many

ofthe plant species combine both numbers of individuals

and site-specific protection requirements. Some species

may have specific research tasks assigned which will

assist in quantifying recovery criteria in the future.

Comment: The Draft Plan fails to provide “estimates of

the time required and the costto carry out those measures

needed to achieve the plan’s goal (16 U.S.C. §

I 533(f)( 1 )(B)(iii).

Response: See the Implementation Schedule for

estimates of the time required to carry out each

recommended task and the cost to carry out each task,

where costs can be estimated.

Comment: Will the Draft Plan add an additional layerof

mitigation and or compensation requirements on top of

315
RecoveryPlan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

requirements called for inexisting Habitat Conservation

Plans?

Response: Existing Habitat Conservation Plans were

developed with listed species recovery and candidate

species protection in mind. In many instances Habitat

Conservation Plans are the cornerstone of protection

strategies within the Plan. A fundamental aspect of

Habitat Conservation Plans is that they cannot preclude

recovery, and in many cases, such as the Kern Water

Bank Habitat Conservation Plan, help the USFWS reach

recovery goals. Therefore, there would be no new

mitigation or compensation requirements from these

existing Habitat Conservation Plans.

Comment: The Draft Plan states that monitoring

showing stability or increasing numbers during a

precipitation cycle (annual rainfall of 35 percent aboveaverage through greater than 35 percent below-average

and backtoaverage orgreater) would achieve population

goals. How was this criterion for achieving population

goals arrived at?

Response: Althoughbasing population assessments on a

precipitation cycle of plus or minus 35 percentof average

precipitation is somewhat arbitrary, it recognizes the

tremendous environmental variability inthe San Joaquin

Valley and the significant impacts this variability has on

populationdynamics of plantsand animals. This extreme

variability (which is normally affected through timing

and amount of rainfall) is a fact, as is the impact it has on

San Joaquin ecosystems. Sufficient information is

currently unavailable to refine this criterium. This is an

area that needs further research.

Comment: The Draft Plan incorrectly refers to natural

habitat and historic ranges of upland speciesin areas that

were actually the historical Tulare Lake, and therefore a

historical wetland. Restoration efforts should be driven

by what occurred on the site historically and should not

be permanentlyhampered by protection efforts driven by

what occurs on the site currently.

Response: The USFWS recognizes the importance of

wetland restoration in the San Joaquin Valley. Wetland

restorationthat provides a full complement of the factors

needed by wetland species should include an upland

component. This upland component can benefit upland

federally listed species as well.

Comment: Small preserves should not be limited to

specialty preserves, but for all species, to protect from

disease, potential genetic disorders, and invasion of

exotic species or predators.

Response: The Plan does not exclude small preserves

and some of the identified research tasks will help

determine the size, shape, and locations of these

preserves forthe reasons presented by the commenter.

Comment. How much private land will be needed to

recover these species?

Response: The USFWS cannot estimate the acreage of

private land that will be needed to recover listed species

included in this recovery plan. Wherever possible, the

recovery plan first emphasizes using public or other

conservation lands to achieve recovery goals.

Comment. The reliance on the “Safe Harbor” conceptto

recover certain species in the Draft Plan will not work

because Safe Harbor agreements do nothing toreduce the

chief source of liability for neighboring agricultural

landowners: incidental take of species in the course of

otherwise lawful, routine, and ongoing agricultural

practices on lands in active agricultural use. Clearly,

such a limited “harbor” provides no safety whatsoeverto

an agricultural landowner.

Response: The commenter appears to be concerned

about two issues—the effects of the Endangered Species

Act’s (Act) “take” prohibition on agricultural lands and

producers generally; and (2) specifically, the effects of

the Act’s take prohibition on lands neighboring

properties subject to a Safe Harbor agreement. With

respect to number (2), landowners that neighbor Safe

Harbor programs may have legitimate fears that habitat

creation or restoration under such programs could result

in regulatory restrictions on their own lands (if, for

example, endangered species on the Safe Harbor lands

colonize a neighboring property). The USEWS shares

this concern and is exploring mechanisms to protect

neighboring landowners, as well as the landowner

enrolled in the Safe Harbor program, under its national

Safe Harbor policy. The USEWS also shares the concern

expressed under number (1) above—that the Act’s take

prohibition may result in violations of the Act if

endangered species are inadvertently taken during

routine agricultural operations, such as plowingfallowed

land. However, this is a broader issue that exceeds the

scope of the Safe Harbor program and is best addressed

under the Habitat Conservation Planning program.

316
Recovery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Comment: The Draft Plan does not recognize the

cumulative impact on the San Joaquin Valley economy

of other species protection set-asides in place or in

planning at this time, including the demands of the

massive CALFEDprocess which threatens to retire more

than 250,000 acres of some of the best farmland in the

nation — within the recovery planning area— to offset

impacts traceable in largemeasure to growth outside this

area. It is poor environmental planning to retire

agricultural acreage if feasible alternatives exist.

Response: Land Retirement is a program authorized

under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act

(CVPIA (§3408(h)). The primary objective of the Land

Retirement Program is to decrease drainage-related

problems caused by selenium along the central and

western side of the San Joaquin Valley. The land is

purchased from willing sellers and is intended to retire

lands that are no longer suitable for sustained agricultural

production. These lands have permanent damage

resulting from severe drainage or agricultural wastewater

management problems, groundwater withdrawals, or

other causes.

There are many advantages to retiring these damaged

and impaired lands. Certain lands retired may be restored

to benefit listed upland species helping to meetrecovery

goals. Retirement of selenifirous lands and restoration

for endangered species can be a cost effective method of

overlaying two Federal programs lessening the burdenon

private landowners. By reducing saline and toxic

drainage, land retirement can lead to an improvement of

water conservation by water districts or improve the

quality of an irrigation district’s agricultural wastewater.

Safer water can potentially benefit fish and wildlife, and

associated habitats in the Central Valley. Many land

owners are receptive to the program—for example,

advertisements in local newspapers, organizational

newsletters, and agricultural publications resulted in the

receipt of 31 applications coveringapproximately 27,582

acres, of which 12,563 acres were selected.

It should be stated that recovery plans are advisory

documents and not action documents. Implementation of

recovery tasks is discretionary. Therefore, recovery

plans do not require, as do National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) documents, an analysis of the

cumulative impacts of recovery implementation.

Specific Federal actions that implement recovery tasks

might be subject to such analysis.

Currently the CALFedproject does not include a land

retirement program.

Comment: Perpetual conservation easements or transfer

of fee title to a conservation entity constitutes a “taking”

of private properties if it is done without any

accompanying compensation.

Response: Perpetual conservation easements are

purchased from willing sellers at fair market value or

received as donations. Transfer of fee title also occurs

when landowners willingly sell or donate land. The

USFWS, therefore, is not “taking” land.

Comment: Discussions pertaining to the Kern Lake

Preserve presented within the Draft Plan present the

impression that private landowners are incapable of

administering recovery programs or maintaining

sensitive habitat areas.

Response: The USFWS recognizes and appreciates that

the landowner has protected, to date, the Kern Lake

population of the Buena Vista Lake shrew. However,

there are factors outside of the landowner’s control that

may affectthis population. Without an agreement forthe

conservation of this candidate species, its protection is

not guaranteed.

Comment: The number of “specialty preserves” is

unusually high in Kern County relative to other portions

of the plan area.

Response: Kern County has a higher proportion of

naturallands remaining on the Valley floorthan do most

other counties included in the plan area. Not

coincidentally, threatened and endangered plants have

persisted in Kern County. Many of these plants,

additionally, have limited distribution.

Comment. Now that the Naval Petroleum Reserve in

California # 1 isin private ownership, the DraftPlan does

not adequately identify procedural steps and funding

appropriate to designate the Elk Hills Unit as a “core

area”.

Response: The purpose of a recovery plan is to identify

areas needing preservation. The mechanism to preserve

the area should be determined by agencies and the

landowner.

Comment: it is very likely that pesticide concerns and

some of the proposed research can be addressed with

317
Recovery Plan for Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

existing information on file at the Department of

Pesticide Regulation.

Response: The USFWS will use all appropriate sources

of information when carrying out recovery tasks.

Comment: The claim that pesticides are a potential

threatto pollinators of native plant speciesis not credible

at face value.

Response: The USFWS continues to believe that

insecticides are a potential threat, given that they kill

insects and insects are believed to pollinate many of the

plant species included in this Plan. Dr. Robbin Thorp,

professor emeritus atthe University of California, Davis,

and a highly respected experton native insect pollinators,

supports USFWS’s concerns regarding the potential

threat of insecticides. The Plan does not state that

insecticides or other pesticides are a documented threat

but rather that they are a potential threat. It recommends

further research to determine whether or not pesticides

pose a problem, and under what conditions their use is

compatible with recoveryof these species. The efforts of

the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to

strengthen existing protections, by prohibiting use of

certain insecticides when listed plants are in bloom, is a

positive step toward protecting these rare plants until

research on this matter can be conducted.

Comment: Many of the efforts outlinedin the Draft Plan

that will be necessary torecover species are inprogress or

have at least been initiated.

Response. The Plan, which has beendeveloping overthe

last 6 years, has already provided many agencies and

organizations a direction in planning research projects

and in targeting specific areasfor purchase that will meet

recovery tasks. There are at a minimum three research

projects underway that will begin to answer questions

about San Joaquin kitfoxes, and the direction provided in

early versions of the DraftPlanallowed the Metropolitan

Bakersfield Implementation Trust group to target

specific areas for the protection of Bakersfield cactus,

bringing recovery goals ever closer.

Comment. Some areas mentioned inthe Draft Plan, like

Devil’s Den, LostHills, Caliente Creek, Cuyama Valley,

andPosoCreekare currently slated by the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management to be exchanged. These areas could

very likely move into private ownership. How will this

change the Draft Plan?

Response: The geographic areas listed by the

commenter fall within the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management Caliente Resource Management Plan

(RMP) area. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management

RMP General Management Processes require that all

proposed actions,including land exchanges, be reviewed

for compliance with the National Environmental Policy

Act, Endangered Species Act, and other laws. If it is

determined that a proposed land exchange may affect a

listed species, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

must consult with the USFWS under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act.

Comment: Define the terms and any legal significance

of “Management Plan”, “survival of the species as an

objective”, and “identified as essential to continued

survival”.

Response: There is no legal significance to any of the

above terms. A Management Plan is a document that

states the management objectives for a specific site and

identifies the actions to be taken to achieve those

objectives. “Survival of the species as an objective”

means that the management plan should specify that

promoting the continued existence of species covered in

this Plan is an objective. “Identified as essential to

continued survival” referred to the areas specified in the

Recovery andStepdown Narrative sections of the Plan

(sections III and IV, respectively) that are needed to

achieve recovery. To avoid confusion with legally

designatedcritical habitat,the final Plan refers to these as

“important to the continued survival”.

Stepdown Narrative

Comment. The Draft Plan should present strategies to

secure funding to promote local government Habitat

Conservation Plan efforts.

Response: In section 6. (d) of the Act, the USFWS is

“authorized to provide financial assistance to any State,

through its respective State agency... to assist in the

development of programs for the conservation of listed

species or to assist in monitoring the status of candidate

species... and recovered species”. These funds are

allocated on an annual basis. In 1997 and 1998, money

was appropriated by Congress, through section 6 of the

Act, to assist local entities with Habitat Conservation

Plan implementation.

318
Recoi’ery Planfor Upland Species ofthe San Joaquin Valley

Implementation Schedule

Comment: The Implementation Schedule lacks

sufficient detail in addressing the specific source of

funding, and lacks the assurances that the responsible

parties such as State and Federal agencies will actually

implement the recovery strategies.

Response: The USFWS can not assurethat state or other

Federal agencies will implement the recovery plan.

Congress appropriates funds to the USEWS for

endangered species activities, and the USFWS funds the

implementation of recovery tasks after evaluating all of

its work load priorities. The USEWS cannot guarantee

that sufficientfunds will be available toimplement this or

any other recovery plan.

Comment: The ImplementationSchedule is for the first

4 fiscal years only, yetthe Draft Planis for 20 years. How

will the costs be allocated for the next 16 years?

Response.’ The Total Cost column reflects costs over20

years. Only the first 4 years are shown in detail because

they represent a more precise budget cycle. For ongoing

continual tasks the costs in years 5 through 20 would be

the same or similar to years 1 through 4.

319