1043107.3 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 

Sacramento, California 95825-1846

In Reply Refer to: 

81420-2008-F-1338-2 

Gerardo C. Rios 

Chief, Air Permits Office 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

Subject: Draft Formal Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

for the Proposed Avenal Energy Power Center, LLC, Kings and Fresno 

Counties, California 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

This letter is in response to your July 10, 2008, request for formal section 7 consultation by the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the proposed Avenal Energy Power 

Center Project (project) in Kings and Fresno Counties, California. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) received your request on July 14, 2008. We have reviewed the proposed 

project for potential adverse effects to the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (kit fox) 

(Vulpes macrotic mutica); federally-endangered San Joaquin woolly-threads (Monolopia 

congdonii); federally-endangered California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus); federallyendangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila); and the federally-endangered Tipton 

kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). This document represents the Service’s 

biological opinion on the effects of the action on the endangered kit fox. This document is 

issued pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) (Act). 

The San Joaquin woolly-threads and California jewelflower are often associated with chenopod 

scrub, as well as Foothill and San Joaquin Valley Grasslands. The blunt-nosed leopard lizard is 

found in sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub. The Tipton’s kangaroo rat is found in arid 

grasslands, saltbush scrub or iodine bush shrubland associations. According to the document 

Avenal Energy Project, LLC Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission, 

section 6.6 February, 2008, TRC Solutions (biological assessment) (TRC 2008), the proposed 

power generating facility, all associated linear features (gas and water pipelines, power lines), 

and any areas temporarily disturbed during the building of the proposed project will occur on 

disturbed lands that have been used for agriculture or roads for fifty years. Disturbed lands such 

as these are highly unlikely to support San Joaquin woolly-threads, California jewelflower, 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, or Tipton’s kangaroo rat. The Service has determined, therefore, that 

the project is not likely to adversely affect the federally-endangered San Joaquin woolly-threads 

(Monolopia congdonii), federally-endangered California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

2

federally-endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), and the federally-endangered 

Tipton’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). 

The Service has determined that the proposed project will adversely affect the San Joaquin kit 

fox. No critical habitat for the kit fox has been designated by the Service; therefore, critical 

habitat under the jurisdiction of the Service will not be affected. 

This biological opinion is based on: (1) Avenal Energy Project, LLC Application for 

Certification to the California Energy Commission, section 6.6 February, 2008, TRC Solutions 

(biological assessment); (2) a letter containing additional avoidance and minimization measures 

from the applicant to the Service dated August 18, 20008; (3) discussion during a FebruarYz18, 

2009, public meeting between the applicant, the California Energy Commission (CEC), 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Service; (4) the Recovery Plan for Upland 

Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California 1998; (5) an email from the applicant to the 

Service, dated March 3, 2009, with attachments revising the project description and containing 

additional San Joaquin kit fox avoidance measures; (6) other electronic mail and telephone 

conversations between EPA, the applicant, and the service; and (7,) other information available 

to the Service. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office. Please refer to file number 8142008-F-1338 when requesting 

information concerning this consultation. 

Consultation History 

November 8, 2006: Brian Peterson of the Service, Mr. Joseph Stenger of TRC solutions, 

Mr. Michael Bumgardner of Biological Consulting, and Ms. Annette 

Tenneboe of the CDFG met to discuss minimization measures for the 

proposed project. 

December 13, 2006: The CEC rejected the applicant’s ‘application for certification’ (AFC). 

The project is dropped for consideration for a permit by CEC. 

March 7, 2008: The applicant sent to the Service a copy of a new Application for 

Certification filed with the CEC on February 25, 2008. This application 

was significantly altered from the original proposal filed with the CEC in 

2006 but the location for the power plant was the same as in the original 

filing. 

April 11, 2008: Susan Jones and Shelley Buranek of the Service met with the applicant, 

Mr. Michael Bumgardener of Bumgardener Biological Consulting, 

Mr. Joseph Stenger of TRC solutions, and Ms. Jane Luckhardt of Downey 

Brand Attorneys, LLP. 

April – June, 2008: The Service exchanged several electronic mail messages (emails) on 

proposed project implementation with Ms. Laurel Cordonnier of the CEC, 

Ms. Tracey Gilliam Gilliland of Avenal Power Center, LLC (applicant), 

and Jane Luckhardt of Downey Brand Attorneys, LLP. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

3

May 12, 2008: The applicant filed for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permit with the EPA as required by Part C of the Clean Air Act and Title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §5121 for the proposed 

construction and operation of the project in the City of Avenal, Kings 

County, California. A copy of a permit application was received by 

Service. 

June 24, 2008: Susan Jones and Shelley Buranek of the Service met with Tracey Gilliam 

Gilliland and Jim Rexroad of Avenal Power Center, LLC, Jane Luckhardt 

of Downey Brand Attorneys, LLC, and Justin Sloan of the CDFG 

regarding the distance of the project facilities from the San Luis Canal – 

California Aqueduct. The Canal is used as a travel corridor for the 

endangered San Joaquin kit fox. 

June 30, 2008: The California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE) submitted a Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Service for all documents 

pertaining to the proposed project. 

July 14, 2008: The Environmental Protection Agency sent the Service a request for 

formal consultation on the proposed project. 

July – August, 2008: The Service exchanged emails with the CEC, and CDFG regarding the 

need for avian flight diverters on proposed project power lines.

August 15, 2008: Avenal Power Center, LLC requests meeting with USFWS.

September 03, 2008: CURE submitted a second FOIA request for all documents pertaining to 

proposed project. 

September 08, 2008: The Service sent a request to EPA for further information on project fence 

lines, construction activities, and applicant’s calculation of disturbance 

acreage. 

October 27, 2008: The Service received a letter from EPA responding to our request for 

further information. 

Oct. –Nov. 2008: The Service exchanged several emails with Ms. Laurel Cordonnier of the 

CEC, and Mr. Justin Sloan of the CDFG regarding minimization issues.

November 28, 2008: U.S. EPA requests draft biological opinion.

February 2, 2009: The CEC released the preliminary staff assessment for the proposed 

project. 

February 18, 2009: Shelley Buranek and Susan Jones of the Service attended a CEC public 

workshop on the proposed project. 

Comment [n1]: EPA’s proposed addition.

Comment [n2]: EPA’s proposed addition.
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

4

March 3, 2009: The Service received an email from the applicant with the final project 

description and the final minimization measures for the San Joaquin kit 

fox, including a resolution to the setback distance from the Canal. 

May 11, 2009: The EPA requested a draft biological opinion from the Service. 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

Description of Proposed Action 

Action Area and Environmental Setting

The proposed project is located in an agricultural region along the western edge of the San 

Joaquin Valley, in the northeast corner of the City of Avenal, Kings County, California. The 

project is located approximately two miles east of Interstate 5, approximately eight miles south 

of the City of Huron, sixteen miles east of the City of Coalinga, and six miles northeast of the 

commercial and residential districts of the City of Avenal. The proposed project site constitutes 

the majority of the northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 21 South, Range 18 East, Mt. 

Diablo Base and Meridian. The Kings County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) is 36-170-035. 

The proposed project site is a 148 acre parcel surrounded by open farmland except for the City of 

Avenal water treatment facility to the northeast. The San Luis Canal (Canal) part of the 

California Aqueduct abuts the northeast corner of the Parcel. The parcel, currently in 

agricultural production, is zoned industrial by the City of Avenal and owned by Avenal Power 

Center, LLC. 

The action area is the kit fox corridor along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley in Kings 

County. This encompasses could encompass the home range of a kit fox pair that might forage 

on the site, or a juvenile that might disperse along the Canal. However, no kit fox sightings have 

occurred on the project site, and the closest known kit fox occurrence was approximately 1⁄2 mile 

away within the Canal right-of-way. The proposed project site is located approximately three 

miles to the southeast of kit fox satellite population number five and approximately two miles to 

the northeast of satellite population number six. 

Project Description

The proposed project consists of construction and operations of a 600 megawatt (MW) 

combined-cycle electric power generating plant, including power block, switchyard, air-cooled 

condenser, zero liquid discharge facility, and storm water retention basin. Additional permanent 

facilities will include parking facilities, a new 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines with 120 foot 

high poles (6.4 miles total length), three 4-inch diameter buried water pipelines (2.7 miles total 

length), and a 20-inch diameter gas pipeline (2.5 miles total length). The 148-acre parcel will be 

contained within a perimeter fence that allows wildlife passage onto and through the property. 

The security fencing around the power block will exclude wildlife (wildlife exclusionary 

fencing). All facilities will be setback from the Canal by 300 feet as measured from the edge of 

the applicant’s property line and maintained using the recommended buffer management 

guidelines outlined in avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures section. 

Comment [n3]: Applicant’s proposed revisions. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

5

The purpose for constructing a new power plant in the San Joaquin Valley is to provide 

additional energy to the power grid during peak electric for electricity consumption. 

Construction of the proposed project is estimated to begin in 2010 and be completed within 

twenty-seven months. Ground disturbing activities outside of the wildlife exclusionary fencing 

will be completed within 24 months. The power plant is estimated to have a 30-year production 

life. Plant construction will typically occur between 6:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Plant operation 

may occur 24 hours a day. 

The proposed project will affect 84.3 acres of habitat in such a way as to make these acres either 

permanently or temporarily unsuitable for kit foxes and/or extend the area over which existing 

threats to kit fox survival and recovery occur. There will be 36 acres of permanent disturbance 

and 48.3 acres of temporary construction related disturbance. Project facilities within wildlife 

exclusionary security fencing and adjacent drainage swales will account for approximately 31.9 

acres of the permanent disturbance. The remaining 4.1 acres of permanent disturbance will 

result from onsite road access to the plant (2.9 acres), and footings for the power line towers (1.2 

acres) between the site and the Pacific Gas and Electric’s Gates Substation. The portion of the 

148 acre parcel that is not permanently disturbed will be leased for agriculture, except for 

approximately 4.1 acres between the security fence and Canal that will be Managed for San 

Joaquin kit fox passage. 

Construction Details 

Construction will typically occur between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., but additional 

hours may be necessary to make up schedule deficiencies or to complete critical construction 

activities. Construction site activities will include clearing of vegetation; site grading; storm 

water control; laying gravel and road-based materials for temporary roads, establishing 

equipment laydown, parking, and work areas; leveling the project site; and constructing the plant 

facilities. During construction, a security fence will be installed around construction areas 

including laydown areas. For road construction or repair, the applicant will use a road sealant 

that is not toxic to wildlife and plants. The duration of temporary construction disturbance will 

be less than 24 months. All temporary disturbed areas will be restored at or beforewithin the 

first 24 months of constructionof an area first being disturbed. This includes the removal of the 

gravel and road-base material in the temporary equipment laydown, parking, and work areas. 

Access to the construction site will be via Avenal Cutoff Road. 

The gas pipeline will be installed for most of its route beneath the existing rights-of-way for 

Avenal Cutoff Road and 34 1⁄2 Avenue. In these areas, the construction and operation of the 

pipeline will occur within the existing 80-foot wide Avenal Cutoff Road right-of-way and the 60-

foot wide 34 1⁄2 Avenue right-of-way. Typical pipeline installation activities will include hauling 

and stringing of the pipe; welding, trenching, laying the pipe; backfill of the trench; tie-in to the 

existing pipeline; and cleanup and restoration of the construction area. Construction of the 

pipeline is expected to take four months. 

The construction of the power lines will include positioning approximately 43 tubular, steel-pole 

towers between the power plant and the Gates Substation. These towers do not utilize anchor 

guy wires. The designated power line route is through existing farmlands. Construction will 

take approximately three months. 

Comment [n4]: Applicant’s proposed revision. 

Comment [n5]: Applicant’s proposed revision. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

6

Water pipeline installation will include trenching, hauling and stringing of pipe along the routes, 

welding, hydrostatic testing, backfilling, and restoring the surface grade. Construction of the 

water pipelines are expected to take five months to complete. The route of one of the water 

pipelines lies to the northeast of the power plant site and will run near the Canal. Construction 

disturbance will be entirely outside of the Canal right-of-way. 

Operation Details 

The power plant will be a combined-cycle unit and will include two natural gas fired-combustion 

turbine generators and dry low nitrous oxide combustors to produce electricity. Hot exhaust for 

each turbine engine will be captured by a dedicated heat recovery steam generator. The hot 

exhaust along with the input of feed-water will transfer and condense the exhaust heat to the 

water to create superheated steam. This superheated steam will be used to generate further 

electricity through a steam turbine generator. Once through the steam turbine generator, the 

steam will be condensed to water and recycled through the system, limiting the average amount 

of water used by the project to approximately 20 acre-feet per year. 

Water Supply 

The City of Avenal will provide the proposed project water supply from the water treatment 

plant on the City parcel contiguous with the Site. Raw city water along with backup supplies 

obtained from local agricultural wells will be treated onsite. Water from backup supply will be 

used only under limited circumstances, such interrupted canal flows, events of elevated canal 

turbidity, or dry years when the City’s State Water Project Water may be curtailed. Water 

withdrawn from agricultural wells will be offset 100 percent through agricultural conservation 

measures so there will be no net increase in groundwater pumping. Water delivery from the 

water treatment plant and from the agricultural wells will be through approximately 2.7 miles of 

4-inch underground pipes. Water will be filtered to remove suspended solids to acceptable 

levels. Water will be further treated through evaporation and crystallization and an electric 

deionizer with the resulting salt-cake product trucked to a non-hazardous landfill. Expected 

annual water consumption will average 20 acre-feet per year with a maximum annual use of 104 

acre-feet per year. 

Contaminants and Containment 

Storm water runoff from possible oil and chemical storage areas will be contained and then 

routed through an oil/water separator. All the collected water in general plant drainage will be 

recycled back through the filter and distillation process (the zero liquid discharge facility). There 

will be no wastewater discharge from the plant. Sanitary sewer water will be connected to an 

onsite septic tank and leach field. Clean storm water runoff will be collected and drained to a 

storm water retention basin for evaporation or percolation. 

Accidental spillage, maintenance operations, and wash down areas will be contained with 

curbing and appropriately sloped areas around chemical storage and feed areas. Sumps will be 

provided in the secondary containment areas to facilitate removal of liquids using portable 

pumps. Liquids removed from sumps will be characterized and recycled or disposed of at a 

licensed facility in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous materials including 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

7

aqueous ammonia (two 27,000 gallon tanks), petroleum products, flammables, compressed 

gases, acids and caustics, water treatment and cleaning chemicals, ethylene glycol, paint and 

solvents are characterized as hazardous waste and will be removed using portable pumps for 

disposal at a licensed facility. Storage and handling of these materials will be in accordance with 

the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. Bulk hazardous materials will be 

provided with secondary containment to prevent leaks and spills. Hazardous waste generated in 

small quantities will be disposed of in accordance with Federal and State regulations. Examples 

include waste oil, used oil filters, chemical wash solutions, spent solvents spent paint materials, 

waste sand blast, spent batteries, and spent fluorescent light tube. Nonhazardous waste including 

scrap metal, plastic insulation material wood pallets, salt cakes, empty containers, etc will be 

disposed of through the local waste disposal company or recycled. 

Noise 

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, expressed in decibels (dB). Noise is typically 

measured on the A-weighted scale (dBA) which has been shown to correlate with human 

response to sound and is the most widely used descriptor for community noise assessments 

(Harris 1991). Typical examples of various outdoor and indoor noises and their A-weighted 

values are listed in Table 1. The current ambient residual (L90) noise level measured over a 25 

hour period at the eastern boundary of the property near the Canal, was 30 to 43 dBA. The 

prominent sources for this noise at this location were listed as farming operations, water 

treatment facility, distant traffic, frogs, crickets and aircraft flyby. 

Table 1 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry 

Example Noise Source A-weighted Sound Level in Decibels (dBA) 

Shotgun at shooters ear 140 

Civil defense siren (100 feet) 130 

Jet takeoff (200 feet) 120 

Loud rock music 110 

Pile driver 100 

Ambulance siren (100 feet) 90 

Pneumatic drill (50 feet), or noisy restaurant 80 

Busy traffic, hair dryer 70 

Normal conversation (5 feet) 60 

Light traffic (100 feet); or rainfall 50 

Distant bird calls; or average library 40 

Soft whisper (5 feet); or rustling leaves 30 

Normal breathing 10 

The loudest noise during construction of the power plant is expected to be heavy equipment such 

as bulldozers, front end loaders, and trucks with sound pressure levels typically ranging up to 68 

dBA at a distance of 500 feet and 58 dBA at a distance of 1,500 feet. The overall aggregate 

construction noise as measured from a distance of 50 feet is expected to range up to 95 dBA. 

Operational noise measured from the center of the plant to the edge of the Canal, a distance of 

1070 feet will be a maximum of 63 dBA. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

8

Minimization and Avoidance Measures 

Minimization and avoidance measures are designed to reduce, ameliorate, and/or avoid potential 

adverse effects on the kit fox. These measures are an integral part of the proposed action. They 

have been developed through coordination between the applicant and agency staff, including the 

Service, EPA, CDFG, and CEC. The applicant and/or their designated representative have 

committed to implement and complete these measures to minimize projects effects on the San 

Joaquin kit fox. These avoidance and minimization measures that follow are expected to 

augment other project related environmental commitments, such as those established within the 

CEC staff assessment, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures that would 

be required under separate Federal and State laws, regulations, and executive orders. 

1) To assist in the recovery of the San Joaquin kit fox, the applicant has proposed to 

purchase credits in a Service approved conservation bank such as Kreyenhagen Hills or 

the Kern Water Bank at a ratio of 0.3 to 1 for temporary disturbance and 1.1 to 1 for 

permanent disturbance. Total acres purchased will be 54.1, (48.3 acres temporary 

disturbance x 0.3 = 14.5; plus 36 acres permanent disturbance x 1.1 = 39.6). These 

credits shall be purchased prior to onset of ground breaking activities. 

2) The recommendations, listed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized 

Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground 

Disturbance (USFWS 1999) enclosed with this biological opinion shall be implemented. 

3) The applicant will retain the services of a Service approved biologist who will be 

responsible for overseeing project environmental protection measures and will be the 

point of contact for the project. All encounters with listed species during construction 

and operation the proposed project will be reported to the biologist, who will record the 

following information: species name; location (narrative and maps), and dates of 

observations; general condition and health, including injuries and state of healing; 

diagnostic markings; including identification numbers or markers; and location moved 

from and to (if appropriate). 

4) The biologist may hire onsite biological monitors to oversee compliance with all 

biologically related laws, orders or regulations contained within this biological opinion or 

other applicable Federal or State documents. 

5) The biologist and or biological monitors will oversee construction of the proposed project 

and have the authority to stop work if they observe or determine there will be an 

unauthorized adverse impact to San Joaquin kit fox or other Federal or State threatened or 

endangered species. 

6) Prior to the initiation of any site preparation/construction activities, all construction 

personnel will be trained and provided with training materials. 

a) Signup sheets for training sessions, identifying the construction personnel and the 

contractor/company they represent, will be provided to the Service with the postconstruction compliance report. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

9

b) The training materials will include: 

i) a description of the natural history of the San Joaquin kit fox and its 

habitat; 

ii) the general measures that are being implemented to conserve this species 

as they relate to the project; 

iii) the penalties for noncompliance; and 

iv) the boundaries (work area) within which the project must be 

accomplished. 

To ensure that employees and contractors understand their roles and responsibilities, training 

materials shall be provided in languages other than in English as necessary. 

7) Project related vehicles shall observe a 20 mph speed limit in all project areas, except on 

county roads and State and Federal highways. This provision is particularly important at 

night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent possible, nighttime construction 

should be minimized. Off-road vehicle travel outside of designated project areas should 

be prohibited. 

8) A litter control program shall be instituted at each project site. All workers will ensure 

that their food scraps, paper wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash from 

the project area are deposited in covered or closed trash containers. The trash containers 

shall be removed from the construction area at the end of each working dayproject site at 

least once a week. 

9) No canine or feline pets or firearms shall be permitted on construction sites to avoid 

harassment, injuring, or killing of kit fox. Federal, state or local law enforcement 

officers, and security personnel are exempt from the firearm provision. 

10) All construction activity shall be confined to the project site, including temporary access 

roads, haul roads, and staging areas specifically designated and marked for these 

purposes. At no time shall equipment or personnel be allowed to adversely affect areas 

outside the construction site without authorization from the Service. Project personnel 

will drive only on existing roads outside of construction limits. 

11) Because dusk and dawn are the times when kit foxes are most actively foraging, workers 

will avoid noisy work, later than one-half hour before sunset and earlier than one-half 

hour before sunrise, when this provision does not materially affecting construction 

productivity. 

12) Except when necessary for the safety of drivers, visitors, or pedestrians, the lighting of 

the construction site by artificial lighting during nighttime hours is prohibited. If 

construction lighting is necessary, and for all power plant operations, lighting shall be 

designed, installed, and maintained to prevent side casting of light toward wildlife habitat 

including the Canal. 

Comment [n6]: Applicant’s proposed revision. 

Change proposed for consistency with Energy 

Commission’s condition of certification BIO-8. (See 

FSA at 4.2-29; PMPD at 239.) 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

10

13) Use of rodenticides and pesticides in the project areas will shall be restricted. This is 

necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of 

prey populations on which it depends. All uses of such compounds should shall observe 

label and other restrictions mandated by the EPA, California Department of Food and 

Agriculture, the County Agricultural Commission, and other State and Federal 

legislation, as well as additional project related restrictions deemed necessary by the 

Service. 

14) Maintenance and construction excavations greater than 2 feet deep shall either be 

covered, filled in at the end of each working day, or have earthen escape ramps no greater 

than 200 feet (61 meters) apart to prevent entrapment of any kit fox. Before such holes or 

trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any 

time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the procedures under number 21 of this 

section must be followed. 

15) In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed 

immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for 

advice. 

16) Kit foxes are attracted to den like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes 

becoming trapped or injured. Prior to commencing construction each day, all active 

construction areas where animals may have become trapped shall be inspected. At the 

end of the day, inspect for installation of structures that prevent entrapment or allow 

escape during periods of construction inactivity. Areas with high vehicle activity (i.e. 

parking lots) shall be periodically inspected for animals in harm’s way. All construction 

pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored 

at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be capped. They shall be 

thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped or 

otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section 

of pipe shall not be moved until the Service has been consulted or the fox has escaped. If 

necessary, and under the direct supervision of the project biologist, the pipe may be 

moved once to remove it from the path of construction activities. 

17) Prior to ground disturbance for construction activities, but no earlier than 30 days prior to 

ground disturbance, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a Service-approved 

biologist. These surveys will consist of walking surveys of the project construction site 

and adjacent areas accessible to the public to determine if listed species are present (i.e., 

San Joaquin kit fox dens and related signs). The findings of the preconstruction surveys 

will be provided to the Service in written report form prior to commencing construction.

1817) Only Service approved biologists holding valid permits issued pursuant to section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act will be allowed to trap, capture, or move listed species for which 

they have a permit to do so. Any relocation plan will be approved by the Service prior to 

the release of any listed species. 

1918) The following measures shall also be implemented when applicable, to conserve kit foxes 

and their dens from the effects of the proposed project: 

Comment [n7]: EPA’s suggested revisions. 

Comment [n8]: EPA’s comment: Either delete 

this text or specify the procedure by which the 

Service would identify/approve additional project 

related restrictions

Comment [n9]: Applicant suggests these 

revisions for consistency with Energy Commission 

Condition of Certification BIO-2. 

Comment [n10]: EPA suggested that Measures 

17 and 19 be combined for clarity, as they overlap. 

See new Measure 18, below.
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

11

a) Determine the presence of kit fox dens (whether in natural locations or in pipes 

and culverts). 

i) Prior to ground disturbance for construction activities, but no earlier than 

30 days prior to ground disturbance, preconstruction surveys shall be 

conducted by a Service-approved biologist in accordance with the most 

current protocols approved by the Service and CDFG. These surveys will 

consist of walking surveys of the project construction site and adjacent 

areas accessible to the public to determine if listed species are present (i.e., 

San Joaquin kit fox dens and related signs). The findings of the 

preconstruction surveys will be provided to the Service in written report 

form prior to commencing construction. Preconstruction surveys within 

the project area shall be conducted no more than 30 calendar days prior to 

the start of construction in accordance with the most current protocols 

approved by the Service and CDFG.

ii) Surveys for dens shall be conducted by qualified biologists with 

demonstrated experience in identifying San Joaquin kit fox dens. 

iii) Throughout the construction period, pipes and culverts shall be searched 

for kit foxes prior to being moved or sealed to ensure that an animal has 

not been trapped. 

b) Protect all San Joaquin kit fox dens to the maximum extent practicable as 

determined by the on-site biologist. 

c) Identify the type of den (natal or non-natal) and its status (occupied or 

unoccupied) based on the extant Service guidance. Types of dens are as follows: 

i) Known den: any existing natural den or human made structure for which 

conclusive evidence or circumstantial evidence can show that the den is 

used or has been used at any time in the past by the San Joaquin kit fox. 

ii) Potential den: any natural den or burrow within the range of the species 

that has entrances of appropriate dimensions (4-12 inches) to 

accommodate San Joaquin kit foxes. The applicant will survey and 

investigate using photo-detection equipment, track plate, or other methods 

to determine species utilization. If no information is collected that 

indicates use by other species, the den will be treated as a potential kit fox 

den. 

iii) Pupping den: any known San Joaquin kit fox den (as defined) used by kit 

foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups. 

iv) Atypical den: any known San Joaquin kit fox den that has been 

established in, or in association with, a human made structure. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

12

d) Identify and execute appropriate action(s) regarding notification, buffers, 

excavation, and fill: 

i) Occupied natal den: if an occupied natal den is visible or encountered 

within the project limits, or on other accessible land, within 1000 500 feet 

of the project construction area, project construction will shall cease on 

and resume between August 1 and resume on November 30. If an 

occupied natal den is encountered, the Service shall be contacted 

immediately, before any further project action occurs. 

ii) A buffer or exclusion zone shall be established to protect the physical den 

and surrounding habitat of unoccupied natal dens and all non-natal dens 

that can be avoided: 

(1) Unoccupied natal dens shall be surrounded by a 200 foot buffer 

and the Service shall be contacted. 

(2) Occupied and unoccupied non-natal dens shall be surrounded with 

a 100 foot buffer. 

(3) When occupied dens have been found on or near the project site, 

ground disturbing activities shall be restricted during the period of 

December 1 to July 31 as follows. 

(4) Between December 1 to July 31, project activities within 1000 500 

feet of occupied natal dens are prohibited. The 1000 500 foot 

buffer zone shall be delineated with a temporary fence or other 

suitable barrier that does not prevent dispersal of the fox. 

Alternately, the project construction area can be delineated with 

temporary fence, flagging or other barrier. 

iii) If a natural den cannot be avoided, Service shall be notified for 

instructions on how to proceed. 

2019) Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, 

including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. will be 

contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the areas to pre-project 

conditions. An area subject to “temporary” disturbance means any area that is disturbed 

during the project, but that after project completion will not be subject to further 

disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. 

2120) Any contractor, employee, or agency personnel who inadvertently kills or injures a San 

Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This 

representative shall contact the CDFG and the Service immediately in the case of a dead, 

injured, or entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance is State 

Dispatch at 916-445-0045. They will contact the local warden or biologist. 

Comment [n11]: Applicant’s revision, given that 

a 1,000 foot buffer could completely stop 

construction if a natal den is found onsite.

Comment [n12]: EPA revision. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

13

2221) The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG will be notified in writing within 

three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during 

project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the 

incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. 

The Service contact is the San Joaquin Valley Branch Chief of the Division of 

Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers given below. The CDFG 

contact is Mr. Ron Schlorff at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California 95814, 

916-654-4252. 

Recommended Buffer Zone Management GuidelinesRequirements

The 300 foot buffer zone between the proposed project security fence and the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Canal right-of-way is intended to minimize effects of the proposed project on San 

Joaquin kit fox use of the Canal. Therefore the applicant has proposed towill manage the area 

between the security fence and the canal as follows: 

1) If grassland continues as the dominant vegetation community within the buffer zone, it 

should shall be mowed 1 to 4 times each spring (i.e., during the peak of the grass growing 

season [March to May]) to maintain the height of the grass at between 4 and 10 inches. 

Grass height will not be mowed to less than 4 inches, and the mower blade shall be set so 

that it does not hit the ground. 

2) Monitoring should shall occur once every 2 weeks from March 1 to May 31 to determine 

if mowing is needed to meet the above grassland height criterion. 

3) If the grassland is succeeded by a native San Joaquin Valley vegetation community (e.g., 

valley saltbush scrub), no mowing should occur. 

4) Other ground or vegetation disturbing activities should arebe prohibited within the buffer 

zone. 

5) Trash removal should shall be conducted once every 3 months in the buffer zone. 

6) Human activities that are not associated with maintaining suitable habitat for San Joaquin 

kit fox should beare prohibited within the buffer zone. 

7) Use of night lighting within the buffer zone should be prohibited or minimized to the 

extent necessary for security purposes. 

8) The perimeter fence should shall be constructed as a wildlife compatible fence (i.e., fence 

that allows unhampered wildlife movement through the fence). Note that the internal 

security fence will be constructed to preclude human access into the plant and therefore 

cannot be constructed as a wildlife compatible fence. 

Status of the Species 

The Service listed the San Joaquin kit fox as endangered species on March 11, 1967 (Service 

1967) and the State of California listed kit fox a threatened species on June 27, 1971. The 

Comment [n13]: Revisions in this section are 

suggested by EPA.
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

14

Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (Recovery Plan) 

includes this canine (Service 1998). 

In the San Joaquin Valley before 1930, the range of the San Joaquin kit fox extended from 

southern Kern County north to Tracy, San Joaquin County, on the west side, and near La Grange, 

Stanislaus County, on the east side (Grinnell et al. 1937; Service 1998). Historically, this species 

occurred in several San Joaquin Valley native plant communities. In the southernmost portion of 

the range, these communities included Valley Sink Scrub, Valley Saltbush Scrub, Upper Sonoran 

Subshrub Scrub, and Annual Grassland. San Joaquin kit foxes also exhibit a capacity to utilize 

habitats that humans have altered. The animals are present in many oil fields, grazed 

pasturelands, and “wind farms” (Cypher 2000). Kit foxes can inhabit the margins and fallow 

lands near irrigated row crops, orchards, and vineyards, and may forage occasionally in these 

agricultural areas (Service 1998). The San Joaquin kit fox seems to prefer more gentle terrain 

and decreases in abundance as terrain ruggedness increases (Grinnell et al. 1937; Warrick and 

Cypher 1998). 

The kit fox is often associated with open grasslands, which form large contiguous blocks within 

the eastern portions of the range of the animal. The listed canine also utilizes oak savanna and 

some types of agriculture (e.g. orchards and alfalfa), although the long-term suitability of these 

habitats is unknown (Jensen 1972; Service 1998). Kit foxes often den adjacent to, and forage 

within, agricultural areas (Bell et al.1994). Although agricultural areas are not traditional kit fox 

habitat and are often highly fragmented, they can offer sufficient prey resources and denning 

potential to support small numbers of kit foxes. 

Adult San Joaquin kit foxes are usually solitary during late summer and fall. In September and 

October, adult females begin to excavate and enlarge natal dens (Morrell 1972), and adult males 

join the females in October or November (Morrell 1972). Typically, pups are born between 

February and late March following a gestation period of 49 to 55 days (Egoscue 1962; Morrell 

1972; Spiegel and Tom 1996; Service 1998). Mean litter sizes reported for San Joaquin kit foxes 

include 2.0 on the Carrizo Plain (White and Rails 1993), 3.0 at Camp Roberts (Spencer and 

Egoscue 1992), 3.7 in the Lokern area (Spiegel and Tom 1996), and 3.8 at the Naval Petroleum 

Reserve (Cypher et al. 2000). Pups appear above ground at about age 3-4 weeks, and are 

weaned at age 6-8 weeks. Reproductive rates, the proportion of females bearing young, of adult 

San Joaquin kit foxes vary annually with environmental conditions, particularly food availability. 

Annual rates range from 0-100%, and reported mean rates include 61% at the Naval Petroleum 

Reserve (Cypher et al. 2000), 64% in the Lokern area (Spiegel and Tom 1996), and 32% at 

Camp Roberts (Spencer and Egoscue 1992). Although some yearling female kit foxes will 

produce young, most do not reproduce until age 2 years (Spencer and Egoscue 1992; Spiegel and 

Tom 1996; Cypher et al. 2000). Some young of both sexes, but particularly females may delay 

dispersal, and may assist their parents in raising the following year’s litter of pups (Spiegel and 

Tom 1996). The young kit foxes begin to forage for themselves at about four to five months of 

age (Koopman et al. 2000; Morell 1972). 

Although most young kit foxes disperse less than 8 kilometers (5 miles) (Scrivner et al. 1987), 

dispersal distances of up to 122 kilometers (76.3 miles) have been documented for the San 

Joaquin kit fox (Service 1998). Dispersal can be through disturbed habitats, including 

agricultural fields, and across highways and aqueducts. The age at dispersal ranges from 4-32 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

15

months (Cypher 2000). Among juvenile kit foxes surviving to July 1 at the Naval Petroleum 

Reserve, 49% of the males dispered from natal home ranges while 24% of the females dispersed 

(Koopman et al. 2000). Among dispersing kit foxes, 87% did so during their first year of age. 

Most, 65.2%, of the dispersing juveniles at the Naval Petroleum Reserve died within 10 days of 

leaving their natal home den (Koopman et al. 2000). Some kit foxes delay dispersal and may 

inherit their natal home range. 

Kit foxes are reputed to be poor diggers, and their dens are usually located in areas with loosetextured, friable soils (Morrell 1972). However, the depth and complexity of their dens suggest 

that they possess good digging abilities, and researchers observed kit fox dens on a variety of soil 

types (Service 1998). Some studies have suggested that where hardpan layers predominate, kit 

foxes create their dens by enlarging the burrows of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus 

beecheyi) or badgers (Taxidea taxus) (Jensen 1972; Morrell 1972; Orloff et al. 1986). In parts of 

their range, particularly in the foothills, kit foxes often use ground squirrel burrows for dens 

(Orloff et al. 1986). Kit fox dens are commonly located on flat terrain or on the lower slopes of 

hills. About 77 percent of all kit fox dens are at or below midslope (O’Farrell 1984), with the 

average slope at den sites ranging from 0 to 22 degrees (California Department of Fish and Game 

1980; O’Farrell 1984; Orloff et al. 1986). Natal and pupping dens generally occur in flatter 

terrain. Common locations for dens include washes, drainages, and roadside berms. Kit foxes 

also commonly den in human-made structures such as culverts and pipes (O’Farrell 1984). 

Natal and pupping dens may include from two to 18 entrances and are usually larger than dens 

that are not used for reproduction (O’Farrell and McCue 1981). Natal dens may be reused in 

subsequent years (Egoscue 1962). O’Farrell (1984) speculated that natal dens are located in the 

same location as ancestral breeding sites (O’Farrell 1984). Active natal dens are generally 1.9 to 

3.2 kilometers (1.2 to 2 miles) from the dens of other mated kit fox pairs (Egoscue 1962; 

O’Farrell and Gilbertson 1979). Natal and pupping dens usually can be identified by the 

presence of scat, prey remains, matted vegetation, and mounds of excavated soil (i.e. ramps) 

outside the dens (O’Farrell 1984). However, some active dens in areas outside the valley floor 

often do not show evidence of use (Orloff et al. 1986). During telemetry studies of kit foxes in 

the northern portion of their range, 70 percent of the dens that were known to be active showed 

no sign of use (e.g., tracks, seats, ramps, or prey remains) (Orloff et al. 1986). In another more 

recent study in the Coast Range, 79 percent of active kit fox dens lacked evidence of recent use 

other than signs of recent excavation (Jones and Stokes Associates 1997). 

A kit fox can use more than 100 dens throughout its home range, although on average, an animal 

will use approximately 12 dens a year for shelter and escape cover (Cypher et al. 2001). Kit 

foxes typically use individual dens for only brief periods, often for only one day before moving 

to another den (Rails et al. 1990). Possible reasons for changing dens include infestation by 

ectoparasites, local depletion of prey, or avoidance of coyotes (Canis latrans). Kit foxes tend to 

use dens that are located in the same general area, and clusters of dens can be surrounded by 

hundreds of hectares of similar habitat devoid of other dens (Egoscue 1962). In the southern San 

Joaquin Valley, Morrell (1972), found kit foxes used up to 39 dens within a denning range of 

129 to 195 hectares (320 to 482 acres) (Morrell 1972). O’Farrell (1984) in the southern San 

Joaquin Valley reported an average den density of one den per 28 to 37 hectares (69 to 92 acres). 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

16

Kit fox use dens for temperature regulation, shelter from adverse environmental conditions, and 

escape from predators. Kit foxes excavate their own dens, use those constructed by other 

animals, and use human-made structures (culverts, abandoned pipelines, and banks in sumps or 

roadbeds). At the Naval Petroleum Reserve, individual kit foxes used an average of 11.8 dens 

per year (Koopman et al. 1998). 

The diet of the San Joaquin kit fox varies geographically, seasonally, and annually, based on 

temporal and spatial variation in abundance of potential prey. Known prey species of the kit fox 

include white-footed mice (Perornyscus spp.), insects, California ground squirrels, kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys spp.), San Joaquin antelope squirrels, black-tailed hares (Lepus californicus), and 

chukar (Alectoris chukar) (Jensen 1972, Archon 1992), listed in approximate proportion of 

occurrence in fecal samples. Kit foxes also prey on desert cottontails (Sylvilagus auduboniz), 

ground-nesting birds, and pocket mice (Perognathus spp.). 

San Joaquin kit foxes are primarily nocturnal, although individuals are occasionally observed 

resting or playing (mostly pups) near their dens during the day (Grinnell et al. 1937). Kit foxes 

occupy home ranges that vary in size from 1.7 to 4.5 square miles (White and Rails 1993). A 

mated pair of kit foxes and their current litter of pups usually occupy each home range. Other 

adults, usually offspring from previous litters, also may be present (Koopman et al. 2000), but 

individuals often move independently within their home range (Cypher 2000). Average 

distances traveled each night range from 5.8 to 9.1 miles and are greatest during the breeding 

season (Cypher 2000). 

Kit foxes maintain core home range areas that are exclusive to mated pairs, and their offspring 

(White and Rails 1993, Spiegel 1996, White and Garrott 1997). This territorial spacing behavior 

eventually limits the number of foxes that can inhabit an area owing to shortages of available 

space and per capita prey. Hence, as habitat is fragmented or destroyed, the carrying capacity of 

an area is reduced and a larger proportion of the population is forced to disperse. Increased 

dispersal generally leads to lower survival rates and, in turn, decreased abundance because 

greater than 65 percent of dispersing juvenile foxes die within 10 days of leaving their natal 

range (Koopman et al. 2000). 

Estimates of fox density vary greatly throughout its range, and have been reported as high as 1.2 

animals per square kilometer (3.11 per square miles) in optimal habitats in good years (Service 

1998). At the Elk Hills in Kern County, density estimates varied from 0.7 animals per square 

kilometer (1.86 animals per square mile) in the early 1980s to 0.01 animals per square kilometer 

(0.03 animals per square mile) in 1991 (Service 1998). Kit fox home ranges vary in size from 

approximately 2.6 square kilometers to 31.2 square kilometers (1 to 12 square miles) (Spiegel 

and Disney 1996; Service 1998). Knapp (1979) estimated that a home range in agricultural areas 

is approximately 2.5 square kilometers (1 square mile). Individual home ranges overlap 

considerably, at least outside the core activity areas (Morrell 1972; Spiegel and Disney 1996). 

Mean annual survival rates reported for adult San Joaquin kit foxes include 0.44 at the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve (Cypher et al. 2000), 0.53 at Camp Roberts (Standley et al. 1992), 0.56 at the 

Lokern area (Spiegel and Disney 1996), and 0.60 on the Carrizo Plain (Rails and White 1995). 

However, survival rates widely vary among years (Spiegel and Disney 1996; Cypher et al., 

2000). Mean survival rates for juvenile San Joaquin kit foxes (<1 year old) are lower than rates 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

17

for adults. Survival to age 1 year was 0.14 at the Naval Petroleum Reserve (Cypher et al. 2000), 

0.20 at Camp Roberts (Standley et al. 1992), and 0.21 on the Carrizo Plain (Ralls and White 

1995). For both adults and juveniles, survival rates of males and females are similar. San 

Joaquin kit foxes may live to ten years in captivity (McGrew 1979) and 8 years in the wild 

(Berry et al. 1987), but most kit foxes do not live past 2-3 years of age. 

The status (i.e., distribution, abundance) of the kit fox has decreased since its listing in 1967. 

This trend is reasonably certain to continue into the foreseeable future unless measures to 

protect, sustain, and restore suitable habitats, and alleviate other threats to their survival and 

recovery, are implemented. The following paragraphs further describe threats that are seriously 

affecting the kit fox. 

Loss of Habitat 

Less than 20 percent of the habitat within the historical range of the kit fox remained when the 

Service listed the subspecies in 1967, and there has been a substantial net loss of habitat since 

that time. Historically, San Joaquin kit foxes occurred throughout California’s Central Valley 

and adjacent foothills. Extensive land conversions in the Central Valley began as early as the 

mid-1800s with the Arkansas Reclamation Act. By the 1930’s, the range of the kit fox had been 

reduced to the southern and western parts of the San Joaquin Valley (Grinnell et a1. 1937). The 

primary factor contributing to this restricted distribution was the conversion of native habitat to 

irrigated cropland, industrial uses (e.g., hydrocarbon extraction), and urbanization (Laughrin 

1970, Jensen 1972; Morrell 1972, 1975). Approximately one half of the natural communities in 

the San Joaquin Valley were tilled or developed by 1958 (Service 1980). 

This rate of loss accelerated following the completion of the Central Valley Project and the State 

Water Project, which diverted and imported new water supplies for irrigated agriculture (Service 

1995). Approximately 1.97 million acres of habitat, or about 66,000 acres per year, were 

converted in the San Joaquin region between 1950 and 1980 (California Department of 

Conservation 1994). The counties specifically noted as having the highest wildland conversion 

rates included Kern, Tulare, Kings and Fresno. Kit fox occupy all of these counties. From 1959 

to 1969 alone, an estimated 34 percent of natural lands were lost within the then- known kit fox 

range (Laughrin 1970). 

By 1979, only approximately 370,000 acres out of a total of approximately 8.5 million acres on 

the San Joaquin Valley floor remained as non-developed land (Williams 1985, Service 1980). 

Data from the CDFG (1985) and Service file information indicate that between 1977 and 1988, 

essential habitat for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, a species that occupies habitat that is also 

suitable for kit foxes, declined by about 80 percent - from 311,680 acres to 63,060 acres, an 

average of about 22,000 acres per year (Service 2000b). Virtually all of the kit fox habitat lost 

was plowed and converted to irrigated cropland. 

During 1990 to 1996, a gross total of approximately 71,500 acres of habitat were converted to 

farmland in 30 counties (total area 23.1 million acres) within the Conservation Program Focus 

area of the Central Valley Project. This figure includes 42,520 acres of grazing land and 28,854 

acres of “other” land, which is predominantly native habitat. During this period, approximately 

101,700 acres were converted to urban land use within the Conservation Program Focus area 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

18

(California Department of Conservation 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000). This figure includes 49,705 

acres of farmland, 20,476 acres of grazing land, and 31,366 acres of “other” land, which is 

predominantly comprised of native habitat. Because these assessments included a substantial 

portion of the Central Valley and adjacent foothills, they provide the best scientific and 

commercial information currently available regarding the patterns and trends of land conversion 

within the kit fox’s geographic range. 

In summary, more than one million acres of suitable habitat for kit foxes have been converted to 

agricultural, municipal, or industrial uses since the listing of the kit fox. In contrast, less than 

500,000 acres have been preserved or are subject to community-level conservation efforts 

designed, at least in part, to further the conservation of the kit fox (Service 1998). Land 

conversions contribute to declines in kit fox abundance through direct and indirect mortalities, 

displacement, reduction of prey populations and denning sites, changes in the distribution and 

abundance of larger canids that compete with kit foxes for resources, and reductions in carrying 

capacity. Kit foxes may be buried in their dens during land conversion activities (C. Van Horn, 

Endangered Species Recovery Program, Bakersfield, personal communication to S. Jones, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, 2000), or permanently displaced from areas where structures 

are erected or the land is intensively irrigated (Jensen 1972, Morrell 1975). Furthermore, even 

moderate fragmentation or loss of habitat may significantly impact the abundance and 

distribution of kit foxes. Capture rates of kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserve in Elk Hills 

were negatively associated with the extent of oil-field development after 1987 (Warrick and 

Cypher 1998). Likewise, the California Energy Commission found that the relative abundance 

of kit foxes was lower in oil-developed habitat than in nearby undeveloped habitat on the Lokern 

(Spiegel 1996). Researchers from both studies inferred that the most significant effect of oil 

development was the lowered carrying capacity for populations of both foxes and their prey 

species owing to the changes in habitat characteristics or the loss and fragmentation of habitat 

(Spiegel 1996, Warrick and Cypher 1998). 

Dens are essential for the survival and reproduction of kit foxes that use them year-round for 

shelter and escape and in the spring for rearing young. Hence, kit foxes generally have dozens of 

dens scattered throughout their territories. However, land conversion reduces the number of 

typical earthen dens available to kit foxes. For example, the average density of typical, earthen 

kit fox dens at the Naval Hills Petroleum Reserve was negatively correlated with the intensity of 

petroleum development (Zoellick et al. 1987), and almost 20 percent of the dens in developed 

areas were found to be in well casings culverts, abandoned pipelines, oil well cellars, or in the 

banks of sumps or roads (Service 1993). These results are important because the California 

Energy Commission found that, even though kit foxes frequently used pipes and culverts as dens 

in oil-developed areas of western Kern County, only earthen dens were used to birth and wean 

pups (Spiegel 1996). Similarly, kit foxes in Bakersfield use atypical dens, but have only been 

found to rear pups in earthen dens (P. Kelly, Endangered Species Recovery Program, Fresno, 

personal communication to P. White, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, April 6, 2000). 

Hence, the fragmentation of habitat and destruction of earthen dens could adversely affect the 

reproductive success of kit foxes. Furthermore, the destruction of earthen dens may also affect 

kit fox survival by reducing the number and distribution of escape refuges from predators. Land 

conversions and associated human activities can lead to widespread changes in the availability 

and composition of mammalian prey for kit foxes. For example, oil field disturbances in western 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

19

Kern County have resulted in shifts in the small mammal community from the primarily 

graminivorous species that are the staple prey of kit foxes (Spiegel 1996), to species adapted to 

early successional stages and disturbed areas (e.g., California ground squirrels) (Spiegel 1996). 

Because more than 70 percent of the diets of kit foxes usually consist of abundant leporids 

(Lepus, Sylvilagus) and rodents (e.g., Dipodomys spp.), and kit foxes often continue to feed on 

their staple prey during ephemeral periods of prey scarcity, such changes in the availability and 

selection of foraging sites by kit foxes could influence their reproductive rates, which are 

strongly influenced by food supply and decrease during periods of prey scarcity (White and 

Garrott 1997, 1999). 

Extensive habitat destruction and fragmentation have contributed to smaller, more-isolated 

populations of kit foxes. Small populations have a higher probability of extinction than larger 

populations because their low abundance renders them susceptible to stochastic (i.e., random) 

events such as high variability in age and sex ratios, and catastrophes such as floods, droughts, or 

disease epidemics (Lande 1988, Frankham and Ralls 1998). Similarly, isolated populations arc 

more susceptible to extirpation by accidental or natural catastrophes because their recolonization 

has been hampered. These chance events can adversely affect small, isolated populations with 

devastating results. Extirpation can even occur when the members of a small population are 

healthy, because whether the population increases or decreases in size is less dependent on the 

age-specific probabilities of survival and reproduction than on raw chance (sampling 

probabilities). Owing to the probabilistic nature of extinction, many small populations will 

eventually lose out and go extinct when faced with these stochastic risks (Caughley and Gunn 

1995). 

Oil fields in the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley also continue to be an area of expansion 

and development activity. This expansion is reasonably certain to increase in the future owing to 

market-driven increases in the price of oil. The cumulative and long-term effects of oil 

extraction activities on kit fox populations are not fully known, but recent studies indicate that 

moderate- to high-density oil fields may contribute to a decrease in carrying capacity for kit 

foxes owing to habitat loss or chances in habitat characteristics (Spiegel 1996, Warrick and 

Cypher 1998). There are no limiting factors or regulations that are likely to retard the 

development of additional oilfields. Hence, it is reasonably certain that development will 

continue to destroy and fragment kit fox habitat into the foreseeable future. 

Competitive Interactions with Other Canids 

Several species prey upon San Joaquin kit foxes. Predators (such as coyotes, bobcats, non-native 

red foxes, badgers (Taxidea taxus), and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) will kill kit foxes. 

Badgers, coyotes, and red foxes also may compete for den sites (Service 1998). The diets and 

habitats selected by coyotes and kit foxes living in the same areas are often quite similar (Cypher 

and Spencer 1998). Hence, the potential for resource competition between these species may be 

quite high when prey resources are scarce such as during droughts (which are quite common in 

semi-arid, central California). Land conversions and associated human activities have led to 

changes in the distribution and abundance of coyotes, which compete with kit foxes for 

resources. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

20

Coyotes occur in most areas with abundant populations of kit foxes and, during the past few 

decades, coyote abundance has increased in many areas owing to a decrease in ranching 

operations, favorable landscape changes, and reduced control efforts (Orloff et al. 1986, Cypher 

and Scrivner 1992, White and Rails 1993, White et al. 1995). Coyotes may attempt to lessen 

resource competition with kit foxes by killing them. Coyote-related injuries accounted for 50-87 

percent of the mortalities of radio collared kit foxes at Camp Roberts, the Carrizo Plain Natural 

Area, the Lokern Natural Area, and the Naval Petroleum Reserves (Cypher and Scrivner 1992, 

Standley et al. 1992, Rails and White 1995, Spiegel 1996). Coyote-related deaths of adult foxes 

appear to be largely additive (i.e., in addition to deaths caused by other mortality factors such as 

disease and starvation) rather than compensatory (i.e., tend to replace deaths due to other 

mortality factors (White and Garrott 1997). Hence, the survival rates of adult foxes decrease 

significantly as the proportion of mortalities caused by coyotes increase (Cypher and Spencer 

1998, White and Garrott 1997), and increases in coyote abundance May contribute to significant 

declines in kit fox abundance (Cypher and Scrivner 1992, Rails and White 1995, White et al.

1996). There is some evidence that the proportion of juvenile foxes killed by coyotes, increases 

as fox density increases (White and Garrott 1999). This density-dependent relationship would 

provide a feedback mechanism that reduces the amplitude of kit fox population dynamics and 

keeps foxes at lower densities than they might otherwise attain. In other words, coyote- related 

mortalities may dampen or prevent fox Population growth, and accentuate, hasten, or prolong 

population declines. 

Land-use changes also contributed to the expansion of nonnative red foxes into areas inhabited 

by kit foxes. Historically, the geographic range of the red fox did not overlap with that of the 

San Joaquin kit fox. By the 1979’s, however, introduced and escaped red foxes had established 

breeding populations in many areas inhabited by San Joaquin kit foxes (Lewis et al. 1993). The 

larger and more aggressive red foxes are known to kill kit foxes (Rails and White 1995), and 

could displace them, as has been observed in the arctic when red foxes expanded into the ranges 

of smaller arctic foxes (Hersteinsson and Macdonald 1982). The increased abundance and 

distribution of nonnative red foxes will also likely adversely affect the status of kit foxes because 

they are closer morphologically and taxonomically, and would likely have higher dietary overlap 

than coyotes, potentially resulting in more intense competition for resources. Two documented 

deaths of kit foxes due to red foxes have been reported (Rails and White 1995), and red foxes 

appear to be displacing kit foxes in the northwestern part of their range (Lewis et al. 1993). At 

Camp Roberts, red foxes have usurped several dens that were used by kit foxes during previous 

years (Spencer et al 1992). In fact, opportunistic observations of red foxes in the cantonment 

area of Camp Roberts have increased 5-fold since 1993, and no kit foxes have been sighted or 

captured in this area since October 1997. Also, a telemetry study of sympatric red foxes and kit 

foxes in the Lost Hills area has detected spatial segregation between these species, suggesting 

that kit foxes may avoid or be excluded from red fox-inhabited areas (P. Kelly, Endangered 

Species Recovery Program, Fresno, pers. comm. to P. White, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento, April 6, 2000). Such avoidance would limit the resources available to local 

populations of kit foxes and possibly result in decreased fox abundance and distribution. 

Disease 

Wildlife diseases do not appear to be a primary mortality factor that consistently limits kit fox 

populations throughout their range (Standley and McCue 1992). However, central California has 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

21

a high incidence of wildlife rabies cases (Schultz and Barrett 1991), and high seroprevalences of 

canine distemper virus and canine parvovirus indicate that kit fox populations have been exposed 

to these diseases (Standley and McCue 1992). Hence, disease outbreaks could potentially cause 

substantial mortality or contribute to reduced fertility in seropositive females, as was noted in 

closely related swift foxes (Vulpes velox). 

For example, there are some indications that rabies virus may have contributed, to a catastrophic 

decrease in kit fox abundance at Camp Roberts, San Luis Obispo County, California during the 

early 1990’s. San Luis Obispo County had the highest incidence of wildlife rabies cases in 

California during 1989 to 1991, and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) were the primary vector 

(Barrett 1990, Schultz and Barrett 1991, Reilly and Mangiamele 1992). A rabid skunk was 

trapped at Camp Roberts during 1989 and two foxes were found dead due to rabies in 1990 

(Standley et al. 1992). Captures of kit foxes during annual live trapping sessions at Camp 

Roberts decreased from 103 to 20 individuals during 1988 to 1991. Captures of kit foxes were 

positively correlated with captures of skunks during 1988 to 1997; suggesting that some factor(s) 

such as rabies virus was contributing to concurrent decreases in the abundances of these species. 

Also, captures of kit foxes at Camp Roberts were negatively correlated with the proportion of 

skunks that were rabid when trapped by County Public Health Department personnel two years 

previously. These data suggest that a rabies outbreak may have occurred in the skunk population 

and spread into the fox population. Macdonald and Voight (1985) observed a similar time lag in 

disease transmission and subsequent population reductions in Ontario, Canada, although in this 

instance, the transmission was from red foxes to striped skunks. 

Pesticides and Rodenticides 

Pesticides and rodenticides pose a threat to kit foxes through direct or secondary poisoning. Kit 

foxes may be killed if they ingest rodenticide in a bait application, or if they eat a rodent that has 

consumed the bait. Even sublethal doses of rodenticides may lead to the death of these animals 

by impairing their ability to escape predators or find food. Pesticides and rodenticides may also 

indirectly affect the survival of kit foxes by reducing the abundances of their staple prey species. 

For example, the California ground squirrel, which is the staple prey of kit foxes in the northern 

portion of their range, was thought to have been eliminated from Contra Costa County in 1975, 

after extensive rodent eradication programs. Field observations indicated that the long-term use 

of ground squirrel poisons in this county severely reduced kit fox abundance through secondary 

poisoning and the suppression of populations of its staple prey (Orloff et al. 1986). 

Kit foxes occupying habitats adjacent to agricultural lands are also likely to be exposed to 

insecticides applied to crops owing to runoff or aerial drift. Kit foxes could be affected through 

direct contact with sprays and treated soils, or through consumption of contaminated prey. Data 

from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation indicate that acephate, aldicarb, azinphos 

methyl, bendiocarb, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, s-fenvalerate, naled, parathion, 

permethrin, phorate, and trifluralin are used within one mile of kit fox habitat. A wide variety of 

crops (alfalfa, almonds, apples, apricots, asparagus, avocados, barley, beans, beets, bok choy, 

broccoli, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cherries, chestnuts, chicory, Chinese cabbage, 

Chinese greens, Chinese radish, collards, corn, cotton, cucumbers, eggplants, endive, figs, garlic, 

grapefruit, grapes, hay, kale, kiwi fruit, kohlrabi, leeks, lemons, lettuce, melons, mustard, 

nectarines, oats, okra, olives, onions, oranges, parsley, parsnips, peaches, peanuts, pears, peas, 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

22

pecans, peppers, persimmons, pimentos, pistachios, plums, pomegranates, potatoes, prunes, 

pumpkins, quinces, radishes, raspberries, rice, safflower, sorghum, spinach, squash, strawberries, 

sugar beets, sweet potatoes, Swiss chard, tomatoes, walnuts, watermelons, and wheat), as well as 

buildings, Christmas tree plantations, commercial/industrial areas, greenhouses, nurseries, 

landscape maintenance, ornamental turf, rangeland, rights of way, and uncultivated agricultural 

and non-agricultural land, occur in close proximity to San Joaquin kit fox habitat. 

Efforts have been underway to reduce the risk of rodenticides to kit foxes (Service 1993). The 

Federal government began controlling the use of rodenticides in 1972 with a ban of Compound 

1080 on Federal lands pursuant to Executive Order. Aboveground application of strychnine 

within the geographic ranges of listed species was prohibited in 1988. A July 28, 1992, 

biological opinion regarding the Animal Damage Control (now known as Wildlife Services) 

Program by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that this program was likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the kit fox owing to the potential for rodent control activities to take 

the fox. As a result, several reasonable and prudent measures were implemented, including a ban 

on the use of M-44 devices, toxicants, and fumigants within the recognized occupied range of the 

kit fox. Also, the only chemical authorized for use by Wildlife Services within the occupied 

range of the kit fox is zinc phosphide, a compound known to be minimally toxic to kit foxes 

(Service 1993). 

Despite these efforts, the use of other pesticides and rodenticides still pose a significant threat to 

the kit fox, as evidenced by the death of two kit foxes at Camp Roberts in 1992 owing to 

secondary poisoning from chlorophacinone applied as a rodenticide, (Berry et al. 1992, Standley 

et al. 1992). Also, the livers of three foxes that were recovered in the City of Bakersfield during 

1999 were found to contain detectable residues of the anticoagulant rodenticides 

chlorophacinone, brodifacoum, and bromadiolone (California Department of Fish and Game 

1999). 

To date, no specific research has been conducted on the effects of different pesticide or rodent 

control programs on the kit fox (Service 1998). This lack of information is problematic because 

Williams (in lit., 1989) documented widespread pesticide use in known kit fox and Fresno 

kangaroo rat habitat adjoining agricultural lands in Madera County. In a separate report, 

Williams (in lit., 1989) documented another case of pesticide use near Raisin City, Fresno 

County, where treated grain was placed within an active Fresno kangaroo rat precinct. Also, 

farmers have been allowed to place bait on Bureau of Reclamation property to maximize the 

potential for killing rodents before they entered adjoining fields (Service 2000b). 

A September 22, 1993, biological opinion issued by the Service to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) regarding the regulation of pesticide use (31 registered chemicals) through 

administration of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act found that use of the 

following chemicals would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the kit fox: (1) aluminum 

and magnesium phosphide fumigants; (2) chiorophacinone anticoagulants (3) diphacinone 

anticoagulants; (4) pival anticoagulants; (5) potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate gas cartridges; 

and (6) sodium cyanide capsules (Service 1993). Reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 

jeopardy included restricting the use of aluminum/magnesium phosphide potassium/sodium 

nitrate within the geographic range of the kit fox to qualified individuals, and prohibiting the use 

of chlorophacinone, diphacinone, pival, and sodium cyanide within the geographic range of the 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

23

kit fox, with certain exceptions (e.g., agricultural areas that are greater than 1 mile from any kit 

fox habitat) (Service 1999). 

Endangered Species Act Section 9 Violations and Noncompliance with the Terms and Conditions 

of Existing Biological Opinions 

The intentional or unintentional destruction of areas occupied by kit foxes is an issue of serious 

concern. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “take” (e.g., harm, harass, pursue, injure, kill) of 

federally listed wildlife species. “Harm” (i.e., ‘take”) is further defined to include habitat 

modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral 

patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Congress established two provisions (under 

sections 7 and 10 of the Act) that allow for the “incidental take” of listed species of wildlife by 

Federal agencies, non-Federal government agencies, and private interests. Incidental take is 

defined as “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity.” Such take requires a permit from the Secretary of the Interior that anticipates a specific 

level of take for each listed species. If no permit is obtained for the incidental take of listed 

species, the individuals or entities responsible for these actions could be liable under the 

enforcement provisions of section 9 of the Act if any unauthorized take occurs. There are 

numerous examples of section 9 violations and noncompliance with the terms and conditions of 

existing biological opinions on file at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. The most 

egregious violations, and those with the most evidence, are being pursued when Service Law 

Enforcement and California Department of Fish and Game Enforcement are able to do so. 

Risk of Chance Extinction Owing to Small Population Size, Isolation, and High Natural 

Fluctuations in Abundance 

Historically, kit foxes may have existed in a metapopulation structure of core and satellite 

populations, some of which periodically experienced local extinctions and recolonization 

(Service 1998). Today’s populations, however, exist in an environment drastically different 

from the historic one and extensive habitat fragmentation has resulted in geographic isolation, 

smaller population sizes, and reduced genetic exchange among populations; all of which increase 

the vulnerability of kit fox populations to extirpation. Populations of kit foxes are extremely 

susceptible to the risks associated with small population size and isolation because they are 

characterized by marked instability in population density. For example, the relative abundance 

of kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves, California, decreased 10-fold during 1981 to 1983, 

increased 7-fold during 1991 to 1994, and then decreased 2-fold during 1995 (Cypher and 

Scrivner 1992, Cypher and Spencer 1998). 

Many populations of kit fox are at risk of chance extinction owing to small population size and 

isolation. This risk has been prominently illustrated during recent, drastic declines in the 

populations of kit foxes at Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett. Captures of kit foxes during 

annual live trapping sessions at Camp Roberts decreased from 103 to 20 individuals during 1988 

to 1991. This decrease continued through 1997 when only three kit foxes were captured (White 

et al. 2000). A similar decrease in kit fox abundance occurred at nearby Fort Hunter Liggett, and 

only 2 kit foxes have been observed on this installation since 1995 (L. Clark, Wildlife Biologist, 

Fort Hunter Liggett, pers. comm. to P. White, Service, Sacramento, February 15, 2000). It is 

unlikely that the current low abundances of kit foxes at Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

24

will increase substantially in the near future owing to the limited potential for recruitment. The 

chance of substantial immigration is low because the neatest core population on the Carrizo Plain 

is distant (greater than 16 miles) and separated from these installations by barriers to kit fox 

movement such as roads, developments, and irrigated agricultural areas. Also, there is a 

relatively high abundance of sympatric predators and competitors on these installations that 

contribute to low survival rates for kit foxes and, as a result, may limit population growth (White 

et al. 2000). Hence, these populations may be on the verge of extinction. 

The destruction and fragmentation of habitat could also eventually lead to reduced genetic 

variation in populations of kit foxes that are small and geographically isolated. Preliminary 

genetic assessments indicate that historic gene flow among populations was quite high, with 

effective dispersal rates of at least one to four dispersers per generation (M. Schwartz, University 

of Montana, Missoula, pers. comm. on March 23, 2000, to P. White, Service, Sacramento, 

California). This level of genetic dispersal should allow for local adaptation while preventing 

the loss of any rare alleles. Based on the results, it is likely that northern populations of kit foxes 

were once panmictic (i.e., randomly mating in a genetic sense), or nearly so, with southern 

populations. In other words, there were no major barriers to dispersal among populations. 

Current levels of gene flow also appear to be adequate, however, extensive habitat loss and 

fragmentation continues to form more or less geographically distinct populations of foxes, which 

could potentially reduce genetic exchange among them. An increase in inbreeding and the loss 

of genetic variation could increase the extinction risk for small, isolated populations of kit foxes 

by reducing fecundity, juvenile survival, and lifespan (Lande 1988, Frankham and Rails 1998). 

Other populations that may be showing the initial signs of genetic isolation are the Lost Hills 

area and populations in the Salinas-Pajaro River watershed (i.e., Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter 

Liggett). Preliminary estimates of the mean number of alleles per locus from foxes in these 

populations indicate that allelic diversity is lower than expected. Although these results may, in 

part, be due to the small number of foxes sampled in these areas, they may also be indicative of 

an increase in the amount of inbreeding due to population subdivision (M. Schwartz, University 

of Montana, Missoula, pers. comm. on March 23, 2000, to P. J. White, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento, California). Further sampling and analyses are necessary to adequately assess the 

effects of these potential genetic bottlenecks. 

Arid systems are characterized by unpredictable fluctuations in precipitation, which lead to high 

frequency, high amplitude fluctuations in the abundance of mammalian prey for kit foxes 

(Goldingay et al. 1997, White and Garrott 1999). Because the reproductive and neonatal 

survival rates of kit foxes are strongly depressed at low prey densities (White and Ralls 1993; 

White and Garrott 1997, 1999), periods of prey scarcity owing to drought or excessive rain 

events can contribute to population crashes and marked instability in the abundance and 

distribution of kit foxes (White and Garrott 1999). In other words, unpredictable, short-term 

fluctuations in precipitation and, in turn, prey abundance can generate frequent, rapid decreases 

in kit fox density that increase the extinction risk for small, isolated populations. 

The primary goal of the recovery strategy for kit foxes identified in the Recovery Plan is to 

establish a complex of interconnected core and satellite populations throughout the species’ 

range. The long-term viability of each of these core and satellite populations depends partly 

upon periodic dispersal and genetic flow between them. Therefore, kit fox movement corridors 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

25

between these populations must be preserved and maintained. In the northern range, from the 

Ciervo Panoche in Fresno County northward, kit fox populations are small and isolated, and have 

exhibited significant decline. The core populations are the Ciervo Panoche area, the Carrizo 

Plain area, and the western Kern County population. Satellite populations are found in the urban 

Bakersfield area, Porterville/Lake Success area, Creighton Ranch/Pixley Wildlife Refuge, 

Allensworth Ecological Reserve, Semitropic/Kern National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Antelope 

Plain, eastern Kern grasslands, Pleasant Valley, western Madera County, Santa Nella, San Luis 

NWR, and Contra Costa County Major corridors Connecting these population areas are on the 

east and west side of the San Joaquin Valley, around the bottom of the Valley, and cross-valley 

corridors in Kern, Fresno, and Merced Counties. 

Environmental Baseline 

There has never been a comprehensive survey of San Joaquin kit foxes or their habitat in western 

Kings County. What is known comes from incidental sightings, local surveys, and aerial photos. 

There are sightings of San Joaquin kit foxes in western Kings County (CDFG 2008). Given the 

biology and ecology of the animal (San Joaquin kit foxes have been documented to move ten 

miles or more in a single night), the kit fox is highly likely topossibly inhabit the action area. 

Areas of suitable habitat that exist within the potential project footprint and adjacent to the 

project site that might be directly or indirectly affected by the project – the action area – include 

ruderal lands, row cropland, and orchards. Ruderal lands, row cropland, fallow fields, and 

orchards provide denning and foraging habitat, although farming activities have likely reduced 

denning opportunities and prey base. Kit foxes are able to travel through fallow and active 

agricultural fields and old orchards for both local movement and long distance dispersal. The 

Avenal Power Center, LLC, proposed power plant project is within ten miles of multiple kit fox 

incidental sightings (Figure 1), and the project area contains habitat components that can be used 

by the kit fox for feeding, resting, mating, other essential behaviors, or as movement corridors. 

The Although no kit fox sightings have occurred within a half mile of the action area, the 

proposed project location is approximately three miles from kit fox satellite population number 

five and two miles from satellite population number six. The proposed project site connects to 

this satellite population via the Canal which is immediately adjacent to the project site. The 

Canal is a potential dispersal corridor for kit foxes. Movement between population such as that 

which may occur along the Canal is critical for maintaining genetic and demographic exchange 

as well as to prevent local extinctions of foxes and to allow recolonization of lands where foxes 

are extirpated or lands where habitat has been restored (Cypher, Phillips and Kelly, 2007). There 

are CNDDB reports of kit fox within one mile to the northwest and one mile to the southeast of 

the project site along the Canal (CDFG 2008). While the Canal acts as a barrier for kit fox 

movement west to east, kit foxes can traverse, across bridges and “overshoots” that cross the 

Canal. Additionally, the Canal may act as a corridor for kit fox traveling north/south and the 

Canal provides one of the few relatively safe Interstate Highway 5 crossings in this portion of the 

kit fox range. 

Effects of the Proposed Action 

Comment [n14]: Applicant’s revision, given that 

no kit fox have been sighted within a half mile of the 

action area, and that Figure 1 does not identify any 

kit fox or range land within two miles of the action 

area. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

26

The San Joaquin kit fox will be harmed and harassed by the construction, operation and 

maintenance of the Avenal Energy LLC Power Plant. 

Harm will result from the conversion of 36 31.9 acres of agricultural lands to an fenced industrial 

facility. This 36 31.9 acre parcel is degraded San Joaquin kit fox habitat due to over 25 years of 

farming but still has habitat value for foraging, sheltering, and passage. This parcel retains 

habitat value due to several factors. 1) Kit foxes often den adjacent to, and forage within, 

agricultural areas (Bell et al. 1994). 2) This particular parcel is adjacent to the California 

aqueduct right of way, a potential travel corridor for kit fox. There are twenty-two San Joaquin 

kit fox sightings within ten miles of the project location, ten of these are along the California 

aqueduct right of way, with three sightings along the aqueduct within a mile of the project 

location. 3) This parcel is within five miles of two San Joaquin kit fox satellite recovery areas 

(satellite areas five and six). The current agriculture use of this parcel allows kit fox to forage, 

construct dens, and travel to adjacent areas. Once the proposed power plant is constructed, all 

opportunities for the San Joaquin kit fox to use this parcel for these activities will be eliminated. 

Harassment of kit fox will result from the construction of the power plant. For 24 months there 

will be temporary construction activities on an additional 48.3 acres surrounding the project 

footprint, along pipeline routes, and along the new utility corridor. Daytime noise levels may 

increase from a baseline of 30 dBA to over 100 dBA. Daytime movement of heavy equipment 

will vibrate the ground. Security lightning will decrease the natural dark. Temporary fencing 

and placement of construction equipment piles will block access. There will be an increase in 

the number of humans at the site along with an increase in daytime vehicle traffic along Avenal 

cut-off road. Construction of trenching to lay pipeline may destroy potential kit fox burrows, or 

burrows and individuals of small mammals, the kit fox prey. All of these factors are likely to 

temporarily displace kit fox from the 48.3 acres of temporary construction area. Kit fox 

displaced from the temporary construction area may move into unfamiliar areas which will 

increase their risk of predation and increase the difficulty of finding required resources such as 

food and shelter. Any kit fox that remain in the area may experience disruption of normal 

behavior including foraging due to a reduction of the availability of the prey base, sheltering due 

to destruction of burrows, and dispersal due to a reduced ability to travel over the 48.3 acres 

temporary construction site. Additionally, kit fox remaining in the temporary construction area 

will be at a greater risk of predation due to increase in night lighting, and destruction of any 

sheltering burrows. 

The operation of this power plant, specifically the placement of the power plant adjacent to the 

California aqueduct (Canal), could have a long-term effect on the recovery of kit fox. As 

mentioned above, the Canal right of way may function as a travel corridor and dispersal path for 

the San Joaquin kit fox. The travel corridor along this portion of the Canal is narrowed due to 

the City of Avenal water treatment plant. Construction of the proposed project along the Canal 

and adjacent to the Avenal water treatment plant will further narrow this travel corridor, and 

further reduce the visibility along the Canal. Reduction of corridor width and visibility could 

expose kit fox to increased predation or partially impede dispersal of kit fox between kit fox core 

recovery areas six and five. In order to minimize the effects of this pinch point, the applicant 

will implement, as described in the project description, a 300 foot buffer adjacent to the Bureau 

of Reclamation Canal right-of-way. This buffer will partially minimize the effect of this 

development on the potential for the Canal to serve as a travel corridor for the kit fox. 

Comment [n15]: Applicant’s suggested 

revision. To clarify, only 31.9 acres of agricultural 

lands will be converted to a fenced industrial facility 

(as identified in Attachment 1, to the letter to Susan 

Jones from Avenal Power Center, dated March 10, 

2009). 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

27

The development of this project will contribute to the local and range-wide trend of habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation, which are the principal causes of the decline of the kit fox, by 

the conversion of the 3631.9 acres of agriculture lands to industrial use and the temporary loss of 

an additional 48.3 acres during construction activities. The applicant has proposed in this project 

description to partially offset this habitat loss through the acquisition of pre-approved 

minimization acreage of 54.1 acres in either the Kern Water Bank Conservation Bank or 

Kreyenhagen Hills Conservation Bank. Purchase of these minimization acres will also assist in 

meeting recovery goals outlined in the Service’s Recovery Plan (Service 1998). However, 

harassment to individuals and loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat resulting from the construction 

and operation of this plant are inherent in this activity and unavoidable. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. The action 

area includes the kit fox corridor along the Canal. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the 

proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

Comment [n16]: Applicant’s suggested revision. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

28
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

29

Future Development 

The California Department of Finance (2004) projects that from the years 2000 to 2050, the 

human population will increase by 139 percent in the San Joaquin Valley (from 3.3 million 

people to 7.9 million people). There will likely be many development projects that occur during 

this timeframe due to increases in human population growth that will continue to imperil the San 

Joaquin kit fox and hamper recovery efforts. 

According to the Kings County General Plan (Kings County 1993) population in Avenal is 

projected to increase by more than 45% from 2000 to 2020. Additionally, in 2007, the Kings 

County Planning Agency published the initial study for a new community, Quay Valley Ranch, 

in southwestern Kings County (Kings County 2007). If this community is built as proposed it 

would result in the conversion of 12,000 acres of agricultural lands and open space into a town 

with 75,000 residential units. The footprint of the proposed Quay Valley Ranch was converted 

from native scrub habitat to plowed agriculture in the year before the Initial Study was issued. In 

Coalinga, approximately 15 miles to the northwest of the proposed project site, two thermal solar 

plants have been proposed. These solar fields would permanently remove 640 acres of kit fox 

habitat in kit fox satellite area five. Urbanization and development present many threats to the 

kit fox including the loss and fragmentation of habitat, increased impediments dispersal, altered 

on-the-ground conditions that favor kit fox predators and competitors, exposure to contaminants, 

noise, and rodenticides; loss of prey base, and loss of breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat 

and the reduction of kit fox population numbers. 

Conclusion 

After reviewing the current status of the San Joaquin kit fox, the environmental baseline, the 

effects of the proposed action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion 

that the proposed Avenal Power Center power plant project is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the San Joaquin kit fox. Critical habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox has 

not been proposed or designated, therefore, none will be affected by the proposed project. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Harass is defined by the Service as an intentional or negligent act or 

omission which creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an 

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harm is defined by the Service to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by impairing 

behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take 

that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. 

Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not 

intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act 

provided that such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

30

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be implemented by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) so they become binding conditions of project 

authorization for the exemption under 7(o)(2) to apply. The EPA has a continuing duty to 

regulate the activity that is covered by this incidental take statement. If the EPA (1) fails to 

adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms, 

and/or (2) fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the 

protective coverage of 7(o)(2) may lapse. “The measures described in this incidental take 

statement are non-discretionary. The Environmental Protection Agency must ensure that the 

applicant undertakes these measures or makes them binding conditions of any authorization 

provided to contractors. If the applicant fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the 

incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant 

document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. To monitor the impact of 

incidental take, the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species 

to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement.” 

Amount or Extent of Take 

The Service anticipates incidental take of the San Joaquin kit fox will be difficult to detect or 

quantify for the following reasons: when this mammal is not foraging, mating, or conducting 

other surface activity, it inhabits dens or burrows; the animal may range over a large territory; it 

is primarily active at night; it is a highly intelligent animal that is often extremely shy around 

humans; and the finding of an injured or dead individual is unlikely because of their relatively 

small body size. Take of this species also may be difficult to quantify due to seasonal 

fluctuations in their behaviors and consequential exposure to threats. 

Therefore, the Service estimates harm to the kit lox in the form of permanent loss of 36 acres of 

habitat and the temporary disturbance of an additional 48.3 acres of kit fox habitat. Upon 

implementation of the following reasonable and prudent measures, incidental take associated 

with the Avenal Energy Project on these acres in the form of harm or harassment to San Joaquin 

kit foxes from loss or alteration of habitat, excavation of unoccupied dens and burrows, and loss 

of forage/prey will become exempt from the prohibitions described under section 9 of the Act for 

direct impacts. Other forms of incidental take including mortality are not authorized in this 

biological opinion. Harassment, harm, and the displacement of individuals due to the 

construction, maintenance and operations of the power plant, and the associated pipeline and 

power lines project will be exempt form the prohibitions described under section 9 of the Act, 

provided that such harm or harassment: 1) is the result of bona fide project activities; and 2) that 

all terms and conditions specified below are fully implemented. 

Effect of the Take 

The Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the 

San Joaquin kit fox at this time. Critical habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox has not been 

proposed or designated, therefore none will be affected by the proposed project. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

Comment [n17]: Revision suggested by EPA to 

better reflect the roles and authorities of EPA and the 

applicant. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

31

The following reasonable and prudent measures are is necessary and appropriate to minimize the 

effects of the proposed Avenal Power Center, LLCEnergy Project power plant project on the San 

Joaquin kit fox: 

1. EPA shall require the applicant to submit a revised PSD application that includes the 

terms and conditions contained within this biological opinion. Including the terms and 

conditions of the biological opinion within the applicant’s PSD permit requires the 

applicant to adhere to those terms and conditions to remain in compliance with the PSD 

permit. The EPA shall forward to the Service a copy of the applicants’ revised 

application containing the provisions of the biological opinion for the Service to review.

2. The EPA shall forward to the Service a copy of the applicants’ revised application 

containing the provisions of the biological opinion for the Service to review.

Terms and Conditions 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, EPA the applicant will 

comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent 

measures described above. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. 

1. To implement reasonable and prudent measure number one, AvenalThe applicant and all 

contractors and subcontractors shall complete the following conditions: 

a. Implement the avoidance and minimization measures contained in the biological 

opinion project description. 

b. Begin construction of the power plant within three years of the date of this 

Biological Opinion. If construction is not started within this time frame the EPA 

will need to reinitiate consultation.

c. If requested, allow Service personal personnel accompanied by the project 

biologist or an EPA representative to conduct an inspection of the project site to 

review project effect to the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitats. 

2. To implement reasonable and prudent measure number two, tThe EPA shall ensure that

Avenal compliesapplicant shall comply with the following: 

a. Any changes to the biological assessmentProject Description referred to in the 

Project Descriptionbiological assessment shall be submitted for review and 

approval by the Service prior to implementing those changes. 

b. Any new owners or operators of Avenal Power Plant must adhere to the Terms 

and Conditions of this biological opinion to remain in compliance with the PSD 

permit for the Avenal Power Plant. New owners or operators must agree to the 

commitments made by Avenal Energy Center, LLC under previous ownership, 

and agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions of this permit.. 

Comment [n18]: EPA suggested the ombination 

of the two “Reasonable and Prudent Measures.”

Comment [n19]: EPA proposed deletion of this 

term because “[w]e cannot predict at this time 

whether EPA will have a discretionary approval role 

on which to base reinitiation of consultation 3 years 

from the date of the final BO. “

Comment [n20]: Clarifying revisions in this 

section suggested by EPA. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

32

c. Avenal The applicant shall comply with the Reporting Requirements below. 

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are 

designed to minimize the impact of incidental take on a species that might result from the 

proposed action. If, during the course of the action, the level of incidental take is determined to: 

1. Disturb in excess of the acreage described in this biological opinion; 

2. Result in direct mortality or injury to listed species; or, 

3. Impact any species in such a manor manner not addressed within this biological opinion, 

than such incidental take would represent new information requiring review of the 

reasonable and prudent measures provided. Avenal must immediately provide an 

explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible 

modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. 

Reporting Requirements 

Avenal shall comply with the following reporting requirement which apply to this project. 

1. The reporting measures outlined in the Project Description of this biological opinion or 

approved revisions shall be complied with, as well as the following additions: 

a. In the case of take or suspected take of listed wildlife species not exempted in this 

opinion, the Service is to be notified within 24 hours. 

b. Contact information: 

i. The Service Contact is Branch Chief, Joaquin Valley Branch. Endangered 

Species Division at (916) 414-6600. The address is the Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California 

95825. 

ii. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916) 

445-0045 (24 hours) or the Fresno Region 4 Office at (559) 222-3761. 

c. All relevant field survey data will be submitted to the CDFG Natural Diversity 

Database and to the Service within 90 days of survey completion. 

2. The Service must be notified within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the completion 

of construction activity. This report shall detail (i) dates that construction occurred; (ii) 

pertinent information concerning the success of the project in meeting compensation and 

other conservation measures; (iii) an explanation of failure to meet such measures, if any; 

(iv) known project effects on the San Joaquin. kit fox, if any; (v) occurrences of 

incidental take of the Sari Joaquin kit fox, if any; and (vi) other pertinent information 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

33

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

implement recovery actions to help implement recovery plans, to develop information, or 

otherwise further the purposes of the Act. 

The Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations in 

order to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed 

species or their habitats. We propose the following conservation recommendations: 

1. The EPA should assist the Service in developing and implementing recovery actions 

identified in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California

(USFWS 1998), specifically the protection of habitat in the Coalinga and Avenal 

(satellite populations number 5 & 6) population area. 

32. The EPA should participate in the planning for a regional habitat conservation plan for 

the San Joaquin kit fox and other listed and sensitive species. 

43. The EPA should establish functioning preservation and land trusts to further the 

conservation of the San Joaquin kit fox and other appropriate species. Such land trusts 

also could possibly be utilized for other required compensation where appropriate. 

54. Sightings of any listed or sensitive animal species should be reported to the California 

Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game. A copy of 

the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location where the 

animals were observed also should be provided to the Service. 

REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT 

This concludes formal consultation on the proposed Avenal Power Center, LLC power plant 

project in Kings County, California. As provided in 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal 

consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the 

action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of 

incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may 

affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; 

(3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed 

species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or 

critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or 

extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending 

reinitiation. 

If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion on the Avenal Power Center, LLC 

power plant project, please Contact Shelley Buranek or Susan Jones the Chief of the San Joaquin 

Valley Branch at the letterhead address or at telephone (916) 414-6600. 

Sincerely, 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

34

Susan K. Moore 

Field Supervisor 

Enclosure: 

Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground 

Disturbance (USFWS 1999) 

cc: 

Justin Sloan, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno, California. 

Rick York, California Energy Commission, Sacramento California 

James Jim Rexroad, Avenal Power Center, LLC. Houston, Texas 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

35

REFERENCES 

Archon, M. 1992. Ecology of the San Joaquin kit fox in western Merced County, California. 

MA. thesis, California State University, Fresno. 62 pages. 

Barrett, L. 1990. Annual review of animal rabies in California. 1989. California Veterinarian 

44:52-54. 

Bell, H. M., J. A. Alvarez, L. L. Eberhardt, and K. Rails. 1994. Distribution and abundance of 

San Joaquin kit fox. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Nongame 

Bird and Mammal Section. Unpublished Report. 

Berry, W. H., J. H. Scrivner, T. P. O’Farrell, C. E. Harris, T. T. Kato, and P. M. McCue. 1987. 

Sources and rates of mortality of the San Joaquin kit fox, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, 

Kern County, California, 1980-1986. U. S. Department of Energy Topical Report, 

EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations Report No. EGG 10282-2154. 34 pages. 

Berry, W. H., W. G. Standley, T. P. O’Farrell, and T. T. Kato. 1992. Effects of militaryauthorized activities on the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes velox macrotis) at Camp Roberts 

Army National Guard Training Site, California. U. S. Department of Energy Topical 

Report No. EGG 10617-2159, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations, National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 

California Department of Conservation. 1994. Farmland Conversion Report 1990-1992. 

Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Conservation 1996. Farmland Conversion Report 1992-1994. 

Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Conservation 1998. Farmland Conversion Report 1994-1996. 

Sacramento, California 

Department of Finance. 2004. Demographic Research Unit. P3 Population Projections. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/ReportsPapers.phpCalifornia

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. At the crossroads, a report on California’s 

endangered and rare 1isl and wildlife. Sacramento. 147 pages. Access Date December 

2008. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard essential habitat 

update, July 1, 1984 - September 30, 1985. Sacramento, California, Job EF84 IT-i. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1999. Exposure of Non-target Wildlife to 

Anticoagulant Rodenticides in California. Robert C. Hosea. California Department of 

Fish and Game Pesticide Investigations Unit. Rancho Cordova, California. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California Natural Diversity Data 

Base (CNDDB) RAREFIND. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

36

Caughley, G., and Gunn, A. 1995. Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell 

Science, Massachusetts. 

Cypher, B. L. 2000. Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing 

data. Endangered Species Recovery Program, California State University, Fresno, 

California. 

Cypher, B. L., and Scrivner, J. H. 1992. Coyote control to protect endangered San Joaquin kit 

foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves, California. Pages 42-47 in J.E. Borrecco and R. 

E. Marsh (editors). Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference, March 1992, 

Newport Beach, Calif. University of California, Davis, California. 

Cypher, B. L., and Spencer, K.A. 1998. Competitive interactions between coyotes and San 

Joaquin kit foxes. Mammalogy 79: 204-214. 

Cypher, B. L., H.O. Clark, Jr., P.A. Kelly, C. Van Horn Sob, G.D. Warrick, and D. F. Williams. 

2001. Interspecific interactions among mammalian predators: implications for the 

conservation of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes. Endangered Species Update 18:171- 

174. 

Cypher, B. L., H. O. Clark, Jr., P. A. Kelly, C. Van Horn Job, G. W. Warrick, and D. F. 

Williams. 2001. Interspecific interactions among wild canids: implications for the 

conservation of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes. Endangered Species Update 18:171-

174. 

Cypher, B.L., S.F. Phillips, P.A. Kelly. 2007. Habitat suitability and potential corridors for San 

Joaquin kit fox in the San Luis Unit; Fresno, Kings, and Merced Counties, California. 

Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Egoscue, H. J. 1962. Ecology and life history of the kit fox in Tooele County, Utah. Ecology 

43:481-497. 

Frankham, R. and K. Ralls. 1998. Inbreeding leads to extinction. Nature 241:441-442. 

Goldingay, R. L., P. A. Kelly, and D. E. Williams. 1997. The kangaroo rats of California: 

endemism and conservation of keystone species. Pacific Conservation Biology 3:47-60. 

Grinnell, J. J. S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. Volume 

2. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 

Harris, D. 1991. Noise Control Manual: Guidelines for problem-solving in the industrial / 

commercial acoustical environment. Springer. New York, New York. pp 192. 

Hersteinsson, P., and D. W. MacDonald. 1982. Interspecific competition and the geographical 

distribution of red and arctic foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus). Oikos 

64:505515. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

37

Jensen, C.C. 1972. San Joaquin Kit Fox Distribution. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento, California. Unpublished Report. 18 pages. 

Jones and Stokes Associates. 1997. Comprehensive Biological Data Report for the Revised 

Bear Creek Unit of the Merced County Streams Project. Prepared for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacrmanto, CA August 18, 1997. 

Kings County 1993. Kings County General Plan as amended 2004. Kings County Planning 

Division. 

http://www.countyofkings.com/planning/Plan/GeneralPlarill4genplantable4.pdf Access 

date April 1, 2009. 

Kings County 2007. Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 06-02 / Specific Plan No. 

0601; The Proposed Quay Valley Ranch Project. Kings County Planning Division. 

http://www.willdan.com/QuayValley/InitialStudy_l_30%20Final.Pdf Access date April 

1, 2009. 

Knapp, D. K. 1979. Effects of agricultural development in Kern County, California, on the San 

Joaquin kit fox in 1977. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife 

Investigations Report. Project E-1-1. Job-V1,21, Sacramento, California. 51 pages. 

Koopman, M. E., J. H. Scrivner, and T. T. Kato. 1998. Patterns of den use by San Joaquin kit 

foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:373-379. 

Koopman, M. E., B. L. Cypher, and J. H. Scrivner. 2000. Dispersal patterns of San Joaquin kit 

foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Journal of Mammalogy 81(1):213-222. 

Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation. Science 241:14551460. 

Laughrin, L. 1970. San Joaquin kit fox, its distribution and abundance. Wildlife Management 

Branch Administrative Report 70-2. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, California. 

Lewis, J. C., K. L. Sallee and R. T. Golightly, Jr. 1993. Introduced red fox in California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, Nongame Bird and Mammal 

Section, Report 93-10:1-70, 70 pages. 

MacDonald, D. W., and D. R. Voigt. 1985. The biological basis of rabies models. Pages 71-

108 in P.J. Bacon (editor) Population dynamics of rabies in wildlife. Academic Press, 

London, Great Britain. 

McGrew, J. 1979. Vulpes wacrotis. Mammal Species 123:1-6. 

Morrell, S. H. 1972. Life History of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 58:162-

174. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

38

Morrell, S. H. 1975. Joaquin kit fox distribution and abundance in 1975. California Department 

of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Wildlife Management. Branch, 

Administration Report Number 75-3, 28 pages. 

O’Farrell T. P. 1984. Conservation of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis 

mutica on the Navel 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 Mohave Desert of Southern. California. Bulletin of the Southern California 

Academy of Sciences. 85:1-15. 

O’Farrell, T. P., and P. M. McCue. 1981. Inventory of San Joaquin kit fox on USBLM lands in 

the western San Joaquin Valley-final report. Report No. EGG 1183-2416, EG&G 

Measurements, Goleta, California, 36 pages, plus Appendices. 

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. Transcripts from the Western 

Section of the Wildlife Society 22:60-70. 

Ralls, K. and P. J. White. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. Journal of 

Mammalogy 76:723-729. 

Rails, K, P. J. White, J. Cochran, and D. B. Siniff. 1990. Kit fox - coyote relationships in the 

Carrizo Plain Natural Area. Annual report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Permit PRT 702631, Subpermit RALLK-4, October 31, 1990. 27 pages. 

Reilly, K., and D. Mangiamele. 1992. California rabies surveillance. 1991. California 

Veterinarian. 46:47-51. 

Schultz, L. J., and L. R. Barrett. 1991. Controlling rabies in California 1990. California 

Veterinarian. 45:36-40. 

Scrivner, J. H., T. P. O’Farrell, and T. T. Kato. 1987. Diet of the San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes 

macrotis mutica, on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California, 1980-1984. 

Report Number. EGG 10282-2168, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, California, 26 

pages. 

Spencer, K. A., and H. R. Egoscue. 1992. Fleas of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vules velox 

macrotis) on Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training site, California. U.S. 

Department of Energy Tropical Report EGG 10617-2161(UC-702), by EG&G 

Measurements, Goleta, California. 17 pages. 

Spiegel, L.K. 1996. Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. 

California Energy Commission Publication Number P700-96-003. California Energy 

Commission Publication Unit, Sacramento, California. 

Spiegel, L. K. and M. Disney. 1996. Mortality sources and survival rates of San Joaquin kit 

foxes in oil-developed and undeveloped lands of southwestern Kern County, California. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

39

Pages 71-92 in L.K. Spiegel (editor). Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped 

and oil-developed areas. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California. 

Spiegel, L. K. and J. Tom. 1996. Reproduction of San Joaquin kit fox undeveloped and oildeveloped habitats of Kern County, California. Pages 53-69 in L.K. Spiegel (editor). 

Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. California 

Energy Commission, Sacramento, California. 

Standley, W. G. and P. M. McCue. 1992. Blood characteristics of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes 

velox inacrotis) at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, California. U. S. 

Department of Energy Topical Report, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations Report No. 

EGG 10617-2160. 

Standley, W. G., W. H. Berry, T. P. O’Farrell, and T. T. Kato. 1992. Mortality of San Joaquin 

kit fox (Vulpes velox macrotis) at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, 

California. U. S. Department of Energy Topical Report No. EGG 10617-2157, 

EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations, National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia. 

TRC 2008. Avenal Energy Project, LLC Application for Certification to the California Energy 

Commission, section 6.6 February, 2008, prepared for Avenal Power Center, LLC by 

TRC Solutions. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species. Federal 

Register 32: 4001. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard recovery plan. Portland, 

Oregon, 62 pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Effects of 16 vertebrate control agents on threatened and 

endangered species. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program, 

Arlington, Virginia. March 1993. 177 pages. (Also on file at the Vero Beach Field 

Office; Vero Beach, Florida.) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Biological opinion for interim -water renewal contracts, 

Central Valley, California, with the Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California. 

Sacramento, California, 160 pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998. Recover Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin 

Valley, a U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 319 pages. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service San Joaquin kit fox survey protocol for 

the northern range. Sacramento, California. Unpublished paper. Callie A. Vanderbilt 

White. P. O. Box 778, West Yellowstone, Montana. 11 pages. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion of the 

Interim Water Contract Renewal. Reference number 1-1-00-F-56, February 29,2000. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

40

Warrick, G. D. and R. L. Cypher. 1998. Factors affecting spatial distribution of San Joaquin kit 

foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2):707-717. 

White, P. J., W. H. Berry, J. J. Eliason, and M. T. Hanson. 2000. Catastrophic decrease in an 

isolated population of kit foxes. Southwestern Naturalist 45(2):204-211. 

White, P. J. and R. A. Garrott. 1997. Factors regulating kit fox populations. Canadian Journal 

of Zoology 75:1982-1988. 

White, P. J., and R. A. Garrott 1999. Population dynamics of kit foxes. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology. 77:486-493 

White, P. J. and K. Rails. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of kit foxes relative to 

changing prey availability. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:861-867. 

White, P. J., K. Rails, and C. A. Vanderbilt White. 1995. Overlap in habitat and food use 

between coyote and San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Southwestern Naturalist 40:342-349. 

White, P.J., K. Rails, and C.A. Vanerbilt-White. 1996. functional and numerical responses of 

kit foxes to a short-term decline in mammalian prey. J. Mammal. 77(2):370-376. 

Williams, D. F. 1985. A review of the population status of the Tipton kangaroo rat, Dipodomys 

nitratoides nitratoides. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office, 

Sacramento, California, Final Report, 10181 4861 (ts) 185. SE 0020_4$ 44 pp. 

Williams, D. F. 1989. Letter to R. Schlorff, California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, California. 2pp. 

Zoellick, B. W., T. P. O’Farrell, P. M. McCue, C. E. Harris, and T. T. Kato. 1987. 

Reproduction of the San Joaquin kit fox on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Elk Hills, 

California,1980-1985. Unpublished Report. EG&G Energy Measurements Group, 

Goleta, California. 51pp. 

Personal Communication 

Bidlack, A. 2007. Researcher, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California pers 

comm. to M. Owens, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

Clark, L. 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Fort Hunter Liggett, San Luis Obispo County, California 

pers. comm. to P. White, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. February 

15, 2000. 

Kelly, P. 2000. Endangered Species Recovery Program, Fresno, California. pers. comm. to P. 

White, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. April 6, 2000. 

Schwartz, M. 2000. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana pers. comm. on March 23, :000, 

to P. White, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

41

Van Horn C. 2000. Endangered Species Recovery Program, Bakersfield, pers. comm. to S. 

Jones, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

42

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605 

Sacramento, California 95825-1846 

IN REPLY REFER TO. 

1-1-99-TA-1534 

February 15, 2001 

Memorandum 

To: Distribution 

From: Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California 

Subject: Dissemination of Standard Recommendations for the Protection of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides the attached standard recommendations 

for the protection of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis nzutica) prior to or during ground 

disturbing activities. The attached standard recommendations are subject to revision by the 

Service at any time. Successful implementation of the standard recommendations will require 

ongoing contact with the Service before and during the ground disturbance. Questions regarding 

this guidance may be addressed to Sheila Larsen or Susan Jones of the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office at (916) 414-6600. 

 Wayne S. White 

Attachment 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

43

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

STANDARDIZED RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR PROTECTION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX 

PRIOR TO OR DURING GROUND DISTURBANCE 

Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

June 1999 

INTRODUCTION 

The following document includes many of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)

protection measures typically recommended by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

prior to and during ground disturbance activities. However, incorporating relevant sections of 

these guidelines into the proposed project is not the only action required under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Project applicants should contact the Service in 

Sacramento to determine the full range of requirements that apply to your project; the address 

and telephone number are given at the end of this document. Formal authorization for the 

project may be required under either section 7 or section 10 of the Act. Implementation of the 

measures presented in this document may be necessary to avoid violating the provisions of the 

Act, including the prohibition against “take” (defined as killing, harming, or harassing a listed 

species, including actions that damage or destroy its habitat). Such protection measures may also 

be required under the terms of a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the Act resulting in 

incidental take authorization (authorization), or an incidental take permit (permit) pursuant to 

section 10 of the Act. The specific measures implemented to protect kit fox for any given project 

shall be determined by the Service based upon the applicant’s consultation with the Service. 

The purpose of this document is to make information on kit fox protection strategies readily 

available and to help standardize the methods and definitions currently employed to achieve kit 

fox protection. The measures outlined in this document are subject to modification or revision at 

the discretion of the Service. 

All surveys, den destructions, and monitoring described in this document must be conducted by a 

qualified biologist. A qualified biologist (biologist) means any person who has completed at 

least four years of university training in wildlife biology or a related science and/or has 

demonstrated field experience in the identification and life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. In 

addition, biologist(s) must be able to identify coyote, red fox, gray fox, and kit fox tracks, and to 

have seen a kit fox in the wild, at a zoo, or as a museum mount. 

SMALL PROJECTS 

Small projects are considered to be those projects with small foot prints such as an individual. 

in-fill oil well, communication tower, or bridge repair. These projects must stand alone and not 

be part of, or in any way connected to larger projects (i.e., bridge repair or improvement to serve 

a future urban development). The Service recommends that on these small projects, the biologist 

survey the proposed project boundary and a 200-foot area outside of the project footprint to 

identify habitat features, and make recommendations on situating the project to minimize or 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

44

avoid impacts. If habitat features cannot be completely avoided, then preconstruction surveys 

should be conducted. 

Preconstruction/preactivity surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 

days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any project 

activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys should identify kit fox habitat features 

on the project site and evaluate use by kit fox and, if possible, and assess the potential impacts to 

the kit fox by the proposed activity. The status of all dens should be determined and mapped 

(see Survey Protocol). 

Written results of preconstruction/preactivity surveys must be received by the Service within five 

days after survey completion and prior to the start of ground disturbance and/or construction 

activities. If a natal/pupping den is discovered within the project area or within 200-feet of the 

project boundary, the Service shall be immediately notified. If the preconstruction/preactivity 

survey reveals an active natal pupping or new information, the project applicant should contact 

the Service immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit. 

If take authorization/permit has already been issued, then the biologist may proceed with den 

destruction within the project boundary, except natal/pupping dens (active or inactive). 

Protective exclusion zones can be placed around all known and potential dens which occur 

outside the project footprint (conversely, the project boundary can be demarcated, see den 

destruction section). 

OTHER PROJECTS 

It is likely that all other projects occurring within kit fox habitat will require a take 

authorization/permit from the Service. This determination would be made by the Service during 

the early evaluation process (see Survey Protocol). These other projects would include, but are 

not limited to: linear projects; projects with large footprints such as urban development; and 

projects which in themselves may be small but have far reaching impacts (i.e., water storage or 

conveyance facilities that promote urban growth or agriculture, etc.). 

The take authorization/permit issued by the Service may incorporate some or all of the protection 

measures presented in this document. The take authorization/permit may include measures 

specific to the needs of the project, and those requirements supersede any requirements found in 

this document 

EXCLUSION ZONES 

The configuration of exclusion zones around the kit fox dens should have a radius measured 

outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances. The following radii are minimums, and if they 

cannot be followed the Service must be contacted: 

Potential den 50 feet 

Known den 100 feet 

Natal/pupping den 

(occupied and unoccupied) 

Service must be contacted 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

45

Atypical den 50 feet 

Known den: To ensure protection, the exclusion zone should be demarcated by fencing that 

encircles each den at the appropriate distance and does not prevent access to the den by kit foxes. 

Exclusion zone fencing should be maintained until all construction related or operational 

disturbances have been terminated. At that time, all fencing shall be removed to avoid attracting 

subsequent attention to the dens. 

Potential and Atypical dens: Placement of 4-5 flagged stakes 50 feet from the den entrance(s) 

will suffice to identify the den location; fencing will not be required, but the exclusion zone must 

be observed. 

Construction and other project activities should be prohibited or greatly restricted within these 

exclusion zones. Only essential vehicle operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be 

permitted. Otherwise, all construction, vehicle operation, material storage, or any other type of 

surface-disturbing activity should be prohibited within the exclusion zones. 

DESTRUCTION OF DENS 

Disturbance to all San Joaquin kit fox dens should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. 

Protection provided by kit fox dens for use as shelter, escape, cover, and reproduction is vital to 

the survival of the species. Limited destruction of kit fox dens may be allowed, if avoidance is 

not a reasonable alternative, provided the following procedures are observed. The value to kit 

foxes of potential, known, and natal/pupping dens differ and therefore, each den type needs a 

different level of protection. Destruction of any known or natal/pupping kit fox den requires 

take authorization/permit from the Service.

Natal/pupping dens: Natal or pupping dens which are occupied will not be destroyed until the 

pups and adults have vacated and then only after consultation with the Service. Therefore, 

project activities at some den sites may have to be postponed. 

Known Dens: Known dens occurring within the footprint of the activity must be monitored for 

three days with tracking medium or an infra-red beam camera to determine the current use. If no 

kit fox activity is observed during this period, the den should be destroyed immediately to 

preclude subsequent use. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during this period, the den 

should be monitored for at least five consecutive days from the time of the observation to allow 

any resident animal to move to another den during its normal activity. Use of the den can be 

discouraged during this period by partially plugging its entrances(s) with soil in such a manner 

that any resident animal can escape easily. Only when the den is determined to be unoccupied 

may the den be excavated under the direction of the biologist. If the animal is still present after 

five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated 

when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant, for example during the animal’s 

normal foraging activities. The Service encourages hand excavation, but realizes that soil 

conditions may necessitate the use of excavating equipment. However, extreme caution must be 

exercised. 

Destruction of the den should be accomplished by careful excavation until it is certain that no kit 

foxes are inside. The den should be fully excavated, filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

46

kit foxes cannot reenter or use the den during the construction period. If at any point during 

excavation a kit fox is discovered inside the den, the excavation activity shall cease immediately 

and monitoring of the den as described above should be resumed. Destruction of the den may be 

completed when in the judgement of the biologist, the animal has escaped from the partially 

destroyed den. 

Potential Dens: If a take authorization/permit has been obtained from the Service, den 

destruction may proceed without monitoring, unless other restrictions were issued with the take 

authorization/permit. If no take authorization/permit has been issued, then potential dens should 

be monitored as if they were known dens. If any den was considered to be a potential den, but is 

later determined during monitoring or destruction to be currently, or previously used by kit fox 

(e.g., if kit fox sign is found inside), then destruction shall cease and the Service shall be notified 

immediately. 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

Habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of projectrelated disturbance should be minimized. Project designs should limit or cluster permanent 

project features to the smallest area possible while still permitting project goals to be achieved. 

To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic should be restricted to 

established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas should also be 

included in preconstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, should be established in locations 

disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts. 

1. Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project areas, except 

on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night 

when. kit foxes are most active. To the extent possible, night-time construction should 

be minimized. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited. 

2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction 

phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep 

should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or 

provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. 

Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped 

animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the procedures under 

number 13 of this section must be followed. 

3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipe 

becoming trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a 

diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more 

overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is 

subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is 

discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has 

been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe 

may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has 

escaped. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

47

4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be 

disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or 

— project site 

5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site. 

6. To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes ordestruction of dens by dogs or cats, no 

pets should be permitted on project sites. 

7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary 

to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey 

populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and 

other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California 

Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as 

additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control 

must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of proven lower risk to kit 

fox. 

8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact 

source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or 

who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The representative will be identified 

during the employee education program. The representative’s name and telephone 

number shall be provided to the Service. 

9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has expected 

impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief 

presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to 

explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and 

agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: a 

description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of 

kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection 

under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts 

to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying 

this information should be prepared for distribution to the above-mentioned people and 

Anyone else who may enter the project site. 

10. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, 

including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be 

re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to preproject conditions. An area subject to “temporary” disturbance means any area that is 

disturbed during the project, but that after project completion will not be subject to 

further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and 

plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis 

in consultation with the Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and 

revegetation experts. 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

48

11. In the case of trapped, animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed 

immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for 

advice. 

12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who inadvertently kills or 

injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. 

This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or 

entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916) 

445-0045. They will contact the local warden or biologist. 

13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG will be notified in writing within 

three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during 

project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and. location of the 

incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. 

The Service contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses 

and telephone numbers given below. The CDFG contact is Mr. Ron Schlorff at 1416 9th 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 654-4262. 

Any project-related information required by the Service or questions concerning the above 

conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, until July 23, 1999 at: 

Endangered Species Division 

3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130 

Sacramento, California 95821-6340 

(916) 979-2710 

After July 23, 1999 please direct mail to: 

Endangered Species Division 

2800 Cottage Way, West 2605 

Sacramento, California 95826 

(no telephone number available yet, 

please call the old number for a forwarding number) 

STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 

“Take” - Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) prohibits the 

“take” of any federally listed endangered species by any person (an individual, corporation, 

partnership, trust, association, etc.) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As defined in 

the Act, take means “ . . to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Thus, not only is a listed animal protected 

from activities such as hunting, but also from actions that damage or destroy its habitat. 

“Dens” - San Joaquin kit fox dens may be located in areas of low, moderate, or steep topography. 

Den characteristics are listed below, however, the specific characteristics of individual dens may 

vary and occupied dens may lack some or all of these features. Therefore, caution must be 

exercised in determining the status of any den. Typical dens may include the following: (1) one 
Mr. Geraldo Gerardo C. Rios 

 

1043107.3 

49

or more entrances that are approximately 5 to 8 inches in diameter; (2) dirt berms adjacent to the 

entrances; (3) kit fox tracks, scat, or prey remains in the vicinity of the den; (4) matted vegetation 

adjacent to the den entrances; and (5) manmade features such as culverts, pipes, and canal banks. 

“Known den” - Any existing natural den or manmade structure that is used or has been used at 

any time in the past by a San Joaquin kit fox. Evidence of use may include historical records, 

past or current radiotelemetry or spotlighting data, kit fox sign such as tracks, scat, and/or prey 

remains, or other reasonable proof that a given den is being or has been used by a kit fox. The 

Service discourages use of the terms “active” and “inactive” when referring to any kit fox den 

because a great percentage of occupied dens show no evidence of use, and because-kit foxes 

change dens often, with the result that the status of a given den may change frequently and 

abruptly. 

“Potential Den” - Any subterranean hole within the species’ range that has entrances of 

appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is insufficient to conclude that it is being 

used or has been used by a kit fox. Potential dens shall include the following: (1) any suitable 

subterranean hole; or (2) any den or burrow of another species (e.g., coyote, badger, red fox, or 

ground squirrel) that otherwise has appropriate characteristics for kit fox use. 

“Natal or Pupping Den” - Any den used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups. 

Natal/pupping dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied exclusively 

by adults. These dens typically have more kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the vicinity of 

the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances. 

A natal den, defined as a den in which kit fox pups are actually whelped but not necessarily 

reared, is a more restrictive version of the pupping den. In practice, however, it is difficult to 

distinguish between the two, therefore, for purposes of this definition either term applies. 

“Atypical Den” - Any manmade structure which has been or is being occupied by a San Joaquin 

kit fox. Atypical dens may include pipes, culverts, and diggings beneath concrete slabs and 

buildings.