From: Victoria Yundt
To: City_Council; City_Clerk; Jennie Eng
Cc: Rebecca Davis; Emy Lipkind; Chase Preciado; Hayley Uno Subject: Re: Comments on Appeal of August 21, 2025 Planning Commission Decision Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 Based on MND for GPA/ZC 07-1874
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:05:10 PM
Attachments: 2026.07.28 SAFER Appeal Comment - VTTM No. 7500 - final & Exhibits.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mayor Goh, Honorable City Council Members, and Director Eng:
On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), please find attached comments regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500, which proposes the subdivision of 39.92 acres into 208 single-family residential lots (“Project”).
SAFER appealed the Planning Commission’s August 21, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 based on the 2007 mitigated negative declaration for GPA/ZC 07-1874. The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 5, 2026.
Please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Victoria
--
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
P: 510.836.4200
F: 510.836.4205
[email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information.
Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.
July 28, 2026
Via Email
Karen Goh, Mayor
Manpreet Kaur, Vice Mayor
Eric Areas, Councilmember
Andrae Gonzales, Councilmember
Ken Weir, Councilmember
Bob Smith, Councilmember
Larry Koman, Councilmember
Zack Bashirtash, Councilmember
Bakersfield City Council
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC
Bakersfield City Clerk
First Floor
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Jennie Eng, Planning Director
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Appeal of August 21, 2025 Planning Commission Decision Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 Based on MND for GPA/ZC 07-1874
Dear Mayor Goh and Honorable City Council Members:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500, which proposes the subdivision of 39.92 acres into 208 single-family residential lots (“Project”). SAFER appealed the City of Bakersfield (“City”) Planning Commission’s August 21, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 based on a 2007 mitigated negative declaration for GPA/ZC 07-1874 (the “2007 MND”). The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council August 5, 2026.
SAFER’s review of the Project and the 2007 MND was assisted by expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., air quality expert Patrick Sutton of environmental consulting firm, Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Baseline”), and agricultural experts Gregory House and Henry House of House Agricultural Consultants (“House”), whose written comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.
As discussed below, the City’s decision to rely on the 2007 MND violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). New information and changed circumstances indicate the Project may have new and more severe impacts than were analyzed in the 2007 MND, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).
July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes a vesting tentative tract map for 208 single-family residential lots on 39.92 acres in the City of Bakersfield. The Project is located at the Northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield.
LEGAL STANDARD
After an MND is prepared for a project, a supplemental MND or EIR is required when one of the following occurs:
• Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous CEQA document due to new or more severe significant impacts;
• Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous CEQA document due to new or more severe significant impacts; or • New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the previous CEQA document was approved, shows any of the following:
1. The project will have a significant impact not discussed in the previous CEQA document;
2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior CEQA document;
3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous CEQA document would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(14 CCR § 15162(a).)
The Court further explained the standard for preparation of a subsequent MND or EIR when the initially approved document is a negative declaration:
[W]hen a project is initially approved by negative declaration, a ‘major revision’ to the initial negative declaration will necessarily be required if the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Indeed, if the project modification introduces previously unstudied and potentially significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated through further revisions July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
to the project plans, the appropriate environmental document would no longer be a negative declaration at all, but an EIR.
(San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
Said another way, if, because of new information or changed circumstances the Project may result in a new or more substantial impact, then a supplemental EIR is required. (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 958.) This is determined under the “fair argument” standard, meaning that an EIR is required if there is any substantial evidence that changes in circumstances or new information not previously available demonstrates that the project may have a significant environmental impact.
“‘If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration,’ and if no subsequent EIR is required, the agency ‘shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.’(San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 946, quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(b).) “While minor changes may be addressed through an addendum, where potentially significant impacts are introduced, a new or subsequent EIR is required.” (San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
DISCUSSION
I. The Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and the Identification of New Special-Status Species are Significant Changes in Circumstances, Precluding Reliance on the 2007 MND for the Project.
A. Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is a changed circumstance requiring major revisions to the MND because the Project may significantly impact species covered by the former HCP.
There is substantial evidence of changed circumstances since the certification of the 2007 MND indicating that the Project may have significant unmitigated biological resources impacts.
The 2007 MND concluded that the Project’s biological resources impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (“MBHCP”). (MND, p. 12.) However, the MBHCP and its accompanying state and federal incidental take permits expired on January 1, 2023, and currently no replacement conservation plan or permitting mechanism exist. (See City of Bakersfield Memorandum, “Pending Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan” (Nov. 15, 2022); City of Bakersfield Memorandum, “Report on the status of efforts toward adoption of a new Habitat Conservation Plan, Implications of Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, and Request for City Council direction” (Feb. 8, 2023); City of Bakersfield Webpage, “Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan,” (accessed Oct. 18, 2023) (attached as Exhibit D).) As a result, the City can no longer rely on the MBHCP’s mitigation framework to offset impacts to special-status species covered under the plan, such as the San Joaquin kit fox, Blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, Giant kangaroo, and San Joaquin (Nelson’s) July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
antelope squirrel. (MBHCP, pp. ii-iii.) Even though the Project site remains within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Area—previously covered by the MBHCP—the expiration of the MBHCP represents a substantial change in circumstance under CEQA, precluding reliance on the 2007 MND. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
Expert ecologist Dr. Smallwood concludes that because “there exists no MBHCP into which a mitigation fee can be paid,” the sole measure to reduce biological resources impacts to less-than-significant in the 2007 MND “would no longer apply to the proposed project.” (Ex. A, p. 2.) Without mitigation to replace the MBHCP, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will likely result in significant impacts to wildlife previously covered by the MBHCP, including habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, predation by house cats, road mortality, and contributions to cumulative impacts. (Id., pp. 7, 9.)
An example of special-status species previously covered by the MBHCP that would be impacted by the Project is the federally and state protected San Joaquin kit fox. Many studies show that the San Joaquin kit fox continues to be impacted by the increase in urban development in Bakersfield. (See Exhibit E [studies on the impacts to San Joaquin kit fox in Bakersfield].) The ability of the kit fox to disperse and otherwise move is critical to its survival as a species. In its most recent status report for the kit fox, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reported the kit fox as a “Declining” species. (See Exhibit E, CDFW, Species Accounts Mammals (2005), pp. 27-29.) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) has assigned the kit fox a recovery priority of 3C, based on a 1-18 ranking system where 1 is the highest-ranked recovery priority and 18 is the lowest. (See Exhibit E, USFWS, 5-Year Review: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Sept. 11, 2020), pp. 3-4.) The “C” indicates conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity. (Id.) The expiration of the MBHCP means there is no longer any protection for the San Joaquin kit fox, which may be significantly impacted by the Project’s construction.
The USFWS recent assessments of the kit fox in Bakersfield provides substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project could result in significant unmitigated impacts to San Joaquin kit fox. The USFWS’s 2020 Special Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox identifies the Bakersfield population as the most genetically diverse and therefore critical to the species’ survival. (Exhibit E, USFWS, Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Aug. 2020), pp. 13, 15, 28, 44.) However, this population has undergone a severe decline, primarily due to vehicle strikes, habitat fragmentation, and interference with the species’ movement. (Id., pp. 32-37, 42-44, 47-53.) The USFWS Assessment Report emphasizes that new roads, increased traffic, and residential developments— such as those proposed by this Project—pose serious threats to the species by increasing mortality and reducing habitat connectivity. (Id., pp. 54-56.) The loss of an additional 40 acres of kit fox habitat is a significant impact and further harms the species.
The USFWS recommends mitigation measures in its 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance, such as treating potential dens as known dens, covering trenches, or setting July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
construction speed limits. (See Exhibit E, USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (Jan. 2011), pp. 1-9.) The City has not adopted any of these recommended measures in the 2007 MND or in the Staff Report for the Project.
Moreover, without a valid Section(10) take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act and a state 2081 take permit under the California Endangered Species Act, approval of the Project could result in unauthorized take of state and federally listed species such as the San Joaquin kit fox in violation of state and federal law.
The MBHCP’s expiration is a substantial change in circumstances that will result in significant biological resources impacts. As a result, the City may not rely on the 2007 MND for the Project, and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
B. The presence of special-status species and the decline in abundance of dozens of species resulting in newly listed status is a changed circumstance requiring major revisions to the MND because the Project may significantly impact special-status species.
In addition, there is substantial evidence of changed circumstances regarding the presence of special-status species that will be impacted by the Project. Expert ecologist Dr. Smallwood found that “many additional changes in circumstance have taken place since the adoption of the 2007 MND,” including the identification of “108 special-status species of wildlife . . . near enough to the site to warrant analysis,” 41 of which “have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND.” (Ex. A, pp. 2-6.) Each newly listed special-status species represents a significant change in circumstances requiring an updated analysis of biological resources impacts for the Project. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(2), (b).) Dr. Smallwood concludes these species may be impacted through habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, predation by house cats, and road mortality. These new significant unmitigated impacts on special-status species were not analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id., pp. 2-6.)
Because of the changed circumstances since the certification of 2007 MND and substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have new significant impacts on special-status species, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR for the Project. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
II. The City’s Conclusions Regarding Biological Resources Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The City never prepared an expert analysis of the 2007 Project’s impacts on biological resources, and it did not prepare one for the now-proposed Project. Accordingly, the City has no substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts on biological resources.
July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
Dr. Smallwood explains that “[t]he City has not appropriately investigated the site for its use by wildlife, and it therefore lacks a defensible basis for determining whether special-status species are present or absent, and how potential project impacts to wildlife should be mitigated.” (Ex. A, p. 6.) As Dr. Smallwood notes, the City has not conducted recent biological surveys of the Project site, meaning its less-than-significant conclusions for biological resources impacts are unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id., pp. 6-7.)
Given the number of new special-status species, the lack of updated biological surveys, and the expiration of the MBHCP, the City’s conclusions about the Project’s impacts to biological resources are not supported by substantial evidence. As such, a subsequent MND or EIR, or at the very minimum, an addendum is needed to adequately address the impacts to wildlife of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.
III. Based on the Substantial Amount of Urbanization that has Taken Place in Bakersfield since Certification of the 2007 MND, the Project Could Have Significant Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts.
Since 2007, Bakersfield has experienced extensive urbanization and conversion of open space and agricultural lands, resulting in significant cumulative habitat loss. The 2007 MND could only consider development projects pending at that time and did not account for the dozens of new projects subsequently approved. The City has not presented any evidence that these cumulative impacts—combined with the proposed Project—will not have significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. Because the Project could result in significant cumulative biological resources impacts as a result of changed circumstances since the 2007 MND was prepared, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, and instead, must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative biological resources impacts.
IV. There are Changes in Circumstances Since the Certification of the 2007 MND that Indicate the Project Could Have Significant Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts, Precluding Reliance on the 2007 MND for the Project.
Substantial changes to the Project and the surrounding environmental conditions since 2007 demonstrate that a subsequent MND or EIR is required to analyze air quality impacts of the Project. The Staff Report incorrectly concludes there are “no substantial changes in circumstances” and “no new environmental impacts.” (Staff Report, p. 6.) However, the current Project proposes 208 single-family residential lots, a substantial increase from the 172 dwelling units analyzed in the 2007 MND. Baseline explains that the proposed 20% increase in development constitutes a change in circumstances that could result in new or more severe air quality and health risk impacts not previously analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Ex. B, pp. 1-2.)
Moreover, the dozens of new developments in Bakersfield near the Project is a changed circumstance. (Ex. B, p. 2.) When the 2007 MND was prepared, there were no sensitive receptors located adjacent to the Project site. Since 2007, a high school was built adjacent to the July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
west of the Project site and single-family homes were built adjacent to the north and east of the Project site. According to Baseline, project construction and operation adjacent to sensitive receptors could result in new air quality impacts and health risks not analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id.)
Because the Project has increased in size and is now located near sensitive receptors, these changes in circumstances could result in new or more severe air quality and human health impacts discussed below. Accordingly, CEQA requires preparation, at minimum, of an addendum or a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze and mitigate these potentially significant impacts. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958; Ex. B, p. 2.)
A. The presence of nearby sensitive receptors is a change in circumstance requiring major revisions to the MND because the Project’s diesel particulate matter emissions may significantly impact human health.
Baseline’s expert comments provide substantial evidence that the Project’s diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions will result in significant impacts to human health on new nearby sensitive receptors that were not analyzed in the 2007 MND. (See Ex. B, pp. 2-4.)
Baseline explains that DPM is a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) identified by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) due to its potential to cause cancer and other adverse health risks. (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.) Baseline notes that “DPM is typically composed of carbon particles and a variety of organic compounds including more than 40 known cancer-causing organic substances.” (Id., p. 3.) According to Baseline, the high school and single-family homes located adjacent to the Project site could be exposed to significant DPM emissions generated during project construction. (Id.) However, the 2007 MND did not evaluate the health risks to nearby students and residents from exposure to DPM during project construction because these sensitive receptors were not located adjacent to the Project site at that time the MND was prepared. (Id.)
Using the information presented in the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the 2007 MND, Baseline prepared a health risk analysis (“HRA”) using EPA’s AERMOD air dispersion model to estimate construction-related DPM emissions and evaluated how these emissions would affect nearby sensitive receptors. (Ex. B, p. 3.) Baseline’s modeling shows that the maximally exposed individual receptor is the home located along Rio Verde Drive approximately 75 feet east of the Project site. (Id.) Baseline found that an infant/child exposed to DPM emissions over the Project’s full construction duration would have an estimated cancer risk of 164 in one million, exceeding the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”)threshold of 20 in one million. (Id., p. 4.) Therefore, Baseline concluded that “project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and result in a new significant air quality impact.” not analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id.)
The City’s Staff Report fails to provide any quantification or analysis of the Project’s air pollutant emissions. The City did not estimate or compare construction emissions against the July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Without such analysis, the conclusion that the Project will not exceed applicable thresholds is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Because of the changed circumstances since the certification of 2007 MND and substantial evidence that the Project may have a new significant impact on the health of nearby sensitive receptors from project-generated DPM emissions, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR for the Project. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
B. The presence of nearby sensitive receptors is a change in circumstance requiring major revisions to the MND because the Project’s agricultural pesticide-laden dust emissions may significantly impact human health.
The Project site was previously used for agricultural crops. (See Ex. B, p. 9.) Based on Baseline’s review of historical aerial photographs, the Project site and surrounding properties were used for agriculture as early as 1952. (Id.) When agricultural land is converted to residential use, a number of contaminants of concern can be present. (Id.) According to Baseline, “[a]rsenic from inorganic pesticides and residues from [organochlorine pesticides (OCPs)] used in the past have the potential to persist for many decades in shallow soils and can affect human health and the environment.” Given the Project site’s long history of agricultural use, “shallow soils on the project site may be contaminated with arsenic and/or OCPs.” (Id.) This could result in a significant impact on the health of workers and nearby high school students and residents because “[p]roject grading and other earthwork activities could generate contaminant-laden dust emissions that expose nearby sensitive receptors, including the adjacent high school and residential homes, to elevated levels of arsenic and/or OCPs.” (Id.) Therefore, due to the newly present sensitive receptors near the Project site, Baseline concludes that “project construction could potentially result in new significant impacts related to hazardous materials and air quality that were not analyzed in the 2007 [MND].”
Because of the changed circumstances since the certification of 2007 MND and substantial evidence that the Project may have a new significant impact on the health of nearby sensitive receptors from project-generated agricultural pesticide-laden dust emissions, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR for the Project. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
V. The City’s Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
According to Baseline, the Project could result in significant cumulative air quality impacts when added to the existing heavy pollution in the area. (Ex. B, pp. 2, 4.)
The San Juaquin Valley Air Basin, and specifically the City of Bakersfield, suffer from some of the worst air pollution in the nation. As a result of concentration an extremely high concentration of various industrial activities, farming, wood burning, and on-road vehicle traffic, including diesel emissions from heavy-duty truck traffic, the Air Basin exceeds federal and state air quality standards for PM 10, PM 2.5, and ozone.
July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
According to the American Lung Association, Bakersfield is ranked as having the highest year-round particle pollution in the US out of 224 metropolitan areas.1 Bakersfield is ranked third worst for 24-hour particular pollution and for high ozone days out of more than 200 metropolitan areas.2
In addition, CalEnviroScreen, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s health screening tool, identifies the Project site’s census tract as having some of the State’s worst concentrations of ozone and PM2.5. Residents in the Project area are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations higher than 99 percent of census tracts in California and more ozone than 95 percent of census tracts.3 (Exhibit F– CalEnviroScreen Maps.)
Additionally, according to CalEnviroScreen, the Project site is also located in a community with a very high cumulative pollution burden. (Ex. B, p. 2.) The community surrounding the Project site is ranked in the 74th percentile, “meaning that that cumulative pollution burden is higher than 74 percent of the other communities evaluated in California.” (Id.)
While the City relies on the project-level threshold of significance to analyze cumulative air quality impacts, because of the existing pollution and related health impacts, Baseline concludes that a cumulative cancer risk threshold lower than the project-level threshold is warranted. Reliance on a threshold of significance must be supported by substantial evidence. (14 CCR 15064.7(c).) “[A] threshold of significance cannot be applied in a way that would foreclose the consideration of other substantial evidence tending to show the environmental effect [] might be significant.” (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.)
By relying on the project-level threshold to make conclusions about cumulative impacts, the City ignores the potential for an impact to be individually less than significant but cumulatively significant. Here, Baseline explains that the Project could exacerbate the already poor air quality conditions in Bakersfield and expose sensitive receptors to even more air pollutant concentrations. (Ex. B, pp. 4-6; MND, p. 12.)
Baseline explains that the Air District’s threshold of significance does not account for:
• Existing levels of air pollution and health risks in the City of Bakersfield; • Communities of color experiencing higher health risks for the same exposures to pollution in the City of Bakersfield; and
1 https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/msas/bakersfield-delano-ca. 2 Id.
3https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators?views=PM2.5#dat a_s=id%3AdataSource_25-17c3d89e7e2-layer-1~dataSource_38-17c3c371181-layer- 1%3A1522%2Cid%3Awidget_306_output_0%3A0 [PM 2.5];
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators?views=Ozone#data _s=id%3AdataSource_25-17c3d89e7e2-layer-1~dataSource_38-17c3c371181-layer-1~dataSource_37- 17c3c3b4658-layer-1%3A1522%2Cid%3Awidget_306_output_0%3A0 [ozone].
July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
• The cumulative health risks associated with exposure to air pollution.
(Ex. B, p. 5.)
Relying on a lower threshold of significance for cumulative impacts where there is a large amounts of existing pollution is being used elsewhere around the state. For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) is developing new guidance for cumulative air quality impacts and is proposing thresholds of 1 in a million to 10 in a million based on the existing cancer risks from air pollution in the basin, proximity to high volume diesel-fueled mobile sources, and protection of AB 617 communities, among other criteria. (Id., pp. 5-6.) The same approach is also being taken in San Franciso, where the cumulative threshold of significance has been lowered to account for existing air quality issues. (Id.)
Given Bakersfield has similar or more severe air pollution than San Francisco and the South Coast Air Basin, Baseline concludes that a more conservative cancer-risk threshold is required to protect huma health from significant impacts. The City should prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze these potentially cumulative air quality impacts, supported by a more conservative threshold of significance for cumulative air quality health risks.
Given the region’s continued noncompliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards, and the existing pollution burden, there is a fair argument that Project emissions could exacerbate existing violations and contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The City should prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze these potentially cumulative air quality impacts, supported by updated emissions modeling and cumulative air quality impact analysis.
VI. New Statewide Greenhouse Gas Goals and Policies are New Information and Changed Circumstances Indicating a New Significant GHG Impact.
Baseline reviewed the 2007 MND, the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the 2007 MND, and Staff Report and found that the MND and Staff Report did not evaluate impacts from GHG emissions whatsoever. (Ex. B, pp. 2, 6-7.) Instead, the Air Quality Impact Analysis stated:
The impact of the proposed project on climate change cannot be accurately evaluated due to the current absence of regulatory guidance and significant thresholds. Furthermore, it is unlikely that individual projects generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to significantly impact global climate. Until the scientific community arrives at a consensus and without additional regulatory guidance, a complete and accurate assessment of the impacts to global warming by the proposed project would be purely speculative. (Id., p. 6.)
However, as Baseline notes, “there is [now] sufficient regulatory guidance and scientific consensus supported by substantial evidence regarding the global warming impacts from anthropogenic GHG emissions.” (Ex. B, p. 6.) Furthermore, statewide climate action goals and guidance have substantially changed since the MND was certified in 2007. (Id., p. 2.) As July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
discussed below, the Project may have a significant GHG impact. Because the 2007 MND and Staff Report failed to analyze this potentially significant impact, which can now be analyzed due to scientific consensus. Moreover, there have been substantial changes to statewide climate action goals and guidance since 2007. Based on this new scientific consensus and new climate change goals and guidance, the Project may have a significant greenhouse gas impact. The City must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze and mitigate this impact.
A project will have a significant greenhouse gas impact if it conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G, § VIII.)
In 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 set a statewide goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. In 2022, AB 1279 codified this statewide goal. In December 2022, the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (“2022 Scoping Plan”), which identifies strategies for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.
Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan4 includes guidelines to ensure that local government actions align with the state’s climate goals. Table 1 of Appendix D addresses residential projects that are consistent with state climate goals, focusing on transportation electrification, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions, and building decarbonization. (Id., 8-9; 2022 Scoping Plan, App. D, pp. 21-22.) The 2022 Scoping Plan explains that “[r]esidential and mixed-use projects that have all of the key project attributes in Table 1 should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.” (2022 Scoping Plan, App. D, p. 21.) Baseline explains, “These project attributes are intended as a guide to help local jurisdictions qualitatively identify those residential projects that are clearly consistent with the State’s climate goals, since these attributes address the largest sources of operational emissions for residential projects.” (Ex. B, p. 7.)
Baseline found that the Project may have a significant greenhouse gas impact because it is not consistent with the transportation electrification, VMT reduction, or building decarbonization goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan. (See Table 1, below; see also Ex. B, pp. 7-9.) //
4 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf.
July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
Table 1. Key Residential and Mixed‐Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs
Priority Areas Key Project Attribute
Transportation
Electrification
Provides electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).
Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands.
Consists of transit‐supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), or is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Reduces parking requirements by: Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or for multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.
At least 20 percent of units included are affordable to lower‐income residents.
Results in no net loss of existing affordable units
Building
Decarbonization
Uses all‐electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.
Source: 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D
Baseline explains that the Project is inconsistent with the following key project attributes described in Table 1 of the 2022 Scoping Plan:
• The Project does not meet the minimum threshold of 20 residential units per acre. • The Project does not meet the minimum threshold of providing less than 1 parking spot per dwelling unit.
• There are no transit stops within a half mile of the Project. • The Project does not commit to providing at least 20 percent affordable housing. • No enforceable requirement to be all electric and not connect to natural gas or propane for space or water heating or indoor cooking.
(Ex. B, pp. 7-9.)
As a result of the Project’s inconsistency with the majority of key attributes for a residential project summarized in Table 1 of the 2022 Scoping Plan, the Project conflicts with the July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
2022 Scoping Plan. (Id.) Therefore, Baseline concludes, “the project would have a significant GHG emissions impact by conflicting with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan that are designed to achieve the State’s carbon neutrality goal by 2045 or earlier.” (Id., p. 8.)
As a result of substantial changes to statewide climate action goals and guidance since 2007, the Project may have a significant greenhouse gas impact that must be analyzed in a subsequent MND or EIR. Because neither the 2007 MND nor the Staff report analyzed the Project’s greenhouse gas inapt, the City’s conclusions about the Project’s GHG impacts are not supported by substantial evidence.
VII. A Subsequent EIR is Required Because the MBGP EIR Concluded that the Project’s Impact from the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to a Nonagricultural Use is Significant and Unavoidable.
The MBGP EIR admits that the impact from the Project’s conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is a significant adverse impact. (Farmland Conversion Study, pp. 17, 20-21.) As a result, a statement of overriding considerations for this impact was adopted by the City when the MBGP EIR was certified. (Id.) Because the Project continues to have a significant and unavoidable agricultural impact, the City must prepare a subsequent EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and make the specified findings in order to proceed despite the significant agricultural impact. (Communities for a Better Environ. v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125 [“The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmentally detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.”].)
VIII. The Project Conflicts with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan’s Policies Concerning the Conservation of Agricultural Resources.
A development project must be consistent with the applicable general plan. (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 508; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510.) This principle requires the project to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The goal of consistency is accomplished, “ ‘ “if, considering all its aspects, [the project] will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336.)
Here, the Project conflicts with the MBGP’s Goal 3 to “[e]stablish urban development patterns and practices that promote soil conservation and protect areas of agricultural production of food and fiber crops and nursery products.” (Id.; Farmland Conversion Study, p. 4; MBGP, p.
V-13.) Not only is this conflict prohibited on its face, but it is also a significant land use and planning impact under CEQA that must be analyzed in an EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XI(b).)
July 28, 2026
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
CONCLUSION
There have been many changed circumstances and new information has become available since the certification of the 2007 MND indicating new and more severe impacts and new mitigation measures. As a result, the City must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to analyze and mitigate these impacts.
Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612 21 October 2025
RE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
Dear Ms. Davis,
I write to comment on the environmental review that has been performed for potential impacts on biological resources that would be potentially caused by a zoning change that would lead to the development of 208 single-family residential lots on 39.92 acres on APN 540-010-19 at the northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road, Bakersfield. The environmental review to which I am responding appears in a City Of Bakersfield Planning Commission Staff Report for a 21 August 2025 meeting, and which relies on an Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for a zone change from agriculture to R-1 on March 12. 2008. The Staff Report concludes, “No new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for GPA/ZC No. 07- 1874. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified.” I am concerned, however, that the Staff Report’s conclusion is inaccurate and misleading, and that if the project goes forward based on the environmental review completed to date, the wildlife community and particular special-status species would suffer significant, unmitigated impacts.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
2 THE 2007 MND IS OUTDATED
The conclusion I quoted from the Staff Report cannot be true. According to the 2007 MND (p. 12), “The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) … With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts [on biological resources including San Joaquin kit fox] are considered to be less than significant.” This mitigation measure is the only mitigation measure directed to potential project impacts on wildlife, particularly to those wildlife species that were once covered by the incidental take permit (ITP) issued for the MBHCP. These species included San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat and San Joaquin antelope squirrel.
However, although the project site is located within an area that was within the boundary of the MBHCP, this mitigation measure is no longer possible because the City of Bakersfield decided to allow the MBHCP to expire, which it did on 1 January 2023.
There exists no MBHCP into which a mitigation fee can be paid, and therefore the Staff Report inaccurately claims that the sole mitigation measure of the 2007 MND would still apply to the proposed project.
Neither can the conclusion I quoted from the Staff Report be true regarding its claim of no substantial changes in circumstances since the 2007 MND was adopted. As noted, an important change in circumstance was the expiration of the MBHCP. But many additional changes in circumstance have taken place since the adoption of the 2007 MND. In my assessment based on a database review, 108 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential, and 41 of these species have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND (Table 1). Each species assigned special status since the 2007 MND represents a significant change in circumstance.
Of the 108 special-status species in Table 1, 12 have been recorded in occurrence databases within 1.5 miles of the project site, and 11 of these 12 could be found on site because the site could provide habitat. Four of these 12 species have been assigned special-status since the 2007 MND.
Of the 108 special-status species in Table 1, 33 have been recorded in occurrence databases between 1.5 and 4 miles of the project site, and 22 of these 33 could be found on site because the site could provide habitat. Fourteen of these 33 special-status species have been assigned special status since the 2007 MND.
Of the 108 special-status species in Table 1, 57 have been recorded in occurrence databases between 4 and 30 miles of the project site, and 27 of these 57 could be found on site because the site could provide habitat. Twenty-two of these 57 special-status species have been assigned special status since the 2007 MND.
Regarding San Joaquin kit fox, another change since 2007 was the release U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 survey guidelines for the species. I saw no evidence that surveys have been performed on the project site in accordance with these guidelines.
3 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on- site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Species highlighted in light red have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND.
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT In region
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT In range
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC In region Yes
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC In region
Northwestern pond
turtle
Actinemys marmorata FC, SSC In region Yes
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
Gambelia sila FE, CE, CFP In region
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Bakersfield legless
lizard
Anniella grinnelli SSC In region
California glossy
snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region
San Joaquin
coachwhip
Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
SSC In region
Cackling goose
(Aleutian)
Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
WL In region Yes
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region Yes
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Yes
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby Yes
Calliope
hummingbird
Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Yes
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby Yes
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region Yes
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Yes Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close Yes
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby Yes
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby Yes
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region Yes Short-billed
dowitcher
Limnodromus griseus BCC In region
4 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region Yes
American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Yes Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby Yes
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region Yes
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region Yes
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Nearby Yes
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby
American white
pelican
Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close Yes
California condor Gymnogyps californianus FE, CE, CFP In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Nearby Yes
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby Yes
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close Yes Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
In region Yes
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Very close Yes
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby Yes Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA,
BOP
In region Yes
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby Yes
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Yes
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Yes
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region Yes
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Nearby Yes
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby Yes Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby Yes
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE,
SSC2, BOP
Very close Yes
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region Yes
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
5 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Yes
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close Yes
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In range
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Very close Yes Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby Yes
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region Yes
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Yes
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby Yes
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned
sparrow
Spizella atrogularis BCC In region
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper
sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 In region
Yellow-headed
blackbird
X. xanthocephalus SSC3 In region
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Nearby
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In range Yes
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region Yes
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region Yes
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Yes Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In range Yes Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M In region Yes
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region Yes
6 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region Yes
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:
H
In range Yes
Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:
H
In region Yes
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:
H
In region Yes
Mexican free-tailed
bat
Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L Nearby Yes
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:
H
In region Yes
Nelson’s antelope
squirrel
Ammospermophilus nelsoni CT In region
Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys n. nitratoides FE, CE In region Tulare grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus
tularensis
SSC In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region Yes
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE, CT Nearby Yes 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern- 2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
More of the species listed in Table 1 could occur on the project site if the site was allowed to return to a natural vegetation cover, but many special-status species could use it as habitat in its present condition, especially in winter if pools were to form over portions of the site. Regardless, the City of Bakersfield has not had any biologists survey the site for wildlife, or at least there is no reporting of any survey having been completed. The City has not appropriately investigated the site for its use by wildlife, and it therefore lacks a defensible basis for determining whether special-status species are present or absent, and how potential project impacts to wildlife should be mitigated.
The City might regard the project site as unlikely to support special-status species of wildlife. If this is the case, then I must point out that experience does not support this assumption. I have surveyed hundreds of proposed project sites for wildlife, and 7 numerous of these sites have been disked. However, I have yet to survey a disked site that is devoid of wildlife. Raptors often forage on disked fields, as do snakes and mammalian carnivores. Waterfowl and shorebirds often forage on disked fields, including over winter when and where rainfall pools. In Bakersfield, I recently saw and videorecorded a San Joaquin kit fox on a field that had been disked three times over the past couple of years. In March 2025, I also watched San Joaquin kit fox(es) in security videos making extensive use of this same field that had been disked three times over about two years. I also detected Mexican free-tailed bats making use of this disked field, and nearby I recorded a burrowing owl on the edge of a large field that had been disked repeatedly over recent years. Associated with these disked fields, which are nearly adjacent to each other, I have recorded numerous special-status species including Monarch, merlin, peregrine falcon and loggerhead shrike. The disking of a site can degrade its habitat value to wildlife, but it does not eliminate the occurrence likelihoods of numerous special-status species. In fact, some special-status species are known to exploit opportunities provided by disking.
San Joaquin kit foxes are known to have denned only 1.6 miles from the project site, and there are numerous known den sites within 2.3 miles of the project site (Figure 1). Many of these kit foxes might travel to the project site for foraging, and others might reside closer to the project site but have yet to be detected and documented. According to Figure 1, nearly all the project site is situated within a San Joaquin kit fox movement corridor, which also means the project site is San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have been identified as primary reasons for the decline of the San Joaquin kit fox in and around Bakersfield (Cypher et al. 2005, 2013; Los Padres Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity 2010; Nogeire-McRae et al. 2019).
Exacerbating this decline has been an epidemic of sarcoptic mange (Cypher et al. 2017), road mortality (Bjurlin and Cypher 2003, Cypher et al. 2005), and non-target mortality and injury caused by use of rodenticides (Cypher et al. 2014, Nogeire-McRae et al. 2019).
Continued habitat connectivity is of central concern to the conservation and recovery of the Endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Cypher et al. 2005, 2013; Los Padres Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity 2010, USFWS 2010; Nogeire-McRae et al. 2019; USFWS 2020a,b). The 2010 5-year review (USFWS 2010: 12–14) includes mapped movement corridors that connect San Joaquin kit fox Recovery Units 10 and 11, inclusive of the project site, to San Joaquin kit fox Core Areas located north and south of Bakersfield.
Not only would the project destroy existing habitat and a significant portion of a mapped corridor, but the San Joaquin kit foxes that inhabit the area would be vulnerable to collision mortality from project-generated traffic. Automobile traffic has caused the mortality of up to 27% of the local San Joaquin kit fox populations in Bakersfield (Bjurlin and Cypher 2003). More traffic from the project would likely exacerbate this problem, and yet the City requires no mitigation for it.
The San Joaquin kit fox population of the project area is considered crucial for the recovery of this endangered species (Cypher et al. 2022). According to Cypher et al. 8 (2021), “The urban SJKF population in Bakersfield is substantial and therefore could contribute significantly to conservation and recovery efforts for SJKF.” Considering the status of the San Joaquin kit fox, the importance of the local kit foxes to the recovery of the species, and the close proximity of known occurrence records, the City needs to assume San Joaquin kit foxes are present, and it needs to initiate consultation with the USFWS to determine whether and how to obtain an ITP.
Figure 1. Excerpt from the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Kit Fox Known & Potential Dens Map 2020-02-06, with the project site added as a red polygon and the San Joaquin kit movement corridor represented by red crosshatch.
And known den sites represented by red point features. This entire area was within the boundary of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan before it was allowed to expire.
San Joaquin kit fox
movement corridor
9 In summary, the Staff Report is inaccurate and misleading because it falsely claims that mitigation for potential impacts on wildlife is available in an HCP that no longer exists, and because it falsely claims that no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred since the 2007 MND was adopted. In my opinion, if the project goes forward as proposed, substantial and highly significant impacts on wildlife are likely. In addition to habitat loss, the project would cause potential impacts in the forms of interference with wildlife movement in the region, house cat depredation on wildlife, bird-window collision mortality, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality, as well as contributions to cumulative impacts. All these potential impacts are in need of analysis, but the analysis cannot proceed appropriately until the site has been surveyed by professional ecologists and the wildlife community accurately characterized as part of the existing environmental setting.
There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the wildlife community, to analyze potential project impacts, and to formulate appropriate mitigation. Relying on the MBHCP to mitigate impacts on wildlife is surely not the appropriate mitigation strategy.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Bjurlin, C. D., and B. L. Cypher. 2003. Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing data. . In Proceedings of the international conference on ecology and transportation, eds. C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, K.P.
McDermott, pp. 397-406. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Bjurlin, C. D., and B. L. Cypher. 2005. Urban roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox. Report FHWA/CA/IR-2006/01 to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Cypher, B.L., S.E. Phillips, and P.A. Kelly. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes: Conservation implications. Canid Biology & Conservation 16:25–31.
Cypher, B. L., McMillin, C. Stella, T. L. Westall, C. Van Horn Job, R. C. Hosea, B. J.
Finlayson, and E. C. Kelly. 2014. Rodenticide Exposure Among Endangered Kit Foxes Relative to Habitat Use in an Urban Landscape. Cities and the Environment (CATE) 7: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/ iss1/8
10 Cypher, B. L., J. L. Rudd, T. L. Westall, L. W. Woods, N. Stephenson, J. E. Foley, D.
Richardson, and D. L. Clifford. 2017. Sarcoptic mange in endangered kit foxes (vulpes macrotis mutica): case histories, diagnoses, and implications for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 53: 46-53.
Cypher, B. L., N. A. Deatherage, T. L. Westall, E. C. Kelly, and S.E. Phillips. 2021.
Potential habitat and carrying capacity of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes in an urban environment: implications for conservation and recovery. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-833974/v1
Cypher, B.L.; N. A. Deatherage, T. L. Westall, E. C. Kelly. 2022. Intraguild Competition between Endangered Kit foxes and a novel predator in a novel environment. Animals 2022, 12, 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202727
Frost, N. 2005. San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
Hall, F. A, Jr. 1983. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, at the Bethany Wind Turbine Generating (WTG) Project Site, Alameda, California. Report to California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of Water Resources.
Los Padres Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Before the Secretary of Interior Petition to Designate Critical Habitat for the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis Mutica) under the Endangered Species Act. Santa Barbara.
Nogeire-McRae, T., J. J. Lawler, N. H. Schumaker, B. L. Cypher, and S. E. Phillips. 2019.
Land use change and rodenticide exposure trump climate change as the biggest stressors to San Joaquin kit fox. PLoS ONE 14(6): e0214297. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0214297
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2010. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2020a. 5-Year Review San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2020b. Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). UI.S. Department of the Interior.
1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;
• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
762 professional reports, including:
90 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV
2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV
3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
Smallwood CV
4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
Smallwood CV
5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
Smallwood CV
6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.
Smallwood CV
7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844
Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –
71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 15, 2025
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 Project Dear Ms. Davis,
We have reviewed the August 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report (“Staff Report”) and November 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 Project (“Project”) located in the City of Bakersfield (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 208 single-family residential lots on the 39.92-acre site.
Our review concludes that the Staff Report fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts.
A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality
Reliance on CEQA Guidelines § 15162
The Staff Report claims that no further review is required for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162. Specifically, the Staff Report states:
“A Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was adopted for GPA/ZC 07-1874 on December 20, 2007, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). No new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for GPA/ZC No. 07-1874. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts
2 have been identified. Mitigation measures from the related project have been incorporated and are attached to the resolution” (pp. 6).
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15162:
“(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: [...] (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
As demonstrated above, a subsequent EIR should be prepared if the Project has new or more severe impacts, or there are mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Here, the Staff Report states that “no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified” (p. 6). However, this claim is insufficient and subsequent environmental review may be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 for two reasons.
First, the Staff Report proposes a larger residential development than what was originally proposed in the 2007 IS/MND. Specifically, the Staff Report indicates the proposed Project will consist of 208 single- family residential lots (p. 2). The IS/MND, on the other hand, proposed and examined the environmental impacts associated with 172 dwelling units (p. 7). As previously stated, a subsequent EIR should be prepared if the Project has substantial changes that result in new significant impacts. Due to the increase in the proposed residential land use, further environmental review should be conducted in a full CEQA analysis to evaluate the Project’s impacts on the surrounding environment. 3 Second, the Staff Report fails to discuss or analyze the Project’s potential air quality impacts or quantify the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions whatsoever. This is incorrect, as the Staff Report should have estimated and compared the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions to the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds (see table below)1.
Without making an effort to estimate the Project’s potential construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the Staff Report lacks evidence to support the conclusion that the Project’s emissions would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Until further analysis is provided, we cannot verify the Project would not result in new, significant air quality impacts.
The Project should not be approved until a full CEQA analysis is prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that Project construction and operation may have on the surrounding environment.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
1 “Air Quality Thresholds of Significance- Citeria Pollutants.” SJVAPD, March 2015, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/media/2lpbkso0/2-cms-format-air-quality-thresholds-of-significance-toxic-air- contaminants.pdf.
4 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQA Review
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist, P.G.
California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions held include:
Government:
Attachment A
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); 2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).
Educational:
Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).
Private Sector:
Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking 3 Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel.
4 With the National Park Service, directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:
Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. 5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifer tests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.
Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances.
In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.
In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.
Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.
In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.
Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. 6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.
Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV- 02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.
Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.
BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.
Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in 8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.
Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F ., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F ., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F ., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.
SOIL WATER AIR PRO
TECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosen
feld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, pr operty, and ecological receptors. Hi s expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health ri sk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil sp ills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, indu strial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollu tion on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successful ly modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulat e matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi - and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odo rs from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts an d technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure a ssessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution source s causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to so il, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment B
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H
2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.
Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.
Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.
Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds , 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J . J . J . C l a r k , A . R . H e n s l e y , M . S u f f e t . ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e U s e o f a n O d o r W h e e l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Qua lity-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demo nstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
R o s e n f e l d , P . E . (1998). Characterization, Quan tification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E ., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (P FAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapa ta, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; G onzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-S tack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Su therland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-S tack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespa ss of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Wa ste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from Un iversity of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Bromin ated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Fo rensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Pers istence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference .
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (M ay 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilte r for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Stor age Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Fl avors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Gr ass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Ha rrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Compar ison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April an d May 2001. Alternative Land fill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Scien ce Program, Teaching Assistant for seve ral courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Ins titute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington St ate. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10 ,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,0 00 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.
Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.
Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4
th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida
Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Esta te of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Depositio n 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112
th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chev ron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Explor ation et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plai ntiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8- 16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fi sher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17
th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56
th Judicial District
MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.
Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs . Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
EXHIBIT C
From: Christopher Boyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:39 PM
To:
Subject: Pending Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
All,
The Development Services Department of the City of Bakersfield wishes to inform you of the following:
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will expire on January 1, 2023. Although work is ongoing, it appears unavoidable but to lose coverage afforded by the plan and its Habitat Mitigation Fee (HMF) format. The City may, if desired to do so, continue efforts to adopt a new habitat mitigation pl an for the future, but a gap in coverage is a virtual certainty.
Expiration of Coverage
Within the City of Bakersfield, in order to afford coverage under the MBHCP, urban development permits must be approved/permitted by Friday, December 30, 2022. Appr oved/permitted means that a grading plan has been approved and the HMF paid.
Again, a grading permit MUST be issued and the HMF paid by December 30, 2022 to have incidental take coverage under the MBHCP.
Once issued, the developer has until June 1, 202 3 to final ALL authorized grading work. No extension of time may be granted as the City will not be an authorized permittee after January 1, 2023.
Any incomplete grading as of June 1, 2023 will not have coverage under the MBHCP.
Application of Habitat Mitigation Fee
The Habitat Mitigation Fee is assessed at grading permit issuance. Just as the grading permit will expire if not completed by June 1, 2023, the HMF also expires if physical grading is not completed and finalled by June 1, 2023. No refund of the HMF is available once it is paid.
If fee is not paid, the grading permit cannot be issued and no grading will occur. If the fee is not paid but grading is initiated before the MBHCP expiration date, a stop work order shall be issued by City Building Director and a hearing will be set to enforce a penalty for failure to comply with the MBHCP.
Grading plans must have an approved companion project. Examples include approved Site Plan Review, Subdivision Map, and/or Building Permit.
No HMF will be required after December 31, 2022, as the City will no longer have incidental take coverage via the MBHCP.
Special Circumstances
Vesting Subdivisions: In that the MBHCP will expire on January 1, 2023, if a grading permit is not issued and the HMF is not paid by December 30, 2022, there is no coverage for vested maps. If a grading permit is issued and HMF paid before December 30, 2022, grading must be completed and finalled on or before June 1, 2023. No extension of time will be available beyond June 1, 2023 and no reimbursement of HMF will be available. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will become the responsibility of the individual property owner/developer.
Prior to 2011: Apparently, before the Grading Permit process began in 2011, land developers paid for the HMF at any time after entitlement approval and the land was counted as changed to Urban Land in the land use change statistics of the MBHCP permit. Therefore, there are subdivision projects that have paid HMF fees, but have not been developed. To this date, staff has credited the HMF payments to run with the land. In order for property owners/developers to benefit from these prepaid HMFs, all grading work must be completed and finalled by June 1, 2023. No reimbursement of funds will be available. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will become the responsibility of the individual property owner/developer.
Noncoverage in 2023
For development occurring with the City of Bakersfield, for more than the last year, the following condition of approval has been included in all entitlements where ground disturbance might occur:
The following conditions are required as part of a grading permit:
a. Habitat Conservation fees shall be required for this project and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time we issue an urban development permit (includes grading plan approvals) as defined in the Implementation/Management Agreement (Section 2.21) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Upon payment of the fee, the applicant will receive acknowledgment of compliance with Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (Implementation/Management Agreement Section 3.1.4). This fee is currently $2,145 per gross acres, payable to the City of Bakersfield (submit to the Planning Division). This fee must be paid before any grading or other site disturbance occurs.
Forms and instructions are available at the Planning Division or on the city’s web site at www.bakersfieldcity.us
(go to Development Services Department).
The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires in year 2023. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or bu ilding permit and pay fees prior to the 2023 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the 2023 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre -payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2023 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
As of January 1, 2023, the City will no longer act as a permittee to the MBHCP. As noted in the aforementioned condition of approval, urban development permits issued after the 2023 expiration date will be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
The Development Services Department may provide recommendations and guidance on how to comply with federal and State law pertaining to special- status species. Ultimately though, in all cases, responsibility for compliance will remain with the property owner/developer.
Guidance may include:
• Requiring biological surveys as part of application submittal to assess the presence of special- status specie(s).
• Requiring biological surveys within 30 days of ground disturbance for the developer’s record. • Suggested steps if biological studies identify that special-status species are on a site. • Links to CDFW and USFWS guidance.
• Provision of contact information for CDFW and USFWS, if the need for an individual ITP is warranted.
Thank you for the courtesy of your time. If you have any questions, as always, feel free to contact me via the information below. Thank you in advance.
Cordially,
Christopher Boyle | Development Services Director
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
REPORT
DATE: February 8, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor Goh and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Report on the status of efforts toward adoption of a new Habitat Conservation Plan, Implications of Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, and Request for City Council direction.
Introduction
For nearly 30 years, the City of Bakersfield (City) and County of Kern (County) have successfully implemented the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The MBHCP was a regional habitat conservation plan and state permit that allow ed impacts to federal and state listed species resulting from urbanization and related development activities. Although extensive energy has been expended over the last ten years in efforts toward preparation of a new habitat conservation plan, the MBHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) expired on January 1, 2023 without a subsequent plan in effect. Since expiration, the City and County, as well as private developers under their jurisdiction, have been without permit coverage for impacts to federal and state listed species associated with those development activities for the first time since the MBHCP was approved in 1994.
The City, working with consultant ICF, has expended significant time and effort with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in the preparation of a new habitat conservation plan (HCP) to replace the MBHCP. The most current draft of the HCP is attached. CDFW is in preparation of an accompanying ITP and environmental documentation has been prepared in support of the two documents. In order to move forward with an adoption process, staff is seeking direction from the City Council on how to proceed.
To help the City Council decide a preferred direction, this memo summari zes the proposed HCP/ITP, and discusses the pros and cons, benefits, and detriments associated with adoption of a new HCP/ITP.
Current Condition
As part of the final extension to the MBHCP, all urban development permits wherein a grading permit was approved on or before January 1, 2023 have coverage under the MBHCP. Approved means that a grading plan has been approved and the habitat mitigation fee ($2,145 per acre) has been paid at grading permit issuance. Grading permits approved prior to January 1, 2023 will have until June 1, 2023 to finish and final grading work. Grading permits issued on or after January 1, 2023 do not have endangered species incidental take coverage, and compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the sole responsibility of the applicant.
The timeline also applied to all City projects wherein grading/ground disturbance is included. The City, as a permittee in the ITP process, was exempted for al l projects of ten acres or less as part of the MBHCP. With the loss of permittee status on January 1, 2023, the City also does not possess endangered species incidental take coverage. The various departments of the City are now require d to assess compliance with the ESA and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prior to project commencement.
Summary of the New HCP
The new draft HCP (attached) includes the following:
• Grading Hold process is retained. Incidental take of protected species is authorized via the release of the “hold” on grading permits.
• Habitat Mitigation Fee rises from $2,145 to $14,070 per gross acre. • 5-day grading permit application review time is unchanged. • Avoidance and Minimization Measures remain similar to the MBHCP. • An Urban Kit Fox Artificial Den Program would be established, with a Kit Fox Biologist added to City staff.
• Public Education Campaign w ith website and Public Education Specialist pos ition would be added to City staff.
• A Disease Treatment & Monitoring Program would be established. • Funding for one (1) employee with CDFW would be included. The employee w ould be exclusively assigned to Bakersfield’s HCP/ITP, enhancing CDFW response times and availability.
• The City and the County are permittees within the HCP. • The term of the new HCP/ITP is thirty years.
Essentially, the process would remain unchanged, with the exception of cost. The cost rises due to inflation and the introduction of new programs noted above that would enhance species survival. In today’s dollars, $2,145 in 1994 equates to $4,300.
Benefits of Having a New HCP/ITP
There are many potential benefits of a new HCP/ITP, all of which could be realized from the completion and implementation of the HCP/ITP. Without a regional HCP, like the expired MBHCP or the proposed replacement, all project proponents that have the potential to take a federal or state listed species must obtain the relevant permit from the USFWS and CDFW separately and for each project. This applies to both public and private projects. This is typically referred to as the project-by-project permitting approach because each project proponent must seek their own permits for each project.
Below is a list of benefits a regional HCP/ITP provides to public infrastructure projects and private development projects, when compared to project-by-project permitting.
1. Reduced Project Mitigation Costs. Regional HCP/ITPs are able to deliver mitigation that is often far less expensive than what project proponents can negotiate project -by-project. This is for three important reasons:
a. HCPs/ITPs that are regional in scope bring substantial economies of scale. Regional HCP/ITPs have the resources to acquire large blocks of land, which substantially reduces the per acre cost of land as compared to buying many smaller parcels of equivalent total size. b. Because of the substantial environmental benefits tha t Regional HCPs/ITPs provide, Wildlife Agencies are willing to negotiate lower mitigation “ratios” than in a project mitigation situation because those lower ratios are offset by benefits that only Regional HCPs/ITPs can provide. In the case of the BHCP/ITP, both Wildlife Agencies have stated this as a direct benefit of the plan. c. Regional HCPs/ITPs bundle mitigation requirements for multiple species at once. This allows HCPs/ITPs to overlap mitigation more effectively and cost -efficiently than projects c an do on their own. In project -by-project mitigation, the Wildlife Agencies may account for mitigation species-by-species. For example, if a project has impacts to two listed species and a mitigation site only support s one of the two listed species, the pr oject proponent must find another mitigation site that supports the second listed species. Regional HCPs/ITPs provide mitigation and conservation on a landscape scale, thereby accounting for species’ needs more efficiently.
2. Reduce Project Survey Costs. All projects with the potential to impact listed species and their habitats must conduct surveys and mapping to determine whether listed species’ habitat may be present on the site. If species’ habitat is present, additional surveys may be needed to deter mine whether species are present and their extent and use of the site. These project surveys for listed species can be expensive and are often changed if there is lapse or delay in the approval and construction of a project. Often, surveys must occur at specific times of year, which, if not planned carefully in advance, can delay projects. A Regional HCP/ITP can remove the need for many of these species surveys, saving substantial project costs.
3. Ensure Faster Project Approvals. One of the largest costs of project permitting under the ESA and CESA is the time involved in negotiating permits and mitigation with the Wildlife Agencies. With the Regional HCP/ITP in place, project proponents do not have to work directly with USFWS or CDFW, and they do not have to hire consultants, attorneys, or permit managers to do so on their behalf. Project proponents receive their ESA and CESA clearance from City and County at the local planning level.
Instead of taking one or more years, this process will typically take a few months. This time savings translates into substantial cost savings.
4. Provide the Strongest Possible Regulatory Assurances from USFWS. By completing an HCP, the City and County will receive a permit from USFWS that confers strong regulatory assurances. These assurances, called “No Surprises”, say that USFWS will not come back within the 30-year permit term and request more money, land, or water if circumstances change beyond those already anticipated in the HCP. These assurances provide a guarantee to City and County agencies and all covered private and public projects that the obligations and costs in the HCP will not change.
5. Provide a Revenue Source for Landowners. Once an HCP/ITP is approved, the City and County will need to acquire from willing sellers thousands of acres of high- quality habitat for the covered species. This large need for conservation creates a unique opportunity for landowners to realize economic benefit from their land.
6. Realize the Return on the Investment Already Made. The City and County have already invested substantial time and money to develop the BHCP/ITP. City and County staff and their consultants have been working on this project for 10 years. Discontinuing the BHCP/ITP effort will effectively waste the extensive efforts, work, and funding that the City and County have put into the development of the BHCP/ITP over the last decade. In addition, all of the work that was funded by the federal HCP planning assistance grants to the City (over $1.2 million) would be lost. While the City would be under no obligation to refund the previous grant awards, the City would be much less likely to obtain federal planning grant funding in the future if they desired to prepare a new HCP at a later date.
The attachment to this report, “Executive Summary, Economic Effects of Regional Habitat Conservation Plans,” provides additional insights into the benefits of HCPs.
Implication of Not Having an HCP/ITP
Without an HCP/ITP, the City and the development community would rely on Project-by-Project Permitting for compliance with the ESA and CESA. Under this option, the City and County would no longer pursue completion of a n HCP/ITP to address endangered species compliance. Without a regional HCP/ITP , project proponents would pursue their own endangered species permits from USFWS, CDFW, or both agencies using a project-by-project process that may be far more challenging and costly than the current process under the MBHCP or under a new HCP/ITP.
Without the Regional HCP/ITP, project proponents must seek their own state and federal permits from CDFW and USFWS, individually, when there is potential for “take” of a listed species. The project proponent must obtain a Federal ITP through Section 10 of the ESA with an individual project HCP and is expected to pay for all consultant and legal costs related to preparing their HCP, negotiating with USFWS staff, and preparing the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance document (Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement) on USFWS’s behalf. These individual project HCPs often take a year or more to prepare, negotiate, and complete. As a result, the individual project HCP process is often costly and very time consuming. Project construction cannot begin until after the ITP is issued, sometimes causing substantial project delays and additional costs related to those delays.
The CESA permit process (ITP) can be equally time consuming and expensive as the federal process, depending on the complexity of the project and the number of species for which take authorization is requested. The CDFW application fee for most projects will likely be $27,668.50 in 2022 dollars. The fee will increase in 2023. The fee does not include the cost of mitigation or other minimization measures.
Mitigation, referred to as Habitat Management Lands in a Project ITP, typically costs six figures or more, and it is not unusual to cost a few hundred thousand dollars even for relatively small projects.
Additionally, the current ESA and CESA compliance process is not static. Over the course of the expected 30-year permit term of the BHCP/ITP, ESA and CESA compliance without the HCP/ITP may become more difficult, more-costly, and more time consuming. This has been the pattern of ESA and CESA compliance over the 30-year history of these laws.
Because of the decade of work toward development of a new HCP/ITP, this has left a level of uncertainty with the City, County, Wildlife Agencies, and stakeholders as to where and how endangered species compliance should occur. The primary controversy in the finalization of a new HCP/ITP has been the cost per acre increase to $14,070.
Whereas the benefits of a new Bakersfield HCP/ITP are significant, the cost may be too much.
The MBHCP into the Future
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, collectively the permittees of the MBHCP, enjoyed incidental take authorization for nearly thirty years. The MBHCP provided a streamlined process for continued development while simultaneously providing tremendous benefits toward preservation of the endangered species it was created to protect. The table below provides a final summary of the efforts of the MBHCP to purchase lands for endangered specie habit over the lifespan of the plan.
Total
Developed
25,201.99
acres
Total
Acquired
24,184.13
acres
Current
Ratio
0.96 to 1
Deficit of
Lands
1,017.86
acres
Lands Currently in
Acquisition Process
~154
Lands Needed that
are Not Identified
~863 acres
unidentified
The Implementation Trust Group (ITG) of the MBHCP currently remains committed to purchasing mitigation lands necessary to satisfy the 1 to 1 ratio required by the MBHCP. Over the course of the MBHCP, the ITG has transferred nearly 25,202 acres of land as part of specie preservation efforts. The ITG must still purchase approximately 1,018 acres of land to bring the land purchase efforts to conclusion. An approximate 16 million dollars will remain as an endowment to continue the conservation efforts of the MBHCP into the future.
The Question of Permittees
The MBHCP was formed with two permittees, the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. Within the MBHCP’s 405 square mile permit area, they, as permittees, enjoyed incidental take authorization for the lifespan of the plan. Although not formally, officially stated, it is a nticipated that the County of Kern is not supportive of participating in completion of a new HCP wherein costs have been calculated to increase nearly sevenfold. Therefore, if the City Council moves forward with providing staff direction to finalize a new HCP/ITP, it could be affirming its intent to adopt a new 30-year HCP/ITP with itself as the sole permittee of the HCP/ITP. It is important to note the HCP costs would change as a result. The project consultant has calculated the cost of a single-permittee plan to increase the per acre fee to $15,681.
Conclusions/Summary
The decision before the City Council is not a simple one. This report is tas ked with summarizing the options in as simple a way as possible, noting the extent of this report and its attachments. In a past presentation, City Council was informed the question is one of certainty versus uncertainty. A decision to complete the new HCP and finalize the document provides certainty whereas a decision to not complete the process for adoption of a new HCP introduces a new era of uncertainty to the City and its development community.
Uncertainty is expressed in three forms:
1.) Time: It typically takes multiple years to prepare an individual project HCP under Section 10, negotiate with USFWS, prepare USFWS’s NEPA document (if required), and receive the project permit. A faster ESA Section 7 consultation may be available to some applicants, but not many given the limited extent of federal jurisdictional wetlands in the City. The permit process with CDFW under CESA can be equally slow depending on the number of species covered by the state permit.
2.) Cost: Preparing an individual project HCP and obtaining a CESA permit is often expensive because of the consultants, attorneys, and project managers involved, and their time required for negotiations with the Wildlife Agenc ies. If negotiations cause project delays, this increases costs.
3.) Certainty/Risk: Each project negotiation is as unique as the circumstances of the project, and often differing requirements are imposed by different USFWS or CDFW staff. This makes it difficult for project proponents to predict and plan for mitigation costs.
Certainty is expressed in a similar way:
1.) Time: Incidental take authorization is approved as part of the HCPs grading hold process where the applicant pays the habitat mitigation fee in advance of the release of the grading permit.
2.) Cost: A per acre fee of $14,070 ($15,681 as a single permittee) is paid. It facilitates the implementation of a comprehensive specie preservation and habitat conservation plan, providing compliance with the ESA and CESA.
3.) Certainty/Risk: As incidental take authorization is assured, commensurate with paying the fee and complying with the HCP’s avoidance and minimization measures, certainty is a relative assurance in the development process.
Thus, a decision of the City Council is necessary. City staff, in coordination with consultant ICF, have worked very hard with the wildlife agencies in the preparation of a new habitat conservation plan to replace the previous plan. Taking into consideration the information presented in this report and any public comments, staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to continue processing a new Habitat Conservation Plan.
Recommendation
Provide direction to staff.
Attachments
Executive Summary, Economic Effects of Regional Habitat Conservation Plans Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Screencheck Public Draft. 10/18/23, 2:29 PM Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan | Bakersfield, CA - Official Website https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/259/Metropolitan-Bakersfield-Habitat-Conserv 1/3 Search
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) is one of the longest-running plans of its kind in California. The purpose of the Plan is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats for species while allowing urban development. Development in the City of Bakersfield that causes permanent ground disturbance is required to pay a fee, which is used to purchase habitat in natural areas of Kern County. Through permits and agreements with State and federal wildlife agencies, the MBHCP is designed to offset impacts resulting from the loss of habitat because of development activities.
Expiration
CLICK HERE FOR MEMO RE: PENDING EXPIRATION OF THE
MBHCP
The current MBHCP expires on June 1, 2023. To ensure take of covered species does not occur after the expiration date, fees must be paid no later than January 1, 2023 and all covered activities must be completed by the MBHCP expiration date of June 1, 2023. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed.
Compliance & Plan Review Process
To comply with the MBHCP, any ground-disturbance activities (generally grading activities) require a developer to:
Pay a Habitat Mitigation Fee (if the disturbance is not exempt). Even if disturbance activities are exempt from the fee, the survey still must be performed to ensure that the disturbance will not impact species.
Perform a Biological Clearance Survey by a Qualified Biologist no more than 30 days prior to disturbance Grading Permit
A grading permit or other approval that requires ground disturbance will not be issued until compliance with the MBHCP occurs. Once compliance occurs to the satisfaction of City Planning, then an MBHCP hold is lifted and the grading permit or other approval can be issued.
Steps to Compliance
Compliance with the MBHCP is summarized in the following steps:
10/18/23, 2:29 PM Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan | Bakersfield, CA - Official Website https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/259/Metropolitan-Bakersfield-Habitat-Conserv 2/3
1. If a grading permit or other approval that requires ground disturbance is required, then the developer must comply with the MBHCP.
2. Provide a grading plan or other ground-disturbance plan (Plan) to the City for review. Once a Plan is acceptable by Building and Public Works, the developer provides the most current version of the Plan to the Qualified Biologist (see Exhibit A of the linked Compliance Form). At a minimum, the developer will include the permanent disturbance area (e.g., graded and then developed with buildings, hardscapes, landscape, etc.) and the acreage of the permanent disturbance area on the Plan.
3. Qualified Biologist uses most current Plan to develop a Survey Area that includes:
1. 50-foot buffer of both the permanent and temporary disturbance area.
2. All areas to be permanently disturbed
3. Any temporary disturbance areas (e.g., staging areas, utility undergrounding footprints, etc.)
4. The Qualified Biologist maps the Survey Area onto the grading plan or other ground-disturbance plan, and includes it in the Biological Clearance Survey Report.
4. Qualified Biologist performs Biological Clearance Survey of the Survey Area within 30 days of disturbance activities.
1. If the survey finds Covered Species (see Exhibit B of the linked Compliance Form) within the Survey Area, then a Notice of Grading Start (see Exhibit C of the linked Compliance Form) is required at least five business days prior to disturbance and after minimization measures (see Exhibit D of the linked Compliance Form) are implemented.
2. If the survey does not find Covered Species, then a Notice of Grading Start and five-day notice is not required.
5. Qualified Biologist emails Biological Clearance Survey Report to the proper agencies (see page 1 of the linked Compliance Form). The Biological Clearance Survey Report to include:
1. Survey Area Map
2. Signed Biological Clearance Statement. See page 2 of the linked Compliance Form
6. Determine if ground-disturbance activity is exempt from Habitat Mitigation Fee (the current cost is $2,145 per gross acre):
1. If yes, then do not pay Habitat Mitigation Fee.
2. If no, then pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee.
7. Come to City Planning counter on the first floor at 1715 Chester Avenue with:
1. Completed MBHCP Ground-Disturbance Compliance Form
2. Habitat Mitigation Fee payment (if not exempt) or completed Habitat Mitigation Fee Exemption (if exempt) (see Exhibit E of the linked Compliance Form)
3. Hardcopy of Biological Clearance Survey Report
4. Hardcopy of the email to the MBHCP Survey and wildlife agencies.
8. MBHCP hold released and grading permit or other ground-disturbance approval granted.
9. Disturbance activities can commence if a biological survey occurred within 30 days prior to disturbance.
10. Implement Species Protection Measures (see Exhibit F of the linked Compliance Form) during construction.
11. If disturbance:
1. Ceases for over 30 days
2. Has occurred for more than one year and the month is January, then go back to Steps 4, 5, and 10 Grading Plan Number
Please include the grading plan number (or project or map number) and the assigned project address on all documents and communications.
MBHCP Violation
It is a violation of the MBHCP if a developer begins grading or ground-disturbance activities without following the above "Steps to Compliance." A common violation is not resurveying the Survey Area after disturbance activities have ceased for more than 30 days. The City has the authority to immediately stop any activity that does not 10/18/23, 2:29 PM Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan | Bakersfield, CA - Official Website https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/259/Metropolitan-Bakersfield-Habitat-Conserv 3/3 comply with the MBHCP, impose penalties, and require additional measures to avoid the unauthorized take of Covered Species
Documents
Compliance and Plan Review Process Presentation (PDF)
Compliance Form (PDF)
EXHIBIT D
Riparian brush
rabbit
Sylvilagus bachmani
riparius
State: Endangered 1994
Federal: Endangered 2000
General Habitat:
Riparian brush rabbits are only found in native
riparian areas with large clumps of dense shrubs,
low growing vines, and some tall shrubs and scrubby
trees in the San Joaquin Valley. Grasses are the
most important food, and riparian brush rabbits
rarely venture more than one to two yards from
dense cover. Its range is quite narrow. It is found
in the 261-acre Caswell Memorial State Park in
southern San Joaquin County, and near a railroad
right of way in the Paradise Cut area south of
Stockton.
Description:
The riparian brush rabbit is one of eight subspecies
of the brush rabbit, an animal generally widespread
in California. The riparian brush rabbit can be
distinguished from other brush rabbit subspecies
by its isolated location and its skull characteristics.
This subspecies is slightly larger, has larger eyes
and ears, is more grayish and yellowish in coloration,
and has a very conspicuous tail. The animals are
most active in the early morning and evening hours.
The breeding season is typically from January to
May, with peak activity between mid-January and
mid-April. Gestation is about 27 days, and females
may breed again shortly after giving birth. About
three to four litters per female may be produced
during the breeding season, with three to four
young per litter.
Status:
Flooding, wildfires, predation, and disease remain the greatest threats to the riparian brush rabbit. The last documented estimate of population size was 200 to 300 individuals in 1993. During the mid-1970s, the population had dipped to an extreme low of 15 to 20 individuals due to severe flooding. The floods of 1996 may also have caused extensive mortality. Initial attempts to live-capture rabbits during a study that began in 1997 were of limited success, indicating an extremely low estimated population. In 1997, USFWS proposed endangered status for the species
In 1998, USFWS finalized the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. The Recovery Plan addresses the research, management, and recovery needs for the riparian brush rabbit, including restoring habitat and establishing additional populations within the historic range. In 2000, the riparian brush rabbit was listed as a federal endangered species. A brush rabbit working group has met periodically since 1997 to help guide conservation efforts for the subspecies. In 1998 live capture success was very low but improved slightly in 1999; a new population was discovered in the Paradise Cut area of San Joaquin County on Union Pacific Rail Road right of way lands. An agreement developed between the DFG and the rail road company allowed the rabbits within the right of way to be live captured and removed to a captive breeding facility, consisting of three large fenced and secured enclosed pens built in 2001-2002 on Department of Water Resources land in San Joaquin County.
Captive breeding facilities were stocked with wild caught rabbits in equal sex ratios. Genetic studies are ongoing to ensure the suitability of rabbits from different wild populations for captive breeding and translocation purposes. An additional wild population of rabbits was discovered on private land near the city of Stockton in 2003. Releases of radio-tagged rabbits began in 2002. To date, well over 100 rabbits have been produced in the three captive breeding pens and over 70 have been released to the wild to establish a new wild population on the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. Successful breeding within the new population has already been documented, and further releases are scheduled for 2003. Due to the ever accelerating nature of captive breeding a species such as a rabbit, the foregoing numbers must be considered a bare minimum of the total potential of the project. Mortality of the released rabbits is deemed moderate due to natural predation.
The goal of the recovery strategy is to continue to breed and release captive reared rabbits and establish at least three new wild populations in suitable habitat on secure public lands. Each such newly established population may ultimately consist of several hundred to thousands of individual riparian brush rabbits. With suitable areas provided, the populations are expected to reach the carrying capacity of the available habitats, which could lead to the ultimate recovery of the species. Augmentation of the Caswell Memorial State Park population with captive reared rabbits to near the carrying capacity of the available habitat is also proposed. The search continues for additional wild populations to protect and secure, as well as to serve as a source of breeders for the captive breeding facility.
The status in 2003 of the riparian brush rabbit:
Stable to Increasing.
San Joaquin
antelope squirrel
Ammospermophilus
nelsoni
State: Threatened 1980
Federal:
General Habitat:
Habitats of antelope squirrels consist of grasslands
with moderate shrub cover which includes such
species as salt bush, ephedra, bladder pod,
goldenbush, snakeweed, and others. Populations now
exist primarily in marginal habitats of the low
foothills and mountains of the western edge of the
valley. Currently, populations of significant size exist only in western Kern County at Elk Hills and on
portions of the Carrizo and Elkhorn plains.
Description:
The San Joaquin antelope squirrel is one of five
species of antelope squirrels. The species is
omnivorous with a diet consisting primarily of grass
and forb seeds and insects. Antelope squirrels use
burrows that they or other animals have dug. The
general active period during spring and summer
months coincides with air temperatures of 68o°to
86o°F.
Status:
Historically, San Joaquin antelope squirrels ranged from western Merced County to the southern end of western San Joaquin Valley. They occupied the valley floor in Kern County and along the eastern edge northward to Tipton, Tulare County. Conversion of native habitat to intensive forms of agricultural development is the greatest threat to the population. Recovery options for this species are addressed in the USFWS 1998 Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.
Researchers have gathered data on the interrelationships between antelope squirrels and the State and federally listed giant kangaroo rat. Translocation of giant kangaroo rats from one locality to another has been successful on the Carrizo Plain National Monument during 1989-92 and may have application to recovery efforts for antelope squirrels since the habitat requirements of the two species are quite similar. A study on the Lokern Area Preserve in Kern County, initiated in 1997, is addressing the issue of grazing as a management tool for several species including the antelope squirrel. San Joaquin antelope squirrels have steadily increased in number since 1998, due in large part to the below-average rainfall experienced since 1999. Numbers of antelope squirrels are now high across the Lokern Study Area. In 1999 and 2000, more squirrels were caught on the grazed plots compared to the ungrazed plots, but the lack of grass in both controls and treatments in recent years has masked any benefit we found from grazing. Rainfall levels that are higher than the average are needed in coming years in order to return the ungrazed sites to dense grass cover. Once the control plots are grassy, it should be possible to quantify the effect of cattle grazing on populations of San Joaquin antelope squirrels.
The DFG is involved in several conservation efforts for the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, including the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, the California Department of Corrections Electric Fence HCP, the Coles Levee area 2081 Agreement, and the Arco Western Energy HCP.
The status in 2003 of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel is Stable to Declining.
Mohave ground
squirrel
Spermophilus
mohavensis
State: Threatened 1971
Federal: None
General Habitat:
The Mohave ground squirrel occurs only in California
It is resident in the various desert scrub
communities and Joshua Tree Woodland of the
western Mojave Desert in southwestern Inyo,
eastern Kern, northwestern San Bernardino, and
extreme northeastern Los Angeles counties. The
Mohave ground squirrel inhabits flat to moderate
terrain and is not generally found in steep contours
although juveniles apparently traverse steep terrain
during dispersal. The species has been found most
frequently in sandy, alluvial soils, but is also found in gravelly and occasionally rocky soils. Habitat
features center on availability of food resources
and soils with appropriate composition for burrow
construction.
Description:
The squirrel is cinnamon-gray in color with white
underparts. Juveniles are cinnamon-colored and
molt to grayer pelage as they mature. The species
lives in underground burrows, in which it spends at
least seven consecutive months (usually from July
or August through February) at a low metabolic
rate, living on body fat alone, to avoid the seasons
of the year in which food is least available.
Status:
The Mohave ground squirrel is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat due to agriculture, urban, suburban, and rural development, energy development, military activities, livestock grazing, and OHV use.
Agriculture affects the species through conversion of habitat, exposure to pesticides, herbicides, and rodenticides. Agricultural development has resulted in the loss of occupied and potential habitat in the area between Antelope Valley, Lucerne Valley, and the Mojave River Basin. Although the species likely occupied the Antelope Valley historically, widespread conversion of native habitats has apparently resulted in the extirpation of the species from west of Palmdale and Lancaster.
Urbanization has resulted in the loss of native habitats, particularly surrounding the cities of Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville/Adelanto/Hesperia/Apple Valley. Urban development has accelerated in recent years in these and other areas, such as Mojave, California City, and Ridgecrest. Impacts associated with urban and rural development include the direct mortality of individuals due to increased vehicle use and increased numbers of domestic and feral cats and dogs. Energy development, including geothermal and solar energy development, has resulted in habitat loss for Mohave ground squirrels, and several such projects are now under consideration. For example, the BLM has identified sites for potential renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and photovoltaics, in the Mojave Desert.
The Mohave ground squirrel is not absent from all urban areas. In 2002, a Mohave ground squirrel was observed south of Highway 138, near Pinyon Hills, and a second observation occurred near an aerospace industrial complex located adjacent to Palmdale. In the first case, the site and adjacent areas are comprised of extensive tracts of undeveloped lands and those with relatively light rural development. At the second site, there are about five to six contiguous square miles of relatively undeveloped land, but the entire area is surrounded by urban and agricultural development. The ground squirrel has also been observed in residential backyards in Inyokern and may be seen foraging on the golf course at China Lake. One squirrel was recently trapped at the proposed Hyundai facility south of California City, where the consultant had identified habitat as being marginal. In these latter cases, the sightings are adjacent to extensive areas of undeveloped lands. Given these observations, the only certain areas of extirpation within the range of the species are those that have been physically developed.
Such areas include, but are not limited to, paved roads and parking lots; residential, commercial, and industrial sites occupied by buildings, graded areas, and other areas where vegetation has been mechanically removed; solar facilities at Kramer Junction and Harper Lake; and large mined areas such as at U.S. Borax, Rand Mining Company facilities, and in portions of the Shadow Mountains east of Edwards AFB.
Four major, active military installations occur within the West Mojave and comprise a total of 4,165 square miles:
the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, the Fort Irwin National Training Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and Marine Corp Air Ground Combat Center near Twentynine Palms. A 250-square mile expansion of Fort Irwin has been proposed. Military maneuvers result in mortality to ground squirrels, damage to vegetation, soil compaction, a change soil texture, and creation of fugitive dust. The results are largely denuded habitat; altered vegetation composition, abundance, and distribution; and a change to finer grained soils. In studies of the desert tortoise, military activities had the greatest adverse impact in valley bottoms, areas that also provide habitat for the Mohave ground squirrel. Changes in soil texture, from a coarser to finer texture, has been documented in agricultural areas and areas of military maneuvers. Finer textured soils do not provide a suitable substrate for ground squirrel burrow construction.
Grazing by livestock may affect Mohave ground squirrels through changes in soil and vegetative structure, accelerated erosion, and collapsing of burrows. Sheep are generally grazed in the desert between late February and the middle of June, which coincides with Mohave ground squirrel emergence from hibernation in February and its entire activity period, particularly during very dry years when the squirrel may enter hibernation in June.
These times are critical for both adult and juvenile squirrels to attain sufficient fat reserves to enter into and successfully emerge from hibernation. The severity of grazing impacts may range from marginal in lightly-used areas to extreme at cattle troughs and sheep bedding areas. Research conducted at the Coso study area demonstrated that forage consumed by Mohave ground squirrels is also consumed by both sheep and cattle.
Competition for winterfat, hopsage, and saltbush, all important ground squirrel food plants, could be exacerbated during times of drought because alternative sources of food are not available. Although the Mohave ground squirrel is adapted to drought and arid conditions, prolonged drought reduces productivity of forage plants and reproduction in the ground squirrel. Shrub cover required by the Mohave ground squirrel for thermoregulation and protection from predators can be reduced by grazing pressure.
Persistent grazing pressure has resulted in the replacement of native perennial grasses by non-native annual grasses throughout much of the western Mojave Desert. Human development in the desert has also resulted in the proliferation of non-native grasses, such as red brome, cheatgrass, and Mediterranean grass. Grazing, OHV use, and other types of ground disturbance facilitate the spread of these grasses, which are adapted to disturbance and outcompete the native species that constitute food plants of the Mohave ground squirrel. The increase in grass cover between desert shrubs has been linked to increased fire frequency and fire intensity in the desert. Fires cause direct mortality when ground squirrels are burned or inhale lethal amounts of smoke, which can occur both in and out of burrows. Fire changes the composition of vegetation by facilitating the establishment of non-native grasses and removing forage plants. Fires also fragment habitat by creating patches of unsuitable habitat.
Habitat fragmentation results in the isolation of populations and potential loss of genetic variation. Small isolated populations may experience a reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and a decrease in reproductive success, growth, and survivorship. Such populations face a greater probability of extirpation. During extended droughts, for example, lower quality habitat may not be capable of supporting the species, and result in local extirpation. Recolonization of these areas may occur when conditions favoring reproduction resume.
In 2003, the BLM released the draft environmental documents for the West Mojave Plan (Plan). If adopted by the BLM, the Plan amends the California Desert Conservation Plan of 1980. It presents a strategy to conserve and protect the Mohave ground squirrel, desert tortoise, and nearly 100 other sensitive plant and animal species, while providing a streamlined program for complying with the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts. Seven alternative conservation strategies, representing different approaches to achieving biological goals and objectives for the covered species, are provided. These strategies are intended to mitigate for the future incidental take of the proposed “covered species” from urban development and land management activities. Goals of the Plan include protecting Mohave ground squirrel habitat throughout its range and ensuring long-term viability of the species. The entire known range of the Mohave ground squirrel occurs within the West Mojave; all but a small part of that, which is located northeast of Searles Dry Lake, occurs within the planning area, west and north of the Mojave River.
The preferred alternative for the West Mojave Plan proposes ecosystem-scale conservation with the establishment of four very large Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA) and additional lands for the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area. The desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel are “umbrella species”, a term used to describe protection of many other species under the “umbrella” of conservation for important wide-ranging species. A conservation area would be established for the long-term survival and protection of the Mohave ground squirrel. This Conservation Area would include portions of the Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese Tortoise DWMAs, and additional, essential habitats located west and north of the two tortoise DWMAs.
The West Mojave Plan would adopt provisions of the Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area ordinance.
Los Angeles County has identified a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) for northeastern Los Angeles County that should prove beneficial to protection of the Mohave ground squirrel. Within SEAs, the County performs a heightened environmental review for new projects, and has proposed zoning the area for a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The West Mojave Plan would focus on ground squirrel habitat on eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. This narrow band of habitat provides an important linkage corridor from north to south along Highways 178, 14, and 395. Projects in this area would also receive special review to ensure that habitat is not fragmented. Impact avoidance measure applicable to the desert tortoise would also be applied to the Mohave ground squirrel. These measures include restrictions on commercial activities, construction activities, and hunting and shooting.
The ultimate preserve design for the Mohave ground squirrel will need to conserve a substantial portion of its known range to allow for natural fluctuations in local and regional populations in response to climatic factors, rainfall. The size and location of preserve areas should be based on biological, demographic, and genetic considerations and core preserve areas must be large enough to support sufficient numbers of individuals to account for natural fluctuations in abundance. Further, it is critical that core reserves are situated in high quality habitats in which the species can persist during drought conditions. These "drought refugia" provide sources from which populations may expand under better conditions.
In contributing to the conservation strategy for the squirrel, the DFG expressed concern that no strategy would be successful without the participation of the military bases in the western Mojave Desert. Because the Mohave ground squirrel is not federally listed, the military departments are not required to develop policies to conserve the species. The DFG and USFWS concurred that those wildlands on military bases not needed for current missions should be managed for the greatest biodiversity of wildlife species and that those local areas on bases be managed for listed species such as the desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. Special protective measures would need to be implemented if the Fort Irwin National Training Center expands into the Superior Valley region, as has been proposed. In December 2000, legislation authorizing expansion of Fort Irwin into critical habitat for the desert tortoise in the Superior Valley region was passed and signed into law by President Clinton. The proposed expansion is currently undergoing extensive environmental review; the release date of the documents is not known at this time (late 2004).
Determining the status of the Mohave ground squirrel is difficult due to behavioral and demographic aspects of the species. The species is inactive throughout much of the year, and abundance as well as the period of surface activity varies from year to year. Live-trapping studies must be scheduled carefully and even then cannot necessarily establish the absence of the species from a site. These points were underscored in a recent study conducted by the USGS. USGS scientists reviewed existing Mohave ground squirrel trapping records to facilitate future habitat modeling and population trend predictions. The scientists found that the trapping records could not be used to develop models because of differences in sampling methodology and types of data reported. The researchers found, however, that trapping success declined significantly between 1980 and 2000 across most of the range of the species, raising concerns that Mohave ground squirrel numbers are decreasing across its geographic range. The exception was in the Coso geothermal region where numbers of animals increased between 1984 and 1998. Population numbers did not correlate with winter rainfall. Due to the lack of quantitative data, additional research is needed to accurately determine the status and trend of the Mohave ground squirrel.
Morro Bay
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys heermannii
morroensis
State: Endangered 1971
Fully Protected
Federal: Endangered 1970
General Habitat:
The Morro Bay kangaroo rat primarily inhabits
low, sparse coastal dune scrub vegetation
associated with stabilized sand dunes in the
Morro Bay area. Its habitat is highly localized in
the vicinity of Los Osos in San Luis Obispo
County. Plant species in its habitat include bush
lupine, dune lupine, mock heather, coyote bush,
California sagebrush, croton, buckwheat, phlox,
and deerweed. Plant roots provide support for
burrows.
Description:
This kangaroo rat, like all species of kangaroo
rats, has long hind legs, small front legs and feet,
brown upper parts, and a white belly. It is smaller
and darker than any other subspecies of
Heermann’s kangaroo rat. The average adult
weight is approximately 2.3 ounces, and the
average length is about 11 inches. The lack of a
complete hip stripe also distinguishes this animal
from other kangaroo rats.
Status:
The Morro Bay kangaroo rat is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat due to development, invasion of non-native plant species, disruption of natural disturbance patterns, and OHV use. The kangaroo rat is also threatened by predation by cats. The historic known distribution of this species was approximately 200 acres. If it still exists, it is believed to occur only on one small, privately-owned parcel of native vegetation. The most recent observations of the kangaroo rat date from the mid-1980s. A revised Draft Recovery Plan for the Morro Bay kangaroo rat was released in 2000 by the USFWS. The recovery plan was revised to allow captive breeding of the species if individuals are found.
The Morro Bay kangaroo rat is geographically isolated from other subspecies of the Heermann’s kangaroo rat. A mitochondrial DNA study of museum specimens conducted at San Francisco State University suggests recent origin of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat and that the historic population underwent at least one genetic bottleneck.
Researchers also found that historical populations of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat exhibited low genetic diversity
even prior to a population bottleneck that endangered the subspecies. A genetic bottleneck refers to a drastic reduction in the size of the original population, usually due to a catastrophic event, which reduces the gene pool of the species.
In 2002, San Luis Obispo County received a grant from the USFWS under the Service’s Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance and Land Acquisition Section 6 grant program. This grant will help initiate the development of an HCP which will cover 43,500 acres in the Estero area, the central coastal part of the county. Development of an HCP in this area will provide for a conservation strategy for covered species to address recovery needs and to allow for more flexible planning and implementation. This HCP will benefit several listed species including the Morro shoulderband snail and the Morro Bay kangaroo rat. Additional federal funding has been granted to conduct a two year field survey for the Morro Bay kangaroo rat and to estimate the genetic relatedness between the Morro Bay and Lompoc kangaroo rats. The Lompoc kangaroo rat has been used as a surrogate for the Morro Bay kangaroo rat to develop captive breeding protocols.
The DFG considered the Morro Bay kangaroo rat to be
Possibly Extirpated.
Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens
State: Endangered 1980
Federal: Endangered 1987
General Habitat:
Giant kangaroo rats require annual grassland and
shrub land habitats with sparse vegetative cover and
soils that are well drained, fine sandy loams with
slope generally less than 10 percent. Areas of low
annual precipitation and infrequent flooding are
preferred by this species for establishment of
permanent colonies. The historical range extended
from Merced County south to Kern County and west
to eastern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa
Barbara counties.
Description:
Giant kangaroo rats are small mammals with elongated
hind limbs for hopping and external cheek pouches
for carrying food to their burrows. The giant
kangaroo rat is the largest of all kangaroo rats and
weighs from 4.6 to 6.4 ounces. The total length is 12
to 13 inches, including a tail that is six to eight
inches. Giant kangaroo rats subsist almost entirely on the seeds of annual plants such as brome grasses and
filaree. The animals harvest, stack, and dry caches
of grasses and forbs near the entrance of their
burrows. Giant kangaroo rats inhabit a territory,
known as a precinct that averages 20 feet in
diameter where a shallow burrow system, about 12
inches deep, is constructed. Each kangaroo rat
maintains and defends an individual territory in a
colony that may consist of from two to thousands of
precincts.
Status:
The historical range of the giant kangaroo rat extended from Merced County south to Kern County and west to eastern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara counties. Populations were most numerous in areas with sparse vegetative cover and low annual precipitation. Today very little undisturbed suitable habitat remains. The loss of original habitat to agricultural conversion may be as much as 98 percent. Five relatively small areas totaling 12-square miles remain that support population densities typical of those existing prior to 1950.
In 1997, several population assessment studies confirmed that the giant kangaroo rat population had dramatically declined along with that of many other kangaroo rats in the southern San Joaquin Valley. At other locales such as the Elkhorn Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County the declines were not as severe. In 1998 and 1999 giant kangaroo rat numbers began to increase at the Elkhorn Plain study area. Genetics studies, initiated in 1993, continue on this and other kangaroo rat species, and are yielding valuable information that can be applied to recovery strategies for all endangered kangaroo rats.
In 1997, an additional research effort began at the Lokern Area in western Kern County to further investigate the role of livestock grazing on species and habitats on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley. However, few giant kangaroo rats have been caught on plots in the Lokern Study Area since the beginning of the study. Researchers did, however, capture the most individuals in any year of the study in 2002 when they caught three in each of two treatment plots (out of four). In addition, a colony of about 20 individuals was seen near one of these treatment plots. Although numbers have remained fairly low throughout the study, giant kangaroo rats have only been caught in plots grazed by cattle, never in any of the four ungrazed plots. In a separate study initiated by BLM in 1993 at a location about 3 km north of the Lokern Study Site, researchers have captured giant kangaroo rats twice a year since 1993. Population numbers were as high as 110 individuals caught in a six-night census when the study began, decreased to 0 for both sessions in 1998 (dense grass year), and has steadily increased back up to about 45-70 individuals caught in 2002/2003. Trends in population size seem correlated with the amount of grass cover: the less grass, the greater the number of giant kangaroo rats caught.
The conversion of native habitat to agricultural uses remains the greatest threat to the species. Ongoing studies, initiated in 1987 at the Elkhorn Plain, an area that is now included in the Carrizo Plain National Monument, which was established in 2000, indicate a healthy population that is reproducing well during years with adequate rainfall.
Researchers from the Endangered Species Recovery Program conduct giant kangaroo rat population censuses twice a year at the Elkhorn Plain study area.
The recovery options for the giant kangaroo rat are addressed, along with those for 33 other species of plants and animals, in the USFWS 1998
Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. The DFG is involved in several conservation efforts for the giant kangaroo rat. Some of the efforts include the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, the California Department of Corrections Electric Fence HCP, the Coles Levee area 2081 Agreement, and the Arco Western Energy HCP. Despite these conservation efforts, habitat loss remains the primary obstacle to recovery with only populations on established preserve lands secure for the foreseeable future.
The status in 2003 of the giant kangaroo rat:
Stable to Declining.
Stephen’s
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
State: Threatened 1971
Federal: Endangered 1988
General Habitat:
The Stephen’s kangaroo rat inhabits annual
grassland with sparse perennial vegetation in the
San Jacinto Valley and adjacent areas of
western Riverside and northwestern San Diego
County. Occupied habitats consist of sparse,
slightly disturbed coastal sage scrub, dominated
by California sagebrush or California buckwheat,
or annual grassland. The populations with the
highest densities have been found in areas
where the herbaceous layer still contains
California native annuals, and where perennial
plant cover is less than 30 percent. Stephens’
kangaroo rat occurs on level or low rolling
terrain with slopes of less that 30 percent
where gravel is a common component of the soil.
It is not found on extremely hard or sandy soils.
In general, the highest abundances of Stephens’
kangaroo rats occur on gentle slopes less than 15
percent.
Description:
Stephens’ kangaroo rat physically resembles all other kangaroo rat species in having long hind legs, small front legs and feet, brown upper parts, a white belly, and a long, tufted tail. There are five toes on the hind foot and the tail is 1.45 times the length of the head and body. Stephens’ kangaroo rat is distinguished from the sympatric agile kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ogilis) by a lateral white tail band that is one half or less (rather than one half or more) times the width of the dorsal tail stripe, dusky (rather than dark) soles on the hind feet, a comparatively grizzled appearance to the dorsal tail stripe due to many white hairs, a darker tail tuft due to few white hairs, a smaller ear, and a relatively broad head. The average adult Stephens’ kangaroo rat is 11 to 12 inches in length and weighs 23 ounces.
Status:
Stephens’ kangaroo rat is threatened by destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of its habitat through human and human-induced activities. Adverse impacts to kangaroo rat habitat result from clearing of land for urban and suburban development and for agriculture, water projects, military activities, wildland or prescribed fires, OHVs, livestock use, and invasion of non-native plant species. The Stephens’ kangaroo rat is restricted to Riverside County and adjacent northern-central San Diego County.
The USFWS released its draft recovery plan for the kangaroo rat in mid-1997. The document proposes that USFWS consider the kangaroo rat for reclassification to threatened status when four reserves totaling at least 15,000 acres of habitat occupied by the kangaroo rat in western Riverside County and one habitat reserve in San Diego County are “permanently protected, funded, and managed.” The USFWS would consider delisting the kangaroo rat when at least five habitat reserves in western Riverside County, totaling at least 16,500 acres of occupied habitat and two additional reserves in San Diego County are “permanently protected, funded, and managed.”
Stephens’ kangaroo rat populations at several reserves in Riverside County are being monitored through burrow counts and live-trapping. The kangaroo rat is the sole species addressed in the 1996 Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (SKR HCP), prepared by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. The HCP provides Take Authorization for the species within its boundaries. The West Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) provides Take Authorization for the kangaroo rat outside the boundaries of the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat HCP, but within the MSHCP boundaries. The core reserves established by the NCCP will be managed as part of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with the NCCP. Under the MSHCP, species conservation objectives include maintaining occupied habitat within the NCCP boundary; maintaining occupied habitat within the MSHCP Plan Area but outside of the HCP boundary; and maintaining a specified population density.
Approximately 22,400 acres of occupied sites and suitable habitat will be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area, 3,200 acres more than acreage conserved under the SKR HCP. The Conservation Area will conserve adequate representations of the older and younger populations with three of the core reserves containing the older populations and at least four of the core reserves containing the younger populations. In general, the largest and key populations of the Stephens’ kangaroo rats are centered within the larger core reserves in western Riverside County: 1) the San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Lake Perris-Badlands-Potrero Valley complex; 2) the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain-Steele Peak-Kabian Park-Sedco Hills complex; and 3) the Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley-Sage-Wilson Valley-Vail Lake-Aguanga-Anza Valley complex. Other important locations in the MSHCP Plan Area not in the existing Stephens’ kangaroo rat reserve include the Potrero Valley, Anza and Cahuilla valleys, and the Sage/Aguanga area.
Preserve configuration and connectivity within and between populations are essential to the long-term conservation of the species. Research has shown that the Stephen’s kangaroo rat is more sedentary than other species of kangaroo rat and that genetic exchange between populations of the species is restricted in fragmented habitat. Maintaining connectors between core areas is, therefore, critical to maintaining genetic exchange in the species. Because the kangaroo rat is relatively sedentary, these connectors should include functional habitat that can be permanently colonized. The preserve design envisioned under the MSHCP would include the three large core reserves in western Riverside County. Culverts under Highway 79 and Highway 60 in the first area allow kangaroo rat movement to habitat bisected by these highways. Culverts could be installed under Highway 74, a potential barrier to movement in the Lake Matthews habitat complex.
The Stephens’ kangaroo rat populations in the southeastern portion of the Plan Area probably have the best existing habitat connections, within contiguous habitat linking Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley, Sage, Wilson Valley, Lewis Valley, Vail Lake, Aguanga, Tule Valley and Anza Valley. Potential obstacles to movement between these areas are Sage Road, Highway 79 (between Temecula and Aguanga), and Highway 371. However, the rural character of this region will be preserved and it is expected that existing habitat connection function also will be preserved. Two core reserves that are, and probably will remain, functionally isolated from other reserves are the Motte-Rimrock Reserve and Sycamore Canyon-March Air Reserve Base. Existing land uses and high economic values in these areas preclude connecting these reserves to other large reserve areas.
In northern San Diego County, Stephens’ kangaroo rat occurs at Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook Naval Weapons Annex, Lake Henshaw, Santa Maria Valley (Ramona), and Guejito Ranch. Occurrences in grasslands adjacent to Guajome Lake and Pilgrim Creek and Ramona that the species could be more widespread in grasslands of San Diego County than was previously thought, but suitable habitat is mostly north and east of the MHCP plan area. Available habitat in San Diego County has been greatly reduced and fragmented through urban and agricultural development. Periodic disturbances that reduce shrub cover and increase cover by annual plants may improve habitat for this species. Only about 31% of the remaining grasslands in the MHCP area are expected to be conserved, and much if this occurs on clay soils unsuitable for burrow construction and in isolated areas that are too small to support viable populations of kangaroo rat. Nevertheless, Stephens’ kangaroo rat could potentially colonize grasslands or agricultural fields in Oceanside, in the vicinity of occupied habitat on Camp Pendleton and Fallbrook Navel Weapons Annex. The 2003 wildfires burned large areas of San Diego County, including approximately 19,000 acres (25%) of habitat suitable for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. Because Stephens’ kangaroo rats prefer low, sparse vegetation, compared to denser grassland or coastal sage scrub, the long-term effects of fire may be beneficial to the species.
Recent mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis found that the different geographic regions within the species’ range (northern, central and southern) differ genetically, with the central area having the greatest diversity of genetic lineages. The data indicate that genetic flow has been restricted among the different geographic regions of the species’ range. A notable finding was that genetic diversity of sample sites in the southern part of species’ range (Fallbrook, Camp Pendleton, Lancaster Valley, and Guejito) was much lower than the northern and central sample sites. This low diversity may indicate a possible population bottleneck that occurred during a recent range expansion in the southern region. The genetic characteristics of the Anza and Cahuilla valleys population are unknown.
Other conservation efforts involving this species include the Lake Mathews MSHCP, Pacific Gateway Homes HCP, and Ridge at Cresta Verde HCP. A previously unknown population of the kangaroo rat was discovered in the Ramona Valley, San Diego County in October 1997. It is not known if this species still inhabits extreme southwestern San Bernardino County.
At the end of 2002, the DFG considered the trend and status for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat to be Unknown.
Tipton
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides
State: Endangered 1989
Federal: Endangered 1988
General Habitat:
Tipton kangaroo rats are limited to arid land
communities of the valley floor in the Tulare Basin,
in level to nearly level terrain at an elevation of 200 to 300 feet. Woody shrubs such as spiny saltbush,
iodine bush, and mesquite are sparsely scattered
over the terrain with scant to moderate ground
cover of grasses and forbs. Soils are typically
fine-textured and alkaline.
Description:
The Tipton kangaroo rat is one of three subspecies
of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat (
Dipodomys
nitratoides). Tipton kangaroo rats are visually
similar to other kangaroo rats; they have a tawny
yellow head and back with a white belly and a white
stripe on the elongated hind legs that continue down
the sides of the otherwise black tail. Other
characteristics include: a large head, compared to
other rodents, with large eyes and small rounded
ears; small forelegs with strong claws; and a long,
tufted tail. Adult Tipton kangaroo rats weigh about
one to 1.3 ounces.
Status:
This subspecies originally occupied a range that included the Tulare Lake Basin in portions of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. This geographic range encompassed about 1.7 million acres. An estimate of historic population based on today's density data and the estimated extent of former range is about 17.2 million individuals. Currently, approximately 190,200 individuals, or about 1 percent, remain. The conversion of native habitat to agricultural, residential, and commercial developments and flooding remain the principal threats to this species.
The recovery options for the Tipton kangaroo rat are addressed in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species
of the San Joaquin Valley, California, completed in 1998. Proposed actions include establishment of habitat preserves and captive breeding and translocation of populations. Severe declines, beginning in 1994, affected all kangaroo rat populations, including Tipton, in the southern San Joaquin Valley. In 1998 and 1999 populations slowly returned to previous population levels of the early 1990s. As of 2003, the population levels of Tipton kangaroo rats are largely unknown but presumed to be still fairly low and vulnerable to further declines. Dense vegetation due to above average rainfall has had a negative impact on this and other kangaroo rat species. During wet years, kangaroo rat species may suffer from diseases precipitated by low food stores and seeds that are moldy.
The closely related short-nosed kangaroo rat (D. n. brevinasus) occurs at the Lokern grazing study area. Findings by researchers regarding the affects of cattle grazing on the short-nosed kangaroo rat may have application to the Tipton kangaroo rat. Short-nosed kangaroo rats have steadily increased in number since 1998, due in large part to the below-average rainfall experienced since 1999. Numbers of the species are now high across most of the Lokern Study Area. In 1999 and 2000 more short-nosed kangaroo rats were caught on the grazed plots compared to the ungrazed plots, but the lack of grass in both controls and treatments in recent years has masked any benefit we found from grazing. Higher than average level of rainfall is needed in future years to return the control sites to high grass cover. Once the control plots are grassy, researchers should be able to quantify the effect of cattle grazing on populations of short-nosed kangaroo rats.
The DFG is involved in several conservation efforts for Tipton kangaroo rat including the Kern County Valley Floor and Waste Facilities HCPs, Kern Water Bank HCP, Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, and the PG&E San Joaquin Valley HCP. Despite these conservation efforts, the species is in severe decline; extinction could occur if current levels of habitat loss continue into the future.
The status in 2003 of the Tipton kangaroo rat: Declining.
Fresno kangaroo rat Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
State: Endangered 1980
Federal: Endangered 1985
General Habitat:
The Fresno kangaroo rat occupies chenopod
scrub and grassland in the San Joaquin Valley.
The historic range of the Fresno kangaroo rat
extended from north central Merced County,
south through southwestern Madera and
central Fresno counties. Typical plants within
the species habitat include seep weed
, iodine
bush, saltbush, peppergrass, filaree, wild oats,
and foxtail fescue.
Description:
The Fresno kangaroo rat is one of three
subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat.
The Fresno kangaroo rat is the smallest of the
San Joaquin kangaroo rats with a total length
of nine inches, including a five-inch tail. Adults
weigh about one ounce. Their fur is dark
yellowish-buff on the back and white on the
stomach. A white stripe extends along the
flanks and on the sides of the tufted tail.
Status:
The current population distribution and population size are unknown. The species is critically threatened by loss of habitat and fragmentation throughout its range. Surviving populations are isolated and are likely small. The species is also threatened by flooding and the use of rodenticides within its range.
Demographic studies, initiated in 1993, are continuing to locate any extant populations of Fresno kangaroo rats.
Beginning in 1995 and continuing to 2003, fire management has been applied to the habitat supporting a small population of kangaroo rats on a small patch of habitat at the Lemoore Naval Air Station, Fresno County.
Additional study and management is planned; discussions are ongoing between land managers and researchers concerning the future management of larger tracts of land that may constitute suitable habitats at Lemoore NAS and at other locations within the range of the species in the San Joaquin Valley. Populations of Fresno kangaroo rats are suspected on certain private lands, but access to conduct the necessary surveys has not been granted.
The recovery options for the Fresno kangaroo rat have been addressed in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, completed in 1998. The recovery plan calls for establishment of additional habitat preserves and the possible captive breeding and translocation of populations of this species onto those secure refuges. The Fresno kangaroo rat may well be one of the most severely endangered mammal species in the State and drastic measures may be needed to save it from extinction in the next decade. One option that could be a step toward recovery of the species would involve the rehabilitation of deteriorated kangaroo rat habitat at the DFG Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve where the species was last reported in 1992. The ecological reserve once supported a moderate population of the species. With suitable habitat established, the area could be re-populated with captive-reared Fresno kangaroo rats. Similar recovery actions could be attempted at other locations within the range of this species.
The status in 2003 of the Fresno kangaroo rat:
Declining.
Salt-marsh
harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris
State: Endangered 1971
Fully Protected
Federal: Endangered 1970
General Habitat:
The salt-marsh harvest mouse is found only in
California, inhabiting tidal and nontidal salt marshes of Suisun, San Pablo, and central and south San Francisco
Bays. Its preferred habitat is dominated by
pickleweed although this species can occur in the upper marsh zone dominated by other salt-tolerant plants.
Description:
The salt-marsh harvest mouse has rich brown fur on its
back, underparts of cinnamon to buffy white, and a
unicolored tail. It is very similar in appearance to the western harvest mouse, a closely-related species,
which complicates identification of the salt-marsh
form in field studies. The salt-marsh harvest mouse
can tolerate quite salty food and water.
Status:
The salt-marsh harvest mouse is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat through human and human- induced activities. Of the 193,800 acres of tidal marsh that bordered San Francisco Bay in 1850, only about 30,000 remain. Parts of the East Bay shoreline are eroding. About 600 acres of former salt marsh along Coyote Creek, Alviso Slough, and Guadalupe Slough have been converted to fresh- and brackish-water vegetation due to freshwater discharge from South Bay wastewater facilities. This area may no longer support the salt-marsh harvest mouse. Adverse impacts to harvest mouse habitat have also resulted from filling of marshes to allow development, invasion of non-native cordgrass and other non-native species, and pollution from urban run-off, industrial discharges, and sewage effluent. The salt-marsh harvest mouse is likely subject to predation by the non-native red fox and non-native feral cat.
The USFWS is preparing a recovery plan for tidal-marsh species in the San Francisco Bay, including the salt- marsh harvest mouse. Determining the distribution and abundance of the mouse is one of the management goals of the San Francisco Estuary Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program (WRMP) Plan, the first version of which was released in June 2002. The mission of the WRMP, which is a product of the San Francisco Estuary Institute and wetland managers representing a variety of agencies including the DFG, “is to provide the scientific understanding necessary to protect, create, restore, and enhance wetlands of the San Francisco Bay Region, through objective and cost-effective monitoring, research, and communication.” Although the initial focus of the WRMP is on the tidal bay lands of the San Francisco estuary, the geographic scope of the WRMP is the entire estuary plus the watersheds that drain to the estuary within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
At the end of 2002, the DFG considered the population trend and status for the salt-marsh harvest mouse to be Unknown.
Amargosa vole Microtus californicus
scirpensis
State: Endangered 1980
Federal: Endangered 1984
General Habitat:
Habitat for the Amargosa vole consists of a
discontinuous, narrow band of small, permanent fresh-
water marshes along the Amargosa River of Inyo
County. Bulrush is the dominant overstory species.
Associated wetland species include cattail, saltgrass,
and willow. The vole may occur downstream in adjacent
San Bernardino County. The flooding of potential or
inhabited vole habitat during late summer thunder
storms and extended periods of winter rainfall
probably allow permanent vole occupation only in
marshes on the margins of the river’s floodplain.
Description:
This small mammal is pallid, neutral gray above, smoky
gray below, has a tail which is brown above and grayish below, and has feet of brownish gray. The
comparatively short tail, small rounded ears, short
legs, and compact, almost-cylindrical body shape
distinguish voles from other mouse-like rodents. It
differs from most other subspecies of California vole
by its brighter coloration. As with other voles in the genus
Microtus, the Amargosa vole probably is active
year round.
Status:
The Amargosa vole is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat through human and human-induced activities. Adverse impacts to vole habitat include groundwater pumping and water diversion, OHV use, cattle grazing, invasion by tamarisk and other non-native plants, and severe or prolonged flooding. Construction of the Tidewater-Tonopah Railroad and the Old Spanish Trail in the early 1900s, and development of springs in Shoshone and Tecopa, are believed to have fragmented or eliminated habitat that existed at that time. The vole is also subject to predation by the domestic cat from nearby human-occupied areas. The alien house mouse, found in marshes inhabited by this vole, may compete with the vole for food.
The USFWS prepared a Recovery Plan for this species in 1997. The Recovery Plan indicated that protection of extant wetland habitat and the water sources need to perpetuate these wetlands are critical to the survival and recovery of the Amargosa vole. Delisting criteria and species-specific management options were not proposed due to the lack of detailed biological information for the species.
An analysis of effect of habitat fragmentation and genetics of the Amargosa vole revealed a significant level of differentiation between populations from different marshes. Because the marshes occupied by the Amargosa vole are fragmented within the surrounding desert habitat, dispersal by the voles, and consequently genetic exchange between populations, is limited. The data obtained in this study suggested a relatively recent divergence of the Amargosa vole from closely related species, and that is is persisting along an independently evolving lineage. Such data can be used to guide conservation activities by identifying individual marshes that are critical to preserving the genetic diversity of the species.
The vole is a featured species in the planning effort for the Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan developed by the BLM, with considerable contribution by the USFWS and NPS. The BLM’s July 2002 proposed plan included the elements of the Recovery Plan, including preservation and management of its remaining habitat. The final plan was approved by the BLM in December 2002, as an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Plan of 1980. Although the planning team had considered an alternative plan that would have emphasized managing lands for recovery of the vole, desert tortoise, and other species, the team recommended a plan allowing less land devoted to such recovery. For the Amargosa vole, the final plan maintains the emphasis of the alternative in protecting the watershed of the Amargosa River. Both versions of the plan propose establishing an Amargosa River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The final plan identifies five areas along the river for potential implementation of a conservation strategy for the vole. Two of the areas are Areas of Critical Ecological Concern: the Grimshaw Lake Natural Area and the Amargosa Canyon Natural Area.
The final plan proposes identifying potential segments of the Amargosa River for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River system. The BLM anticipates purchasing approximately 2,600 acres of privately-held land containing currently-suitable and/or potentially-restorable habitat for the vole.
The DFG considers the population trend and status for the Amargosa vole to be Unknown.
Sierra Nevada
red fox
Vulpes vulpes
necator
State: Threatened 1980
Federal: None
General Habitat:
The Sierra Nevada red fox is known to inhabit
types of vegetation similar to those used by the
marten and wolverine. Sightings of the
subspecies have been reported from the 5,000
to 7,000 foot elevation range with extremes
placed at 3,900 feet in Yosemite Valley and
11,900 feet at Lake South America in the
southern Sierra Nevada. The range is described
as the southern Cascade Range in northern
California, southeastward to the northern Sierra
Nevada, and then south along the Sierra Nevada
crest to Tulare County. Preferred habitat for
the Sierra Nevada red fox appears to be red fir
and lodgepole pine forests in the sub-alpine, and
in the alpine of the Sierra Nevada.
Description:
The Sierra Nevada red fox, California's only
indigenous subspecies, is one of 10 recognized
North American subspecies of Vulpes. The
Sierra Nevada red fox is distinguished from
members of the introduced lowland population of
red foxes by its slightly smaller size and darker
colored fur.
Status:
The Sierra Nevada red fox inhabits remote areas of the State where chance encounters with humans are uncommon. It occurs at low densities throughout Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range of California.
Threats to the Sierra Nevada red fox are unknown.
The existence of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Peak region has provided an opportunity to conduct research to assist in the recovery of this threatened species and to increase our information base on the ecology of the subspecies. Fox populations have been confirmed in two proposed wilderness areas: Wild Cattle Mountain on the southern boundary of Lassen Volcanic National Park and in Heart Lake on the southwestern boundary of the park below Brokeoff Mountain.
Since 1997, the University of California at Berkeley, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Lassen National Forest, and the DFG has been conducting research on the Sierra Nevada red fox in Lassen Volcanic National Park. Research has included home range size and composition, habitat use for foraging and reproduction, seasonal movements between federal and private lands, diet, local density and spatial interactions with other sympatric carnivores such as coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus). Pilot studies were conducted in the summers of 1998 and 1999 and full-time research commenced in March 2000. In March 2000, researchers began a 30-month investigation of the basic ecology of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Peak region. Radio-collared animals were tracked using ground and aerial telemetry, and non-collared animals were detected by systematic photostation surveys. Of particular interest were data on seasonal and elevational movements of red foxes and relationship to prey availability and the presence of other carnivore species in the Park.
As of July 2001, five red foxes (one male and four females) had been radio-collared and tracked by telemetry.
Summer home ranges, primarily between June and October, averaged 2300 acres and had little overlap, suggesting territoriality. In winter, the foxes moved up to nine miles southward to lower elevations, returning to higher elevations once spring returned. The locations and characteristics of red fox rest sites and dens were recorded, and scats were collected for diet analysis. Photostations detected red foxes most often between 2100 and 0500 hrs.
The ongoing research is a spin-off of a study of the wolverine ( Gulo gulo), initiated in 1990, using remote,
automatic cameras for the first time in a large scale field investigation of a furbearer. That earlier study incidentally yielded the first documented photographs of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Park area.
Since then, additional remote-camera photographs of Sierra Nevada red foxes have been taken at that location in conjunction with the ongoing research of the subspecies. The techniques used in the wolverine study (i.e., baited stations with remote cameras) have shown promise for application to the study of several other carnivores including the Sierra Nevada red fox. Genetic samples taken from red foxes captured during this study are currently under analysis.
The current status of the Sierra Nevada red fox is unknown.
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis
mutica
State: Threatened 1971
Federal: Endangered 1967
General Habitat:
Kit foxes occur in the remaining native valley and
foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities
of the valley floor and surrounding foothills from
southern Kern County north to Los Baños, Merced
County. In addition, smaller, less dense populations
are thought to exist further north and in the
narrow corridor between Interstate 5 and the
Interior Coast Range from Los Baños to Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties. Portions of Monterey,
Santa Clara, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa
Barbara counties are also included in the range of
the San Joaquin kit fox.
Description:
The kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) is the smallest canid
species in North America. San Joaquin kit foxes
have an average body length of 20 inches, an
average tail length of 12 inches and stand about
nine to 12 inches at the shoulder. These slender-
built mammals are characterized by relatively long
legs and large, conspicuous ears. Adult males weigh
about five pounds, and adult females weigh about
4.6 pounds.
Status:
Currently, kit foxes occur in the remaining native valley and foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities of the valley floor and surrounding foothills from southern Kern County north to Los Baños, Merced County.
Distribution is spotty within this broad range. In addition, smaller, less dense populations are thought to exist further north and in the narrow corridor between Interstate 5 and the Interior Coast Range from Los Baños to Contra Costa County. Portions of Monterey, Santa Clara, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties are also included in the range of the San Joaquin kit fox. Studies and information from various sources indicate that a density of one kit fox per square mile in suitable habitat is a reasonable figure to use to estimate populations based on known acreage of habitat, although densities can range from less than one to over six foxes per square mile.
Loss of native habitat to various kinds of agriculture (e.g., cotton fields and vineyards), and residential and commercial developments remain the principal threats to this species. Several research projects funded by the DFG and studies by cooperators, begun in the mid-1990s and continuing to the present, are yielding more information about the habitat needs and biology of the kit fox. The recovery actions recommended for the kit fox are contained in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, which was completed in 1998. The kit fox is described as a keystone species (i.e., a species essential to the health of the natural community), and efforts to save habitat for this species will result in benefits to other endangered plant and animal populations.
Long-term ecological studies at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in western Kern County terminated several years ago following the sale of the Reserve to private interests in the late 1990’s. However, the landmark research that was conducted over a period of more than a decade is currently being published in a number of journal articles and will make valuable contributions to our understanding of the biology, ecology, and management of the species and its recovery. Considerable research activity has been initiated or continued for the kit fox in recent years. One study, started in 1997, examines the special case of the kit fox in the urban environment. Kit foxes have been captured, radio-collared and their movements monitored within the city of Bakersfield, Kern County. This field phases of this investigation of the demography and ecology of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments will continue through June 2004, and then data analyses and report and manuscript preparation will be conducted. Preliminary results have indicated that urban kit fox populations exhibit favorable demographic patterns, and that conservation of these populations could contribute to overall recovery efforts. The DFG has contributed funding, derived from federal sources, and support for this project.
Other studies on the San Joaquin kit fox include:
• An investigation of the effects of two-lane highways on San Joaquin kit foxes was initiated in 2001 and data collection will continue through June 2004. Results from this investigation will be used to develop strategies to mitigate road effects on kit foxes. Kit foxes are impacted by highways through direct road killing mortalities as well as indirectly through habitat loss and fragmentation effects.
• A study of the effects of livestock grazing and agricultural burning, as well as other farmland and ranchland activities on competitive interactions between San Joaquin kit foxes and coyotes was initiated in January 2003 and data collection will continue through June 2004. Results from this investigation will assist in developing habitat management strategies that may benefit kit foxes on these private lands.
• Research on the use of artificial den structures by San Joaquin kit foxes was initiated in May 2001 and data collection will continue through June 2004. Results from this investigation will be used to develop strategies to mitigate den loss and also to enhance den availability in areas where natural dens are a limiting factor for kit foxes. Escape dens help kit foxes avoid predation by coyotes and may provide secure sites for pup rearing.
• An investigation of strategies to facilitate survival of kit foxes crossing agricultural lands was initiated in 2001. This project is on-going, and represents a new approach to kit fox conservation in that it involves the establishment of a Safe Harbor Agreement with Paramount Farms. The DFG has contributed funding, derived from federal sources, for this effort.
• An investigation was completed in January 2003 on the efficacy of using search dogs and fecal DNA analyses as a non-invasive strategy for collecting demographic and ecological data on San Joaquin kit foxes. A doctoral dissertation and several manuscripts are being prepared that report the results of this effort. The technique proved to be useful where specially trained searchers were employed. Research confirmed Numerous locations throughout the historic range of San Joaquin kit foxes confirmed that populations still exist in western Kern County and the Carrizo Plain National Monument and along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley north to Santa Nella. Despite the extensive search effort, no kit fox sign was found along the west side from Santa Nella to Contra Costa County, or in Valley floor locations north of Kern County. One kit fox was observed in eastern Merced County.
Various other studies have been conducted with San Joaquin kit foxes to examine social ecology and range-wide genetic exchange, kit fox-red fox interactions, and kit fox use of agricultural lands. Several manuscripts for scientific journal publications and technical reports for these past and ongoing studies have been produced.
Protection for the kit fox is addressed in several conservation plans. Some examples of these plans include the Kern County Valley Floor and Waste Facilities HCPs, Kern Water Bank HCP, Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, and the PG&E San Joaquin Valley HCP. Despite these efforts, and other conservation efforts, San Joaquin kit foxes continue to decline throughout their range and are close to extinction in the northern most part of the range in Contra Costa and Alameda counties.
The status in 2003 of the San Joaquin kit fox:
Declining.
Island fox Urocyon littoralis
State Threatened 1971
Federal Endangered 2004
General Habitat:
The island fox occurs on the six largest California
Channel Islands, as follows: San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San
Clemente. The fox appears to use most habitat types
found on these islands.
Description:
This small fox has pepper-and-salt upper pelage with
underfur that is rufous or buffy in color, with a dorsal median black stripe ending in the black tip of the tail.
Faces are marked by distinctive black, white, and
rufous-colored patterns. At 12 to 13 inches in height
and 3 to 4 pounds, the island fox is about the size of a housecat. The island fox feed largely on insects, mice, and wild-growing fruits. They can live as long as 10
years, generally mate for life and give birth to litters of 2-5 pups in mid-April.
Status:
The island fox is endemic to the Channel Islands and is distributed as six genetically distinct subspecies, one on each of the six largest Channel Islands: San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente. On March 5, 2004 the Channel Island Fox of Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Catalina Islands were federally listed as endangered species. Fox populations on at least four of the six islands have experienced recent catastrophic declines – as much as 95% over 1994 population levels. The total island fox population is currently estimated at about 1300 individuals. This precipitous decline resulted in the island fox being listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Many experts fear the island fox could become extinct without implementation of recovery activities and intensive management.
The NPS released a recovery strategy for foxes on the northern Channel Islands in 2003. The island fox is threatened primarily by golden eagle predation. Loss and degradation of its habitat, a result of overgrazing by non-native animals, disease, and low natural recruitment also threaten this species.
Golden eagle predation is severely impacting the island fox, which has no native predator. Golden eagles first arrived on Santa Cruz Island, and then spread to San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands, in the 1990s. The first golden eagle nest was observed in 1999. Prior to that time, golden eagles were only occasional visitors to the Channel Islands. Feral pigs, introduced by early settlers on the islands in the 1850s, provide abundant year-round prey for the golden eagles, which now have established resident populations. The eagles also use the island fox as a prey species. The pigs adversely altered the native vegetation on the Channel Islands and restructured the food web.
The pigs, and other introduced non-native animals, have fragmented native vegetation and converted stands of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and oak woodlands to non-native annual grassland. The loss of plant species limits the native plant food sources available to the fox and reduces the numbers and availability of small animal prey species.
Loss of vegetation structure has eliminated cover for the island fox, increasing its vulnerability to predation.
Island fox populations have declined dramatically as a result of predation by golden eagle. Research has provided correlation between the establishment of eagles on the islands and the decline of the island fox. On Santa Cruz island, the population of 1500 - 2000 individuals in 1993 dropped to fewer than 100 individuals in the wild by 2003.
The cause of death in 21 of 29 foxes was due to golden eagle predation. On San Miguel Island, the first recorded fox mortality attributed to eagle predation was in 1995, the year in which the first golden eagle was sighted on the island. The San Miguel Island fox population showed dramatic decline, similar to that on Santa Cruz Island over the same time period, dropping from about 450 individuals to 39. A radiotelemetry study during 1998-1999 confirmed that golden eagle predation was the major cause of fox mortality on San Miguel Island. All but one of the 39 remaining foxes is now in captivity. Of the ~1700 foxes reported on Santa Rosa Island in 1994, 56 remain.
All 56 individuals are in captivity. Similar trends are seen on Santa Catalina Island (~1300 in 1994; 220 in 2003). A monitoring study of the San Nicholas Island population was begun in the summer of 2000. There are an estimated 734 animals in the wild. In an attempt to safeguard remaining foxes and augment natural reproduction, the entire wild populations of San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands and a portion of the populations of Santa Catalina and Santa Cruz islands were placed into captive breeding programs. Captive-breeding began on San Miguel Island in 1999, on Santa Rosa Island in 2000, and on Santa Cruz Island in 2002.
Possibly related to the influx of golden eagles is the decline and elimination of the bald eagle on the Channel Islands. The bald eagle occurred historically on the islands but disappeared by the 1960s as a result of egg- thinning caused by eating prey contaminated with DDT. Bald eagles nested on the perimeters of the islands near to their marine prey base. The bald eagle is highly territorial, and golden eagles were not resident on the Channel Islands when bald eagles were there in large numbers. Once the bald eagles were eliminated, a niche that could be occupied by another large raptor was available. NPS is reintroducing the bald eagle to the islands in conjunction with capturing the remaining golden eagles on the Channel Islands. The Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Group is working the USFWS, NPS, and TNC to remove golden eagles from the Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands.
They have removed 32 eagles and relocated them into suitable habitat in northern California. None of these eagles has returned to the Channel Islands according to telemetry data obtained from the released eagles. NPS estimates that six golden eagles, two pair and two lone eagles, remain on Santa Cruz Island. There were active nests on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands in 2003. Golden eagle predation on the island fox continues on Santa Cruz Island. The most recent eagle predation event occurred in November 2003.
The interactions between the golden eagle, bald eagle, feral pig, and island fox exemplify one of many challenges facing conservation biologists: how to protect a critically endangered species being impacted by another protected species. The proposal to removal golden eagles from the Channel Islands is not without controversy although capturing the remaining eagles is critical to the survival of the island foxes. Removal of feral pigs is part of a conservation plan prepared by NPS for Santa Cruz Island. The plan is based on the eradication of the island pigs with the goal of eliminating the eagles' prey base. Removal of the eagles must be concurrent with eradication of the feral pigs so that the eagles do not concentrate prey activities on the island fox.
Populations of the fox on the southern three islands have faced other threats. The San Clemente Island population (~1000 animals in 1994; 500-875 in 2003) has been impacted by a history of severe overgrazing, use of the island as a Navy bombing range, a widespread feral cat problem, and predator management activities to protect the island loggerhead shrike, another federally-listed species. In an attempt to offset fox predation of the shrikes, the Navy implemented control activities for non-native predators (black rat and feral cat), as well as for the island fox.
The Navy euthanized 13 foxes and shipped 15 foxes off the island to zoos. Euthanasia ceased in 1999.
Subsequently, foxes were captured and held in captivity while fledgling shrikes were vulnerable to predation.
Vehicle collisions are another source of fox mortality on San Clemente Island. On San Nicolas Island, vehicle collisions are the largest documented mortality source, with an average of 13 fox carcasses attributed to vehicle collisions recovered each year. The population on Santa Catalina Island was decimated by an outbreak of canine distemper in 1999-2000. The disease was likely introduced by an unvaccinated pet dog brought to the island. The Catalina Island Conservancy, with assistance from the Institute for Wildlife Studies, began a field vaccination program for wild foxes and a captive breeding program. The field vaccination program is part of a multifaceted recovery program initiated in 2000. According to Institute for Wildlife Studies, the wild population of foxes on Santa Catalina Island is estimated at about 220 adults.
Morphological and genetic variation within and among populations of island foxes has been studied by a number of researchers. The levels of variability found support differentiation of the island fox into subspecies. The genetic data shows that inter-island diversity is greater than intra-island diversity. Genetic evidence suggests that the island foxes descended from the gray fox on the California mainland during one colonization event that occurred approximately 10,000-16,000 years before present. The genetic studies have also revealed that the populations on San Miguel and San Nicholas Islands have the lowest genetic variability of the island fox populations. This lack of variability could be attributed either to extensive inbreeding or a genetic bottleneck resulting from low population densities. A genetic bottleneck refers to a reduced pool of genetic material usually due to a catastrophic event that reduces the size of the original population. The foxes on San Nicholas Islands have essentially no variability and their population consists largely of adult animals. Low levels of reproduction observed for the foxes on San Nicholas Island and in captivity may be due to such a bottleneck. Genetically, the foxes on San Miguel are most closely related to foxes on Santa Rosa Island. Populations on these islands also occur at such low population numbers that they are highly vulnerable to random extinction events. NPS has funded genetic studies on all foxes in the captive breeding program. The results are being used to ensure that interbreeding between closely-related animals does not occur and to maximize the limited diversity that does occur. Introduction of foxes to the captive breeding program from another island may be necessary to increase the genetic diversity of the San Nicholas and Santa Rosa Island foxes.
In 2001, DFG received funds to initiate a candidate conservation agreement for island fox on Santa Cruz Island.
This effort will include implementation of many of the actions included in the NPS recovery strategy. In 2002, the DFG used federal funds to help eliminate feral pigs from Santa Cruz Island. Six fenced enclosures will be built by TNC. Each enclosure will constitute a discrete management unit of about 12,000 acres. The DFG will manage public hunts within each enclosure to eliminate pigs.
DFG has participated in the Island Fox Conservation Working Group (IFCWG). The IFCWG is a team of experts convened by the NPS in 1999 and 2000 to recommend appropriate recovery actions for the island fox, The group is a loose affiliation of representatives of public agencies, landowners, conservancies, zoological institutions, non- profits, and academia concerned about conservation efforts for the island fox. Its initial purpose was to evaluate the status of island foxes on park lands and to make findings regarding appropriate recovery actions. Their focus later broadened to include all six subspecies. Individual working groups exchanged information on a variety of topics including captive breeding, veterinary care, and management of wild populations. They contributed to development of a recovery plan for the fox on the three northern islands.
The NPS released the recovery strategy for review in August 2003. Recovery strategy objectives are to remove mortality factors for all populations, augment fox populations through captive breeding, establish monitoring and management programs to protect the fox populations, and implement habitat restoration activities. The overall goal of the recovery strategy is to minimize the threat of extinction for the three subspecies of foxes under NPS jurisdiction. This recovery strategy can also be applied to the other islands. A Channel Island Fox Integrated Recovery Implementation Team was formed in 2004 and is currently working on developing a coordinated recovery implementation strategy. In the absence of active, intensive management based on the best available science, the island fox is in danger of extinction.
Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus
townsendi
State Threatened 1971
Fully Protected
Federal Threatened 1985
General Habitat:
The Guadalupe fur seal is a pelagic species most of the year, occurring in Pacific Ocean waters as far south as the Mexico/Guatemala border, and as far north as the
Point Reyes National Seashore in California. When
ashore, this seal occupies rocky caves and crevices and sandy beaches.
Description:
Guadalupe fur seals are medium-sized eared seals (Family Otariidae). They have dense gray-brown underfur
covered with course guard hairs that tend to bleach out on the head and shoulders of adult males. Their
appearance is very similar to the northern fur seal
(
Callorhinus ursinus) but the Guadalupe fur seal is
distinguished by a pointed muzzle. Males reach six feet in length and 350 pounds in weight, while females reach five feet in length and 100 pounds in weight. The
maximum life span is estimated to be 17 to 20 years.
Status:
Guadalupe fur seals were thought to be extinct in the late 1800's and early 1900's but in 1928, two fur seals were sighted at Isle de Guadalupe off the coast of Mexico. The major cause of the Guadalupe fur seal's decline was commercial hunting in the late 1700's and early 1800's. The species was exterminated in southern California waters by 1825. Commercial sealing continued in Mexican waters through 1894. The Guadalupe Fur Seal is included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals as Vulnerable. Potential threats to the seal include injury or mortality due to entanglement in gill nets. Although human-caused mortalities to the Guadalupe fur seal have not been reported in California waters since specific records were kept starting in 1983, similar information is not available for Mexican waters. Juvenile female Guadalupe fur seals have been found stranded in central and northern California with net abrasions around the neck, fish hooks and monofilament line, and polyfilament string.
Guadalupe fur seals breed on Isla de Guadalupe and Isla Benito del Este off the coast of Baja California, Mexico.
Mating occurs approximately one week after pups are born; females bear a sole pup. In 1997 one Guadalupe fur seal was born on San Miguel Island off the California coast. The population is considered to be a single stock because all are recent descendants from one breeding colony at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. The species has undergone an extreme genetic bottleneck; this reduction in genetic diversity may influence further population expansion.
Male seals are occasionally observed on rocky beaches of the southern Channel Islands. Little information exists on the diet or foraging behavior of this subspecies. However, it is believed that Guadalupe fur seals feed in deep waters on species of krill, squid, and small, schooling fish.
The most recent population estimate was made in 1993, and the estimate was 7,408 fur seals. Researchers estimate that the population is growing at a rate of approximately 14 percent. Mexican law fully protects the species and Guadalupe Island was declared a pinniped sanctuary by the Mexican government in 1975. The IUCN/SSC Seal Specialist Group recommended research to determine numbers and population limits for the Guadalupe Fur Seal, allowing an assessment of population status and development of conservation measures. No information is available for gillnet fisheries or related mortalities in Mexican waters.
The Status in 1997-1999 of the Guadalupe fur seal:
Increasing to Stable
Wolverine Gulo gulo
State: Threatened 1971
Fully Protected
Federal: None
General Habitat:
The wolverine is reported from a series of habitat
types within an elevation range of 1,600 feet to
over 14,000 feet. Based on the number of sightings
in California, habitat generally consists of open
terrain near or above timberline.
Description:
The wolverine resembles a small, short-legged bear
with a coarse shaggy coat and a bushy tail. The
coat is heavy and dark brown with two broad,
light-colored bands extending from the shoulder to
meet at the base of the tail. Wolverines typically
weigh 35 to 60 pounds and measure 35 to 45 inches
long, including a six to 10 inch tail. They stand
about 14 to 18 inches at the shoulder. Their jaws
are very powerful and are adapted to crush and
shear frozen meat and bones. Sexes appear similar
except that males are 25 to 35 percent larger than
females. Wolverines subsist on a variety of foods
including small- and medium-sized mammals, birds,
insects, berries, and fungi. Carrion, especially in the form of large ungulates, is believed to be an
important component of the diet, particularly during
winter.
Status:
Wolverines are often regarded as animals of high-elevation habitats; however, sightings collected by the DFG over the past several decades indicate that the species inhabits a variety of habitat types within an elevation range between 1,600 feet and 14,200 feet. The mean elevation of over 150 sightings in California is about 8,000 feet. Habitat generally consists of open terrain at or above timberline.
The present and historical ranges of the species are rather similar. The historic range encompassed an area from Mount Shasta in the southern Cascade Range south to Monache Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of Tulare County. Portions of the North Coast Range are also included in the historical range. No population density data are available on the wolverine in the State due to difficulties involved in studying such an elusive and far-ranging species. An estimate of 50 to 100 wolverines was made over 20 years ago based on available habitat and home range information from studies in other parts of North America.
Specific threats to the wolverine are unknown. No management plans for this species have been prepared, partly because of the difficulty in collecting data and limited financial resources. No State or federal land-use planning documents address the habitat needs of wolverines at the present time.
Individual research programs, being carried out primarily by USFS and university biologists, continue to place remote camera stations out each winter in an attempt to photograph wolverines. The technique works well with a variety of species, including wolverines in other states, and has been adapted to a variety of research objectives since the DFG’s initial attempts with wolverines. Although none have been recorded yet, the primary goal of the ongoing study remains to document the occurrence of wolverines in selected habitats within the suspected range by the use of remote sensor cameras associated with a carrion bait station. An ongoing study, begun in 1997 in Lassen Volcanic National Park, to locate and capture Sierra Nevada red foxes for radio telemetry may offer a further opportunity to incidentally photograph wolverines.
The status in 2003 of the wolverine:
Unknown.
Sierra Nevada
bighorn sheep
Ovis canadensis sierrae
(O. canadensis californiana)
State Threatened 1971
Endangered 1999
Fully Protected
Federal Endangered 2000
General Habitat:
The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is found on the eastern slopes of Sierra Nevada from alpine habitat down to Great Basin scrub. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep occur in five
distinct geographic areas along the Sierra Nevada that are defined, from north to south, as: Lee Vining Canyon, Mono County (reintroduced); Wheeler Ridge, Inyo County
(reintroduced); Mount Baxter, Inyo County (native); Mount Williamson, Inyo County (native); and, Mount Langley, Inyo County (reintroduced). Basic habitat requirements include open, rocky, and precipitous slopes that are important to sheep for detecting and evading predators. These bighorn sheep occur as high as 14,000 feet in the summer and
typically descend to lower elevations in the winter,
depending on severity of storms.
Description:
The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is one of two subspecies of mountain sheep found in California, and one of four
found in North America. Both males and females have
horns. The horns of males are massive and may grow to
full curl when viewed from the side, and horns of females are 10 to 12 inches long and rather goat-like in appearance.
Adult males may be 40 inches tall at the shoulder and
weigh 200 pounds. Females weigh approximately 140
pounds. Formerly called
Ovis canadensis californiana, the
accepted name for the species is now O. canadensis
sierrae.
Status:
Action was taken in 1999 by the California Fish and Game Commission to list Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) as endangered under the State endangered species act. In addition, it was listed as endangered under the Federal endangered species act the same year. Listing under the Federal act became permanent in 2000. Those actions were taken in response to a significant decline in the population, from an estimated 310 individuals in 1985 to an estimated 100 individuals in 1999. Causes of the decline remain uncertain, but may have included predation, changes in habitat use, severe winters, and accidental deaths.
The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is one of the most endangered subspecies of large mammals in North America.
Because of this, and concomitant high levels of public concern, the Department of Fish and Game was provided funding through a member’s legislative request to implement a recovery program for these sheep. That funding allowed the Department to establish a long-term, comprehensive population recovery program. Elements of the recovery program include intensive population monitoring, reducing mortality, reestablishing additional populations in historical range of the species, and preparing for, and potentially implementing, captive breeding as a means to ensure the availability of translocation stock to increase populations and geographic distribution. Funding for the recovery program has since become part of the Department’s budget base. Continued monitoring of all bighorn sheep populations in the Sierra Nevada remains a high priority, and recovery will be dependent upon continued availability of monies for this important conservation effort. Since the recovery effort was initiated, the number of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep has increased to an estimated 300 individuals.
The status in 2003 of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: Increasing.
Peninsular
bighorn sheep
Ovis canadensis
cremnobates
State Threatened 1971
Federal Endangered 1998
General Habitat:
Peninsular bighorn sheep inhabit dry, rocky, low-
elevation desert slopes, canyons, and washes from
the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains near
Palm Springs, California south into Baja California,
Mexico. Mountains in this geographic area
collectively are referred to as the Peninsular
Ranges. Bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges
seldom occur above 4,000 feet. Proximity to
sources of standing water such as springs, creeks,
and oases are also important elements of their
habitat.
Description:
Males and females both have horns; those of males
are curled but those of females are slightly curved
and are goat-like in appearance. Adult males can
weigh in excess of 200 pounds, and females weigh
approximately 125 pounds.
Status:
Bighorn sheep inhabiting the Peninsular Ranges were recognized originally as a distinct subspecies (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), but recently have been assigned to O. c. nelsoni. State-listed threatened status remains for the bighorn sheep occupying the Peninsular Ranges, and sheep in that area were listed in 1998 as an endangered population segment under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In listing the Peninsular bighorn sheep as endangered, the USFWS determined that the sheep are in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of their range due to disease, insufficient lamb recruitment, habitat loss, habitat degradation and fragmentation by urban and commercial development, and predation coinciding with low population numbers. The greater bighorn sheep population in the Peninsular Ranges is considered a metapopulation; each ewe group, or subpopulation, is essential for the survival and recovery of the overall population.
Loss of winter forage sites and lambing sites, off-highway vehicle use within the range of the species, impacts to water sources, overgrazing by cattle and domestic sheep, exposure to diseases of domestic livestock, and the spread of rangeland weeds have adversely affected these animals. Habitat fragmentation, often a result of human encroachment into native habitat, restricts the sheep to small or isolated areas, limits movement of the sheep between subpopulations (referred to as ewe groups), and results in genetic isolation. Since 1970, metapopulations of bighorn sheep have experienced additional fragmentation as a result of the expansion of the interstate highway system in southeastern California. Some reestablishment of populations has occurred since then via translocation. In the 1990's, heavy mountain lion predation in conjunction with lowered lamb recruitment rates suppressed bighorn populations. Although a healthy bighorn population can withstand predation, a population debilitated by low survivorship and disease is often not able to survive additional threats.
The impacts of human encroachment into bighorn sheep habitat have been well documented in the preparation of the Coachella Valley MSHCP. Hiking trails located in bighorn habitat and vehicular use in proximity to the sheep have resulted in sheep avoidance of areas normally used. When golf courses and residential developments have been located within Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, some ewe groups have become habituated to foraging in urban areas. Foraging around dwellings is especially problematic during the warm season when native food plants dry out and become less palatable. At least five bighorn sheep apparently died after eating toxic ornamental plants in the Coachella Valley (oleander has been implicated), and intestinal nematode parasites have been detected in bighorn sheep that graze regularly on lawns. Bighorn sheep at the urban interface are also threatened by domestic dogs, automobiles, and drowning. For example, a six-year study conducted by the Bighorn Institute, a conservation and research group working with USFWS, BLM, and DFG, showed that urbanization accounted for 34% of the adult bighorn mortalities in the Coachella Valley area. Over a three-month period, law enforcement officers and Bighorn Institute personnel herded groups of bighorn sheep off Highway 111 over 24 times.
The Coachella Valley MSHCP Plan Area supports four of the eight subpopulations, or ewe groups, of the Peninsular bighorn sheep metapopulation. Each ewe group is designated by the name of the area in which they occur: the San Jacinto Mountains group, the northern Santa Rosa Mountains group, the southern Santa Rosa Mountains group, and the Deep Canyon group. These ewe groups form the basis for the four recovery regions in the federal recovery plan. The Plan ensures conservation of habitat and connectivity among the four areas through conservation of 168,350 acres of essential habitat (97%). Three conservation areas will protect essential habitat for the bighorn sheep: Cabezon Conservation Area, Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. Special measures will be implemented in these areas to ensure protection of bighorn during lambing season and to minimize human impacts on bighorn habitat.
In 1997, a working group was formed to collaborate on a federal recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. The working group included representatives from the DFG, DPR, BLM, USFWS, USFS, University of California, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Bighorn Institute, and the Zoological Society of San Diego.
Following listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep in 1998, the working group was reorganized as a recovery team.
In 2000, the
Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges was completed, and currently is being implemented. The primary charge of the recovery team is to advise the USFWS with respect to actions that will conserve and maintain bighorn sheep in viable numbers through the application of scientifically based management decisions.
Critically important to the long term survival of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, and in California in general, is the maintenance of "connectivity" between areas occupied by subpopulations, which facilitates emigration and immigration and, thereby, gene flow and opportunities to colonize vacant habitat. In 1994, the number of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges was estimated at 360 adults, distributed among eight distinct population segments. Subsequent surveys have yielded population estimates that suggest an upward trend in numbers. In 2002, the total number of bighorn sheep occupying the Peninsular Ranges was estimated to be 670.
Population assessments from ground monitoring and aerial surveys will continue as part of the recovery effort.
Long-term monitoring provides information on the ecology of the sheep and documents habitat use, nutritional levels, disease exposure, nursing rates, survival rates, and causes of death.
In 2001, the Federal Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund was been used to protect one particular ewe group in the Coachella Valley. These grants are authorized by Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act and enable states to work with private landowners, conservation groups, and other agencies to initiate conservation planning efforts and acquire and protect habitat to support the conservation of threatened and endangered species. The Northern Santa Rosa ewe group was most impacted by the urban environment where its home range corresponds to the boundaries of the City of Rancho Mirage. This ewe group declined considerably from its historic levels in the 1970's. Given high levels of mortality, it was unlikely that the Northern Santa Rosa ewe group would survive without intervention. The City of Rancho Mirage, USFWS, DFG, and the Recovery Team agreed that a barrier fence along the wildland/urban interface would be the solution to the high mortality rates experienced by the Northern Santa Rosa ewe group. Funding was used to acquire a key parcel, thereby facilitating fence construction. Additional acquisitions under this fund are proposed.
The status in 2003 of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges is increasing.
5-YEAR REVIEW
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Species: San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica)
Date listed: March 11, 1967
FR citation: 32 FR 4001
Classification: Endangered
Most recent status review:
The most recent status review of the San Joaquin kit fox was a 5-year review completed by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office in 2010 (Service 2010).
Methodology used to complete the review:
In accordance with section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the purpose of a 5-year review is to assess each listed species to e valuate whether or not the species’ status has changed and it should be classified differently or removed from the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO) conducted a Species Status Assessment (SSA) and developed an SSA report on the San Joaquin kit fox (Service 2020) which was used to inform this 5-year review. The SSA report represents our evaluation of the best available scientific information, including the habitat and demographic needs and the current and future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox. Independent peer reviewers reviewed the SSA report.
FR Notice citation announcing this status review:
A notice announcing the initiation of the 5-year review for this taxon and the opening of a 60- day period to receive information from the public was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2019 (84 FR 36116; Service 2019). We did not receive any responses to our request for comments.
REVIEW ANALYSIS
Updated Information and Species Status
A summary of new information included throughout the SSA report is included in Chapter 1.
The SSA report provides a summary of the factors influencing viability of the species, management and conservation measures, and current status of the species in Chapter 3, and projects potential future condition of the species under three plausible scenarios in Chapter 4.
The SSA report provides an analysis of the current and future condition of 16 geographic analysis units throughout the current range of the species. A summary of species viab ility is presented in Chapter 5.
Threats
The final listing rule did not include an analysis of threats to the San Joaquin kit fox; however, information available at the time of listing, and summarized in the 2010 5-year review (Service 2010), identify the following threats: the conversion of habitat to agriculture and industrial
2 development (Factor A); overutilization due to furbearer trapping (Factor B); competition (Factor C); pesticide use (Factor E); vehicle-caused mortality (Factor E); and accidental shooting by night-hunters (Factor E). Threats identified in the 2010 5-year review include: habitat loss and modification due to agricultural conversion, infrastructure construction, urban development, energy development, mining activities, changes in wildfire prevalence, changes to vegetation structure, and poor grazing regimes (Factor A); predation (Factor C); pesticide use (Factor E); vehicle-caused mortality (Factor E); selenium accumulation (Factor E); off-road vehicle use (Factor E); effects associated with small population size (Factor E); climate change (Factor E); and research-related activities (Factor E). Current or potential future threats to the San Joaquin kit fox include: habitat fragmentation and development due to agricultural production, urban development, and energy development (Factor A); predation (Factor C); disease (Factor C); pesticide use (Factor E); road mortality (Factor E); and climate change (Factor E).
Distribution and Abundance
As described in Chapter 3 of the SSA report, there are no current rangewide survey data available for the San Joaquin kit fox. A patchwork of survey results and data from the California Natural Diversity Database indicate populations have persisted throughout the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley south of San Luis Reservoir to the Buena Vista Valley, in the Panoche and Cuyama Valleys, and Carrizo Plain. Populations also continue to persist in the central portion of the Valley around Kern NWR and Semitropic Ecological Reserve, in Bakersfield, and in the southeastern portion of the Valley north to Porterville. Data from northern portions of the range show an absence from those areas recently (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020); however, r ecent survey efforts have been opportunistic and do not likely cover all of the available habitat.
Cypher et al. (2013) calculated that a population of 3,616 foxes might currently remain within the species range; however, this number may over-estimate the effective population size. Prior to the sarcoptic mange epidemic, the Bakersfield population appeared to be stable or expanding with a population of 200–400 animals (Cypher and Van Horn Job 2012), making it one of the largest remaining populations. However, this population is currently undergoing a severe decline.
San Joaquin kit foxes can exhibit significant population size variability. Most of the populations in natural areas fluctuate regularly depending on environmental conditions, particularly extremes of rainfall that have effects on prey species. Because of this, measuring changes in occupied areas through surveys has been a more effective way of assessing long-term populations viability rather than population numbers.
Recovery Criteria
Recovery Plan: Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (1998)
The Recovery Plan has downlisting and delisting criteria related to three main components:
protected habitat, management plans, and population density (Table 1).
3 Table 1. Downlisting and delisting recovery criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox (Service 1998) Recovery
Step
Secure and protect specified
recovery areas from incompatible
uses
Management Plan approved
and implemented for recovery
areas that include survival of
the species as an objective
Population monitoring in
specified recovery areas
shows
Downlist The three core populations, Carrizo
Na tural Area , western Kern County,
and Ciervo-Panoche Area; three
sa tellite populations
For all protected areas identified
a s important to continued
survival
Sta ble or increasing
populations in the three core
areas through one precipitati on
cycle; population interchange
between one or more core
populations and the three
sa tellite populations
Delist Severa l a dditional sa tellite
populations (number dependent on
results of research) encompassing as
much as possible of the envir onmental
a nd geographic variation of the
historic geographic range
For all protected areas identified
a s important to continued
survival
Sta ble or increasing
populations in the three core
areas and three or more of the
sa tellite a reas during one
precipitation cycle
Our SSA analysis indicated that the criterion related to population growth is not met; the criterion related to habitat protection is partially met, and the criterion for management plans is partially met. Details are provided in Chapter 3 of the SSA report. In summary, the downlisting criteria for the species are not met.
Synthesis
At the time that the San Joaquin kit fox was listed, the conversion of native habitat to agriculture was considered to be the primary threat to species. Habitat loss and the degradation of remaining habitat continue to be primary threats to the species’ recovery. After reviewing the best available scientific information and comparing current and future condition with the recovery criteria for the species, we conclude that the San Joaquin kit fox remains an endangered species.
RESULTS
Recommended Classification:
____ Downlist to Threatened
____ Uplist to Endangered
____ Delist (Indicate reasons for delisting per 50 CFR 424.11):
____ Extinction
____ Recovery
____ Original data for classification in error
__X_ No change is needed
New Recovery Priority Number: No change
The Service has determined that the current recovery priority number (3C) should remain unchanged. The current recovery number, "3", indicates that the taxon is a subspecies that faces a
4 high degree of threat as well as a high potential for recovery. The “C” indicates conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS
x The 1998 Recovery Plan identified core and satellite areas where subpopulations of San Joaquin kit fox occur. However, baseline mapping and quantification of the extant habitat remaining in each core and satel lite area at the time of Recovery Planning has not yet been completed. Mapping efforts that quantify the acreage of suitable/native habitat and altered or degraded habitat in core, satellite, and linkage areas at 1) the time of the 1998 Recovery Plan, and 2) the current time, will assist the Service and other conservation entities in prioritizing conservation strategies and in determining progress in meeting recovery goals for protection of core and satellite areas. The locations, acreage, and quality (or characteristics) of protected habitat could also be compiled and mapped. x Studies that assist in determining the population-level effects of contaminants, including first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, on San Joaquin kit fox or surrogate species are needed. Studies that test correlations between rodenticide use and San Joaquin kit fox population parameters, measure sublethal effects on behavior, or quantify rodenticide/pesticide effects on availability of prey in relation to the energetic needs of the San Joaquin kit fox would provide information useful to recovery actions. x Focus land acquisitions on the establishment of large blocks of land (at least 10,000 acres in size) on the San Joaquin Valley floor and western fringes. Such large parcels are critical to supporting sustainable populations of San Joaquin kit fox for long-term conservation, and should be linked with protected broad dispersal corridors. These acquisitions are most likely to aid San Joaquin kit fox recovery if they build on existing protected lands to achieve larger expanses of protected land, if acquired lands possess the vegetative structure and native prey base that are associated with thriving San Joaquin kit fox populations, and if acquired lands are not isolated from extant populations of either the San Joaquin kit fox or its prey species. Large holdings of native habitat are also expected to be less suitable for coyotes and red fox that are responsible for high levels of San Joaquin kit fox mortality. In limited circumstances, lands no longer suitable for agriculture, such as those targeted for land retirement, may be restored and conserved through fee title acquisition, conservation easement acquisition, or conservation banking arrangements from willing sellers or participants. However, on suboptimal habitat, conservation planning should recognize the lag times inherent in restoration of the ecological community needed to support the San Joaquin kit fox. Linkages will be most effective in contributing to San Joaquin kit fox recovery where they link to habitat that retains the characteristics needed to sustain resident populations. x A rangewide census of San Joaquin kit fox should be conducted using a statistically robust methodology. Collaboration with U.S. Geological Service on methods that u tilize occupancy models may be a promising approach, but needs additional consideration.
Some biologists have suggested that more northerly satellite areas and/or linkages have become population sinks for the San Joaquin kit fox and this possib ility merits further study to determine what factors contribute to population status in these areas, and how
5 these factors may be altered to promote range-wide recovery. x Sarcoptic mange (Sarcoptes scabei) has been documented in the Bakersfield kit fox population and a recent outbreak is currently causing a population decline (Deatherage 2020). Current efforts to control and contain sarcoptic mange should continue to be implemented to limit the effect of the outbreak and suppress the spread of the disease within and outside of the Bakersfield population. In addition, research on more effective treatment options and mite control techniques are needed.
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2020). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Government version dated June 1, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx .
Cypher, B.L., and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2012. Management and conservation of San Joaquin Kit Foxes in urban environments. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 25:347– 252.
Cypher, B.L., S.E. Phillips, and P.A. Kelly. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes: Conservation implications. Canid Biology & Conservation 16:25–31.
Deatherage, N.A. 2020. Urban Landscape Attributes and Intraguild Competition Affect San Joaquin Kit Fox Occupancy and Spatiotemporal Activity. Master’s Thesis. Department of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield. 114 p. (Service) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews for 58 Species in California, Nevada, and the Klamath Basin of Oregon. Federal Register 84(144): 36116 – 36118. (Service) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica) Version 1.0. August 2020. Sacramento, CA.
6 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
5-YEAR REVIEW of San Joaquin kit fox
Current Classification: Endangered
Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review :
____ Downlist to Threatened
____ Uplist to Endangered
____ Delist
__X_ No change needed
FIELD OFFICE APPROVAL:
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
Approve _________________________________________ Date _________
MICHAEL SENN
Digitally signed by MICHAEL SENN
Date: 2020.09.11 16:55:12 -07'00'
Species Status Assessment Report
for the
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
Photo by Tim Ludwick
Version 1.0
August 2020
ii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for providing substantial information and insights for our SSA Analysis: Brian Cypher (Endangered Species Recovery Program, CSU-Stanislaus), Dave Hacker (CDFW), and the Participants of the 2019 SSA Workshop.
Prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife USFWS
August 2020
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1967, because of increasing threats of habitat loss. The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is the largest subspecies of kit fox (Vulpes macrotis). The San Joaquin kit fox’s range is restricted to the San Joaquin Valley in south-central California, as well as the Carrizo Plain, Panoche Valley, and adjacent smaller valleys in the Coast Range. The preferred habitat of the San Joaquin kit fox is native, sloping annual grassland with sparse vegetation (Cypher 2006, pp. 1–2).
This report summarizes the results of a species status assessment (SSA) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) completed for the San Joaquin kit fox. To assess the species’ viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3 R’s). These principles rely on assessing the species at an individual, population and species level in order to determine whether the species can maintain its persistence into the future and avoid extinction by having multiple resilient populations distributed widely across its range. The species occurs across much of its historical range which corresponds to the areas identified in recovery criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox in the 1998 Upland Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998), although kit fox have not been documented in portions of the range in over 10 years. There are 16 geographic units where the species can be found, representing the breadth of the historical range of the species. These regions are based on the units from the 1998 Upland Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998, p. 132–134) and 2010 5-year Review (USFWS 2010b, p. 12). For this SSA, resiliency of the San Joaquin kit fox was assessed at the geographic unit as a surrogate for the population level. Data on long-term occupancy of these known sites suggest that San Joaquin kit foxes still have relatively high resiliency in much of the southern and western portion of the San Joaquin Valley, despite frequent and sometimes extreme population fluctuations. For the San Joaquin kit fox, resiliency was assessed using information on occupancy, population trend, connectivity, prey availability, terrain slope, and native habitat.
Our analysis of the past, current, and future influences on San Joaquin kit fox needs for long-term viability revealed that there are several factors that contribute to the current condition and pose a risk to the future viability of the species. These risks, or stressors as we call them in this document, include habitat modification or destruction, climatic variability, rodenticide use, predation, and disease. Under current conditions, we determine the San Joaquin kit fox has 3 geographic analysis units in high condition, 5 units in moderate condition, and 3 units in in low condition. Five of the analysis units were in very low condition. The condition of a unit characterizes the probability that San Joaquin kit foxes will continue to persist. High condition equates to a high likelihood of continued persistence, while low condition equates to an increased risk of extirpation.
The influences to viability described above play a large role in the future resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the San Joaquin kit fox. If geographic units lose resiliency, they are more vulnerable to extirpation, which results in losses of representation and redundancy for the species ultimately reducing viability. The rates at which future stressors might act on specific regions and the long-term efficacy of the current conservation actions are unknown. Therefore, we forecasted how possible future conditions could impact the resiliency, redundancy, and representation and overall condition of the San Joaquin kit fox. In order to assess future condition, we have developed three future, plausible scenarios. The following is a description of these future scenarios, the status of the San Joaquin kit fox when analyzed under each scenario, and a summary of the assumptions we made under each scenario:
iv
Scenario 1 assumes that there will be warm and wet conditions (CNRM-CM5, RCP 4.5). We assume under this emission and global circulation scenario that increased precipitation and frequency of extreme weather events will lower habitat suitability for the species. Under a warm and wet scenario we expect an increase in herbaceous vegetation that may reduce overall habitat availability. However, we assumed that populations on protected lands with habitat management plans will have grazing or other management activities that will counteract the increases in vegetation in some cases. In addition to changes in habitat suitability, we expect an increase in drought years. Drought years are associated with decreased reproduction, presumably because of decreases in prey availability or other factors. Development and land conversion continues in this scenario at current rates, which continues to negatively impact San Joaquin kit fox populations on unprotected lands by decreasing the size and connectivity of suitable habitat.
Under the conditions described in this scenario, we projected that the species would have zero populations in high condition, 7 populations in moderate condition, 3 populations in low condition, and 6 populations in very low condition. Management on protected lands is particularly important on the edges of the species range where populations are small and climate effects compound existing threats. As population resiliency is lowered across the species range, redundancy and representation are also reduced for the species. In particular, the prediction that all populations outside of the Carrizo Plain and Western Kern core areas are in low or very low condition and that connectivity will continue to decline results in a decrease in representation across the species.
Scenario 2 assumes that there will be hot and dry conditions (MIROC-ESM, RCP 8.5). We assume under this emission and global circulation scenario that decreased precipitation and increased extreme weather events will influence habitat for the species. We again assumed that increased drought years will limit reproduction for the species, however this may be offset by increases on overall habitat suitability and prey abundance. Although we expect an increase in fallowed agriculture lands, this has uncertain conservation value for the species and we do not expect this to contribute to habitat for the kit fox without specific recovery actions. Although a drier climate tends to point toward an increase in suitable habitat for the species, it is unlikely that the species will expand into any new areas without restoration and/or other recovery actions. Instead, we project in this scenario that development continues at its current rate, reducing habitat size and connectivity for populations in unprotected areas.
Under the conditions described in this scenario, we projected that the species would have 3 populations in high condition, 4 in moderate condition, 4 in low condition, and 5 populations in very low condition. Under this scenario decreases in habitat due to development are somewhat offset by increasing habitat suitability and, thus, representation and redundancy remain similar to the current condition.
Scenario 3 makes the same climate assumptions as in Scenario 2: hot and dry conditions and increased droughts. However, in this scenario we assume that there will be aggressive restoration of fallowed agricultural lands, particularly in the central portion of the species range. We assume that development will continue in the San Joaquin Valley, reducing habitat size and connectivity for some populations, but that restoration will increase the condition for these two factors in some locations. v
Under the conditions described in this scenario, we projected that the species would have 6 populations in high condition, 5 in moderate condition, 1 in low condition, and 4 in very low condition. This is the most optimistic of our future scenarios.
The projected conditions under all scenarios rely on continuation of management activities in protected lands. The importance of habitat management is especially important under the warm and wet climate projection, but we emphasize that management is important under all potential climate projections. The main difference between outcomes of the scenarios depends on the implementation of strategic restoration of fallowed agricultural lands. The current emphasis on strategic land restoration and recovery for upland species in the San Joaquin Valley increases the likelihood of implementation of the restoration projections associated with Scenario 3.
vi
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Petition History and Previous Federal Actions ............................................................................. 10
1.2 The Species Status Assessment Framework .................................................................................. 11
1.3 Summary of New Information ..................................................................................................... 12
1.4 Uncertainties and Assumptions .................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2. Species Ecology and Needs ......................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Taxonomy and Genetics ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Species Description ............................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Range of the San Joaquin Kit Fox ....................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Species Ecology .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.4.1 Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Diet ............................................................................................................................................. 18
2.4.3 Reproduction and Lifecycle ......................................................................................................... 19
2.4.4 Survivorship ................................................................................................................................ 19
2.4.5 Den Use and Home Range .......................................................................................................... 20
2.4.6 Metapopulation Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 21
2.5 San Joaquin Kit Fox Needs................................................................................................................. 22
2.5.1 Individual Needs .......................................................................................................................... 22
2.5.2 Population Needs ........................................................................................................................ 23
2.5.3 Species Needs .............................................................................................................................. 25
2.5.4 Summary of Species Needs in Terms of the 3Rs .......................................................................... 26 Chapter 3. Historical and Current Condition ................................................................................................ 26
3.1 Historical Distribution and Abundance ........................................................................................... 27
3.2 Distribution and Abundance ........................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Analysis Units .............................................................................................................................. 30
3.3 Stressors Affecting the Species’ Condition .......................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Land Development ...................................................................................................................... 32
3.3.2 Climate Variability ....................................................................................................................... 37
3.3.3 Pesticide Use................................................................................................................................ 40
3.3.4 Predation ..................................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.5 Disease ........................................................................................................................................ 42 vii
3.3.6 Road Mortality ............................................................................................................................. 42
3.3.7 Existing Regulation ...................................................................................................................... 44
3.4 Analysis of Current Condition ............................................................................................................ 47
3.4.1 Uncertainty of Current Condition Analysis .................................................................................. 53 Chapter 4. Future Condition ........................................................................................................................ 54
4.1 Factors Influencing Future Viability.................................................................................................... 54
4.1.1 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 54
4.1.2 Habitat Modification and Destruction .......................................................................................... 55
4.1.3 Strategic Land Retirement and Restoration .................................................................................. 56
4.1.4 High Speed Rail ........................................................................................................................... 56
4.2 Future Scenarios ................................................................................................................................. 56
4.2.1 Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................................... 57
4.2.2 Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................... 58
4.2.3 Scenario 3 .................................................................................................................................... 58
4.3 Analysis of Future Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 58
4.3.1 Future Condition Uncertainty ...................................................................................................... 60 Chapter 5. Species Viability .......................................................................................................................... 61
5.1 Resiliency ........................................................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Redundancy ........................................................................................................................................ 62
5.3 Representation .................................................................................................................................... 62
5.4 Synopsis of Viability ........................................................................................................................... 63 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................ 64 Personal communication .............................................................................................................................. 74
viii
Figures
Figure 1. The three phases (blue boxes) of the SSA Framework used to guide this analysis. .......................... 11 Figure 2. San Joaquin kit fox. Photo taken while conducting spotlight surveys ............................................. 14 Figure 3. Historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox. .................................................................................... 16 Figure 4. An example of San Joaquin kit fox habitat within the Carrizo Plain National Monument. .............. 18 Figure 5. General overview illustration of how resiliency, redundancy, and representation influence what a species needs for viability. ............................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 6. San Joaquin kit fox lifecycle diagram. ............................................................................................. 23 Figure 7. Core Conceptual Model showing the needs for San Joaquin kit fox population resiliency. ............. 25 Figure 8. San Joaquin kit fox occurrence map. .............................................................................................. 29 Figure 9. Geographic Analysis Units across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox. ............................. 31 Figure 10. Modeled suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. ................................................................... 33 Figure 11. Land protection across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox. ........................................... 39 Figure 12. Core conceptual model showing the stressors and needs for the San Joaquin kit fox. ................... 43 Figure 13. Current condition of the San Joaquin kit fox in 16 geographic analysis units. ............................... 52
ix
Table 1. Recovery Criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox. ................................................................................. 10 Table 2. Timeline showing one year in the lifecycle of a San Joaquin kit fox. ................................................ 19 Table 3. Projected population growth in the southern San Joaquin Valley .................................................... 34 Table 4. Stressors used to analyze the current and future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox...................... 47 Table 5. Definitions for demographic and habitat conditions for the analysis of the San Joaquin kit fox. ...... 49 Table 6. Current condition of the San Joaquin kit fox across 16 geographic analysis units. ........................... 51 Table 7. Uncertainty Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 53 Table 8. Plausible future scenarios used to evaluate future condition of San Joaquin kit fox populations. ..... 57 Table 9. Future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox .................................................................................... 60
10 Chapter 1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results of a Species Status Assessment (SSA) conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The San Joaquin kit fox is a small canid endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent valleys of California.
We used the SSA framework to conduct an in-depth review of the species’ biology and the stressors that impact it, to evaluate its current biological status, and to predict the future status of resources and conditions as a means of assessing the San Joaquin kit fox’s viability. This SSA report summarizes the results of our analysis using this framework. As new information becomes available, we intend to update this SSA report as needed so that it can support all functions of the Endangered Species program.
The purpose of this SSA report is to provide the biological and scientific foundation of the current 5-year review and ongoing recovery implementation. Importantly, this SSA report does not result in a decision document, but instead provides the biological information and scientific analysis needed to support future decisions made by the USFWS under the Act. Decisions for changing the status of the San Joaquin kit fox will be made by the USFWS after reviewing the SSA report and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the USFWS will announce the policy decision independently in the Federal Register.
1.1 Petition History and Previous Federal Actions
The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1967, at which time it was not subject to the current listing processes. The species recovery strategy is described in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, along with 33 additional species of plants and animals that occur in the region (USFWS 1998, entire). A 90-day finding on a petition to delist the San Joaquin kit fox was published in 57 FR 28167 on June 24, 1992 (USFWS 1992, entire). The Service’s finding was that the petition did not present substantial scientific information indicating that delisting the kit fox was warranted. The petition was based on taxonomic considerations. The Service concluded that the status of kit fox and swift fox (Vulpes velox) taxonomy remained a subject of ongoing scientific debate, but found that, regardless of the outcome of the continuing debate, the San Joaquin kit fox was a distinct population segment subject to protection under the ESA (USFWS 1992, entire). The Service published the last 5-year Review on February 16, 2010 (USFWS 2010b, entire). The Service published a notice announcing initiation of the 5-year review of this taxon and the opening of a 60-day period to receive information from the public in the Federal Register on July 2, 2019 (USFWS 2019, entire).
Recovery Plan Summary
The San Joaquin Valley Upland Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998) outlined specific de-listing and downlisting criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox (Table 1).
Table 1. Recovery Criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox.
Recovery Step Secure and protect specified
recovery areas from
incompatible uses
Management Plan approved
and implemented for recovery
areas that include survival of
the species as an objective
Population monitoring in
specified recovery areas shows:
Downlist to
threatened
The three core populations,
Carrizo Natural Area, western
Kern County, and Ciervo-
For all protected areas identified
as important to continued survival
Stable or increasing populations in
the three core areas through one
precipitation cycle; population
11 Panoche Area; three satellite
populations
interchange between one or more
core populations and the three
satellite populations
Delist Several additional satellite
populations (number dependent
on results of research)
encompassing as much as
possible of the environmental
and geographic variation of the
historic geographic range
For all protected areas identified
as important to continued survival
Stable or increasing populations in
the three core areas and three or
more of the satellite areas during one
precipitation cycle
The plan also outlined site-specific protection requirement that are required to meet delisting criteria. In the Ciervo-Panoche area and western Kern County the plan specifies that 90% of existing potential habitat needs to be protected. In the Carrizo Plain, 100% of existing potential habitat should be protected. Outside of the 3 core areas above the plan specifies that 80% of existing habitat should be protected in greater than or equal to 9 satellite populations.
1.2 The Species Status Assessment Framework
This SSA report summarizes the results of our in-depth review of the San Joaquin kit fox’s biology and stressors, an evaluation of the species’ biological status, and an assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. For the purposes of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild into the future in a biologically meaningful timeframe, which is 60 years for our analyses (explanation for our timeframes given in Chapter 4. Future Condition).
Using the SSA Framework (Figure 1), we considered what
the San Joaquin kit fox needs to be viable into the future by characterizing the current and future condition of the species using the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (the “3Rs”) from conservation biology
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308–311; USFWS 2016, p.12).
• Resiliency is the ability of populations to tolerate
natural, annual variation in their environment and to
recover from periodic or random disturbances, known as
stochastic events. Resiliency can be measured using
metrics like vital rates, such as annual births and deaths, and population size. In general, populations with high
abundance and stable or increasing population trends are more resilient than those with limited resources or
declining populations. Populations with high resiliency can better withstand stochastic changes in demography
or their environment due to natural or anthropogenic
disturbances.
• Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events, such as a rare, destructive natural event that affects multiple populations. Redundancy is
measured by the duplication and distribution of
Figure 1. The three phases (blue boxes) of the
SSA Framework used to guide this analysis.
To assess the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox,
we evaluated the species’ needs, the current
availability and condition of those needs, and the
species’ current condition. We then predicted the
species’ future condition based on the future
availability and condition of the species’ needs.
12 populations across the range of the species. The more redundant a species, or the greater number of populations a species has distributed over a larger landscape, the better able it is to recover from catastrophic events. Redundancy helps “spread the risk” and ensures all populations are not extirpated at once due to a catastrophic event. • Representation is the ability of a species to adapt to changing physical (climate, habitat) and biological (diseases, predators) conditions. Representation can be measured by looking at the genetic, morphological, behavioral, and ecological diversity within and between populations across a species’ range. The more representation, or diversity, a species has, the more likely it is to adapt to and persist with natural or human-caused changes to its environment.
For the purpose of this SSA, viability is defined as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. Viability is not a single state; rather, there are degrees of viability. In other words, we do not conclude that a species is or is not viable upon completion of an SSA. Instead, we characterize the resiliency, redundancy, and representation a species currently presents and predict how these characteristics may change into the future. Species with higher resiliency, redundancy, and representation are more protected from the vagaries of the environment, can better tolerate stressors and adapt to changing conditions, and are thus more viable than species with low levels of the 3Rs.
To assess the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox, we analyzed the species’ ecology, historic and current conditions, and projected the viability of the species under several future scenarios, all in the context of the 3Rs and using the best scientific data available. Chapter 2 of this SSA report summarizes the biology, ecology, and needs of the San Joaquin kit fox at the individual, population, and species levels. Chapter 3 examines the stressors which impact the resiliency of San Joaquin kit fox populations and analyzes the historical and current conditions of the species. Chapter 4 predicts the future condition of the species under three potential scenarios. In Chapter 5, we summarize all the information presented in this SSA and analyze the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox.
1.3 Summary of New Information
Since the completion of the 5-year review for the San Joaquin kit fox in 2010, we evaluated new peer-reviewed literature and solicited data and new information from partner agencies within the state of California, including, but not limited to, state wildlife management agencies, universities, private contractors, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, we requested new information (after 2010) on:
• The species’ distribution, population sizes, population trends, and any updates to the species range or mapped colonies;
• The magnitude and severity of ongoing habitat loss;
• Other threats to the species including energy development, wildfire and rodenticide use; • Updates to laws, regulations, or policies that might apply to the species; and • Any ongoing conservation for the species and its habitats.
Our literature review and data solicitation resulted in new information on the impacts of solar facilities, genetic structure, habitat extent, and sarcoptic mange impacts. We incorporated these data, which include spatial data, peer-reviewed literature, reports, and personal communications, into various parts of the SSA, including the analysis of the current distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox 13 and the severity of stressor and related conservation actions. If we lacked specific data for some aspect of our analysis, we used information from the desert kit fox (Vulpus macrotis macrotis).
1.4 Uncertainties and Assumptions
This report incorporates the best available information through reports, peer-reviewed literature, and communication with species experts. When information is not available at the species level, we sometimes use surrogate species, but are always careful to make this clear throughout the report.
Because the species’ historical range covers a broad area throughout the San Joaquin Valley, and because current surveys and research tends to be restricted to discrete plots within land management units (e.g., survey grids within National Wildlife Refuges, Ecological Reserves, etc.), we generally assume that these findings carryover more broadly into other areas of contiguous habitat.
Additional uncertainties and assumptions are highlighted in Chapter 4 (Historical and Current Condition) and Chapter 5 (Future Condition).
Chapter 2. Species Ecology and Needs
In this chapter, we provide basic biological information about the San Joaquin kit fox, including its taxonomic history and relationships, morphological description, physical environment, and reproductive and other life history traits. We then outline the needs of the San Joaquin kit fox at the individual, population and species levels. This is not an exhaustive review of the species’ natural history; rather, it provides the ecological basis for the SSA analyses conducted in this report.
2.1 Taxonomy and Genetics
The San Joaquin kit fox is one of two currently recognized subspecies of kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) and was first described by Merriam (1902, p. 74) from a locality near Tracy in San Joaquin County, California. The taxonomic treatment of the smaller Vulpes foxes has varied over time, but genetic work supports the recognition of V. m. mutica as a valid subspecies (Mercure et al. 1993, p. 1323).
The taxonomy of small, North American foxes has been revised several times, and several different taxonomies for these species have been proposed (Rohwer and Kilgore 1973, entire; Waithman and Roest 1977, entire). More recently, Dragoo et al. (1990, pp. 927–328) proposed that all small, arid- land foxes belonged to the swift fox (V. velox) and proposed that the kit fox be synonymized under V. velox macrotis. Genetic work concluded that while there was evidence of limited hybridization between the swift fox and kit fox, it was over a limited geographic area and the two should be considered separate species and that the San Joaquin Valley population of the kit fox was the most distinct and should be considered a valid subspecies (Mercure et al. 1993, pp. 1323, 1325–1326).
Mercure et al. (1993) also concluded that (Mercure et al. 1993, p. 1323). Recent genetic work focusing on the San Joaquin kit fox provided evidence for 3 population clusters centered on Bakersfield, the Lokern Valley-Carrizo Plain-Camp Roberts area, and the Ciervo-Panoche region (Wilbert 2005, p 74).
2.2 Species Description
The San Joaquin kit fox is the larger of the two subspecies of kit fox, which is the smallest canid species in North America. Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 399) found a difference in body size between males and females: males averaged 31.7 inches (80.5 centimeters ) in total length, and 11 .6 inches (29.5 centimeters ) in tail length; females averaged 30.3 inches (76.9 centimeters ) in total length, and
11.2 inches (28.4 centimeters ) in tail length. Kit foxes have long slender legs and are about 12 inches 14 (30 centimeters) high am the shoulder. The average weight of adult males is 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms), and of adult females is 4.6 pounds (2.1 kilograms) (Morrell 1972, p. 21). General physical characteristics of kit foxes include a small, slim body, relatively large ears set close together, narrow nose, and a long, bushy tail tapering slightly toward the tip (Figure 2). The tail is typically carried low and straight. Color and texture of the fur coat of kit foxes varies geographically and seasonally. The most commonly described colorations are buff, tan, grizzled, or yellowish-gray dorsal coats (McGrew 1979, p. 1). Two distinctive coats develop each year: a tan summer coat and a silver-gray winter coat (Morrell 1972, p. 19). The undersides vary’ from light buff to white, with the shoulders, lower sides, flanks and chest varying from buff to a rust color. The ear pinna (external ear flap) is dark on the back side, with a thick border of white hairs on the forward-inner edge and inner base (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 399). The tail is distinctly black tipped (Figure 2). The foot pads of kit foxes are small by comparison with other canids. A sample of 21 tracks from throughout the San Joaquin Valley had an average length of 1.2 inches (3.1 centimeters) and an average width of 1 inch (2.6 centimeters) (Orloff et al. 1993, p. 50). Other characteristics such as the degree to which the feet are furred and the size, shape, and configuration of the pads distinguish kit fox tracks from those of co- occurring canids and domestic cats (Orloff et al. 1993, p. 50). Because all three fox species that occur in the San Joaquin Valley are primarily nocturnal, identification of free-living, and often fast-moving, animals can be a challenge. The black-tipped tail and coat color differences usually distinguish kit foxes from red foxes (V. vulpes). At 8 to 11 pounds (4 to 5 kilograms), the red fox also is much heavier than the kit fox. Gray foxes (Urocvon cinereoargenteus) are sometimes misidentified as kit foxes, especially in winter when the kit fox coat is thicker and has more gray. Both species have a black tail tip but gray foxes also have a distinctive black stripe running along the top of the tail. Gray foxes are more robust than kit foxes; they are heavier with an average body weight of about 8 pounds (3.6 kilograms) (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 402). However, San Joaquin kit foxes have longer ears, averaging
3.4 inches (8.6 centimeters) compared with 3 inches (7.8 centimeters) for gray foxes (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 399).
Figure 2. San Joaquin kit fox. Photo taken while conducting spotlight surveys (Tim Ludwick/USFWS).
15 2.3 Range of the San Joaquin Kit Fox
Historically, the San Joaquin kit fox occupied an area of the San Joaquin Valley from Kern County north to Tracy on the western side and the Merced River on the eastern side as well as the Carrizo Plain, Panoche Valley, and adjacent smaller valleys in the Coast Range (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 403) (Figure 3).
At the time the Recovery Plan was developed the range was likely similar to the historical range, research projects and incidental sightings indicated that kit foxes inhabited some areas of suitable habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the surrounding foothills of the coastal ranges and Sierra Nevada; Tehachapi Mountains, from southern Kern County north to Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties on the west; near La Grange, Stanislaus County, and across some of the larger scattered islands of natural land on the Valley’ floor in Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera and Merced Counties (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. 403–404). Kit foxes also occurred westward into the interior coastal ranges in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties, including the Pajaro River watershed, the Salinas River watershed, and in the upper Cuyama Valley (Cypher et al. 2003, p. 126).
Kit foxes inhabit several urban areas in the San Joaquin Valley including the cities of Taft, Coalinga, and Bakersfield (Harrison et al. 2011, p. 304).
16 Figure 3. Historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox. Observations from the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2020).
17 2.4 Species Ecology
2.4.1 Habitat
The Central Valley of California is characterized by a Mediterranean climate (O’Farrell et al. 2016 p. 4). Winters within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox are cool and daytime temperatures rarely fall below 50.0⸰F (10⸰C); overnight temperatures do not often drop below freezing (Williams 1992, p. 302). On the other hand, summers are long and hot with midday temperatures that regularly exceed 100.4⸰F (38⸰C) (Williams 1992, p. 302; O’Farrell et al. 2016 p. 4). The San Joaquin Valley receives <
5.9 in (15 cm) of rain annually (Williams and Kilburn 1991, p. 6). Most rain that does fall, occurs during the winter months - between November and April (Williams and Kilburn. 1991, p. 2). Due to limited annual rainfall and high summer temperatures, the southwestern portion of the San Joaquin Valley is characterized as a climatic desert (Germano et al. 2011, pp. 139–145). Even so, the cool wet winters allow rich grasslands to form on the western slopes of the valley, which support a wide diversity of endemic plants and animals (Williams 1992, pp. 302–303).
Historically, the San Joaquin Valley floor was a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, and riparian corridors.
The wetlands were fed by runoff from the nearby Sierra Nevada Mountains that flowed into seasonal wetlands that surrounded shallow lakes (Griggs et al. 1992, pp. 111–118). Much of the southwestern San Joaquin Valley was desert-scrub with alkali-sink habitats (Germano et al. 2011, p. 139). San Joaquin kit fox were historically found throughout upland habitats within the San Joaquin, Salinas, Cuyama, Panoche Valleys along with adjacent smaller adjacent valleys. San Joaquin kit fox are uniquely adapted to desert climates and reach their highest densities in landscapes with low stature vegetation, gentle slopes, and abundant small mammal prey.
The kit fox is primarily found in association with Valley Sink Scrub, interior Coast Range Saltbush Scrub, Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub, Annual Grassland, and other grassland vegetation communities. Within these communities, optimal habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox is sparsely vegetated communities on gentle slopes (McGrew 1979, p. 123; Cypher et al. 2013, p. 26) (Figure 4).
Plant communities such Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Alkali Meadow, and Alkali Playa are often smaller and more widely scattered; and in general, do not provide good denning habitat for kit foxes because all have moist or waterlogged clay or clay-like soils. However, where they are interspersed with more suitable kit fox habitats they provide food and cover. Kit fox can also be found in human altered habitats such as grazed grasslands, petroleum fields (Morrell 1972, p. 4; O’Farrell 1984, p. 208), urban areas, and survive adjacent to tilled or fallow fields (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 275). In the northern portion of their range, kit foxes commonly are associated with annual grassland (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 62).
18 Figure 4. An example of San Joaquin kit fox habitat within the Carrizo Plain National Monument.
Kit fox dens are primarily found in loose texture soils (Morrell 1972, p. 10). However, kit foxes will occupy soils with a high clay content where they modify burrows dug by other animals (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 63).
2.4.2 Diet
Although the kit fox diet can vary seasonally and in response to available prey, kangaroo rat remains comprised 80 to 90 percent of fecal material at most collecting sites throughout the range of the kit fox (Laughrin 1970, p. 11). Data suggests that kangaroo rats might be the preferred prey species, even in areas where other prey, such as leporids, are present (Koopman et al. 2001, p. 82). Kit fox in the Elk Hills showed a slight preference for kangaroo rats, although when leporid populations were high, those species were increasingly incorporated into their diet (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 20). Kit foxes are also known to consume other small mammal species, including leporids (rabbits and hares: Lepus and Sylvilagus spp.), ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus and Spermophilus spp.), and insects (Archon 1992, p. 43, Cypher and Brown 2006. pp. 9–10, Table 4); however, consumption of these species appears to be secondary to consumption of kangaroo rats in non-urban populations (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 20). In the southern San Joaquin Valley, kangaroo rats were found to be the primary small mammal present at undeveloped and moderately developed sites, while smaller rodents (California pocket mice [Chaetodipus californicus], San Joaquin pocket mice [Perognathus inornatus], deer mice [Peromyscus maniculatus], and house mice [(Mus musculus]) were found most frequently at an intensively developed site (Spiegel et al. 1996, pp. 43–46, Table 2). At Bethany Reservoir in Alameda County, California ground squirrels were found to be the most common prey and no kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.) were detected at this site (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 63). In some instances, ground
19 squirrels have also been found to be an important food item where kangaroo rats appeared to be abundant (Balestreri 1981, pp. 14 19–20, Table 4). In the Bakersfield vicinity, urban kit foxes have access to anthropogenic food resources to supplement available natural prey so, in general, food is abundant. (Newsome et al. 2010, p. 1317)
2.4.3 Reproduction and Lifecycle
Kit foxes can breed when 1 year old but may not breed their first year of adulthood (Morrell 1972, p. 20). Adult pairs remain together all year, sharing the home range but not necessarily the same den.
During September and October, adult females begin to clean and enlarge natal or pupping dens which often have multiple openings (Morrell 1972, p. 10). Mating and conception take place between late December and March (Morrell 1972, p. 19; Spencer et al. 1992, p. 9) (Table 2). The median gestation period is estimated to range from 48 to 52 days. Litters of from two to six pups are born sometime between February and late March (Morrell 1972, p. 19; Spencer et al. 1992, p. 9). The female is rarely seen hunting during the time she is lactating. During this period the male provides most of the food for her and the pups. The pups emerge above ground at slightly more than 1 month of age. After 4 to 5 months, usually in August or September, the family bonds begin to dissolve and the young begin dispersing. Occasionally juveniles will remain with the family group beyond the first summer (Koopman et al. 2000, p. 220). During a 6-year study at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California, pups dispersed an average distance of approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the natal den (Scrivner et al. 1987, p. 20). Adult and juvenile kit foxes radio-collared at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California dispersed through disturbed habitats, including agricultural fields, oil fields, rangelands, and across highways and aqueducts. One pup crossed the Temblor Range into the Carrizo Plain (Scrivner et al. 1987, p. 27). Reproductive success of kit foxes appears to be closely correlated with abundance of their prey (Egoscue 1975, p. 126).
Recent studies have supported early observations that kit fox appear to be strongly linked ecologically to kangaroo rats (White and Ralls 1993, pp. 863, 865–866).
Table 2. Timeline showing one year in the lifecycle of a San Joaquin kit fox.
Life Stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Pup Birth
Developing In Den
Emerge from Den
Juvenile Dispersal
Adult Mating
Gestation
Birth
Pup Rearing
2.4.4 Survivorship
Kit foxes are generally short-lived and have a low juvenile survival rate. Desert kit foxes in a Utah population had an average age of 2 years (Egoscue 1975, p. 124) and in a population at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve-1, animals less than 1 year old outnumbered older foxes by 2.8:1 (Berry et 20 al. 1987a, pp. 18, 23). Despite this, individual kit foxes can have a relatively long lifespan. Kit foxes on Naval Petroleum Reserve-1 (NPR-1) were found to live as long as 8 years (Berry et al. 1987a, p. 18, Table 4) but such longevity appears to be rare. Annual survival rates of juvenile foxes have ranged from 0.26 on Naval Petroleum Reserve-1 in California (Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 19, 24, 25, Table 6) to 0.21 to 0.41 on the Carrizo Plain (Ralls and White 1995, p. 726, Table 1). An annual adult mortality rate of approximately 50 percent has been reported (Morrell 1972, p. 22; Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 19, 24; Ralls and White 1995, p. 726, Table 1; Standley et al. 1992, p. 17).
Predation by larger carnivores (e.g., coyotes) is high and presumed to be a major factor in regulating kit fox populations (White and Garrott 1997, p. 1983). The effects of disease, parasites and accidental death are largely unknown, but were thought to account for only a small portion of mortality (Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 22–23, 27). More recent data from Camp Roberts and Bakersfield is challenging this assumption (section 3.3.5). Drought plays a role in low reproductive success (i.e., pups are born but do not survive to weaning). Adults can maintain weight and body condition and females can give birth, but pairs apparently cannot catch enough prey to support pups (White and Ralls 1993, p. 866). Success decreases when the density of prey species drops because of drought, too much rainfall, or other circumstances (White and Ralls 1993, p. 864).
Starvation, especially of pups, was noted to be a likely limiting factor for kit fox populations (Morrell 1972, p. 22). Consumption of small rodent species and leporids occurred concurrently with population increases in those species, suggesting to the authors that the ability to exploit a variety of resources on an opportunistic basis would enable kit foxes to persist in altered environments, and in areas subject to drought-related fluctuations in prey. Cypher et al. (2000, p. 31) suggested that kit fox preferentially forage on kangaroo rats and that declines in kangaroo rat densities negatively affect kit fox survival. Data from this study suggested that the relative rate of population growth was positively correlated with kangaroo rat presence and negatively correlated with the presence of other prey items. The decline in local kit fox populations has also been linked to the loss of kangaroo rat populations within that same area (Bean and White 2000, p. 7). Precipitation-mediated changes in prey availability are most often related to changes in vegetation. Low precipitation levels characteristic of droughts result in reduced seed production in the natural habitats of the San Joaquin Valley (Williams et al. 1993, pp. 36–37, 39, Figure 4; Germano and Williams 2005, p. 12).
During several years of drought, seed resources for granivorous rodents, such as kangaroo rats, become scarce, resulting in declining abundance of these kit fox prey species (Williams et al. 1993, p. 94, 95; Cypher et al. 2000, pp. 32–33; Germano and Williams 2005, p. 12). In many locations, kit fox population abundance responds to lower prey abundance by declining, although there generally is a lag-time of one or more years before kit fox declines occur (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 31). High rainfall events also are known to reduce prey abundance dramatically (Germano 2010, p. 86). In eastern Contra Costa County, kit foxes were believed to have been extirpated in the county primarily due to an intensive California ground-squirrel control program (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 68). To date, no studies have addressed the energetic relationships for the kit fox associated with capture effort and food value of different prey species.
2.4.5 Den Use and Home Range
San Joaquin kit foxes use dens for temperature regulation, shelter from adverse environmental conditions, reproduction, and escape from predators. Den characteristics and use vary by location and season. Dens may be constructed by the animal itself (Berry et al. 1987b, p. 26; USFWS 1983, p. 12), modified from those constructed by other animals (Morrell 1972, p. 10), or they may use 21 anthropogenic structures such as culverts, pipes, or other underground structures (Berry et al. 1987b, p. 22). Natal and pupping dens are generally larger than typical kit fox dens and nearly always have multiple entrances (Morrell 1972, p. 11; Berry et al. 1987b, p. 12, Table 1). Suitable den sites are an essential component of kit fox habitat as they provide shelter from extreme conditions, escape cover from predators, and provide a secure place to rear the young. In general, kit fox dens are found in flat or gently rolling terrain with slopes of less than 10 degrees and most dens (89%) are found on slopes of less than 30 percent (Archon 1992, p. 15, 30). Natal and pupping dens are generally found on flatter ground with slopes of about 6 degrees (O’Farrell and McCue 1981, p. 30; O’Farrell et al. 1980, pp. 44–45). Foxes change dens four or five times during the summer months and change natal dens one or two times per month (Morrell 1972, p. 15). Foxes on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area maintain numerous dens within their home range (White et al. 1994, p. 1833). Radio-telemetry studies indicate that foxes use individual dens for a median of 2 days (mean of 3.5 days) before moving to a different den. Den changes have been attributed to depletion of prey in the vicinity of the den, increases in external parasites such as fleas (Egoscue 1956, p. 353), and predator avoidance (White et al. 1994, p. 1833).
Kit fox home range in an area impacted by oil development in western Kern County found home ranges that averaged between 1.8 mi
2 (4.6 km2) (Zoellick et al. 2002, p. 155) and 2.4 mi2 (6.13 km2) (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, p. 85). Kit foxes on the Carrizo Plain had an average home range size of 4.5 mi
2 (11.6 km2) (White and Ralls 1993, p. 864). A study conducted in conjunction with solar development on the northern end of the Carrizo Plain found an average home range size of 3.6 mi2 (9.4 km2) on the solar development site and 2.0 mi2 (5.1 km2) on the undeveloped reference site (Cypher et al. 2019, p. 23). In a fragmented landscape impacted by irrigated agriculture and with limited natural community availability home range sized averaged 1.3 mi2 (3.4 km2) (Cypher et al. 2014, p. 5). Occasionally foxes use home ranges much larger than reported by averages. Cypher et al. (2019, p. 23) reported home range sizes as small as 0.2 mi2 (0.5km2) up to 9.3 mi2 (24.1 km2).
Variations in home range appear to be related primarily to overall prey density. White and Ralls (1993, p. 866) found that home range sizes appeared to be associated with low prey availability on the Carrizo Plain where nocturnal rodents (primarily Dipodomys sp.) were the primary prey species.
The also documented that prey densities were less than 20% of that at oil field sites in western Kern County (White and Ralls 1993, p. 866) where average home ranges were approximately 50% smaller (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, p. 85; Zoellick et al. 2002, p. 155). Cypher et al. (2019, p. 56) also hypothesized that this inverse relationship between prey availability and home range size might explain some of the differences they observed between the developed solar site and reference site.
Home range size in Bakersfield, where food is relatively abundant, averaged 0.7 mi 2 (1.7 km2) (Frost
2005, p. 23). The maintenance of large and relatively non-overlapping home ranges, as noted on the Carrizo Plain, may be an adaptation to drought-induced periods of prey scarcity that are episodic and temporary on the Carrizo Plain (White and Ralls 1993, p. 866).
2.4.6 Metapopulation Dynamics
San Joaquin kit foxes persist across the landscape in scattered pockets of habitat of varying quality.
These populations are challenging to identify due to annual population fluctuations and the overall low density of many of the populations. Across the range of the species, kit fox populations experience marked instability driven by density-independent variations in reproductive rates (White and Garrott 1999, p. 491). Some habitat patches support populations with growth rates which encourage emigration, while other habitat patches are less favorable. Additionally, ongoing habitat 22 alteration as well as normal climatic variation can lead to rapid changes in the suitability of any habitat patch, further impacting growth rates and emigration. These source-sink dynamics are characteristic of a metapopulation, which often have a finite lifetime, and are prone to local extinction (Hanski 1991, p. 4).
2.5 San Joaquin Kit Fox Needs
A species can only be viable if its basic ecological needs are met. In this section, we translate our knowledge of the San Joaquin kit fox’s biology and ecology into its needs at the individual, population, and species levels. For individual San Joaquin kit fox, we describe the habitat resources or conditions that adults, pups, and juveniles need to complete each stage of their life cycle. We then describe the habitat and demographic conditions that San Joaquin kit fox populations need for resiliency. Finally, we describe what the species needs in order to be viable, in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Figure 5).
2.5.1 Individual Needs
Individual needs for San Joaquin kit foxes vary somewhat by life stage but are all centered on the availability of suitable dens for breeding and sheltering (Figure 6). Kit fox pups are born underground between February and March and spend the first month of their life underground. In order to survive this life stage, the pups need burrows that are deep enough to provide shelter from the environment and potential predators. Adequate prey is needed for the female to produce enough milk for the young to grow large enough to leave the den. While the pups are underground, the female rarely leaves the den and the male gathers food for the pair. Often the pair will move the young at least once prior to the young emerging from the den and so multiple suitable den locations within the territory are needed. Once the young emerge from the burrow, they continue to be fed by the adults for several months. The pups typically emerge from the burrow after about 1 month (generally April) and gradually become more independent from April through June. During this period the female needs adequate prey to continue to provide milk and the pups need adequate prey as they are weaned and begin to forage for themselves. The pups gradually disperse from the natal site and generally move far enough to find unoccupied territory with suitable den sites and prey.
However, it is likely that most individuals remain near their natal territories within their lifetime.
Because of this, habitat connectivity is essential for San Joaquin kit fox viability.
Figure 5. General overview illustration of how resiliency, redundancy, and representation influence what a species needs for viability.
23 San Joaquin kit foxes are most often limited to arid habitat with sparse or low vegetation, gentle slopes (less than 15%) with sandy-loam soils where den excavation or modification is relatively easy.
Although individual kit foxes have been found moving through or denning on steeper slopes, natal dens appear to be restricted to slopes of 10% or less. In all life stages, kit foxes rely on suitable dens for shelter and escape from predators.
San Joaquin kit foxes primarily feed on small mammals, mostly kangaroo rats and adult kit foxes need abundant small mammal prey in order to survive and raise pups. Adult kit foxes also prey on a wide variety of other animals including insects, birds, and lizards, but successful breeding appears closely related to the abundance of small mammal prey. Home ranges of San Joaquin kit foxes appear to vary in response to prey availability and habitat quality, but average 1.7 mi2 (4.5 km2). As such, adult and juvenile kit foxes require large enough or connected habitat patches in order to find enough prey.
Figure 6. San Joaquin kit fox lifecycle diagram. Letters in parentheses denote whether the need is essential for feeding (F), sheltering (S), breeding (B), or dispersal (D).
2.5.2 Population Needs
San Joaquin kit fox populations for the most part need the same habitat features as individuals, although in larger quantities. We describe habitat and demographic needs of San Joaquin kit foxes in relation to population resiliency.
Resiliency
Resiliency describes the ability of the species to withstand stochastic disturbance events, an ability that is associated with habitat quality and demographic characteristics of the populations.
The San Joaquin kit fox does not appear to have easily distinguishable populations that can be defined by discrete ranges or genetic differences. For the purposes of this SSA, we broadly define a population of San Joaquin kit fox as a group of animals in the same general space and with the Pup (< 5 months)
• Adult pair (F)
• Suitable den (S)
• Abundant suitable prey (F)
Juvenile (up to 1 year)
• Abundant suitable prey (F)
• Suitable den location (S)
• Connected habitat (D)
Adult
• Abundant suitable prey (F)
• Connected suitable habitat (F, B)
• Nearby mates (B)
• Suitable dens (S, B)
24 potential to breed. For convenience, we refer to populations using the core and satellite units identified in the 2010 5-year review (USFWS 2010b, p. 12). We modified the boundaries of the “core” and “satellite” areas based on updated information on kit fox distribution and included the Salinas Valley, which had not been included in the prior 5-year review (USFWS 2010b, p. 12). These core and satellite areas are used as our geographical analysis units throughout the remainder of the document. Much of the historic habitat of the San Joaquin kit fox has been converted to agriculture, fragmenting the historical range and isolating suitable habitat patches. Highly connected habitats still have the largest, most robust populations of San Joaquin kit foxes, suggesting that contiguous habitats are needed for long-term species’ survival. Populations likely need habitat patches of an appropriate size in order to sustain over time.
Demographic indicators that might suggest population resiliency are related to effective population size, fecundity, survival, and connectivity. Briefly, effective population size is calculated using an equation that incorporates heterozygosity, a measure of genetic diversity. Effective population size in wildlife is often much lower than census population size (Frankham 1995, entire). The ratio between effective population size and census population size varies based on factors such as unequal sex ratios, variance in family size, and population fluctuations. Of these factors, population fluctuations based on limited reproduction in drought years could be a contributing factor for San Joaquin kit foxes. Populations need sufficient numbers of juveniles and adults to be able to withstand drought conditions that limit reproduction. Because the species is relatively short-lived (Egoscue 1975, p. 124; Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 18, 23) and exhibits moderately high annual adult mortality (Morrell 1972, p. 22; Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 19, 24; Ralls and White 1995, p. 726, Table 1; Standley et al. 1992, p. 17), evidence of breeding is important.
Connectivity within and between populations is important to maintain (or in some cases, reestablish) gene flow. Although San Joaquin kit foxes probably occurred in connected populations throughout the historical range, anthropogenic habitat fragmentation has greatly reduced the potential for gene flow between populations in the current landscape. In isolated populations or genetic clusters, maintaining sufficient numbers of adults in a population to guard against loss of alleles (e.g., from demographic bottlenecks) is important. Attempting to reestablish connectivity between fragmented areas, when possible, will also add to population resilience.
Figure 7 presents a core conceptual model showing the needs for, and threats to, San Joaquin kit fox population resiliency. To remain ecologically functional, geographic analysis units need high levels of fecundity and juvenile survival as well as connectivity between habitat patches both within the unit and between adjacent geographic analysis units. High levels of fecundity and juvenile survival can drive population growth and allow smaller populations to recover from stochastic disasters, such as extreme weather events.
Given the relatively short longevity of adults, annual recruitment of juveniles is imperative to replace the loss of reproductive individuals every year. Connectivity between habitat patches encourages dispersal of individuals and maintains gene flow, which prevents extirpation due to low genetic diversity and accelerated genetic drift.
The best physical predictors of suitable habitat for the kit fox are land cover/land use, terrain ruggedness, and vegetation density (White et al. 1995, p. 344; USFWS 1998, p. 129, Warrick and Cypher 1998, p. 716; Cypher et al. 2013, p. 26). Highly suitable habitat for the kit fox is characterized by low slopes (< 5%) (Warrick and Cypher 1998, p. 716), arid land vegetation communities with 25 short stature (McGrew 1979, p. 3), and areas free of anthropogenic disturbance (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 276; Cypher et al. 2013, p. 26). This suggests a specific set of climatic and habitat conditions that are needed to maintain resiliency within the species range. Changes to vegetation and land cover, particularly during the breeding season could hinder the species’ long-term viability.
Figure 7. Core Conceptual Model showing the needs for San Joaquin kit fox population resiliency.
2.5.3 Species Needs
In order to adapt to changing environmental conditions, the species needs to maintain its ecological and genetic diversity (representation) in resilient populations distributed throughout the species range (redundancy).
Redundancy
Redundancy contributes to the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by spreading risk among multiple populations and/or across a large area. Thus, redundancy is related to the number, distribution, and resilience of populations. When evaluating redundancy, it is important to identify potential natural or anthropogenic catastrophic events that could occur within the range of the species and that could lead to population extirpations. For the San Joaquin kit fox, potential catastrophic events include a prolonged drought or large-scale disease outbreak. San Joaquin kit foxes are currently found in a band of habitat along the western San Joaquin Valley, the Carrizo Plain, and the Panoche Valley and as highly fragmented populations across the center, south, and eastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley. Because individual San Joaquin kit fox populations can often vary widely from year to year with changing environmental conditions, having multiple resilient populations is necessary for the species to weather potential catastrophic events.
Representation
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions, which is related to the breadth of genetic and ecological diversity within and among populations.
As a species, the San Joaquin kit fox needs multiple, resilient, connected populations that display a breadth of ecological and genetic diversity across its range. Schwartz et al. (2005, p. 34) found evidence consistent with a high gene flow across the range of the species and suggested that ongoing
26 gene flow (at least in the southern portion of the range) is occurring. They suggest that the data indicate that migration is likely in important factor in the partitioning of genetic variation (Schwartz et al. 2005, p. 34). Maintaining this diversity is important for the species to persist in the future in response to changing climatic variables or stochastic events. Well-connected geographic units with San Joaquin kit foxes that display high levels of immigration and emigration across the landscape ensure gene flow and allow for recolonization following droughts or other events that may depress a population.
San Joaquin kit fox habitat, although once widespread and abundant, has decreased dramatically since the early 1900s due in part to agricultural development. Today, the San Joaquin kit fox exists in a highly fragmented landscape and there is diminishing opportunity for gene flow across the range of the species. Connected habitats of appropriate composition are essential to the species survival; habitat fragmentation and decreased habitat connectivity can be detrimental to the long-term survival of the San Joaquin kit fox species. In order to adapt to changing physical and biological conditions, the species needs to maintain its genetic and ecological diversity (representation) and a certain number and distribution of resilient populations across its range (redundancy).
2.5.4 Summary of Species Needs in Terms of the 3Rs
When individual kit foxes have access to ample food, suitable den sites, and habitat, reproductive rates and populations increase. These conditions create large, resilient populations that can withstand periodic natural disturbances, such as drought or disease outbreaks (resiliency). At the population level, juvenile survival drives population growth and connectivity maintains dispersal and gene flow between occupied areas. The distribution of kit fox territories across the landscape, as well as high connectivity between areas of suitable habitat, create populations that can recover from catastrophic events (redundancy). At the species level, connectivity facilitates a network of multiple (redundant), self-sustaining (resilient) populations distributed across the San Joaquin kit fox’s range that display a breadth of genetic and ecological diversity (representation). This increases the ability of the species to adapt to changing physical and biological conditions (representation). Having sufficient resiliency, representation, and redundancy supports maintenance of the species in the wild over time (viability).
Chapter 3. Historical and Current Condition
In this chapter, we summarize the historical and current conditions of the San Joaquin kit fox at the population and species levels. To do this, we introduce the stressors that have and continue to influence the species’ condition as well as current conservation efforts which buffer against these stressors. We then detail how kit fox abundance has changed over time.
Finally, we put the species’ historical and current conditions in the context of the 3Rs to assess the species’ current viability. At the species level, the San Joaquin kit fox needs multiple, connected, resilient populations across the breadth of ecological settings in its range to be viable (Chapter 2).
For the purposes of this SSA we compiled spatial data from the California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020), California Conservation Easement Database (2019), California Protected Areas Database (2019) and data provided by researchers.
We used ESRI ArcGIS Pro for the spatial analyses conducted within this chapter. The data sources for these analyses are cited throughout this section.
27 3.1 Historical Distribution and Abundance
The historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox was first defined by Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 403).
Prior to 1930, kit foxes likely inhabited most of the San Joaquin Valley from southern Kern County north to Tracy (San Joaquin County), on the western side of the Valley, and near La Grange (Stanislaus County), on the eastern side. These authors believed that by 1930 the kit fox range had been reduced by more than half, with the largest portion of the range remaining in the southern and western parts of the Valley (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 403). The range of the kit fox was refined and better defined in 1975 using prior range mapping efforts, sightings, den locations, and road killed records (Morrell 1975, p. 6, 10). Orloff et al. (1986, p. 62, 68) concluded that kit foxes were likely rare in Alameda County and may have been recently extirpated in Contra Costa County. A summary of that status of the kit fox in the northwestern portion of the range was uncertain, and, if present, consisted of small family groups in isolated habitat patches (Clark et al. 2007, p. 32).
In 1969, Laughrin (1970, p. 14) estimated that range-wide kit fox densities were 0.52 to 1.04 per square mile (0.2 to 0.4 per square kilometer). The population of kit fox in 1975 was estimated to be between 5,066 and 14,800 (Morrell 1975, p. 18). The estimated mean density of trappable adult kit foxes was from 2 to 2.8 per square mile (0.8 to 1.1 per square kilometer) between 1980 and 1982 on the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California (O’Farrell 1984, p. 208). In the 1983 recovery plan (USFWS 1983, p. 10), it was estimated that the population range-wide of adult kit foxes prior to 1930 may have been between 8,667 and 12,134 assuming an occupied range of 8,667 square miles (22,447 square kilometers) and densities of 1.04 to 1.55 per square mile (0.4 to 0.6 per square kilometer). The kit fox population in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties was estimated to be about 11,000 animals in the early 1970s based on limited aerial surveys of pupping dens and amount of historic habitat, but without correction for cultivated and urbanized lands (Waithman 1974, p. 4). Laughrin (1970, p. 15) reported an estimated total population size of 1,000 to 3,000 foxes in 1969. In the 1983 recovery plan (USFWS 1983, p. 8), Morrell’s data was adjusted and a corrected estimate of 6,961 foxes in 1975 was obtained. When compared to the pre- 1930 estimate, this represents a possible population decline of 20 to 43 percent. Approximately 85 percent of the fox population in 1975 was found in only six counties (Kern, Tulare, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and Monterey), and over half the population occurred in two of those counties:
Kern (41 percent) and San Luis Obispo (10 percent) (Morrell 1975, p. 19, Table X).
3.2 Distribution and Abundance
Although there are no current rangewide survey data available, a patchwork of survey results and data from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicate that kit foxes were likely distributed throughout most of their historical range through the early 2000’s. The CNDDB is the most up-to-date resource for current sighting information. Data submission to CNDDB is voluntary and the database is a presence only record. However, it does provide a snapshot of distributional changes over time and can show where the most robust kit fox populations are found.
Data from four of the northern units seem to show an absence from those areas recently (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020), but recent survey efforts have been opportunistic and do not likely cover all of the available habitat. Extensive surveys using scent dogs in 2001-2003 (Smith et al. 2006, p. 214) did not detect any kit fox sign in the survey areas in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Over a period of 30 months from 2005-2007 surveys (camera trap, track station, and spotlighting) were conducted throughout the Santa Nella area (Constable et al. 2009, pp. 15–18, Table 2). In that period, only 2 observations (1 track, 1 scat) were documented north of Highway 28 152 (Constable et al. 2009, pp. 16–17, 18, Table 2). The authors conducted a least-cost path analysis through the Santa Nella area and concluded that these 2 observations were most likely indicative of a dispersing kit fox and not a resident individual (Constable et al. 2009, p. 36). Scent dog surveys conducted in 2018 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 did not detect any kit fox sign across approximately 33 km of transects (Woollet 2019, p. 8). Although there is habitat remaining in the Salinas Valley, there is no current documented evidence of kit foxes in this area and the species is no longer found at Fort Hunter-Liggett or Camp Roberts. Over the last decade, data in CNDDB shows a pattern of kit fox occurrence concentrated in the southwest San Joaquin Valley (mainly Kern and Kings Counties), the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County), and urban Bakersfield (Kern County). A continuous pattern of occurrences is also reported from the Semitropic area (Kern County), Ciervo-Panoche Valley (San Benito County), Coalinga area (Fresno County) and western Merced County. Additional reporting has documented kit foxes in the Cuyama Valley (Ueda 2020) and Cholame Valley (Purnell 2020, entire).
Cypher et al. (2013, entire) analyzed the remaining habitat within the range of San Joaquin kit fox quantified as “high” and “moderate” suitable habitat and the home range needed by a kit fox. They calculated that a population of 3,616 foxes might currently remain within the species range. While this estimate makes several assumptions, it is considered a valid model of the potential size of the kit fox population (Cypher, 2020 pers. comm). Given that no persistent kit fox populations are present in “moderate” suitable habitat, this number may over-estimate the effective population size (Cypher et al. 2013, p. 29). San Joaquin kit foxes can exhibit significant population size variability. Most of the populations in natural areas fluctuate regularly depending on environmental conditions, particularly extremes of rainfall that have effects on prey species. Because of this, measuring changes in occupied areas through surveys has been a more effective way of assessing long-term populations viability rather than population numbers.
Although no range-wide distribution surveys have been conducted, data indicate that the kit fox have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence in 11 of the 16 geographic analysis units (Figure 8).
Populations have persisted throughout the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley south of San Luis Reservoir to the Buena Vista Valley, in the Panoche and Cuyama Valleys, and Carrizo Plain.
Populations also continue to persist in the central portion of the Valley around Kern NWR and Semitropic Ecological Reserve, in Bakersfield, and in the southeastern portion of the Valley north to Porterville. Based on available survey data detailed below, we evaluated the certainty of occurrence across its range. We categorized this certainty into “low”, “moderate”, and “high”. Low certainty of occurrence corresponded to those areas where either focused surveys (such as those at Camp Roberts) have documented a disappearance of the species or where broader surveys have not documented the species in over 15 years. Areas where we are moderately certain that the species persists are characterized by either more recent sightings or habitat connection to nearby areas with documented extant populations. Finally, those areas that correspond to high certainty are those areas where kit foxes are routinely documented. Currently, the only areas with high certainty of kit fox occupancy are found in the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley (Figure 8 ). Prior to the sarcoptic
mange epidemic, the Bakersfield population has appeared stable or expanding with a population of 200–400 animals (Cypher and Van Horn Job 2012, p. 347), making it one of the largest remaining populations. Currently, this population is undergoing a severe decline which is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.5.
29 Figure 8. San Joaquin kit fox occurrence map. The kit fox range is divided into areas of “high”, “moderate”, and “low” certainty of occurrence based on California Natural Diversity Database information, researcher input, and other records.
30 3.2.1 Analysis Units
To assess the current condition across the range of the species, we used the geographic analysis units described in Section 2.5.2. These units generally center around historical kit fox sightings and, with a few exceptions, are bounded by topographical or man-made land use barriers that constrain kit fox movement. Although foxes do occur outside of these units (e.g. Cholame Valley), the analysis units represent the majority of the occupied habitat in a particular geographic area. However, these areas may provide important connectivity between geographic analysis units for dispersing kit foxes.
Throughout the historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox, sixteen distinct geographic units supporting kit fox populations have been identified (Figure 9). Within these units, individuals are scattered in pockets of optimal habitat in populations that are difficult to identify due to annual population fluctuations and lack of historic data. For a full description of these units see the recovery plan (USFWS 1998, p. 132-134).
3.3 Stressors Affecting the Species’ Condition
In this section, we discuss how the long-term viability of the San Joaquin kit fox is affected by the 3R’s. We discuss the external factors (stressors) that might influence the 3R’s, and thus the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox. Previous documents which address the status of the species (USFWS 1998, pp. 122–136, USFWS 2010b, entire) describe some of these threats. We will use the term ‘stressor’ to include previously identified threats, as well as other factors which might affect the overall viability of the species.
Through review of the available literature, we chose to evaluate stressors for which there is broad consensus of the potential to impact the species. These stressors include habitat modification and destruction, energy development, drought, disease or pathogens, rodenticides, and predation. There are other possible stressors identified as potential threats in other documents, which were considered in the course of our analysis, such as off road vehicle use, mining, and overgrazing (USFWS 1998, pp. 130–131; USFWS 2010b, pp. 25–70) but these stressors are most often associated with negative effects to individual animals rather than entire populations. Therefore, these stressors are excluded from further analysis in our SSA report. For the stressors which are included, we provide a description of the magnitude of the stressor, and an influence diagram modelling the potential impacts of the stressor on population resiliency (Figure 12), and a summary of ongoing and potential conservation that might lessen these impacts.
31 Figure 9. Geographic Analysis Units across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox.
32 3.3.1 Land Development
The loss and modification of habitat due to agricultural conversion, infrastructure construction, and urban development is the largest threat to the kit fox. Oil extraction and mining activities, solar energy development, changes in wildfire prevalence, and changes to vegetation structure due to non- native species and altered grazing regimes also result in habitat losses on a smaller scale.
At the time of listing, the USFWS identified land conversion to agriculture as the main stressor leading to the decline of the San Joaquin kit fox. Land conversion due to agriculture, mining, road construction, and urban and residential development were all identified as threats (i.e., Stressors) in the latest 5-year Review (USFWS 2010b, p. 25 –64). As habitat loss increases, so does habitat fragmentation, leading to a decrease in habitat patch size and an increase in non-habitat, or matrix habitat, between patches; both the loss of habitat and the isolation of habitat patches can reduce population sizes to such low levels that species become locally extinct (Gaines et al. 1997, p. 294).
Several attempts have been made at quantifying the habitat loss in the San Joaquin Valley. Each estimate used different methodology to quantify habitat. However, they all paint a picture of significant habitat loss in the San Joaquin Valley to agricultural and urban development. The 1998 recovery plan estimated that less than 5 percent (approximately 150,000 acres or 60,700 hectares) of habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor remained in native habitat at that time (USFWS 1998, p. 1).
More recently, Germano et al. (2011, pp. 140–145) estimated that at least 59% of habitat in the San Joaquin Valley has been converted to agriculture and or urban areas. Cypher et al. (2013, entire) developed a model of habitat suitability for the kit fox and estimated that according to their criteria there was approximately 1,647 mi
2 (4,267 km2) of highly suitable and 2,150 mi2 (5,569 km2) of moderately suitable habitat remaining within the range of the species (Figure 10).
Today, land conversion due to transportation, energy development, agriculture, and urbanization continues to stress the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat while also presenting an obstacle to recovery efforts. Habitat patches, primarily on private land, continue to be altered for agricultural use. However, conservation practices and land acquisitions since the time of listing have increased the amount of protected land. Although conservation efforts have helped the species in recent years, habitat loss in general remains the greatest factor negatively affecting the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox (USFWS 2010a, p. 69).
3.3.1.1 Agricultural Land Conversion
Agricultural activities have occurred in the San Joaquin Valley since the 19th century when the region was first settled. The Central Valley Project (CVP) was completed in 1951 and accelerated the conversion of native lands to agriculture so that by 1979, 1979 less than 2 percent of the valley remained uncultivated (USDI 2005, p. 1). Land conversion contributes to declines in kit fox abundance through both direct (mortality, injury, displacement) and indirect (reduction in carrying capacity, changes in kit fox predator and competitor density) effects. Although kit fox can use dry land farmed areas (Jensen 1972, p. 6), irrigated agricultural is generally avoided by kit foxes when foraging and not used for denning (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 275). Conversion of native habitats to agricultural land, particularly orchards and irrigated crops, likely places increased pressure on local populations and can present dispersal barriers to the kit fox. Although the pace of native habitat loss has likely slowed from earlier in the 20
th century, land conversion to agriculture continues to occur.
Additionally, crop conversion is ongoing. Today, agricultural conversion from native habitat has slowed substantially, because most tillable land has already been cultivated due to lack of water or 33 Figure 10. Modeled suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox.
34 irrigation, and the remaining land is ill suited to agricultural development (USFWS 1998, p. 92).
In addition to the direct loss of habitat for denning and foraging by kit fox, some trapping studies have shown a difference in the small mammal communities between lands in irrigated agriculture and adjacent undeveloped land (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 274). Pesticide application associated with agricultural development reduce prey availability and may indirectly harm kit foxes (Hosea 2000, p. 242; Nogeire et al. 2015, p. 7). Throughout the San Joaquin Valley, farmlands often border and are interspersed with remaining parcels of natural habitat, fragmenting remaining habitat. The structure of some annual crops, such as cotton which forms a dense thicket up to 3 feet tall, may impede kit fox movement between parcels of native land (Warrick et al. 2007, p.275).
The conversion of natural lands to agriculture continues to be a threat, as blocks of suitable habitat continue to be converted to irrigated agriculture (Kelly et al. 2005, p. 65, Figure 2). Although analyzed at a broader scale, one study estimated a 37% loss of remaining grassland habitat across the Central Valley by 2100 (Byrd et al. 2015, p. 748).
3.3.1.2 Urbanization
The increasing human population of California, with the concomitant high demand for limited supplies of land, water, and other resources, contributes to many other stressors that impact natural communities (Gonzales and Hoshi 2015). A report by Fresno County in 2012 estimated that the valley-wide population may increase from 3,970,000 in 2010 to 6,740,000 by 2050 (The Planning Center 2012, p. 19). Within the counties that make up the core of the kit fox range (Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, and Merced) the population is projected to nearly double by 2050 (Table 3).
Table 3. Projected population growth in the southern San Joaquin Valley (The Planning Center 2012 p. 18, Table 5).
County Year
2010 2050
Kern 840,000 1,540,000
Kings 153,000 266,000
Tulare 442,000 710,000
Merced 256,000 461,000
Fresno 930,000 1,521,000
TOTAL 2,621,000 4,498,000
This continued increase in the human population has resulted in increased urban development throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Urbanization occurs throughout much of the range of the San Joaquin kit fox, but is particularly concentrated around existing urban development.
Bakersfield is currently the largest city within the range of the kit fox with a population of 380,000.
The urban and suburban Bakersfield area has expanded to comprise approximately 70 percent of the Metropolitan Bakersfield satellite area for the kit fox.
35 3.3.1.3 Energy Development
At the time that the San Joaquin kit fox was federally listed, extraction of petroleum products (including crude oil, propane, natural gas, etc.) was not considered to be a threat to the kit fox, as most of the petroleum-producing land was still relatively undisturbed (Jensen 1972, p.7). Since that time, oil and gas extraction has expanded throughout the southern and western portion of the kit fox range; primarily in western Kern, Kings, and Fresno Counties.
Oilfields in the southwestern portion of the San Joaquin Valley include the Midway-Sunset Oilfield which is the highest-producing BLM lease in the United States (BLM 2008) and the 74 mi 2 Elk Hills
Oilfield (the 7th largest in the United States). Oil and gas development is made up of both privately owned and federal (BLM) mineral estate. Most oil and gas leasing and development activities on public lands occur in the San Joaquin Valley on lands managed by the BLM’s Bakersfield Field Office.
Development of oil fields likely impacts the prey species for the kit fox both through direct loss of the species as well as alteration of the small mammal community. A study of an oil spill found a decrease in abundance of Heermann’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni) between spill areas and control areas (Warrick et al. 1997, p. 22). High density oil field disturbances in western Kern County have been found to shift the composition of the small mammal community toward more generalist species (Fiehler et al. 2017, p. 139). Specialist species such as Nelson’s antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni) and short-nosed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) were not found in high density oil fields (Fiehler et al. 2017, p. 139). Although, kit fox have a varied diet, (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 21; White et al. 1996, p. 364), during drought conditions, they did not appear to significantly shift their diet away from preferred species during periods of prey scarcity (White et al. 1996, p. 374).
Instead, the kit foxes showed a pattern of decreased reproduction and may have contributed to poorer nutritional condition of the foxes (White et al. 1996, p. 375). Small mammal populations at NPRC showed strong responses to precipitation (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 31) and did not significantly differ between developed and undeveloped sites (Zoellick et al. 2002, p. 156). Impacts to prey species and small mammal communities within oil and gas development may be less important than year-to-year precipitation variation and direct loss of habitat. San Joaquin kit foxes appear to be tolerant of human disturbance as evidenced by their occupation of active oil and gas fields, solar facilities, and urban areas such as Bakersfield. In oil and gas fields they can be found denning in manmade structures such as pipes and culverts (Berry et al. 1987b, p. 12, Table 1). Oil and gas development impacts may impact kit fox through habitat loss and an associated reduction in overall carrying capacity (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 37). However, this relationship may not be linear and kit foxes continue to persist in areas of oil development (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 37).
Permanent modification to habitat due to oil and gas activities can reduce the species’ ability to disperse and find new habitat. As more land is affected by extraction of natural resources, there could be population level responses associated with habitat degradation and habitat modification.
The full extent of the effect to the San Joaquin kit fox from current or future oil and gas development is not fully understood at this time.
As of 2015, there were 48 utility-scale (> 20 MW) solar development projects planned, under construction, or operating within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox (Hernandez et al. 2015, p. 5).
The largest of these are found in the Carrizo Plain where two solar firms have installed panels on approximately on 5,250 acres on the northern end of the Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo County (Cypher et al. 2019, p. 1). Another utility-scale solar facility covering 1,688 acres has been installed in 36 the Cholame Valley in Monterey County. The most recently installed solar farm is a 2,154-acre facility in the Panoche Valley in San Benito County. Although these facilities have likely had impacts to San Joaquin kit foxes and their habitat, monitoring has shown that that solar development is not incompatible with kit fox presence (Cypher et al. 2019, entire). In addition, development of the solar facilities resulted in thousands of acres of land set aside under permanent conservation as mitigation.
The Service expects that additional solar projects will be proposed on lands important to the kit fox at the southern extent of its range.
3.3.1.4 Land Protection
Central Valley Project Conservation Program (CVPCP) and Habitat Restoration Program (HRP) The Central Valley Project (CVP) is a large multi-purpose water conveyance network designed to supply water and provide flood protection throughout a 400 mile (644 km) section of central California (Interior Region 10 2019). The Conservation Program (CVPCP) and CVP Improvement Act Habitat Restoration Program (HRP) are dual projects designed to protect and restore habitats impacted by the CVP. The San Joaquin kit fox is listed as a high priority species for these projects, with emphasis on efforts to: determine habitat management and compatible land uses, conduct presence/absence surveys, and protect key habitat areas (Bureau of Reclamation 2017, p. 2). Notable projects under the two programs include land acquisition and habitat restoration. The history of the CVPCP and HRP is discussed in detail in the blunt-nosed leopard lizard 2010 5-year Review (USFWS 2010a, pp. 24–33), including discussion of the Land Retirement Program and a list of lands acquired through the Bureau of Reclamation. Much of this land is mapped in the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) and California Conservation Easement Database (CCED) (see next section).
Other Protected Land
Other entities including Federal and State agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Counties, and others protect land within the range of the kit fox. This land is subject to a wide variety of uses and land management, including areas with no mandate for wildlife protection.
However, areas without a specific management plan in place can provide suitable habitat for the kit fox under certain conditions and are candidates for actions that could enhance their value for the species. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) developed under section 10 of the ESA are a critical component of land protection for the kit fox. To date, HCPs covering the San Joaquin kit fox have committed to protecting over 90,000 acres. While not all this acreage is comprised of kit fox habitat, a significant proportion of the land acquisition for these HCPs protects annual grassland and shrubland habitats. Large plans such as the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP and Metro Bakersfield HCP have been instrumental at preserving relatively large parcels of land under permanent easement for the benefit of the kit fox. We compared land protection within species historical range and within the identified analysis units to assess the proportion of land within the range of the species that may provide some long-term protections from land conversion. We note that some of these areas do not currently (or may never) provide habitat for the kit fox due to land management, public access issues, or generally unsuitable terrain or landcover. For example, Mendota Wildlife Area is 11,800 acres but is mostly floodplain or flatlands, with limited alkali scrub (CDFW 2020).
The CPAD and CCED map existing land protections in California, and are a useful visual tools to assess contiguous blocks of land that support San Joaquin kit fox populations, as well as potential 37 land acquisitions that could help promote corridors between populations. We mapped CPAD and CCED relative to the San Joaquin kit fox historic range and analysis units (Figure 11). Because large blocks of contiguous land are important for the resilience of San Joaquin kit fox populations, conserving connected parcels of land is important for the health of the species.
Summary of impacts to the 3Rs
Reduction in habitat quality and quantity due to human induced land use change can alter the local habitat composition of an area making populations of San Joaquin kit fox less resilient and more vulnerable to stochastic events. Habitat fragmentation can also reduce connectivity and prevent gene flow among populations, leading to a reduction in population resiliency and species redundancy. In some areas, land protections have been put in place to prevent further alterations to native habitat.
In other areas, mitigation and restoration is being done to restore lands that were once habitat back to their native state. Protected lands may help offset effects to the 3R’s that arise from land use changes.
3.3.2 Climate Variability
Drought is defined as a deficiency in precipitation over an extended period, which reduces water supply, water quality, and range productivity, and impacts social and economic activities. Although drought is a relatively normal process throughout southern California, under climate change scenarios natural, historical stressors (i.e., drought, wildfires, flooding, etc.) have the potential to become exacerbated and extreme, due to anthropogenic factors. Small, fragmented populations of San Joaquin kit fox are at a higher risk of local extinction during extreme climatic events than are large populations on contiguous habitat. Drought specifically impacts the San Joaquin kit fox through alteration to the prey species. Giant kangaroo rat populations are greatly affected by changes in precipitation and herbaceous plant growth (Germano and Saslaw 2017, p. 1616). An extreme drought in California which lasted approximately from 2013 – 2016 saw precipitous declines in giant kangaroo rat numbers (Prugh et al. 2018, p. 2). Data suggest that kit foxes show decreases in reproduction and overall population decline in response to alterations in prey resulting from a drought period (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 33).
San Joaquin kit foxes are well adapted to annual cycles of drought and rainfall that are characteristic of the San Joaquin Valley. However, under current climate change scenarios climatic variability in the San Joaquin Valley is likely to increase. The Valley will likely see prolonged periods of drought (5 years or longer) punctuated by uncharacteristically heavy rainfall events. Individual San Joaquin kit fox will need to move throughout the environment to find enough mates and resources to survive and reproduce during times of drought and increased temperatures. Therefore, large areas of contiguous habitat are needed to ensure the species can survive harsh conditions (Figure 7). Data from the Carrizo Plain and Elk Hills show significant population changes in response to drought. In the Carrizo Plain, this variation appears to correspond to change in availability of the main prey species, the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens).
Under current reasonable climate change scenarios, the San Joaquin Valley is likely to see changes in current ecosystem processes (Stewart et al. 2019, p. 6). Currently, the western slopes of the San Joaquin Valley are a climatic desert with low annual rainfall (Germano et al. 2011, p. 6). Precipitation typically occurs in the winter months, primarily between October and April. Historically there has always been inter-annual variation in precipitation and temperature; to which native species have adapted. These historical processes are projected to change and become more variable under 38 predicted future climate scenarios, and extreme droughts punctuated by heavy, episodic rainfall are both reasonable climate predictions. San Joaquin kit foxes are well adapted to variable climate conditions. However, drought has been linked to population declines in kit foxes and increasing frequency and severity of drought conditions may have an effect. Increasing variability in inter- annual precipitation (Single et al. 1996, pp. 36, 38–39) is already affecting portions of southern California, including the San Joaquin Valley. Weather patterns altered from historical norms are likely to affect annual rainfall; variation in annual rainfall can affect food availability for San Joaquin kit fox, causing population level responses.
39 Figure 11. Land protection across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox.
40 Summary of Impacts to the 3Rs
Kit fox populations affected by drought exhibit lower abundance, reproduction, and survival due to the impacts of drought on prey availability. This makes kit fox populations less resilient and more vulnerable to other stochastic events. San Joaquin kit foxes are well-adapted to xeric habitats (Morrell 1972, p. 4); however, if drought-induced decreases in population size could limit immigration and gene flow. This could lead to the loss of populations across the range and decrease the redundancy of the species, making it more susceptible to a wide scale, catastrophic event. The effects of drought may be amplified if it occurs in concert with other stressors.
3.3.3 Pesticide Use
Pesticides, and specifically rodenticides, pose a threat to kit foxes through direct or secondary poisoning. For example, kit foxes may be killed if they ingest rodenticide in a bait application, or if they consume rodents that have consumed bait (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 66; Berry et al. 1992, p. 11; Huffman and Murphy 1992, p. 378; Standley et al. 1992, p.16; Hosea 2000, p. 242). From the 1960s into the early 1980s rodenticides were often broadcast over large areas by airplane (USFWS 1998, p. 92). It is difficult to assess the magnitude of current impacts from rodenticides to San Joaquin kit fox populations. The state of California no longer broadcasts rodenticides over large areas of habitat (USFWS 2010a, p. 33). However, anticoagulant rodenticides are still used in agriculture to prevent damage to plants by wild rodent species (Franklin et al. 2018, p. 1). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure and poisoning has emerged as a conservation concern for non-target wildlife on public lands (Gabriel et al. 2012. p. 1). Kit foxes may also be threatened by loss of prey if rodent prey populations decline due to rodent control programs. This is surmised as a cause for declines in the kit fox population in Contra Costa County (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 66).
Rodenticides are also used in urban, suburban, and rural areas to control a variety of rodents, including house mice, voles, pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and Norway rats (USEPA 2008, p. 2), animals that may comprise prey for the kit fox to varying degrees, depending on the prey community available in each locality. Predatory mammals (particularly the kit fox) from the urban-suburban environment surrounding Bakersfield experience high levels of exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides (McMillin et al 2008, p. 165). Use of these rodenticides by the untrained public is thought to be the likely source of exposure for these animals. Schitoskey (1975, p. 417) found that captive kit foxes consistently preferred dead kangaroo rats over anthropogenic food sources indicating that if dead rodents were present on the landscape, they would likely be consumed by the kit fox. Exposure modelling estimated that 36% of kit foxes were exposed to rodenticides and that 70% of this exposure resulted from low-density development (Nogiere et al. 2015, p. 7). A study in Bakersfield found that 73.5% of sample foxes showed evidence of rodenticide residue and 42.6% showed evidence of more than one rodenticide (Cypher et al. 2014, p. 7). Mortalities from rodenticides have been documented by Hosea (2000, p. 239, Table 2), Standley et al. (1992, p. 16), and McMillin et al. (2008, p. 165).
While regulations and procedures have been implemented to reduce non-target exposure, the effectiveness of these new regulations is not clear at this time. Kit foxes continue to be exposed to products used legally and illegally, or even to products whose use has been discontinued but have ongoing residual effect. However, given the potential for secondary exposure of kit foxes throughout its range, particularly in agricultural areas, along canals, and in urban areas, the Service expects rodenticide exposure could have effects to some kit fox populations, particularly where these populations are small or where they rely on target species, such as ground squirrels and murid 41 rodents, for prey.
Summary of Impacts to the 3Rs
Kit fox populations affected by pesticide use may exhibit lower abundance, reproduction, and survival. Although precise effects of non-target exposure are unknown, studies of kit fox and other non-target wildlife have shown effects ranging from a reduction in fecundity to mortality. Exposure across the range of the species may depress reproduction and lower survival rates for juvenile kit foxes. This in turn, reduces population sizes and may make exposed populations less resilient and more vulnerable to other stochastic events. The effects of pesticide exposure are likely amplified by the effects from other stressors such as drought or habitat fragmentation.
3.3.4 Predation
Predation has been identified as a leading cause of kit fox mortality (Ralls and White 1995, p. 727).
Most predator-related deaths are attributable to coyotes (Ralls and White 1995, p. 727; Cypher et al. 2000, p. 27), but bobcats also may contribute to much of the predator-caused mortality (Spiegel and Disney 1996, pp. 75 –76, Table 2; Cypher et al. 2000, p. 27). In addition to mortality caused by wild canids, kit foxes have also been killed by badgers, golden eagles, and free-ranging dogs (Briden et al. 1992, p. 87; Standley et al. 1992, p. 15; Ralls and White 1995, p. 727; Spiegel and Disney 1996, pp. 81, 85; Clark et al. 2005, p. 158). The lack of available dens for shelter in altered landscapes may increase the predation risk to kit fox from canids in these areas (Cypher et al. 2005, p. 10). Mortality due to interactions with predators, primarily coyotes, has ranged between 57 percent and 89 percent in the southern San Joaquin Valley (Standley et al. 1992, p. 15; Ralls and White 1995, p. 727; Spiegel and Disney 1996, p. 75; Cypher et al. 2000, p. 16, Tables 4 and 5). An experimental coyote-control program at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California did not result in an increase in survival rate for kit foxes, nor did coyote-induced mortality decrease (Cypher and Scrivner 1992, p. 45). Often canid predators do not consume the kit foxes they kill indicating that canid predators do not always consume their prey, so kit fox mortality from coyotes may be due to interference competition (Cypher and Spencer 1998, p. 211; Cypher et al. 2000, p. 34; Nelson et al. 2007, p. 1473).
Interference competition occurs when individuals of one species behave in a manner that suppresses individuals of another species, effectively reducing the second species’ use of shared resources.
Although this is generally not defined as predation, for the purposes of this discussion we lumped this type of mortality under the umbrella of “predation”.
Other canids such as gray foxes and red foxes may compete with kit fox, though the degree of competition is unknown. The need for similar den sites and prey species probably place nonnative red foxes in direct competition with the much smaller kit fox. Nonnative red foxes are expanding their geographic range in central California (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 67; Lewis et al. 1993, p. 14), and competition with or predation on kit foxes may be a factor in the apparent decline of kit foxes in the Santa Clara Valley, and perhaps elsewhere in the northwestern segment of their range. Coyotes aggressively dominate encounters with red foxes and will pursue and kill both red and gray foxes (Sargeant and Allen 1989, entire), as well as kit foxes. Coyotes may reduce the negative impacts of red foxes on kit foxes by limiting red fox abundance and distribution, but details of interactions between the two species and the extent to which coyotes might slow or prevent the invasion of red foxes into kit fox habitats are unknown (White et al. 1994, p. 1835; Ralls and White 1995, pp. 727– 728).
42 Summary of Impacts to the 3Rs
Kit fox populations affected by increased predation may exhibit lower abundance and survival, particularly of juvenile foxes. This would have a long-term effect of reducing the size of the population which may make populations less resilient and more vulnerable to other stochastic events. Because increased predation may occur in areas where human development, both urban and agriculture, is occurring the effects of increased predation are likely increased by concurrent effects from land conversion.
3.3.5 Disease
Wildlife diseases (rabies, canine parvovirus, canine distemper virus, etc.) could cause substantial mortality or contribute to reduced fertility in female kit foxes (White et al. 2000, p. 205; Miller et al. 2000, p. 802). Diseases may threaten long-term viability of small populations of wildlife (Thorne and Williams 1988, pp. 67–69). Overall, disease was thought not to be a leading cause of mortality in kit foxes (McCue and O'Farrell 1988, pp. 278–279; Standley and McCue 1992, p. 12). However, two recent incidents at Camp Roberts and in Bakersfield have demonstrated that in certain instances, disease outbreaks may have population-level effects. Rabies has been implicated in the loss of a population at Camp Roberts (White et al. 2000, p. 209) and currently an outbreak of sarcoptic mange (Sarcoptes scabei) is causing steep population declines in the Bakersfield kit fox population (Deatherage 2020, p. 70). The mange epidemic in Bakersfield was first observed in 2013, and, although mortality from this outbreak is high (70% overall and 100% without veterinary intervention), thus far it appears to be largely limited to Bakersfield (Cypher et al. 2017, pp. 48–49, 51, Table 1). A few kit foxes with sarcoptic mange have been documented from Taft, but the outbreak does not appear to have spread into natural lands (Cypher pers. comm. 2020). Disease and predation may have both contributed to the catastrophic decline in the isolated population of San Joaquin kit fox at Camp Roberts, in San Luis Obispo County.
Kit fox captures decreased from 103 in 1988 to 20 in 1991, and further to only 3 in 1997 (White et al. 2000, p. 207, 209, Table 1). During this same period, captures of striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) also decreased, but the proportion of skunks that were found to be rabid increased. This correlation led biologists to propose that rabies was a factor in the kit fox decline (White et al. 2000, pp. 208, 209, Table 3).
3.3.6 Road Mortality
Vehicle strikes are a consistent, but small source of kit fox mortality on natural lands (Cypher et al. 2000, pp. 14–16, Tables 4 and 5; Bjurlin and Cypher 2003, p. 398, Table 1), with vehicle strikes accounting for <10 percent of mortality at the NPRC (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 27). On natural lands, kit foxes are sometimes killed by vehicle strikes, but impacts of roads on kit fox ecology are generally thought to be low (Cypher et al. 2005, p. 16). Although vehicle strikes may not have population-level effects in natural lands where traffic volume is low, vehicle strikes appear to be a more substantial source of mortality in human-altered landscapes, including urban environments (Bjurlin et al. 2005, p. 20; Cypher et al. 2003, as cited in Cypher and Brown 2006, p. 10). In urban settings such as Bakersfield, vehicle strikes can be the largest source of kit fox mortality and may impact urban kit fox populations (Bjurlin et al. 2005, p. 20).
43 Figure 12. Core conceptual model showing the stressors and needs for the San Joaquin kit fox .
Based on survey data at Camp Roberts, the population of San Joaquin kit fox in the Salinas Valley appears to have significantly dwindled and may no longer be present. Similarly, the population at Fort Hunter-Liggett has not been documented in several decades. Continuing records in the Paso Robles area suggest that kit foxes may still be present, but at low densities in this area (Dave Hacker pers com). Currently the only verified extant population in Monterey County occurs in the Cholame Valley. Finally, there are no current verified records within the last 10 years of kit fox north of Porterville on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley.
Although kit foxes have been documented in this area on occasion, historic data suggest that the fox has always been rare in this area (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020). In particular, large portions of the landscape north of Fresno are designated critical habitat for a wide variety of vernal pool species and the landscape is dominated by more mesic species. The characteristics that provide a premier vernal pool landscape such as clay soils and significant ponding likely reduce the suitability of the habitat for the kit fox by restricting the available areas for denning (Cypher et al. 2013, p. 29).
Throughout much of the kit fox range, individual populations are fragmented into smaller islands of suitable habitat that are isolated by topographic and manmade barriers. Currently the largest, most robust populations exist on the western periphery of the southern San Joaquin Valley and in the
44 Carrizo Plain. Habitats in this area are primarily comprised of sparse annual grassland and shrubland, and in some areas, there are large blocks of intact habitat. This area was mapped as having the most “high” habitat suitability by Cypher et al. (2013, p. 27). North of Santa Nella, habitats are primarily comprised of Aveena sp. grassland and the topography is generally steeper. Cypher et al. (2013, p. 27) modeled this as “moderate” habitat suitability.
Genetic studies have supported division into three distinct genetic clusters: Ciervo-Panoche, Bakersfield, and western Kern County/Carrizo Plain/Camp Roberts (Wilbert 2013, p. 80). In particular, Wilbert (2013, p. 85) indicated that the population in Bakersfield shows a unique genetic signature that is rarely found in the other genetic clusters. Both landscape level genetic studies indicate that gene flow is continuing through the sampled kit fox populations (Schwartz et al. 2005, p. 33; Wilbert 2013, p. 83) and that none of the sample populations were showing evidence of robust levels of genetic diversity and heterozygosity (Wilbert 2013, p. 80).
3.3.7 Existing Regulation
3.3.7.1 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The CESA (California Fish and Game Code, section 2080 et seq.) prohibits the unauthorized take of State-listed threatened or endangered species, The CESA requires State agencies to consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that might affect a State-listed species and mitigate for any adverse impacts to the species or its habitat. Pursuant to CESA, it is unlawful to import or export, take, possess, purchase or sell any species or part or product of any species listed as endangered or threatened. The State may authorize permits for scientific, educational, or management purposes, and to allow take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
3.3.7.2 Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), is the primary Federal law providing protection for the San Joaquin kit fox. The Service has responsibility for administering the Act, including sections 7, 9, and 10 that address take. Section 9 prohibits the taking of any federally listed endangered or threatened species. Take is defined in section 3 as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harass is defined by Service regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Harm is defined by the same regulations as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for the unlawful taking of listed species.
Since listing, the Service has analyzed the potential effects of Federal projects under section 7(a)(2), which requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service prior to authorizing, funding, or carrying out activities that may affect listed species. For projects without a Federal nexus that would likely result in incidental take of listed species, the Service may issue incidental take permits to non-Federal applicants pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B). Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity (50 CFR 402.02). To qualify for an incidental take permit, applicants must develop, fund, and implement a Service-approved Habitat 45 Conservation Plan that details measures to minimize and mitigate the project’s adverse impacts to listed species. Many of these Habitat Conservation Plans are coordinated with the State of California’s related Natural Community Conservation Planning program.
The status of the kit fox as a species listed under the ESA can reduce the severity of the effects of habitat loss due to urban and energy development, and, in some case, agricultural development.
Development projects that are subject to section 7 consultation or result in the issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10 typically include habitat compensation, which can reduce the severity of overall habitat loss typically associated with these projects. Habitat compensation can occur via a variety of mechanisms, including the purchase of credits at approved conservation banks, through permittee responsible mitigation, and through the development of habitat conservation plans (HCPs). In addition to reducing the amount of overall habitat loss for the species, section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA allows for permits to be issued for recovery activities that result in take.
Recovery activities are those activities that are specifically implemented for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including interstate commerce activities.
Conservation Banks
A conservation bank is a site, or suite of sites (i.e., umbrella bank), that is conserved and managed in perpetuity, and provides ecological functions and services for specified listed species or resources.
Conservation banks function to offset adverse impacts to these species that occurred elsewhere; therefore, the Service approves a specified number of credits that the bank owner may sell to developers or other project proponents for use as compensation for adverse impacts their projects have on those species. The bank owner then uses the money from the credit purchases to permanently protect and manage the land for those species and resources. More information about conservation banks within the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office’s Service area can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Conservation-Banking/Banks/In-Area/ .
Currently, there are 16 banks covering 23,681 acres that conserve habitat for the kit fox.
Conservation banks are found throughout the range of the species. Four banks totaling 9,953 acres have sold out of credits. The remaining 12 banks are currently active. Not all the land within each bank provides suitable habitat for the species. However, conservation banks provide permanent protection that can secure suitable habitat and link movement corridors.
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Permittee-responsible mitigation includes activities or projects undertaken by a permittee (or authorized agent) to provide compensatory mitigation for which the permittee retains full responsibility. Permittee-responsible mitigation projects are typically not established in advance of the impacts they are offsetting and they do not have credits that can be used at a later time to offset different impacts, like conservation banks.
Habitat compensation through permittee responsible mitigation for the San Joaquin kit fox occurs throughout the species range for a number of projects. The primary agencies implementing permittee responsible mitigation for the San Joaquin kit fox include the Bureau of Reclamation, Caltrans, oil and gas companies, and several solar facilities.
46 HCPs
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are planning documents required as part of an application for an incidental take permit. They describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking; how those impacts will be minimized, or mitigated; and how the HCP is to be funded. HCPs can apply to both listed and non-listed species, including those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing.
Regional HCPs develop large-scale conservation strategies within a specific region that are designed to conserve functional ecological systems and the covered species that depend on them. Such HCPs aim to avoid a fragmented conservation landscape by working with local land use authorities and a designated implementing entity to conserve, enhance, and manage a preserve system. Project-level HCPs are designed to fully offset the impacts associated with the permitted activity by contributing to a larger conservation design.
Being included as a covered species under an HCP can result in habitat being set aside and managed for the species as mitigation for impacts associated with covered activities, such as planned urban development, within the HCP permit area. In addition to mitigation, avoidance, minimization, and other conservation measures (e.g. monitoring, seasonal work windows, habitat management, etc.) are implemented. HCPs can also utilize banks, in-lieu fee programs, or other mechanisms to preserve habitat in perpetuity and contribute to a regional conservation strategy.
There are 27 HCPs that include the San Joaquin kit fox as a covered species. The majority (10) of HCPs are in or cover portions of Kern County. More information about HCPs that include the San Joaquin kit fox as a covered species can be found at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A006 .
Recovery Permits
Recovery permits, also referred to as 10(a)1(A) permits, allow scientists to take listed species to ultimately contribute to the recovery of the listed species. The data acquired from some actions covered under recovery permits (e.g., occurrence, abundance, distribution, etc.) allow the Service to make informed decisions for the species that will enhance their survival and recovery. Recovery permits can be issued for activities that directly aid the recovery of a species, such as captive breeding, reintroductions, habitat restoration, removal or reduction of threats, and educational programs. The Service’s recovery permitting program aids in the conservation of listed species by ensuring permittees have adequate field experience and qualifications for conducting activities with the target listed species and, for most species, ensures that permittees are following standardized protocols while surveying. The recovery permitting application process ensures that scientific proposals are crafted using the recommended actions laid out in the Recovery Plan for the target species. There is currently no protocol survey guidance for the San Joaquin kit fox; however, there are minimum qualifications to obtain a recovery permit for the species. Minimum qualifications and species specific protocols can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Permits/
Safe Harbor Agreements
Safe Harbor Agreements are also permitted under the Service’s recovery permitting program. The Safe Harbor Policy provides incentives for property owners to restore, enhance and maintain habitats for listed species. Because many endangered and threatened species occur exclusively, or to a large extent, on non-Federally owned property, the involvement of non-Federal property owners 47 in the conservation and recovery of listed species is critical to the eventual success of these efforts.
Under the policy, the Service will provide participating property owners with technical assistance to develop Safe Harbor Agreements that manage habitat for listed species, and provide assurances that additional land, water, and/or natural resource use restrictions will not be imposed as a result of their voluntary conservation actions to benefit covered species. When the property owner meets all the terms of the Agreement, the Service will authorize incidental take of the covered species at a level that enables the property owner to return the enrolled property back to an agreed upon baseline condition. There has been one Safe Harbor Agreement covering the San Joaquin kit fox for a project to install escape dens. The permit was issued in April 2003.
3.4 Analysis of Current Condition
In this section, we analyze the current conditions of the geographic analysis units of the San Joaquin kit fox as a way of assessing population resiliency. We then use our resiliency results to assess the redundancy and representation across the species. Assessing current condition as part of the SSA analysis is associated with, but independent from, assessing habitat suitability. Habitat suitability analyses use a suite of habitat predictor variables known or hypothesized to be important to the ecology and distribution of the species to create models that assess habitat and classify it according to suitability. Thus, different habitat sites that are modeled as “suitable” may be based on varying combinations of predictor variables. Models can be tested using historical or current occurrence data, but habitat modeled as suitable may or may not actually be occupied by, or accessible to, the species. Therefore, while habitat suitability can be an important component of understanding population resiliency and can inform future conservation efforts, habitat suitability alone may not accurately reflect the current condition of a specific population or of the species. When assessing population condition in the SSA framework, we identify specific habitat and demographic variables thought to be the main drivers of viability of the species.
Table 4. Stressors used to analyze the current and future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox.
Stressor
Effect to
Individuals or
populations is
known
Negative
Response has
been Quantified
Species or
Population Level
Response
Stressor Carried
Forward in
Analysis
Habitat
Modification or
Destruction
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stochastic
Precipitation
Patterns
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Drought
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rodenticides
Yes Yes Unknown No
Disease Yes Yes Yes Yes
Predation Yes Yes No No
48 In doing so, we address the individual and population needs of the species, as well as the main factors influencing viability (Table 4). We use quantitative or qualitative assessments to classify these categories into high, moderate, and low conditions in a Condition Category Table (CCT) and analyze the overall condition of each analysis unit across all the categories. Using the same table to assess the current and future condition of our analysis units allows for comparison between how the species is doing now and, in the future, (described in Chapter 4 of this document). We refer to “suitable habitat” when analyzing current and future condition of the populations, using modeled or otherwise projected habitat suitability in relation to current and future habitat factors and threats.
We analyzed the current condition of San Joaquin kit fox within the sixteen, geographic analysis units, as described above (Figure 9). These areas continue to encompass the known extant locations for San Joaquin kit fox thought to be important for the viability and recovery of the species. After consulting with experts and taking into account the data available to us, we identified average slope within the unit, natural land extent, connectivity, land protection, prey occurrence, population trends, and frequency of occupancy as the most important variables to include in our resiliency analysis for the reasons described below.
Average slope was included in our analysis because studies show San Joaquin kit fox tend to avoid areas of steep terrain. High slope areas may be used for foraging and dispersal, but steep habitat is not used routinely by breeding foxes. Therefore, in our analysis it was assumed that areas of high slope within the geographic units restricted the movement of the species and kit foxes were not likely to occupy these high slope areas in a significant way.
Because it is not possible to attain range-wide habitat quality data, we used available landcover data to assess the available potential habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. Although certain habitat types are preferred by kit foxes, we presume much of the undeveloped land in the San Joaquin Valley may be used by the kit fox. The suitability of individual parcels may vary widely from year to year based on precipitation and land management factors (fire and grazing), but overall kit foxes are likely able to use most of the natural land within their range.
There is agreement among experts that habitat loss and fragmentation are the main stressors to the San Joaquin kit fox. We assess the connectivity across and between each analysis unit to capture the ability of an individual to move across the landscape. In order to measure connectivity, we qualitatively assessed the average natural land parcel size within the analysis unit, and fragmentation of natural lands and barriers such as incompatible land uses (urban and agricultural development), infrastructure, and topography both within and surrounding the analysis unit.
At the species and population level, San Joaquin kit fox need space and suitable habitat in order for populations to be viable over time. Land protection is important to ensure the long-term viability of the species. The percentage of land within each unit was assessed to determine how much protected land was available to the species. This analysis is consistent with the down- and delisting criteria outlined in the Recovery plan for the species (USFWS 1998, p. 186).
The availability of prey impacts adult survival and recruitment. Although we do not have range-wide data on prey availability, we assumed that where natural land extent was higher, there was likely more abundant natural prey. Kit fox will take a wide variety of prey items. However, for our analysis we focused on small mammals and considered areas where kangaroo rats were most prevalent to be in the highest condition for the species.
49 The demographic needs of the species are presented in two categories in our analysis of current condition: population trend and population persistence. Survival is not directly assessed in the table but is strongly correlated with the habitat components described above. Fecundity is captured through the assessment of persistence over time. It is assumed that analysis units that show a pattern of long-term occupancy also have relatively high fecundity. Because San Joaquin kit fox reproductive rates and population sizes can vary widely from year to year, long-term trends are likely a more accurate indicator of the health of a population. We used a timeframe of 30 years as our indicator for long-term persistence.
The criteria are defined in Table 5 and the analysis is presented in Table 6. We separated our overall metrics into demographic and habitat characteristics to avoid overweighting any one factor in either category.
Each geographic analysis unit was given a numeric score for each factor based on the condition category table (0.5 for very low condition, 1 for low condition, 2 for moderate condition, and 3 for high condition). Each geographic analysis unit’s overall condition was then calculated across all the factors. Categories with unknown conditions were conservatively given a score of 0.5, or very low.
Analysis of the current data indicate that demographic factors are likely more important to the overall condition of an analysis unit than the habitat factors. As such we weighted the overall demographic condition as twice as important as the overall habitat condition. We then translated the overall condition score into a current condition category of very low, low, moderate or high (Table 6; Figure 13). Low condition suggests that the population has a low probability of persistence (high extirpation risk), medium condition suggests a moderate probability of persistence, and high condition suggests high probability of persistence.
Table 5. Definitions for demographic and habitat conditions for the analysis of the San Joaquin kit fox.
Demographic
Factors
Habitat
Factors
Condition Population
Trend
Population
Persistence
% of sloped
terrain
within unit1
Undeveloped
Land1
Habitat
Connectivity
Habitat
Protection
Prey
Availability
High Population
Stable or
Increasing
Evidence of
persistence
over the last
30 years and
multiple
positive
records
results within
the last year
Greater than
75% of the
unit has a
slope < 10%
Majority of
unit (>50%) is
undeveloped
with natural
land cover or
non-irrigated
pasture.
Natural land
exists in larger
contiguous
blocks.
There are many
large (>1,100
acres) patches of
habitat within
the unit that well
connected both
within and
outside the unit
A large
proportion of
the natural
lands are
protected
within unit
Abundant
natural prey,
mostly
kangaroo rats.
50 Moderate Population
showing a slight
decline
Evidence of
persistence
over the last
30 years, but
less than 10
positive
records
within the
last 5 years.
Greater than
75% of the
unit has a
slope < 30%
Unit is
comprised of
< 50% natural
land cover or
non-irrigated
pastures.
Natural land
exists in few
or no large,
contiguous
blocks.
There are many
large (>1,100
acres) patches of
habitat within
the unit, but the
unit is highly
fragmented both
within and
outside the unit
by topographic
and
anthropogenic
barriers
Some of the
natural lands
protected
within the unit
Relatively
abundant
natural or
anthropogenic
prey, a wide
variety of small
mammals
available.
Low Population
showing long-
term consistent
decline
Only
sporadic
records and
no positive
records
within the
last 5 years
More than
25% of the
unit has a
slope > 30%
Natural land
cover makes
up < 25% of
the unit and
there are no
large
contiguous
blocks of
habitat.
There are few or
no large patches
of habitat within
the unit, and the
patches and
highly
fragmented.
Little of the
natural lands
protected
within the unit
Natural prey
under threats
and not
consistently
available.
Very Low2 No evidence of
a current
population
Only records
are 10 years
old or
greater.
--- --- --- --- ---
1These two habitat factors are included in “Habitat Extent” in the Core Conceptual Model (Figure 7). 2We did not categorize any habitat factors as “very low” as all the units had some measurable habitat. 51 Table 6. Current condition of the San Joaquin kit fox across 16 geographic analysis units.
Analysis Unit
Population
Trend
Population
Persistence
Overall
Demogra
phy
% of sloped
terrain within
unit
Undeveloped
Land Habitat
Connectivity
Habitat
Protection Prey Base Habitat Overall Total Overall
Livermore Very Low Very Low Very Low Low High Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Very Low Santa Nella Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate High Moderate Low Low Moderate Very Low Kesterson NWR Very Low Very Low Very Low High Very Low Low High Low Moderate Very Low Western Madera Very Low Very Low Very Low High Low Low Low Low Low Very Low Pleasant Valley Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Porterville Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Allensworth/Pixley
NWR Low Low Low High Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Kettleman Hills Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Semitropic/Kern
NWR Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Eastern Kern
County Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Carrizo Plain High High High Moderate High High High High High High Bakersfield Moderate High Moderate High Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Western Kern
County High High High High High High Moderate High High High Cuyama Valley Low Moderate Low High Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Panoche/Western
Merced High High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High Salinas Valley Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Very Low 52 Figure 13. Current condition of the San Joaquin kit fox in 16 geographic analysis units.
53 3.4.1 Uncertainty of Current Condition Analysis
As discussed in our analysis of current condition, we had to make many assumptions, both in defining condition categories and in assessing the condition of each geographic analysis unit relative to these categories (Table 7). These assumptions were informed by a thorough literature review and discussions with species experts.
Table 7. Uncertainty Assumptions
Analysis Factors Assumption
Population Trend There are no current or past studies that examine population trends at either a range wide or analysis
unit level. As such we used the frequency of
observations in CNDDB to estimate trends. We
assumed a pattern of continuous observation
indicated a stable trend and declining observation
indicated a declining trend.
Population Persistence We used records from CNDDB over time to estimate population persistence. While not
comprehensive, the long-term nature of the dataset
provides information on both historical and current
observations.
% of sloped terrain within unit We assumed that habitat with lower slopes provided more habitat value for the kit fox.
Natural Land We used the NLCD to quantify land that could be utilized by kit fox for any part of their lifecycle. We assumed that all of the identified landcover types
had some value to the kit fox.
Habitat Connectivity Connected habitat and larger patches support viable kit fox populations
Habitat Protection We used the CCED and CPAD to estimate the habitat protection within each unit. The assumption
was that lands included in these databases would
not be subject to either urban or agricultural
development. Although the level of protection on
the land varies widely, and may not all meet
recovery criteria, these lands may protect suitable
habitat and linkages critical for the kit fox.
Prey Base We assumed that the prey base was directly
correlated with natural land extent. That is, the
greater the amount of natural land present, the
more abundant and resilient the prey base would
be. Because kit fox are somewhat flexible in their
diet, certain situations (e.g. Bakersfield) do not
follow this assumption.
54 Summary of Current Condition Relative to the 3Rs
Currently, 5 of the analysis units are in very low condition and 4 are in low condition. Three of the analysis units are in high condition and 3 are in moderate condition. The high and moderate condition units are all restricted to the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, except for the Ciervo-Panoche unit. All the units in the northern portion of the range were in very low condition, as was the disjunct Salinas Valley analysis unit.
Chapter 4. Future Condition
In this chapter, we predict the future viability of the 16 San Joaquin kit fox populations under three, plausible future scenarios. These scenarios use different combinations of climate change impacts, land-use change, and conservation measures to assess overall condition within each unit. This analysis will help predict how viability of the San Joaquin kit fox might change in the future and can help guide future conservation efforts.
4.1 Factors Influencing Future Viability
In this section, we discuss factors that might influence San Joaquin kit fox viability in the future. All of the factors that influence viability which were discussed previously are still applicable to the future condition of the species. However, they are not expanded on here, unless interactions and species responses are expected to change, which are then discussed in the context of emerging threats, or when trends or models can predict changes to these factors.
4.1.1 Climate Change
There is consensus that increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the 20 th century have
resulted in global climate change characterized by: warming atmospheric and ocean temperatures, diminishing snow and ice, and rising sea levels (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, pp. 2–3). Climate change might affect San Joaquin kit fox through changes in precipitation and temperature, which can drive associated changes to vegetative communities as well alterations to prey species abundance and composition. Climate change is also associated with increased risk of catastrophic events, including floods and wildfires.
Climate models for California under different emission scenarios predict an overall warming effect somewhere between 1.7 and 5.8 degrees Celsius (3.0 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) before 2100 (Cayan et al. 2008, p. 7). San Joaquin kit fox are adapted for arid survival and can withstand periods of high temperature. However, the thermal limits of San Joaquin kit fox survival have never been tested, and it is unclear how higher average annual temperatures might affect individuals.
Climate change is also associated with changes in precipitation cycles. Extremes in precipitation are expected to increase; current climate models predict a higher frequency of both extremely wet and extremely dry years (Swain et al. 2018, pp. 427–433). Some future climate projections suggest drought will be more intense; both longer, and dryer than in previous centuries (Trenberth et al. 2014, p. 17). San Joaquin kit fox survival and reproduction has been documented to decline during prolonged periods of drought (droughts lasting longer than two years) due to a decrease in prey availability and possibly in extremely wet years. Extremely wet years can cause over-abundance of dense, non-native grasses that may hinder the fox’s ability to evade predators and successfully find prey. Stochastic flooding events could also occur, which could negatively affect populations, especially in areas with high slope and topography, such as the Panoche geographic region or in low lying areas susceptible to ponding such as the Kern NWR/Semitropic Area. 55 Small, isolated populations are likely at higher risk from long-term intensive drought as are populations that persist in areas with highly fragmented and small habitat patches. Decreases in prey species leading to a decline in reproduction and abundance in these areas could have irreversible consequences on the population. As such, within-patch heterogeneity, between patch connectivity, and habitat patch-size, will be important to mitigate population declines from both dry and wet years.
4.1.2 Habitat Modification and Destruction
Habitat modification and destruction caused by land use changes (e.g., agricultural development, and urbanization) are expected to continue, and most likely to affect habitat on privately held lands. San Joaquin kit foxes rarely use irrigated agriculture and have only adapted to urban environments in a few locations.
Agricultural development will be influenced by changes to the climate. Some climate models predict increases in retired croplands in response to increased aridity. Land retirement of agricultural fields across the San Joaquin Valley could result in significant changes to overall land cover; as many as 500,000 acres may be retired by 2040 to meet requirement of existing groundwater regulations, and would have the potential to be restored to natural habitat (Hanak et al. 2017, p. 29). Strategic restoration of retired agricultural land has the potential to aid the recovery of endangered species, including the San Joaquin kit fox. The Land Retirement Demonstration Project included a Habitat Restoration Study to investigate the efficacy of restoration techniques on vegetation and wildlife (Uptain et al. 2005, pp. 107–175).
Solar photovoltaic development is a key renewable energy source that is expected to contribute to California’s commitment to meet half of the state’s energy demand from renewable resources by 2030 (de León 2015, p. 93). Phillips and Cypher (2015, pp. 15–16) identified approximately 4,145 km
2 (1,601 mi2) of habitat with moderate to high potential for both solar energy development and listed species, including the San Joaquin kit fox. They recommend siting solar facilities in areas with low habitat value for listed species but high potential for solar projects, identifying 8,436 km2 (3,257 mi2) in the southern San Joaquin Valley, especially in western Fresno County, southern Kings County, and southern Kern County. Butterfield et al. (2013, entire) summarizes a process for identifying least-conflict lands for solar development.
Habitat modification and destruction via housing or commercial development is expected to continue in the future. As the population in the San Joaquin Valley increases, housing/commercial development continues to threaten San Joaquin kit fox habitat, albeit at a lower level than the threat posed by other types of development. The total number of households in the San Joaquin Valley is projected to increase by just over 1 percent per year from 2010 to 2050, with the highest annual growth rates in Merced and Madera Counties (The Planning Center 2012, pp. 13–14). The population is projected to increase on average by an annual rate of 1.27 percent, increasing from approximately 4 million people in 2010 to over 6.5 million in 2050, with the highest expected increase in Merced County and the lowest increases predicted for Tulare and Fresno Counties (The Planning Center 2012, pp. 17–18). Direct or indirect impacts to the species due to energy or development projects is expected to be somewhat offset through mitigation or other measures.
56 4.1.3 Strategic Land Retirement and Restoration
Agricultural development will be influenced by changes to the climate, with crop conversion, continued farming, or retirement depending on water availability. Retirement of agricultural lands across the San Joaquin Valley may be as great as 500,000 acres (over 202,000 hectares) by 2040 if retirement is used as the sole strategy to meet recent groundwater regulations (i.e., the Strategic Groundwater Management Act of 2014) (Hanak et al. 2017, p. 29). Strategic fallowing or restoration of retired agricultural land has the potential to aid in recovery of endangered species including the San Joaquin kit fox (Lortie et al. 2018, entire). Fallowed agricultural land has the potential to provide habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox under some conditions, particularly if there is adjacent nearby natural land. Additionally, active restoration can enhance the suitability of fallowed agricultural land for wildlife. The Land Retirement Demonstration Project included a Habitat Restoration Study to experimentally investigate the efficacy of restoration techniques on vegetation and wildlife, which is detailed in Uptain et al. (2005, pp. 107–175). Importantly, for retired land to be used by the species, it must be within the dispersal distance of an extant population of San Joaquin kit fox. Parcels that are too far away from known kit fox populations may provide suitable habitat but are unlikely to be occupied. While it is unlikely that the entirety of the retired land will be available for restoration, our projection anticipates a concerted effort to use the land for conservation. Some of the retired land will likely be put to alternate economic uses that have varying utility for kit foxes. In addition, much of the land to be retired is of poor quality (e.g. drainage impaired lands) and may not have historically provided much habitat for upland species. Some experts believe that in the event these lands are retired, the poor quality of these lands may make them difficult to restore (Cypher pers. comm. 2020).
4.1.4 High Speed Rail
The high-speed rail (HSR) is a publicly funded rail system currently under construction. Currently, the HSR is projected to route between Merced and Bakersfield. The project originally included extensions to San Francisco and Los Angeles, but these were indefinitely postponed due to costs and timing. Although we include a discussion of the HSR here to highlight it as a future threat to the species, the threat is likely limited to 3 populations along the proposed alignment and could result in reduced connectivity for within these populations. The HSR is currently projected to cross areas that have extant San Joaquin kit fox populations along the eastern and central portions of the San Joaquin Valley. We note, however, that much of the area within the proposed footprint is currently highly fragmented.
4.2 Future Scenarios
For our analysis of the San Joaquin kit fox’s future condition, we constructed three future scenarios focused on changes in stressors, climate change projections, and levels of conservation efforts (Table 8). While there are an infinite number of potential future scenarios we could have considered, these scenarios are meant to cover a large breadth of future conditions that could occur in the San Joaquin kit fox’s range, and all scenarios might not be equally plausible. To analyze future condition under these scenarios, we projected each scenario 60 years into the future, corresponding to our climate models and projections of future development and population growth.
These scenarios are based on two general circulation models (GCMs) and two Representative Concentration Pathway greenhouse gas trajectories that were selected from among 12 considered to represent a range of future conditions for California by the end of the 21st century. In comparison 57 to current conditions, the GCMs chosen are hotter and drier (MIROC-ESM), or warmer and wetter (CNRM-CM5). The RCPs (4.5 and 8.5) represent lower and higher levels of greenhouse gas concentrations; RCP 8.5 is in line with the current trend in greenhouse gas emissions. Taken together, the GCMs and RCPs represent a range of warming statewide from 1.99 to 4.56 degrees Celsius and between a 24.8 percent decrease in precipitation and a 22.9 percent increase, respectively. These two climate projections are both used in California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reports on terrestrial vegetation (Thorne et al. 2016, p, 17-18) and mammals, including the San Joaquin kit fox (Stewart et al. 2019, entire). They are also used in an assessment of habitat restoration opportunities for blunt-nosed leopard lizards in the San Joaquin Desert (Stewart et al. 2019, entire). More information about the climate projections are available in those documents.
Table 8. Plausible future scenarios used to evaluate future condition of San Joaquin kit fox populations.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Warm and wet (CNRM-CM5) Hot and dry (MIROC-ESM) Hot and dry (MIROC-ESM) Low emissions (RCP 4.5) High emissions (RCP 8.5) High emissions (RCP 8.5) Increased precipitation and resultant
change to vegetation and prey base
leads to range contraction
Potential northern expansion of
suitable habitat
Potential northern expansion of suitable
habitat
Increase in precipitation extremes
increases the number of drought years
Increase in precipitation extremes
increases the number of drought years
Increase in precipitation extremes
increases the number of drought years
Development continues on
unprotected areas, and management
continues on protected lands, at
current rates
Development continues on
unprotected areas, and management
continues on protected lands, at
current rates
Restoration of fallowed croplands in the
Central Valley and increased land
protections in some areas, but continued
development in some areas
4.2.1 Scenario 1
In Scenario 1, we assume conditions will be warm and wet (CNRM-CM5, RCP 4.5). We assume that under warm and wet conditions there will be increased annual precipitation that will result in increased amounts of herbaceous vegetation. Under this scenario, wetter portions of the kit fox’s range will likely become less suitable without increasing management actions. We assume that development continues at current rates on unprotected lands, with the potential to decrease habitat size for San Joaquin kit fox populations and connectivity between them. We also assume that management and restoration continues at current levels. 58 4.2.2 Scenario 2
In Scenario 2, we assume conditions will be hot and dry (MIROC-ESM, RCP 8.5). In this scenario, hot and dry conditions will result in an overall decrease in precipitation, which may lead to more potentially suitable habitat in areas that are currently wetter and require more management to maintain optimal vegetation. However, because these areas may not currently be occupied by San Joaquin kit fox and are separated by significant barriers from the extant populations, without active restoration or translocation, we do not anticipate that this habitat will necessarily be occupied by the species. We assume that under hotter and drier conditions there will be an increase in fallowed croplands, especially in the Central Valley. We also assume that development continues at current rates on unprotected lands, with the potential to decrease habitat size for San Joaquin kit fox populations and connectivity between them. We assume that management and restoration continues at current levels.
4.2.3 Scenario 3
In Scenario 3, we again assume that conditions will be hot and dry, using the same climatic conditions as in the second scenario. We assume that there is strategic restoration of retired agricultural land in the central part of the species range such that habitat size and connectivity will not be reduced (in comparison to Scenarios 1 and 2) and may increase in some areas assuming that these activities are conducted within dispersal distance of extant San Joaquin kit fox populations.
In all scenarios, we assume that there will be increased precipitation extremes, meaning that drought years and years with above-average precipitation are likely to become more frequent. We also assume that the High Speed Rail will be completed according to the projected route. Although the HSR is expected to reduce connectivity between populations and will reduce habitat connectivity across the route, we do not project that it will affect the specific habitat or demographic conditions in our condition analysis.
4.3 Analysis of Future Scenarios
Future conditions were projected for each geographic unit based on the variations in precipitation, climate, extent of suitable habitat, and restoration as specified in our scenarios (Table 9). We predicted changes in two of the three habitat needs, and two demographic factors described in our current condition analysis. The habitat factor of slope was held constant under future scenarios, as it is not expected to substantially change under any scenario. We assessed changes related to habitat factors by making qualitative assumptions about habitat suitability and land protections and made changes to demographic factors in accordance with related changes in habitat in the various scenarios.
Winter precipitation is difficult to predict in future scenarios, so assumptions were made under all future conditions. In scenario 1, we expected that warm and wet conditions would increase winter rains, leading to increased primary productivity and vegetative growth. This would increase the growth of both native and non-native plant growth. An increase in vegetation growth may benefit prey species for the San Joaquin kit fox, but in increase in vegetation growth may also impact the San Joaquin kit fox negatively if the vegetation hinders the ability of the kit fox to evade predators or successfully find prey. Under this scenario, higher winter precipitation would provide a moderate benefit to the species, particularly in areas where adequate habitat management is occurring.
However, this is not expected to significantly alter the overall condition of individual populations.
Under scenarios 2 and 3, intense droughts are projected to increase in both duration and intensity. 59 This would decrease overall survival and reproduction, and the species would be assumed to respond negatively.
Summer precipitation is also difficult to predict, and similar assumptions were necessary. Under scenario 1, all summer precipitation is likely to increase, which may decrease the overall suitability of habitat during the summer largely due to negative impacts to prey species such as giant kangaroo rats or other small mammal species. This reduction in prey base may negatively affect San Joaquin kit fox survival (particularly the pups) and could depress reproduction. Under future scenarios 2 and 3, summer precipitation would decrease, meaning summers would be hotter and dryer. Because San Joaquin kit fox are already adapted for hot, dry summers, it is not likely that they would be severely, negatively impacted by these changes during the summer months. Habitat suitability models confirm, that under RCP 8.5 emission scenarios, the suitable range of the giant kangaroo rat is expected to remain similar or even expand (Widick and Bean 2019, pp. 7–9). Based on this data, it is expected that the San Joaquin kit fox may experience increased population growth under scenarios where a primary prey species does well. This positive effect of increasing suitable habitat for the fox (and its prey), may help offset the effects of more frequent or longer droughts. As a result, we predicted no overall change in demographic or prey base factors under this scenario.
Habitat connectivity among San Joaquin kit fox populations has been decreasing throughout recent history. This trend is projected to continue into the foreseeable future. Under scenarios 1 and 2, we assumed if trends stayed the same, connectivity would continue to decrease in all analysis units, for areas that are not already under protection. Under scenario 3, we assumed that aggressive land retirement under SGMA and efforts from conservation organization could increase habitat connectivity by one level. SGMA is likely to have the most affect in areas that are under extreme overdraft. This particularly will affect recovery units that are in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley (Western Kern, Ciervo-Panoche, Semitropic/Kern NWR, and Allensworth/Pixley NWR).
Land protection was changed only for Scenario 3, where we assumed protections would increase under aggressive restoration and protection efforts.
We made changes to demographic factors in relation to expected changes to habitat factors. We assumed that under scenarios 1 and 2, frequency of occupancy would decrease across much of the range in response to continued habitat fragmentation and land conversion. These land use changes would also impact survival and reproduction by reducing the available prey base and increasing exposure to rodenticides. Conversely, under scenario 3, the long-term effects of changes in climate are likely to be offset by increasing land protection and habitat availability. In this scenario, the combined effects of increases in habitat suitability (with presumed increased prey abundance) and land protection would lead to increases in kit fox populations despite potential negative effects from increased drought frequency.
As with the current condition analysis, if the overall demographic condition was “Very Low”, the condition of the geographic analysis unit could never be greater than “Very Low”. This is intended to minimize the bias toward unoccupied but “suitable” suitable habitat.
60 Table 9. Future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox across 16 geographic analysis units under 3 different climate change, land development, and restoration scenarios.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Current Condition
Livermore Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Santa Nella Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Kesterson NWR Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Western Madera Very Low Very Low Low Very Low
Pleasant Valley Low Low Moderate Low
Porterville Low Low Moderate Low
Allensworth Very Low Low Moderate Low
Kettleman Hills Moderate Moderate High Moderate
Semitropic Moderate Moderate High Moderate
E Kern Moderate Moderate High Moderate
Carrizo Plain Moderate High High High
Bakersfield Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
W Kern Moderate High High High
Cuyama Valley Low Low Moderate Moderate
Ciervo-Panoche Moderate High High High
Salinas Valley Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
4.3.1 Future Condition Uncertainty
There is a lot of uncertainty regarding climate models and the way in which San Joaquin kit fox might respond to changing climate. Models have great utility because they allow us to make predictions of how climate may change in the future, but their results should be interpreted cautiously. The models that we used in our future condition analysis are ones that are relatively much drier or wetter than most of the climate models and were chosen to present a possible range of future conditions. Models are mathematical representations of what can happen, but they do not always accurately predict future events. One key assumption in our analysis was that effects from drought would occur uniformly across the species range, and we acknowledge that drought impacts will be more nuanced than we have projected. However, based on the best available science regarding climate predictions, it seems likely that the species will face increased climate stress in the future, thus supporting the general decrease in habitat conditions in our future condition analysis.
Maintenance of environmentally diverse habitats will be important towards maintaining resilient populations. There is also some uncertainty regarding the efficacy of conservation efforts in the future. There has been a big push towards preserving natural lands in the San Joaquin Valley, which is demonstrated in our future condition analysis of habitat and demographic factors related to 61 habitat size and connectivity. Pilot studies on strategic restoration of land will be important in directing future recovery actions.
We used the best available science to forecast the future condition of San Joaquin kit fox under three plausible scenarios. Under the two most likely scenarios, conditions either remain constant or slightly decrease (Table 8). Decreases in population resiliency are expected because changes to climate are expected to put increased stress on populations, including reducing reproductive opportunities during droughts and changes to vegetation. Habitat development and agricultural conversion continue to threaten the species on unprotected lands, which can directly influence populations or restrict gene flow between them. Continued management on protected lands is essential towards maintaining resilient populations across the species range.
A handful of populations that are currently in very low condition are unlikely to positively respond to changes in habitat suitability or conservation without active efforts to restore these populations.
Loss of these populations, which tend to be on the boundaries of the species range or isolated from other populations, would result in losses for species representation. These populations are not in the areas that we projected targeted restoration efforts based on models for strategic restoration in the San Joaquin Valley. Indeed, the magnitude of restoration efforts will likely be one of the biggest factors driving differences between the outcomes in our projected scenarios.
The continued presence of moderately resilient populations in the western and southwestern units across all three scenarios suggests that the species will maintain moderate levels of redundancy and representation, although both measures are likely to be lower in the future.
Chapter 5. Species Viability
We have considered what the San Joaquin kit fox needs for viability (Chapter 2) and evaluated the species’ current condition in relation to those needs (Chapter 3). We also forecast how the species’ condition might change in the future under three different scenarios (Chapter 4). In this chapter, we synthesize the results from our historical, current, and future analyses and discuss the potential consequences for the future viability of the San Joaquin kit fox. We assess the viability of the species by evaluating the ability of the species to maintain a sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations to withstand environmental stochasticity (resiliency), catastrophes (redundancy), and changes in its environment (representation) into the future.
5.1 Resiliency
Resiliency is the ability of populations to tolerate natural, annual variation (stochasticity) in their environment and to recovery from periodic disturbance.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, large portions of the San Joaquin kit fox’s habitat were converted to agriculture and urban areas. Populations decreased rapidly in response to habitat loss and fragmentation. While there are few data on habitat condition and population trends prior to land conversion, evidence suggests historical populations had high resiliency, and foxes were likely widespread throughout their historical range.
Because there is no accurate, historical baseline to which we can compare, our analysis of the San Joaquin kit fox’s current condition and resiliency is limited to current geographic analysis units 62 which are fragmented, isolated, and increasingly small habitat patches throughout the range. Based on the relevant factors evaluated in our analysis, three of the current geographic analysis units are in overall high condition. These units have the highest probability of persistence. Demographically, three geographic analysis units currently are in high condition (Table 6; Panoche/Western Merced, Carrizo Plain, and Western Kern County), but none of the units are in high condition based on habitat factors. It is important to note that populations of San Joaquin kit fox on the Carrizo Plain are likely in the best current condition, being found on the largest continuous patch of habitat within the range of the species that has species-specific management. Once habitat is protected, connectivity can be increased, and populations might no longer be isolated from one another. In this case, the many of the negative effects of demographic and environmental stochasticity can be mitigated and populations are more likely to be stable. Currently, only two geographic units (the Carrizo Plain and western Kern County) are well equipped to withstand stochastic variation, leaving the remaining analysis units vulnerable to the effects of continued land conversion and climate change. This reduces the overall resiliency of the species.
Our predictions of future condition varied under our three condition scenarios. Under climate change scenarios and current land management trends, resiliency is likely to decrease in the future for two of our scenarios within all geographic units (Table 9). However, if land is converted and managed for the species, it is possible future conditions could improve for the species (Scenario 3).
5.2 Redundancy
Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. Redundancy is measured by the duplication and distribution of populations across the range of the species.
Historically, populations of San Joaquin kit fox were distributed throughout the San Joaquin Valley.
Although the current distribution of kit fox populations is like that known historically, the size of the populations has decreased. In addition, one population (Salinas Valley) may be extirpated and is in very low condition. Four additional populations in the northern portion of the range are currently in very low condition and three more populations are in low condition. Only three populations persist in high condition and two of these are adjacent to each other in the southwestern San Joaquin Valley. A catastrophic range-wide event, such as a long-term drought, has the potential to severely reduce viability of several units and lower the probability of persistence for several analysis units. In the most severe instance of a long-term drought, the three analysis units currently in high condition might be the only populations remaining.
Under two of the future scenarios, many of the geographic units could exist in low condition.
Should this happen, or should populations become locally extirpated, redundant variation throughout the range might no longer be possible. Land protections and restorations can mitigate the effects to populations from climatic change, and in Scenario 3, many of the populations are in higher condition then they are currently. This means persistence of many of the populations is more likely, even under climate change scenarios with an increase in adverse stochastic events.
5.3 Representation
Representation is the ability of a species to adapt catastrophic events, or to changing physical (climate, habitat) and biological (diseases, predators) conditions.
A species’ representation is measured by assessing the genetic, morphological, behavioral, and ecological diversity within and among populations across its range. The more representation, or 63 diversity, a species has, the more likely it is to persist in changing environments. Historically, the San Joaquin kit fox was distributed throughout the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley and foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range. Within the range, San Joaquin kit fox occupied a variety of grassland, desert, scrub and upland habitats. Precipitation varies among these habitats, being more mesic in the northern, and western (coastal) portions of the range. All the northern and western portions of the range are in very low condition. This region represents a different ecological setting and possibly uniquely adapted kit foxes. The loss of these populations is a loss of representation and adaptive capacity from historic conditions. Additional loss of resiliency and extirpations forecast in the future are likely to further reduce this representation and adaptive capacity. Genetic diversity appears to remain high throughout the range of the San Joaquin kit fox. It is uncertain how much genetic diversity has already been lost, however.
Gene flow appears to continue to occur across the southern portion of the range in spite of the increase in habitat fragmentation. However, San Joaquin kit fox do not likely occur in the densities or numbers they once did, and populations continue to fluctuate throughout climatic events.
However, populations still exist in a variety of habitats throughout the range, showing a moderate amount of representation. Under future scenarios, representation is likely to decrease under scenario 1 and 2, due to declining conditions across the range. As conditions decline, extirpation becomes more likely, reducing the ability of a species to withstand stochastic events. Under scenario 3, representation is likely to increase across the range, should land protection be increased.
5.4 Synopsis of Viability
Viability is the ability of a species to sustain populations over time. Species which exhibit high resiliency, redundancy, and representation are more viable than those which do not.
The San Joaquin kit fox is currently endangered. Habitat loss was the main stressors responsible for the decline of the species. Since the time of listing, populations have continued to decrease across much of the range. Abundances have fluctuated annually, and with climatic events. Currently, five of the geographic units are in “very low” condition, six are in “low” condition, and five are in “moderate” condition. Populations are still distributed throughout a variety of habitats, and show high genetic diversity and ability to rebound from climatic extremes, demonstrating redundancy and representation.
We forecast the future viability of the species by predicting the responses of our geographic unit conditions under three future scenarios 60 years into the future. Under two scenarios, most of the units are at risk of existing in “low” or “very low” condition and those in “very low” condition would be at high risk of extirpation. This would represent a significant range contraction of the species, and viability would be drastically reduced. Land protection and management in scenario 3 improves the condition of the species and increases viability.
The current persistence of the San Joaquin kit fox within the remaining habitat is evidence of the species’ resiliency and is largely due to large-scale habitat protections. Species-specific land management has been demonstrated to improve the habitat and abundance of the species locally.
Habitat restoration in areas affected by agriculture or invasive grasses, could additionally help buffer the effects of climate change and historical habitat loss. This could mitigate the effect of increased drought and possible heavy precipitation
.
64 Literature Cited
Archon, M. 1992. Ecology of the San Joaquin kit fox in western Merced County, California. Master’s Thesis. School of Natural Sciences, California State University, Fresno, California. December 1992.
Balestreri, A.N. 1981. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox at Camp Roberts, California, 1981. U.S.
Department of the Army, Engineering, Environmental, and Natural Resources Office.
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. 30 pages.
Bean, E. and P.J. White. 2000. Estimation of the abundance of San Joaquin kit foxes on the Carrizo Plain National Monument using distance sampling. Report submitted to Sacramento U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 pages.
Berry, W.H., JR. Scrivner, T.P. O’Farrell, C.E. Harris, T.T. Kato, and P.M. McCue. 1987a. Sources and rates of mortality of the San Joaquin kit fox, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, CA, 1980-1986. Rep. No. EGG 10282-2 154, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 34 pp.
Berry, W.H., T.P. O’Farrell, T.T. Kato, and P.M. McCue. 1987b. Characteristics of dens used by radiocollared San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. U.S. Dept. Energy Topical Rep. No. EGG 10282-2 177, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 32 pp.
Berry, W.H., WG. Standley, T.P. O'Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1992. Effects of military-authorized 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.
Bjurlin, C.D., and B.L. Cypher. 2003. Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing data. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P. Mc Dermott. Pp 397-406. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Bjurlin, C.D., B.L. Cypher, C.M. Wingert, and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2005. Urban roads and the endangered San Joaquin kit fox. California State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program, Fresno, California.
Butterfield, H.S., D. Cameron, E. Brand, M. Webb, E. Forsburg, M. Kramer, E. O’Donoghue, and L. Crane. 2013. Western San Joaquin Valley least conflict solar assessment. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California. 27 pages.
Byrd, K. B., Flint, L. E., Alvarez, P., Casey, C. F., Sleeter, B. M., Soulard, C. E., ... & Sohl, T. L. (2015). Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply. Landscape Ecology, 30(4), 729-750.
65 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2020). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Government version dated June 1, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.
Cayan, D., E. Maurer, M. Dettinger, M. Tyree, and K. Hayhoe. 2008. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Climatic Change 87: 21-42
Clark, H.O., Jr., G.D. Warrick, B.L. Cypher, P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, and D.E. Grubbs. 2005.
Competitive interactions between endangered Kit Foxes and nonnative Red Foxes. Western North American Naturalist 65:153–163.
Clark, H.O., Jr., R.R. Duke, M.C. Orland, R.T. Golightly, and S.I. Hagen. 2007. The San Joaquin Kit Fox in north-central California: A review. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 43:27–36.
Constable, J. L., Cypher, B. L., Phillips, S. E., & Kelly, P. A. (2009). Conservation of San Joaquin Kit Foxes in Western Merced County, California. Fresno, California.
Cypher, B.L. 2006. Kit fox conservation in the San Luis Drainage Study Unit. Unpublished report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation South-Central California Area Office. California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. Fresno, California.
Cypher, B.L., and J.H. Scrivner. 1992. Coyote control to protect endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves, California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 15:42–47.
Cypher, B.L., and K.A. Spencer. 1998. Competitive interactions between Coyotes and San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 79:204–214.
Cypher, B.L., G.D. Warrick, M.R.M. Otten, T.P. O’Farrell, W.H. Berry, C.E. Harris, T.T. Kato, P.M.
McCue, J.H. Scrivner, and B.W. Zoellick. 2000. Population dynamics of San Joaquin Kit Foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. Wildlife Monographs 145:1–43.
Cypher, B.L., H.O. Clark, Jr., P.A. Kelly, C. Van Horn Job, G.D. 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., Kelly, P. A., & Williams, D. F. 2003. Factors influencing populations of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: implications for conservation and recovery. The swift fox: ecology and conservation in a changing world. Canadian Plains Research Center, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 125- 137.
Cypher, B.L., and A.D. Brown. 2006. Demography and ecology of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes at the Bena Landfill, Kern County, California. California State University- Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. April 2006. 17 pages.
Cypher, B.L., and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2012. Management and conservation of San Joaquin Kit Foxes in urban environments. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 25:347–252. 66 Cypher, B.L., S.E. Phillips, and P.A. Kelly. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes: Conservation implications. Canid Biology & Conservation 16:25–31.
Cypher, B.L., T.L. Westall, C.L. Van Horn Job, and E.C. Kelly. 2014. San Joaquin kit fox conservation in a satellite habitat area. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Unit, Region 4. 17 pages + Appendix
Cypher, B. L., Rudd, J. L., Westall, T. L., Woods, L. W., Stephenson, N., Foley, J. E., ... & Clifford, D. L. 2017. Sarcoptic mange in endangered kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica): case histories, diagnoses, and implications for conservation. Journal of wildlife diseases, 53(1), 46-53.
Cypher, B.L., T.L. Westall, K.A. Spencer, D.E. Meade, E.C. Kelly, J. Dart, and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2019. Response of San Joaquin kit foxes to Topaz Solar Farms: Implications for conservation of kit foxes. BHE Renewables and Topaz Solar Farms. Final Report. 74 p. + Appendix
Deatherage, N.A. 2020. Urban Landscape Attributes and Intraguild Competition Affect San Joaquin Kit Fox Occupancy and Spatiotemporal Activity. Master’s Thesis. Department of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield. 114 p.
Dennis, B., and M.R.M. Otten. 2000. Joint effects of density dependence and rainfall on abundance of San Joaquin Kit Fox. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:388–400.
de León, K. 2015. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. S.B. 350, Chapter 547.
Disney, M., and L.K. Spiegel. 1992. Sources and rates of San Joaquin Kit Fox mortality in western Kern County, California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 28:73–
82. Dragoo, J.W., J.R. Choate, T.L. Yates, and T.P. O’Farrell. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among North American arid-land foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 71:318–332.
Egoscue, H.J. 1956. Preliminary studies of the Kit Fox in Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 37:351–357.
Egoscue, H.J. 1975. Population dynamics of the Kit Fox in western Utah. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 74:122–127.
Fiehler, C. M., Cypher, B. L., & Saslaw, L. R. 2017. Effects of oil and gas development on vertebrate community composition in the southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Global Ecology and Conservation, 9, 131-141.
Frost, N. 2005. San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt State University).
Frankham, R. 1995. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review.
Genetics Research 66: 95-107.
67 Franklin, A. B., P. C. Carlson, A. Rex, J. T. Rockweit, D. Garza, E. Culhane, S. F. Volker, R. J.
Dusek, V. I. Shearn-Bochsler, M. W. Gabriael and K. E. Horak. 2018. Grass in not always greener: rodenticide exposure of a threatened species near marijuana growing operations.
Biomedical Central Research Notes 11: 1-7
Gabriel, M. W., L. W. Woods, R. Poppenga, R. A. Sweitzer, C. Thompson, S. M. Matthews, J. M.
Higley, S. M. Keller, K. Purcell, R. H. Barrett, G. M. Wengert, B. N. Sacks, D. L. Clifford. 2012. Anticoagulant rodenticides on public and community lands: spatial distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest carnivore. PloS ONE. 7(7): e40163. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040163
Germano, D.J., and D.F. Williams. 2005. Population ecology of blunt-nosed leopard lizards in high elevation foothill habitat. Journal of Herpetology 39:1-18.
Germano, D. J. 2010. Survivorship of translocated kangaroo rats in the San Joaquin Valley, California. California Fish and Game. 96: 82-89.
Germano, D. J., G. B. Rathbun, L. R. Saslaw, B. L. Cypher, E. A. Cypher, and L. M. Vredenburgh. 2011. The San Joaquin Desert of California: ecologically misunderstood and overlooked.
Natural Areas Journal, 31:138-147.
Germano, D. J., and L. R. Saslaw. 2017. Rodent community dynamics as mediated by environment and competition in the San Joaquin desert. Journal of mammalogy, 98:1615-1626.
Griggs, F. T., J. M. Zaninovich, and G. D., Werschkull. 1992. Historical native vegetation map of the Tulare Basin, California. P. 111-118 in D. F. Williams S. Byrne, and T. A. Rado, eds., Endangered and Sensitive Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.
Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. Linsdale. 1937. Kit Foxes. Pp. 399–420 in Fur bearing animals of California. Grinnell, J., J. Dixon, and J. Linsdale (Ed.). Volume 2. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Gonzales, Armand & Hoshi, Junko. (2015). California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Update. A Conservation Legacy for California, Volume 1, Plan Update. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1131.9129.
Haight, R.G., B. Cypher, P.A. Kelly, S. Phillips, K.Ralls, and H.P. Possingham. 2004. Optimizing reserve expansion for disjunct populations of San Joaquin Kit Fox. Biological Conservation 117:61–72.
Hanak, E., J. Lund, B. Arnold, A. Escriva-Bou, B. Gray, S. Green, T. Harter, R. Howitt, D.
MacEwan, J. Medullín-Azuar, P. Moyle and N. Seavy. 2017. Water stress and a changing San Joaquin Valley. San Francisco, California: Public Policy Institute of California 2017.
Hanski, I. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biological journal of the Linnaean Society. 42:3-16.
Harrison, S.W.R., B.L. Cypher, S. Bremner-Harrison, and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2011. Resource use 68 overlap between urban carnivores: implications for endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Urban Ecosystems 14:303–311.
Hernandez, R. R., Hoffacker, M. K., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., Wu, G. C., & Allen, M. F. (2015).
Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(44), 13579-13584.
Hosea, R.C. 2000. Exposure of non-target wildlife to anticoagulant rodenticides in California.
Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:236–244.
Huffman, L., and T.D. Murphy. 1992. The effects of rodenticide and off-road vehicle use on San Joaquin kit fox activity in Bakersfield, California. Page 378 in D. F., Williams, S. Byrne, and T. A. Rado (editors) Endangered and Sensitive Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.
Interior Region 10 · California-Great Basin, Bureau of Reclamation. (20, May 28). California-great basin. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/index.html
IPCC. 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
Jensen, C.C. 1972. San Joaquin kit fox distribution. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California, Unpublished data. Rep., 18 pp.
Kelly, P. A., S. E. Phillips, and D. F. Williams. 2005. Documenting Ecological Change in Time and Space: The San Joaquin Valley of California. Pp. 57-78 in: E. A. Lacey and P. Myers, Eds.
Mammalian Diversification: From Chromosomes to Phylogeography. Publications in Zoology Series, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 383 pp
Koopman, M.E., B.L. Cypher, and J.H. Scrivner. 2000. Dispersal patterns of San Joaquin Kit Foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Journal of Mammalogy 81:213– 222.
Koopman, M.E., B.L. Cypher, and D.R. McCullough. 2001. Factors influencing space and prey use by San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 37:77–83.
Laughrin, L. 1970. Distribution and abundance of the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Cal-Neva Wildlife 6:86–
93. Lortie, C. J., A. Filazzola, R. Kelsey, A. K. Hart, and H. S. Butterfield. 2018. Better late than never: a synthesis of strategic land retirement and restoration in California. Ecosphere 9: e02367.
McCue, P.M., and T.P. O’Farrell. 1988. Serological survey for selected diseases in the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 24:274–281.
McGrew, J.C. 1979. Vulpes macrotis. Mammalian Species 123:1–6.
69 McMillin, S.C., R.C. Hosea, B.F. Finlayson, B.L. Cypher, and A. Mekebri. 2008. Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an urban population of the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 23:163–165.
Mercure, A., K. Ralls, K.P. Koepfli, and R.K. Wayne. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: Mitochondrial DNA differentiation of Swift, Kit, and Arctic Foxes. Evolution 47:1313–1328.
Merriam, C.H. 1902. Three new foxes of the kit and desert fox groups. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 15:73–74.
Miller, D.S., D.F. Covell, R.G. McLean, W.J. Adrian, M. Niezgoda, J.M. Gustafson, O.J. Rongstad, R.D. Schultz, L.J. Kirk, and T.J. Quan. 2000. Serologic survey for selected infectious disease agents in swift and Kit Foxes from the Western United States. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36:798–805.
Morrell, S. 1972. Life history of the San Joaquin Kit Fox. California Fish and Game 58:162–174.
Morrell, S.H. 1975. San Joaquin kit fox distribution and abundance in 1975. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 75-3, in fulfillment of contracts W-54-R-7-1 with the Service and Contract 3904 with the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Nelson, J.L., B.L. Cypher, C.D. Bjurlin, and S. Creel. 2007. Effects of habitat on competition between Kit Foxes and Coyotes. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1467–1475.
Newsome, S.D., K. Ralls, C. Van Horn Job, M.L. Fogel, and B.L. Cypher. 2010. Stable isotopes evaluate exploitation of anthropogenic foods by the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Journal of Mammalogy 91:1313–1321.
Nogeire, T. M., Lawler, J. J., Schumaker, N. H., Cypher, B. L., & Phillips, S. E. (2015). Land use as a driver of patterns of rodenticide exposure in modeled kit fox populations. PLoS One, 10(8), e0133351.
O’Farrell, T.P. 1980. Elk Hills endangered and threatened species program phase 1 progress summary. U.S. Department of Energy Topical Report. EGG 1183-2403.
O’Farrell, T.P. 1984. Conservation of the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica on the Naval Petroleum Reserves, California. Acta Zoologica Fennica 172:207–208.
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. Rep. No. EGG 1183-2416, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA, 36 pp. + Appendices
O’Farrell, T. P., N. E. Mathews, P. M. McCue, and M. S. Kelly. 2016. Distribution of the endangered giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens, on the Naval Petroleum Reserves, California. bioRxiv. 1-22.
70 Orloff, S., F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. 1986. Distribution and habitat requirements of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the northern extreme of their range. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 22:60–70.
Orloff, S., G.A.W. Flannery, and K.C. Belt. 1993. Identification of San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) tracks on aluminum tracking plates. California Fish and Game 79:45–53.
Phillips, S. E. and B. L. Cypher. 2015. Solar energy development and endangered upland species of the San Joaquin valley: identification of conflict zones. Endangered Species Recovery Program 1:1–15.
Prugh, L. R., N. Deguines, J. B. Grinath, K. N. Suding, W. T. Bean, S. Stafford, and J. S. Brashares. 2018. Ecolotical winners and losers of extreme drought in California. Nature climate change. 8: Pp. 6.
Purnell, J. 2020. San Joaquin Kit Fox Presence at a Large-scale Solar Facility in Monterey County.
Presented at the 67th annual meeting of The Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Redding, CA.
Ralls, K., and P.J. White. 1995. Predation of San Joaquin Kit Foxes by larger canids. Journal of Mammalogy 76:723–729.
Ralls, K., and P.J. White. 2003. Diurnal spacing patterns in Kit Foxes, a monogamous canid. The Southwestern Naturalist 48:432–436.
Rohwer, S.A., and D.L. Kilgore, Jr. 1973. Interbreeding in the arid-land foxes, Vulpes velox and V. macrotis. Systematic Zoology 22:157–165.
Schitoskey, F., Jr. 1975. Primary and secondary hazards of three rodenticides to Kit Fox. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:416–418.
Schwartz, M.K., K. Ralls, D.F. Williams, B.L. Cypher, K.L. Pilgrim, and R.C. Fleischer. 2005. Gene flow among San Joaquin Kit Fox populations in a severely changed ecosystem. Conservation Genetics 6:25–37.
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.
Shaffer, M. L., and B. A. Stein. 2000. Safeguarding our precious heritage. In Precious Heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Eds. B. A. Stein, L.S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams.
Oxford University Press, New York, New York. p. 299-321.
Single, J.R., D.J. Germano, and M.H. Wolfe. 1996. Decline of kangaroo rats during a wet winter in the southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 32:34-41.
Smith, D.A., K. Ralls, B.L. Cypher, H.O. Clark, Jr., P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, and J.E. Maldonado. 71 2006. Relative abundance of endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) based on scat-detection dog surveys. The Southwestern Naturalist 51:210–219.
Spencer, K.A., W.H. Berry, W.G. Standley, and T.P. O’Farrell. 1992. Reproduction of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes velox macrotis) (sic) on Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, California. U.S. Department of Energy. EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations. Report No. EGG 10617-2154. 18 pages.
Spiegel, L.K., and M. Bradbury. 1992. Home range characteristics of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in western Kern County, California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 28:83–92.
Spiegel, L.K., B.L. Cypher, and T. Dao. 1996. Diet of the San Joaquin kit fox at three sites in western Kern County. Pages 39-50 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 M. Disney. 1996. Mortality sources and survival rates of San Joaquin kit foxes in oil-developed and undeveloped lands of southwestern Kern County, California. 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.
Standley, W.G., W.H. Berry, T.P. O'Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1992. Mortality of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 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 10617-2157.
Stewart, J. A. E., H. S. Butterfield, J. Q. Richmond, D. J. Germano, M. F. Westphal, E. N. Tennant, and B. Sinervo. 2019. Habitat restoration opportunities, climatic niche contraction, and conservation biogeography in California's San Joaquin Desert. PLoS One 14: e0210766.
Swain, D. L., B. Langenbrunner, J. D. Neelin and A. Hall. 2018. Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first-century California. Nature Climate Change 8: 427-433.
The Planning Center. 2012. San Joaquin Valley demographic forecasts 2010 to 2050. Prepared for Fresno Council of Governments. 38 pp. + Appendix.
Thorne, E.T. and E.S. Williams. 1988. Disease and endangered species: the black-footed ferret as a recent example. Conservation Biology 2: 66-74.
Thorne, Boynton, R. M., A. J. Holguin, J. A. E. Stewart, and J. Bjorkman. 2016. A climate change vulnerability assessment of California’s terrestrial vegetation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA.
Trenberth, K. E., A. Dai, G. van der Schrier, P. D. Jones, J. Barichivich, K. R. Briffa and J. Sheffield. 2014. Global warming and changes in drought. Nature Climate Change 4: 17-22.
Ueda K. 2020. iNaturalist Research-grade Observations. iNaturalist.org. Occurrence dataset 72 https://doi.org/10.15468/ab3s5x accessed via GBIF.org on 2020-06-24.
Uptain, C. E., K. R. Garcia, N. P. Ritter, G. Basso, D. P. Newman and S. H. Hurlbert. 2005. Results of a habitat restoration study on retired agricultural lands in the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Interagency Land Retirement Team. 2005. Land Retirement Demonstration Project Year Five Final Report: 107-175.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. The San Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan. Prepared by Dr.
Thomas O’Farrell under interagency contract DE-ACOB-76NV01183 with the U.S.
Department of Energy. 90 pages.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of 90- day findings on petitions to list the Corral Beach sand dune weevil and to delist the San Joaquin kit fox. Federal Register 57: 28167-28169.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 319 pages.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) 5-year review:
summary and evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. 79 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-year review:
summary and evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. 121 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife USFWS. 2016. USFWS Species Status Assessment Framework: An integrated analytical framework for conservation. Version 3.4, dated August 2016. 21 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. 5-Year Review Notice.
Waithman, J., and A. Roest. 1977. A taxonomic study of the Kit Fox, Vulpes macrotis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:157–164.
Warrick, G.D., H.O. Clark, Jr., P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, and B.L. Cypher. 2007. Use of agricultural lands by San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Western North American Naturalist 67:270–277.
Warrick, G.D., and B.L. Cypher. 1998. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:707–717.
Warrick, G.D., T.T. Kato, M.V. Phillips, and H.J. Hill. 1997. Assessment of impacts and evaluation of restoration methods on areas affected by a well blowout, Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, California. Fifth International Conference Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Monterey, California.
Nov. 3-6, 1997:53-66.
White, P.J., W.H. Berry, J.J. Eliason, and M.T. Hanson. 2000. Catastrophic decrease in an isolated population of Kit Foxes. The Southwestern Naturalist 45:204– 211.
White, P.J., and R.A. Garrott. 1997. Factors regulating Kit Fox populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:1982–1988.
73 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. Ralls. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of Kit Foxes relative to changing prey availability. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:861–867.
White, P.J., K. Ralls, and R.A. Garrott. 1994. Coyote Kit Fox interactions as revealed by telemetry. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1831–1836.
White, P.J., K. Ralls, and D.B. Siniff. 2000. Nocturnal encounters between Kit Foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 81:456–461.
White, P.J., K. Ralls, and C.A. Vanderbilt White. 1995. Overlap in habitat and food use between Coyotes and San Joaquin Kit Foxes. The Southwestern Naturalist 40:342–349.
White, P.J., C.A. Vanderbilt White, and K. Ralls. 1996. Functional and numerical responses of Kit Foxes to a short-term decline in mammalian prey. Journal of Mammalogy 77:370–376.
Widick, I. V., and W. T. Bean. 2019. Evaluating current and future range limits of an endangered, keystone rodent (Dipodomys ingens). Diversity and distributions. 1-14.
Wilbert, T. R. (2013). Patterns and processes of genetic diversity in the endangered San Joaquin kit fox. Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University.
Wilbert, T. R., Woollett, D. A. S., Whitelaw, A., Dart, J., Hoyt, J. R., Galen, S., ... & Maldonado, J. E. (2015). Non-invasive baseline genetic monitoring of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox on a photovoltaic solar facility. Endangered Species Research, 27(1), 31-41.
Wilbert, T. R., Woollett, D. A. S., Westphal, M. F., Whitelaw, A., Ralls, K., & Maldonado, J. E. 2019.
Distribution, fine-scale subdivision, and population size of San Joaquin kit foxes in the Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area, California. Conservation Genetics, 20(3), 405-417.
Williams, D.F. 1992. Geographic distribution and population status of the giant kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ingens (Rodentia, Heteromyidae). Edited by D. F. Williams, S. Byrne, and T. A.
Rado California Energy Commission; the Wildlife Society, pp. 301-328.
Williams, D.F., S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado (Ed.). 1992. Endangered and Sensitive Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.
Williams, D.F., D.J. Germano, and W. Tordoff. 1993. Population studies of endangered kangaroo rats and blunt-nosed leopard lizards in the Carrizo Plain Natural Area, California. State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec. Rep. 93-01. 114 pages.
Williams, D. F. and K.S. Kilburn. 1991. Dipodomys ingens. Mammalian Species 337: 1-7.
Woollett, D. S. 2019. Scat Detection Dog Surveys for the San Joaquin Kit Fox on the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Experimental Test Site (Site 300) and the Corral Hollow 74 Ecological Reserve, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, California (No. LLNL-SR-768323).
Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States).
Zoellick, B.W. 1990. Activity of Kit Foxes in western Arizona and sampling design of Kit Fox resource use. Pp. 151–155 in Managing Wildlife in the Southwest. Krausman, P.R., and N.S.
Smith (Ed.). Arizona Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Phoenix, Arizona.
Zoellick, B.W., C.E. Harris, B.T. Kelly, T.P. O’Farrell, T.T. Kato, and M.E. Koopman. 2002.
Movements and home ranges of San Joaquin Kit Foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) relative to oil- field development. Western North American Naturalist 62:151–159.
Personal communication
Cypher, Brian. 2020. California State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program.
Email with Tim Ludwick, USFWS, regarding the SSA.
1 Appendix 1. Tables for the three future condition scenarios Scenario 1: Climate change results in warm and wet conditions. Development, conservation, and land use changes occur at rates similar to 2020
Population
Trend
Population
Persistence
Overall
Demography
% of sloped
terrain within
unit
Undeveloped
Land
Habitat
Connectivity
Habitat
Protection Prey Base
Habitat
Overall
Total Overall
Livermore Very Low Very Low Very Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Very Low Low Very Low Santa Nella Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Very Low Low Very Low Kesterson NWR Very Low Very Low Very Low High Very Low Very Low High Very Low Low Very Low Western Madera Very Low Very Low Very Low High Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Low Very Low Pleasant Valley Very Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Porterville Very Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Very Low Low Low Allensworth/Pixley
NWR Very Low Low Very Low High Very Low Very Low Moderate Low Low Very Low Kettleman Hills Low High Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Semitropic/Kern
NWR Low High Moderate High Low Very Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Eastern Kern
County Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Very Low Low Moderate Carrizo Plain Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Bakersfield Low High Moderate High Very Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Western Kern
County Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Cuyama Valley Very Low Moderate Low High Very Low Very Low Low Low Low Low Panoche/Western
Merced Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Salinas Valley Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate Low Low Low Very Low Low Very Low 2 Scenario 2: Climate change results in hot and dry conditions. Development, conservation, and land use changes occur at rates similar to 2020.
Population
Trend
Population
Persistence
Overall
Demography
% of sloped
terrain within
unit
Undeveloped
Land
Habitat
Connectivity
Habitat
Protection
Prey
Base
Habitat
Overall Total Overall
Livermore Very Low Very Low Very Low Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Very Low Santa Nella Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Very Low Kesterson NWR Very Low Very Low Very Low High Low Low High Moderate Moderate Very Low Western Madera Very Low Very Low Very Low High Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Very Low Pleasant Valley Low Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Low High Moderate Low Porterville Low Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Allensworth/Pixley
NWR Low Low Low High Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Low Kettleman Hills Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate Semitropic/Kern
NWR Moderate High Moderate High High Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate Eastern Kern
County Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Carrizo Plain High High High Moderate High High High High High High Bakersfield Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate Western Kern
County High High High High High High Moderate High High High Cuyama Valley Low Moderate Low High Moderate Low Low High Moderate Low Panoche/Western
Merced High High High Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Moderate High Salinas Valley Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Very Low
3 Scenario 3: Climate change results in hot and dry conditions. Development and land use changes occur at rates similar to 2020, but conservation initiatives take advantage of aggressive land retirement goals to increase upland habitat.
Population
Trend
Population
Persistence
Demo
Overall
% of sloped
terrain within
unit
Undeveloped
Land
Habitat
Connectivity
Habitat
Protection Prey Base
Habitat
Overall
Total Overall
Livermore Very Low Very Low Very Low Low High High High Moderate Moderate Very Low Santa Nella Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Very Low Kesterson NWR Very Low Very Low Very Low High Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate Very Low Western Madera Low Low Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Pleasant Valley Moderate High Moderate Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Porterville Moderate High Moderate Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Allensworth/Pixley
NWR Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Kettleman Hills High High High Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate High Semitropic/Kern
NWR High High High High High Moderate High High High High Eastern Kern
County High High High Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Moderate High Carrizo Plain High High High Moderate High High High High High High Bakersfield Moderate High Moderate High Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Western Kern
County High High High High High High High High High High Cuyama Valley Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Panoche/Western
Merced High High High Moderate High High High High High High Salinas Valley Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Very Low
1 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
STANDARDIZED RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENDANGERED SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX
PRIOR TO OR DURING GROUND DISTURBANCE
Prepared by the Sacram
ento Fish and Wildlife Office
January 2011
INTRODUCTION
The following docum
ent 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) and does not preclude the need for section 7 consultation or a section 10 incidental take permit for the proposed project.
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. 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). These 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.
IS A PERMIT NECESSARY?
Certain acts need a permit from the Service w
hich includes destruction of any known
(occupied or unoccupied) or natal/pupping kit fox dens. Determination of the presence or absence of kit foxes and /or their dens should be made during the environmental review process.
All surveys and monitoring described in this document must be conducted by a qualified biologist and these activities do not require a permit. 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, the biologist(s) must be able to identify coyote, red fox,
2 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
gray fox, and kit fox tracks, and to have seen a kit fox in the wild, at a zoo, or as a museum mount. Resumes of biologists should be submitted to the Service for review and approval prior to an6y survey or monitoring work occurring.
SMALL PROJECTS
Sm
all projects are considered to be those projects with small foot prints, of approximately one acre or less, such as an individual in-fill oil well, communication tower, or bridge repairs. 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 utilize this information as guidance to situate the project to minimize or avoid impacts. If habitat features cannot be completely avoided, then surveys should be conducted and the Service should be contacted for technical assistance to determine the extent of possible take.
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. Kit foxes change dens four or five times during the summer months, and change natal dens one or two times per month (Morrell 1972). Surveys should identify kit fox habitat features on the project site and evaluate use by kit fox and, if possible, 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 and under no circumstances should the den be disturbed or destroyed without prior authorization. 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 the take authorization/permit has already been issued, then the biologist may proceed with den destruction within the project boundary, except natal/pupping den which may not be destroyed while occupied. A take authorization/permit is required to destroy these dens even after they are vacated. 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).
3 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER PROJECTS
It is likely that all other projects occurring within kit f ox 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 Z
ONES
In order to avoid im
pacts, construction activities must avoid their dens. The configuration of exclusion zones around the kit fox dens should have a radius measured outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances due to the length of dens underground. The following distances are minimums, and if they cannot be followed the Service must be contacted. Adult and pup kit foxes are known to sometimes rest and play near the den entrance in the afternoon, but most above-ground activities begin near sunset and continue sporadically throughout the night. Den definitions are attached as Exhibit A.
Potential den** 50 feet
Atypical den** 50 feet
Known den* 100 feet
Natal/pupping den
(occupied and unoccupied)
Service must be contacted
*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.
Acceptable fencing includes untreated wood particle-board, silt fencing, orange construction fencing or other fencing as approved by the Service as long as it has openings for kit fox ingress/egress and keeps humans and equipment out. 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.
4 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
**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.
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 or greatly restricted within the exclusion zones.
DESTRUCTION OF DENS
Lim
ited 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.
Destruction of the den should be accom
plished 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 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 judgment of the biologist, the animal has escaped, without further disturbance, from the partially destroyed den.
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.
5 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
The Service encourages hand excavation, but realiz
es that soil conditions may necessitate
the use of excavating equipment. However, extreme caution must be exercised.
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 all construction activities shall cease and the Service shall be notified immediately.
CONSTRUCTION AND ON-GOING OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Habitat subject to perm
anent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities should be minimized by adhering to the following activities. Project designs should limit or cluster permanent project features to the smallest area possible while still permitting achievement of project goals. 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 daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site 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. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. 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. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. 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 Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.
3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become 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
6 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
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 only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely 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. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
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 a 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 kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated 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/or 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 previously referenced 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
7 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre- project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but 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.
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 guidance.
12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring 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 Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist, at (530)934-9309. The Service should be contacted at the numbers below.
13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall 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 below. The CDFG contact is Mr. Paul Hoffman at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309.
14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.
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 at: Endangered Species Division
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
(916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600
8 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
EXHIBIT “A” - DEFINITIONS
"Take" - Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as am ended (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 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.
9 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
"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.
UC Davis
Recent Work
Title
Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing data Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0qd5t2p9
Author
Bjurlin, Curtis D.
Publication Date
2003-08-24
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 397 Making Connections EFFECTS OF ROADS ON SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES:
A REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING DATA
Curtis D. Bjurlin (Email: [email protected]) and Brian L. Cypher, Endangered Species Recovery Program, P.O. Box 9622, Bakersfield, CA 93389
Abstract: Roads have a variety of adverse impacts on wildlife populations and can seriously impact rare species.
Numerous roads are present throughout the range of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica), and many more are planned. We review existing literature and data to assess potential impacts from roads on kit fox conservation and recovery. In addition, we discuss mitigation strategies with their potential benefits.
Introduction
In the United States, over 200 million vehicles are in use on approximately 6.2 million kilometers of public roads (Natural Research Council 1997). Roads result in a number of environmental impacts, including endangerment of wildlife populations. The direct impacts of vehicle-related mortality and habitat loss have long been recognized. Lalo (1987) estimated that about one million vertebrates are killed by vehicles each day in the United States, and Forman (2000) calculated that approximately 1 percent of the land area, roughly the size of South Carolina, is paved. Additional direct effects include habitat fragmentation, disturbance and stress, contaminants, and destruction of shelter (Hourdequin 2000). Roads also may indirectly impact wildlife by altering ecosystem processes, such as changes in prey availability, competition, non-native species colonization, fire regime, and human access and associated development. Direct and indirect impacts may be detectable over one kilometer (0.6 mi) from roads resulting in a “road-effect zone” (Forman and Deblinger 1998), and leading one author to estimate that approximately 19 percent of the total area of the conterminous United States is affected (Forman 2000). Not surprisingly, road effects have been detected for a number of rare species including gray wolves (Canis lupus; e.g., Thiel 1985), Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi; e.g., Maehr et al. 1991), desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii; e.g., Boarman 1996), and Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana sonoriensis; e.g., Castillo-Sáchez 1999). While impacts on common species are undesirable, road-related depletion of threatened and endangered species is particularly troubling and warrants careful evaluation and management.
A diversity of threatened and endangered animal species occur in the San Joaquin Valley of California (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Most are rare due to habitat loss from agricultural, industrial, and urban development. Among them is the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), a small, nocturnal canid that has undergone an estimated 95 percent reduction in habitat (Grinnell et al. 1937, Hall 1981, Mercure et al. 1993, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). While the effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes have not been directly evaluated, the relatively large space requirements and high mobility of this species makes road crossings likely throughout much of their current range. Furthermore, the human population in the San Joaquin Valley is expected to nearly triple in the next 40 years (Great Valley Center 2000), with associated construction of new roads, expansion of existing roads, and increased traffic volumes.
Some of the potential impacts on San Joaquin kit foxes are obvious and direct, such as vehicle strikes, habitat loss associated with road construction, habitat loss associated with concomitant industrial and urban development, landscape fragmentation, disturbance, and environmental contamination. Others are more subtle and indirect, such as invasions by non-native species, changes in prey availability, predator abundance, or fire regime. The aforementioned could have a variety of detrimental effects on kit foxes, including mortality, morbidity, disrupted social ecology, reduced productivity, displacement, altered space use, inhibited dispersal, reduced genetic exchange, and decreased carrying capacity.
Our objectives are to (1) summarize available data on the direct and indirect effects of roads on populations of San Joaquin kit foxes, (2) identify factors that exert the greatest influence on kit fox conservation and recovery efforts, and (3) identify critical information needs for future research and mitigation.
Direct Effects
Vehicle Strikes
The majority of vehicle strikes occurs at night when many species are more active and driver visibility is at its lowest. For an animal the size of a kit fox, such strikes are typically fatal. If vehicle strikes were sufficiently frequent in a given locality, they could result in reduced fox abundance. Furthermore, the death of adult foxes during the breeding and pup-rearing seasons (Dec-May) negatively affects reproductive success and could result in the litter failure.
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 398 Making Connections The proportion of deaths attributable to vehicle strikes rarely exceeds 10 percent for adult foxes (table 1).
Clearly, the number and type of roads passing through fox habitat play an important role in determining impact.
In the city of Bakersfield where roads were abundant, 23 percent of 35 adult kit fox mortalities and 17 percent of 25 juvenile mortalities were confirmed vehicle strikes. Furthermore, an additional 9 percent of adult and 8 percent of juvenile mortalities were suspected strikes. At this urban site where coyotes and bobcats were rare, vehicles were the most commonly attributable source of mortality. In natural lands, predators remain the primary cause of mortality for both adult and juvenile foxes (Briden et al. 1992, Standley et al. 1992, Ralls and White 1995, Spiegel and Disney 1996, Cypher et al. 2000).
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Paved roads are essentially permanent structures, and any habitat in the occupied area is therefore lost. The placement of a road also can fragment habitat into smaller blocks. This fragmentation effect is more likely with certain road configurations, such as multi-lane divided highways, or those with median barriers and adjacent fencing. Habitat loss and fragmentation can cause decreases in fox abundance through changes is social ecology, productivity, space use, dispersal, and survival.
Table 1
Proportion of mortalities attributable to vehicle strikes for kit and swift foxes.
While the historic and current habitat loss directly attributable to roads is unknown, estimates of the converted area under the jurisdiction of Caltrans include 239ha for Kings County, 431ha for Merced County, 817ha for Fresno County, and 1,485ha for Kern County (K. Hau, California Department of Transportation, personal communication). These estimates are based on a standard lane width of 3.6 m, and not all of this area is in kit fox habitat. However, the estimates are limited to state roads and do not include road shoulders, medians, or associated developments (e.g., interchanges, signs), which significantly increase the affected area. Of equal or greater significance is the habitat loss from urban and industrial development that has been induced by road construction.
Habitat fragmentation likely has two profound effects: (1) reduction in suitability of habitat and (2) disruption of movements, dispersal, and gene flow. Roads reduce habitat suitability by creating patches that are too small for effective use by foxes and that increase the probability of local extirpation due to stochastic events.
Estimates of the average home range size of a kit fox vary from 4.3km2 (Koopman et al. 2001) to 11.6 km2 (White and Ralls 1993), making it difficult to estimate patch size necessary to support a small population.
The probability of patch recolonization will depend upon the fragmenting artifacts (e.g., roads, canals, development). Large roads with high traffic volume can be impermeable to kit foxes. Knapp (1978) monitored movements of radio-collared foxes in Kern County in the vicinity of Interstate 5, a high volume four-lane highway. Numerous individuals used areas within 3km of the interstate, and most exhibited parallel movement and home range patterns. However, only on two occasions were foxes located on the opposite side of the highway from their primary areas of use.
Species Location Landuse Period Age # Mortalities % Vehicle Strike Citations Kit Fox Kern County, CA Oilfield 1980-95 Adult 225 9% Cypher et al. 2000 Kit Fox Kern County, CA Oilfield 1980-95 Juvenile 142 8% Cypher et al. 2000 Kit Fox Kern County, CA Natural Land 1989-93 Combined 31 3% Spiegel and Disney 1996
Kit Fox Kern County, CA Oilfield 1989-93 Combined 29 0% Spiegel and Disney 1996
Kit Fox Kern County, CA Natural Land 2001-03 Adult 14 7% Cypher unpub. data Kit Fox Kern County, CA Natural Land 1989-91 Combined 22 5% Ralls and White 1995 Kit Fox Monterey and San Luis
Obispo Counties, CA
Military
Reservation 1988-92 Adult 35 6% Standley et al. 1992
Kit Fox Monterey and San Luis
Obispo Counties, CA
Military
Reservation 1988-92 Juvenile 14 0% Standley et al. 1992 Kit Fox Merced County, CA Natural Land 1985-87 Combined 17 12% Briden et al. 1992 Kit Fox Bakersfield, CA Urban 1997-2003 Adult 35 23% Cypher unpub. data Kit Fox Bakersfield, CA Urban 1997-2003 Juvenile 25 17% Cypher unpub. data Swift Fox Alberta, Canada Natural Land 1987-91 Combined 89 6% Carbyn 1998 Swift Fox Western Kansas unknown 1996-97 Adult 18 0% Sovada et al. 1998 Swift Fox Western Kansas unknown 1996-97 Juvenile 14 28% Sovada et al. 1998 ICOET 2003 Proceedings 399 Making Connections Movement and dispersal corridors are critical to kit fox population dynamics, particularly because this species currently exists as a metapopulation consisting of multiple disjunct population centers. Movement and dispersal linkages are important for alleviating over-crowding and intraspecific competition during years when fox abundance is high and are essential for recolonization. Movement between population centers also maintains gene flow, reducing the probability of inbreeding, genetic drift, and founder effects.
Disturbance
Construction, maintenance, and operational activities associated with roads may result in a disturbance effect on nearby kit foxes. Disturbance can result from noise, vibration, odors, or human activity and can range from subtle to profound. Potential impacts include: (1) disrupted sensory perception leading to decreased ability to locate prey or detect predators, (2) induced stress leading to physiological or behavior changes, and (3) resultant changes in natural history including, energetic requirements, reproductive output, immunological function, productivity, space use patterns, displacement, and even death.
Kit foxes may not be significantly impacted by disturbance, even when the source is continuous. Kit foxes appear to acclimate quickly to disturbances and exhibit a high degree of tolerance. At the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California, foxes frequently used areas near petroleum production facilities (e.g., well pads, gas plants, offices) where noise, vibrations, odors, and human activity were common (Cypher et al. 2000).
Similarly, Spiegel and Small (1996) found that kit foxes continued using a highly developed oil field where sulfurous gases were ubiquitous. Kit foxes at Camp Roberts frequently foraged and denned in areas that were subject to high human and vehicular traffic (Berry et al. 1992). Most notably, populations are known to inhabit the cities of Bakersfield and Taft, and in Bakersfield individuals likely number in the hundreds (Cypher submitted). Kit foxes in urban environments are continuously subjected to high levels of vehicular traffic, human activity, noise, and vibrations. Yet, these foxes successfully forage, locate mates, breed, rear young, and disperse.
Den Loss
Unlike most other canids, kit foxes use dens year-round on a daily basis (Koopman et al. 1998). Earth moving or vehicular traffic during road work jeopardizes kit fox dens. Because dens are of critical importance to avoid temperature extremes, rear young, and escape from predators (Seton 1925, Grinnell et al. 1937), den loss can result in displacement and altered space use patterns, leading to changes in social ecology and survival.
Individual kit foxes use numerous dens in the course of a year (Koopman et al. 1998). Therefore, the loss of one or even several dens within an individual’s home range may not constitute a significant impact.
However, foxes appear to have moderate fidelity to natal dens, the loss of which could be more detrimental.
Finally, earth moving and off-road traffic typically occurs during the day, a time when foxes are resting within dens. This could result in fox entombment and death.
Although the construction of roads may result in the loss of some dens, earth moving can create new denning opportunities. In Bakersfield, numerous kit fox dens have been located in the embankment of Highway 99, and several of these have served as natal dens. This is not surprising because kit foxes favor sloped locations for denning (Berry et al. 1987a, Reese et al. 1992). However, den sites along roads increase the risk of vehicle strikes, particularly when used to rear young. Egoscue (1962) reported that many of the kit foxes killed by vehicles on a study area in Utah were using dens near roads, and most of these were juveniles. This increased risk likely offsets any beneficial effect of increased den-site availability.
Contaminants
Roads contaminate natural lands in a variety of ways (see Forman et al. 2003 for a review). Substances used in road building or reconditioning can leach into adjacent habitat. Heavy metals (lead, aluminum, iron, cadmium, copper, manganese, titanium, nickel, zinc, and boron) and organic pollutants (dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls) are all emitted in vehicle exhaust and may be higher in adjacent soils (Benfenati et al. 1992, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Ozone levels are higher in the air near roads (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and vehicles also leak hazardous substances (lubricants, antifreeze). Furthermore, a wide variety of pollutants could be introduced during small spills or catastrophic accidents.
Kit foxes using areas adjacent to roads could be exposed to contaminants through inhalation, dermal contact, direct ingestion, and ingestion of contaminated flora or fauna. Exposure to contaminants could cause short- or long-term morbidity, possibly resulting in reduced productivity or even mortality. Carcinogenic substances could cause genetic damage, sterility, reduced productivity, or reduced fitness among progeny in foxes or their prey.
Little information is available on the effects of contaminants on fox demographics. Morbidity or mortality likely would occur after animals have left the contaminated site, and more subtle effects such as genetic damage could only be detected through intense study and monitoring. However, at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in ICOET 2003 Proceedings 400 Making Connections California, three kit foxes are known to have died by drowning in spills of crude oil (Cypher et al. 2000). Also, Spiegel and Disney (1996) reported a fox that was covered with crude oil and later died, despite treatment.
Indirect Effects
Reduced Prey Availability
Road construction, maintenance, and operation could result in a local reduction in prey availability, indirectly affecting kit fox populations. Potential causes include direct mortality associated with construction activities or vehicle strikes, habitat loss or degradation, disturbance, contaminants, or alteration of adjacent vegetation communities. Reduced prey availability could cause fox avoidance of adjacent lands, reduced productivity, and in extreme cases morbidity or mortality.
Little information is available on the effects of roads on kit fox prey. Foxes primarily prey upon rodents, leporids, and insects, but will opportunistically eat a variety of natural and anthropogenic foods (Knapp 1978, Spiegel et al. 1996, White et al. 1996, Cypher et al. 2000). Disturbed habitats adjacent to roads may provide conditions favorable to colonization by California ground squirrels (e.g., Balestreri 1981, Hall 1983). California ground squirrels can displace giant kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ingens) as well as other kangaroo rats and San Joaquin antelope squirrels (Ammospermophilus nelsoni) that are commonly consumed by foxes (D. Williams, Endangered Species Recovery Program, pers. comm., Taylor 1916; Harris and Stearns 1991).
Increased Competition
Habitat modification associated with road construction and operation may create conditions more favorable for native species that compete for resources or kill kit foxes. Increased predation risk or decreased prey availability could reduce fox habitat quality and local carrying capacity, or exclude kit foxes altogether. At the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California, shrub density increased along roads, possibly due to increased moisture from precipitation runoff (pers. obs). Dense shrubs are known to provide cover for coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Ralls and White 1995, White et al. 1995, Cypher and Spencer 1998, Warrick and Cypher 1998). Also, utility lines frequently are installed along roads and dramatically increase perching and nesting sites for raptors (Knight et al. 1995, 1999). Golden eagles occasionally kill kit foxes (Briden et al. 1992) and raptors and owls compete with foxes for food resources. Roads also may serve as travel corridors for other kit fox competitors, such as red foxes.
Invasive Species
Construction and maintenance of roads can sometimes facilitate the invasion of non-native species that flourish in disturbed environments. Roads also enable invasive species to hitchhike on vehicles and livestock into otherwise remote landscapes. Non-native plants and animals may reduce habitat quality for kit foxes or their prey. A particularly problematic species within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox is yellow star thistle (Centaurea melitensis), dense stands of which form along roadsides and then spread into adjacent habitat.
Yellow star thistle competes with native plants for resources, does not appear to be used by kit fox prey, and may be difficult for foxes to move through due to its large size (up to 1m tall), dense growth habit, and numerous sharp spines. Other species of invasive flora include mustards (Brassica spp.) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) (Tellman 1997), but the effects of these plants on kit foxes or their prey species have not been assessed.
Nitrogen deposition from vehicle exhaust is another important factor that appears to promote growth of non- native flora, particularly exotic grasses (Weiss 1999). These grasses, such as red brome (Bromus madritensis rubens), create dense ground cover in the San Joaquin Valley, and may reduce habitat quality for certain rodents (e.g., kangaroo rats) that are important prey for kit foxes (Goldingay et al. 1997, Cypher 2000).
Roads also may serve as travel corridors for non-native red foxes, as has been reported in Australia (Bennett 1991). Red foxes kill and exclude kit foxes (Ralls and White 1995, Clark 2001) and likely compete for food and dens (Cypher et al. 2001). However, red foxes are only infrequently observed in large blocks of undisturbed habitat within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox, possibly due to the absence of anthropogenic water sources or the presence of coyotes.
Increased Public Access
Roads are established to facilitate human travel and commerce. Although posting adjacent lands or installing fences may reduce human use, they do not prevent it completely. While recreating on natural lands, people engage in a variety of activities that are detrimental to kit foxes, including illegal shooting or trapping, legal and illegal hunting of prey species, habitat destruction and degradation (e.g., off-road vehicle use), den destruction, and illegal dumping.
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 401 Making Connections Most effects from increased public access have not been quantified, and can only be inferred. However, illegal fox hunting has been reported on several occasions and typically occurs near roads. While only one fox was found shot at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California during 1980-95 (Cypher et al. 2000), Morrell (1972) reported that during a one-year period at NPRC, five of six fox deaths were caused by gunshot wounds. Four kit foxes were found shot at the Lokern Natural Area in western Kern County (Spiegel and Disney 1996), two at the California Aqueduct in Kern County (K. Brown, California Department of Water Resources, personal communication), and one in the Santa Nella area (S. Clifton, Endangered Species Recovery Program, personal communication). Most illegal kills are likely never discovered; therefore, the effect of this source of mortality on kit foxes is difficult to assess.
Associated Development
While human population and economic growth precipitates road construction, roads also can have a growth- inducing effect by increasing access to lands desirable for development. Development along roads commonly begins as transportation services, and later urban and industrial centers. Associated developments range from very small (1-2ha) to extensive (1km2), ultimately producing entire cities in some cases.
Associated development produces all of the negative effects to kit foxes discussed above, the most significant of which are habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Because associated development cannot always be accurately predicted, the long-term cumulative effects are likely underestimated in environmental reviews of road construction projects.
Changes in Fire Regime
Roads often are a source of wildfire in arid lands, with dramatic effects on ecosystem processes. Vehicle sparks, overheating engines and brakes, arson, and accidental ignition all contribute to increased fire frequency. In some landscapes where lightning strikes traditionally were rare, anthropogenic wildfires have dramatically altered vegetation, reducing vertical structure and creating conditions that are suitable for invasive species.
Because foxes maintain well-insulated dens throughout their home ranges, it is unlikely that they frequently die in wildfire. However, much of the kit fox’s geographic range is dominated by shrubs and grasses, and frequent burns will make grasslands more common. Furthermore, changes in vegetation affect abundance of fox prey and predators. For example, both coyotes and leporids (desert cottontail and black-tailed jackrabbit) are known to favor shrublands in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The effect of fire upon kit fox ecology and life history is currently unknown, but significant impacts are to be expected as these relationships are investigated.
Potential Mitigation Strategies
Compensation for Loss of Habitat
Compensating for habitat loss is a mitigation strategy commonly implemented for kit foxes. This strategy involves protecting habitat of like or better quality in return for authorization to alter, disturb, or destroy habitat in another location. The amount of compensatory habitat required typically exceeds 1:1. This strategy has several shortcomings. First, new habitat is rarely created as a result of mitigation, so compensation results in a net loss of available lands. Second, there is an implicit assumption that the carrying capacity on compensatory habitat can be increased through habitat management such that the total carrying capacity across all lands remains unaffected. This assumption has never been validated and is questionable. Third, compensation is only required for the amount of habitat physically disturbed during road construction. Roads precipitate a slew of associated impacts described above for which compensation is rarely requested.
Avoidance of Important Habitats
Impacts to kit foxes can be reduced during the planning process by selecting project sites that avoid areas that are required for recovery of the species. Such areas include core and satellite populations and movement corridors. Understandably, there may be limited options in selecting the route for a proposed road. However, avoiding routes that transect large blocks of habitat would reduce detrimental effects significantly. A clear drawback to this strategy is increased project costs and decreased efficiency resulting from alternate routes. Rerouting of roads was identified as a key strategy to avoid fragmenting wildlife habitats in the Rocky Mountains (Reed et al. 1996) and also to avoid increased mortality to Florida scrub-jays (Mumme et al. 1999).
Den Avoidance
Den avoidance is a common mitigation strategy employed on projects in kit fox habitat. Typically, work sites are prescreened for fox dens, and care is taken during construction to avoid sensitive areas. Den avoidance may be difficult when a kit fox den lies within the path of a proposed road. From a cost-benefit perspective, rerouting a road around a den is rarely feasible. If the den is currently active and the occupants do not leave ICOET 2003 Proceedings 402 Making Connections voluntarily, relocation may be necessary. As mentioned previously, dens in the vicinity of roads may increase the risk of vehicle strikes, and this potential impact should be considered when deciding whether to protect dens or relocate occupants.
Relocation
Foxes are rarely relocated because of well-documented negative impacts, including low survival probability (Scrivner et al. 1993), injury, and attempted return to the area of origin. The release can either be “hard”, whereby foxes are immediately released, or “soft”, whereby foxes are released after a period (of days to months) of acclimation in a holding pen. A number of conditions must be met prior to relocation. First, the release site must be of suitable condition and size to support the number of transplanted individuals. Second, relocation must not negatively impact resident foxes at the release site. Third, if ongoing genetic studies identify distinct subpopulations, then foxes should only be moved within subpopulations and not between them. An optimal release site would be one that is occupied by kit foxes, but where the fox population currently is below carrying capacity. To be considered successful, relocated foxes should remain in the release area and exhibit survival rates similar to that of resident foxes. Several attempted relocation efforts were insufficiently monitored (Jensen 1972, Knapp 1978, Hansen 1988, Paveglio and Clifton 1988) or deemed unsuccessful (Scrivner et al. 1993).
Relocation may be appropriate when a small, isolated block of habitat occupied by kit foxes will be unavoidably fragmented by a road project. Additionally, persistent endangerment may be cause for relocation. For example, individuals occasionally return to denning and foraging sites that have recently been destroyed.
Kit foxes continued to forage in the median of Highway 99 in Bakersfield after all vegetation had been removed (Perry Coy, California Department of Transportation, Fresno), while others were entombed after excavating and occupying a den on a construction site in Bakersfield (Endangered Species Recovery Program un- published data).
Artificial Dens
Construction of artificial dens may be appropriate where den destruction is unavoidable or road construction has resulted in increased risk of predation. A variety of artificial den designs have been built or proposed.
These designs range from a simple length of pipe placed above ground, to complex buried chambers and tunnels with multiple entrances. Use by kit foxes or other species rarely has been monitored and optimal den designs have not been identified. However, dens should be of appropriate size to exclude predators, provide additional burrowing options, and provide sufficient thermal protection.
Exclusionary Fencing
While exclusionary fencing likely would reduce vehicle strikes it is not appropriate for all roads. Unless crossing structures are available, fencing will increase negative impacts associated with habitat fragmentation. Along smaller roads (e.g., 2-lane roads) or larger roads with lower traffic volumes where the risk of vehicle strikes is not high, it would be better to allow kit foxes to cross roads to maintain movement corridors and facilitate local space use patterns.
Wildlife Overpasses and Underpasses
Overpasses and underpasses are being created with greater frequency for wildlife. Designs range from small culverts under roads to 200-m-wide overpasses that are planted with natural vegetation. The creation of crossing structures could benefit kit foxes. Individuals have been observed to use bridges in order to cross roads and canals (pers obs.). Foxes also regularly enter pipes and culverts, although their use for road crossing has not been documented. Underpasses likely would be the most appropriate structures, particularly because many roads within the range of the kit fox are on raised beds. The dimensions of underpasses probably would need to be at least 0.5m high and 0.5m wide to be used by kit foxes. To maintain normal daily movement patterns in occupied habitat, underpasses probably should be spaced at least every 0.5 km. Exclusionary fencing along roads with underpasses would be necessary to encourage foxes to use the structures.
Reduced Speed Limits
Reduced vehicle speeds through kit fox habitat is a simple and effective strategy to avoid incidental mortality.
Reduced speed limits along one - or two-lane roads were credited with reducing the number of kit foxes killed by vehicles at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California (Cypher et al. 2000) and at the Midway-Sunset oilfield (Spiegel and Disney 1996). This strategy will be more difficult to implement and enforce on larger roads with high traffic volumes. A related strategy is the use of signs along roads to warn drivers of the possible presence of kit foxes. Such signs are commonly used for other wildlife species (e.g., deer crossing signs), but their efficacy is debated.
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 403 Making Connections Summary and Conclusions
The construction, operation, and maintenance of roads can have a variety of potential impacts on endangered San Joaquin kit foxes. While vehicle strikes have received the most attention, other negative effects may exert greater force on fox population dynamics. In natural lands, vehicle strikes rarely exceed ten percent of known mortality. When populations are robust, this may not significantly impact abundance, but where small populations are susceptible to local extirpation, roadkills may be of greater concern.
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation associated with road activities likely has the greatest affect on fox populations. The long and narrow configuration of roads results in a considerable disturbance perimeter.
Perimeter effects on wildlife are well documented and with the San Joaquin kit fox result in increased probability of road crossings, exposure to contaminants, and access to habitat by people. Furthermore, high traffic volume roads with no crossing structures can effectively stop fox dispersal, resulting in local extirpation and genetic damage. Fragmentation of remaining habitat poses one of the largest obstacles to kit fox recovery.
The growth-inducing effect of roads also presents a serious concern. Development that occurs along linear rights-of-way causes habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation that can be orders of magnitude greater than that caused by road work. The potential impacts from associated development sometimes are recognized in assessments of project-specific “cumulative effects,” but no additional compensation or mitigation is required.
Other impacts associated with roads likely affect San Joaquin kit foxes on a relatively local scale. Although these local effects do not threaten the range-wide kit fox population, the cumulative effect of localized impacts could be substantial. Over time, these cumulative effects could affect kit fox conservation and recovery efforts.
A variety of potential mitigation strategies exist. Relatively few have been implemented for San Joaquin kit foxes, and virtually no data are available on mitigation efficacy. Many of the strategies that reduce detrimental impacts to habitat also help reduce kit fox mortality from vehicles. The following should be considered where roads and critical habitat or linkages coexist: (1) careful site selection for proposed projects, routing through non-habitat where possible, (2) habitat compensation, (3) road overpass and underpass structures, (4) exclusionary fencing, and (5) den avoidance or supplementation. Fox relocation is rarely successful or advisable. Future research needs include (1) quantifying factors that contribute to vehicle strikes of kit foxes, (2) assessing the effects of roads on fire ecology, (3) assessing invasions by non-native species along roads, and (4) evaluating the efficacy of mitigation strategies.
Acknowledgements: This manuscript was prepared with support from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and U.S.
Department of Energy. Cheryl Johnson of Caltrans was instrumental in funding this work. We thank Carie Wingert and Scott Phillips for providing data summaries.
Biographical Sketches: Curtis Bjurlin is a wildlife biologist with the Endangered Species Recovery Program. He has been working with mammals and reptiles in arid lands for six years.
Brian Cypher is a research ecologist with the Endangered Species Recovery Program and has been working on kit fox ecology and conservation since 1990.
References
Balestreri, A. N. 1981. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox at Camp Roberts, California, 1981. Department of the Army, Fort Ord, California. 30pp. + app.
Benfenati, E., S. Valzacchi, G. Maniani, L. Airoldi, and R. Farnelli. 1992. PCDD, PCDF, PCB, PAH, cadmium, and lead in roadside soil: relationship between road distance and concentration. Chemosphere 24:1077-1083.
Bennett, A. F. 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: a review. Pages 99-118. D. A. Saunders and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Nature conservation: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Melbourne, Australia.
Berry, W. H., T. P. O’Farrell, T. T. Kato, and P. M. McCue. 1987a. Characteristics of dens used by radiocollared San Joaquin kit fox, (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. U.S.
Department of Energy Report EGG 10282-2177. 32pp.
Berry, W. H., W. G. Standley, T. P. O’Farrell, and T. T. Kato. 1992. Effects of military authorized activities on the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes velox macrotis) at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, California.
U.S. Department of Energy Report EGG 10617-2159. 15 pp.
Boarman, W. I. 1996. Highway mortality in desert tortoises and small vertebrates: success of barrier fences and culverts. G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Trends in addressing transportation related wildlife mortality. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 404 Making Connections Briden, L. E., M. Archon, and D. L. Chesemore. 1992. Ecology of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) in western Merced County, California. Pages 81-87. D. F. Williams, S. Byrne, and T. A. Rado, editors. Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California: their biology, management, and conservation. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 388 pp.
Carbyn, L. N., H. J. Armbruster, and C. Mamo. 1994. The swift fox reintroduction program in Canada from 1983 to 1992. Pages 247-270. M. L. Bowles and C. J. Whelan, editors. Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Castillo-Sánchez, C. 1999. Highways and wildlife conservaion in Mexico: the Sonoran pronghorn at El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve on the Mexico-USA border. Pages 289-292. G. L. Evink, P.
Garrett, and D. Zeigler, editors. Proceedings of the third international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. FL-ER-73-99 Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
Clark, H. O., Jr. 2001. Endangered San Joaquin kit fox and non-native red fox: interspecific competitive interactions. M.S. thesis, California State University, Fresno.
Cypher, B. L. Endangered kit foxes in urban environments: implications for foxes and humans. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation. Submitted.
Cypher, B. L. 2000. Spatiotemporal variation in abundance of rodents in the San Joaquin Valley, California:
implications for conserving rare species. Southwestern Naturalist 45. In press.
Cypher, B. L., H. O. Clark, Jr., P. A. Kelly, C. Van Horn Job, G. D. 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., and K. A. Spencer. 1998. Competitive interactions between coyotes and San Joaquin kit foxes.
Journal of Mammalogy 79:204-214.
Cypher, B. L., G. D. Warrick, M. R. M. Otten, T. P. O’Farrell, W. H. Berry, C. E. Harris, T. T. Kato, P. M. McCue, J. H.
Scrivner, and B. W. Zoellick. 2000. Population dynamics of San Joaquin kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. Wildlife Monographs 145. 43 pp.
Egoscue, H. J. 1962. Ecology and life history of the kit fox in Tooele County, Utah. Ecology 43:481-497.
Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.
R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology:
Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Forman, R. T. T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States.
Conservation Biology 14:31-35.
Forman, R. T. T., and R. D. Deblinger. 1998. The ecological road-effect zone for transportation planning, and a Massachusetts highway example. Pages 78-96. G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors.
Proceedings of the international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. Report FL-ER-69-68.
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
Goldingay, R. L., P. A. Kelly, and D. F. Williams. 1997. The kangaroo rats of California: endemism and conservation of keystone species. Pacific Conservation Biology 3:47-60.
Great Valley Center. 2000. Survey of current area needs. Great Valley Center, Modesto, California. 29 pp.
Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California, Volume 2. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Second ed., Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Hall, F. A., Jr. 1983. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, at the Bethany Wind Turbine Generating (WTG) project site, Alameda County, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 36pp.
Hansen, R. B. 1988. Porterville urban area boundary biotic survey. Unpublished report. Hansen’s Biological Consulting, Visalia, California. 219pp.
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 405 Making Connections Harris, J. H., and D. M. Stearns. 1991. Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988-89. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report 91-02. 37pp.
Hourdequin, M. 2000. Ecological effects of roads. Conservation Biology 14:16-17.
Jensen, C. C. 1972. San Joaquin kit fox distribution. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 18pp.
Knapp, D. K. 1978. 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 Final Report, Project E-1- 1, Jov V-1.21. 48pp. + app.
Knight, R. L., H. A. L. Knight, and R. J. Camp. 1995. Common ravens and number and type of linear rights-of-way.
Biol. Conserv. 74:65-67.
Knight, R. L., R. J. Camp, W. I. Boarman, and H. A. L. Knight. 1999. Predatory bird populations in the east Mojave Desert, California. Great Basin Nat. 59:331; 338.
Koopman, M. E., B. L. Cypher, and D. R. McCullough. 2001. Factors influencing space and prey use by San Joaquin kit foxes. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 37:77-83.
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.
Lalo, J. 1987. The problem of roadkill. American Forests (Sept.-Oct.):50-52.
Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, and M. E. Roelke. 1991. Mortality patterns of panthers in southwest Florida.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 45:
201-207.
Mercure, A. K., K. Ralls, K. P. Koepfli, and R. B. Wayne. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids; mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313-1328.
Morrell, S. 1972. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 58:162-174.
Mumme, R. L., S. J. Schoech, G. E. Woolfenden, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1999. Life and death in the fast lane:
demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida scrub-jay. Conservation Biology 14:501-512.
National Research Council. 1997. Toward a sustainable future: addressing the long-term effects of motor vehicle transportation on climate and ecology. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Paveglio, R. L., and S. D. Clifton. 1988. Selenium accumulation by San Joaquin kit foxes and coyotes in the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge area – draft. Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Los Banos, California. 59pp.
Ralls, K., and P. J. White. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. Journal of Mammalogy 76:723-729.
Reed, R. A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W. L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:1098-1106.
Reese, E. A., W. G. Standley, and W. H. Berry. 1992. Habitat, soils, and den use of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes velox macrotis) at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, California. U.S. Department of Energy Report EGG 10617-2156. 36pp.
Scrivner, J. H., T. P. O’Farrell, and K. L. Hammer. 1993. Summary and evaluation of the kit fox relocation program, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. U.S. Department of Energy Topical Report 10617-2171. 88pp.
Seton, E. T. 1925. Lives of game animals. Volume 1: Cats, wolves and foxes. Doubleday, Doran and Company, New York, New York.
Sovada, M. A., C. C. Roy, J. B. Bright, and J. R. Gillis. 1998. Causes and rates of mortality of swift foxes in western Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1300-1306.
ICOET 2003 Proceedings 406 Making Connections Spiegel, L. K., B. L. Cypher, and T. C. Dao. 1996. Diet of the San Joaquin kit fox at three sites in western Kern County, California. Pages 39-52. L. K. Spiegel, editor. Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.
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. Pages 71-92. L. K. Spiegel, editor. Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.
Spiegel, L. K., and M. Small. 1996. Estimation of relative abundance of San Joaquin kit foxes between an undeveloped site and an oil-developed site in Kern County, California. Pages 115-124. L. K. Spiegel, editor.
Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.
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 Report EGG 10617-2157. 19pp.
Taylor, W. P. 1916. A new spermophile from the San Joaquin Valley, California, with notes on Ammospermophilus nelsoni nelsoni Merriam. University of California Publication in Zoology 17:15-20.
Tellman, B. 1997. Exotic pest plant introduction in the American southwest. Desert Plants 13:3-10.
Thiel, R. P. 1985. The relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113:404-407.
Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 2000. The ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities: a review. Conservation Biology 14:18-30.
Turbak, G. 1999. Can American motorists yield the right-of-way to wild creatures? National Wildlife 37(6):
66-68.
Uptain, C. E., D. F. Williams, P. A. Kelly, L. P. Hamilton, and M. C. Potter. 1999. The status of Tipton kangaroo rats and the potential for their recovery. Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 35:
1-9.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 319pp.
Warrick, G. D., and B. L. Cypher. 1998. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of a kit fox population. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:707-717.
Weiss, S. B. 1999. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient- poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conservation Biology 13:1476-1486.
White, P. J., and K. Ralls. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of kit foxes relative to changing prey availability. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:861-867.
White, P. J., K. Ralls, and C. A. Vanderbilt White. 1995. Overlap in habitat and food use between coyotes and San Joaquin kit foxes. Southwestern Naturalist 40:342-349.
White, P. J., C. A. Vanderbilt White, and K. Ralls. 1996. Functional and numerical responses of kit foxes to a short-term decline in mammalian prey. Journal of Mammalogy 57:351-369.
URBAN ROADS AND THE ENDANGERED SAN
JOAQUIN KIT FOX
FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTRACT NUMBER 65A0136
Prepared by:
Curtis D. Bjurlin, Brian L. Cypher, Carie M. Wingert, and Christine L. Van Horn Job
California State University, Stanislaus
Endangered Species Recovery Program
1900 Gateway Blvd.
Fresno, CA 93727
Prepared for:
The California Department of Transportation
July 10, 2005
esrp_urbanroad_sjkf.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
TR0003 (REV. 10/98)
1. REPORT NUMBER
FHWA/CA/IR-2006/01
2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER
3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER
5. REPORT DATE
July 2005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Curtis D. Bjurlin, Brian L. Cypher, Carie M. Wingert, and Christine L. Van Horn Job
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
None
10. WORK UNIT NUMBER
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
California State University-Stanislaus
Endangered Species Recovery Program
1900 N. Gateway Blvd., Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93727
11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
65A0136
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, July 2001-June 2004
12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 95819
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macr otis mut ica) is at risk o f extinction primarily due to p rofound habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss. However, kit foxes inhabit some urban areas, and roads present a potential threat to kit foxes in these areas. From 1998-2004, we inv estigated the effects of roads on urban kit foxes in Bakersfield, C alifornia. Vehicles were th e primary cause of mortality for urban kit foxes, and most strikes occurred on arterial roads, which had higher traffic volumes and speed limits. Also, foxes were more frequently struck near in tersections between major roads and other linear rights-of-way (e.g., railroads, canals, other roads), which likely were used as travel corridors by kit foxes. Males appeared to be particul arly vulnerable to vehicle strikes during the winter mating season. Kit foxes did not appear to avoid roads when selecting den sites.
During nocturn al activity per iods, kit fox es c ommonly c rossed local roa ds, but less fre quently crossed arterial or collector roads. Roads i mpact urban k it foxes through r educed surviv al, occasional d en loss, inhibi ted movements, and habit at loss.
When conducting road projects ( e.g., construction, maintenance), Caltrans implements standard measures to minimize impacts to kit foxes. We recommend the implementation of additional measures, specifically the installation of artificial dens and road crossing structures, to further minimize impacts. Implementation of th ese measures will facilitate cons ervation of urban k it foxes and contribute to range-wide recovery.
17. KEY WORDS
Artificial den, Bakersfield, conservation measures,
crossing structure, endangered species, road, San
Joaquin kit fox, urban environment, vehicle, Vulpes
macrotis mutica
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through th e National Techn ical Info rmation Serv ice, Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (of this report)
Unclassified
20. NUMBER OF PAGES
47 21. PRICE
i
URBAN ROADS AND THE ENDANGERED
SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX
Curtis D. Bjurlin, Brian L. Cypher, Carie M. Wingert, and Christine L. Van Horn Job
California State University, Stanislaus
Endangered Species Recovery Program
1900 Gateway Blvd.
Fresno, CA 93727
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Report Documentation Page ........................................................................... i Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. ii Table of Tables .................................................................................................................i v List of Figures................................................................................................................... iv Disclosure.......................................................................................................................... vi Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary........................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... viii Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 Information Need ............................................................................................................... ....... 1 Goal ........................................................................................................................... ................. 3 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... ............ 3 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 4 Kit Fox Capture and Monitoring ............................................................................................ 4 Mortality ...................................................................................................................... .............. 5 Dens ........................................................................................................................... ................. 7 Movements...................................................................................................................... ........... 7 Spatial and Statistical Analysis................................................................................................8 Results ................................................................................................................................ 8 Results ................................................................................................................................ 9 Urban Kit Fox Ecology.......................................................................................................... ... 9 Mortality ...................................................................................................................... .............. 9 Dens ........................................................................................................................... ............... 17 Movements...................................................................................................................... ......... 19 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 20 ii
Mortality ...................................................................................................................... ............ 20 Dens ........................................................................................................................... ............... 21 Movements...................................................................................................................... ......... 22 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 23 Future Research.............................................................................................................. 24 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 25 Appendix. Supplemental recommendations for protection of San Joaquin kit fox during road projects in urban environments ............................................................... 26 Introduction................................................................................................................... .......... 26 Den Disturbance................................................................................................................ ...... 26 Summary........................................................................................................................ ..................... 26 Urban Kit Fox Den Description .......................................................................................................... 27 Artificial Den Description..................................................................................................... .............. 28 Artificial Den Installation Criteria ........................................................................................... ........... 29 Kit Fox Road Crossing Structures ........................................................................................ 29 Summary........................................................................................................................ ..................... 29 Road Crossing Structure Attributes ............................................................................................. ....... 29 Profiled Crossing Structures ................................................................................................... ............ 34 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... ....... 47 iii