DISCLOSURE
This research was done under contract 65A0136. The contract total was $170,700.
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. vi
Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is at risk of extinction primarily due to profound habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss. Industrial and urban developments are contributing factors to habitat destruction. Based on recent research, however, kit foxes appear to have persistent populations in some urban and industrial lands. While many factors regulate urban fox populations, roads are a dominant feature of these areas, and a potential threat to kit fox populations. Roads may affect fox survival, den use, movements, and other essential functions. Furthermore, the potential for negative impact is proportional to road width, traffic volume, and speed limit.
Projections for the San Joaquin Valley indicate that the human population and associated urbanization and transportation networks will increase for the foreseeable future. Roads will grow wider, carry higher traffic volumes, and become more inhospitable to wildlife.
As urban lands spread and natural lands diminish, urbanized fox populations also may become more valuable to species recovery. Consequently, the influence of transportation networks on the persistence of urban fox populations will grow simultaneously to the importance of those populations. Identifying ways to reduce the impact of urban roads on the kit fox is therefore important to species recovery.
The goal of this project was to examine effects of transportation networks (particularly roads) on urbanized San Joaquin kit foxes. Fox-vehicle collision was the primary cause of mortality for urban kit foxes and most strikes occurred on arterial roads that had relatively higher traffic volumes and posted speed limits. Fox-vehicle collision also showed temporal and spatial variability. Foxes more frequently were struck near intersections between major roads and other linear rights-of-way, including railroads, golf courses, canals, rivers, and other roads of all sizes. Furthermore, male kit foxes died disproportionately on roads during winter when mating, territory defense, and exploratory movements were common.
Kit foxes did not show preference for or avoidance of dens with respect to proximity to major roads (arterial, collector, highway, and highway ramp). A 100ft buffer (Fish and Wildlife Service exclusion zone) from the centerline of major roads included 9.5% of known kit fox dens at the study site. Proximity of dens (especially natal sites) to major roads, however, may increase risk of vehicle strike. Furthermore, earth moving associated with road construction and improvement may endanger kit foxes that inhabit roadside dens. Finaly, land that is converted to roadway is permanently lost as kit fox habitat. Therefore, while the selection of den sites by kit fox did not appear influenced by road proximity, there were several impacts of roads on the availability and suitability of habitat for dens.
We report on 21 sessions of vehicle-based intensive monitoring with 15 different focal kit foxes. In all, we recorded 4,633 minutes of observation over 44,121m of minimum straight line distance (MSLD) between consecutive points. Using MSLD and observation time, we calculated that foxes traveled at an average rate of 0.5958 km/hr during intensive monitoring. We directly observed foxes crossing local roads on 10 occasions and arterial and collector roads on one occasion, each. MSLD predicted that foxes made vii
Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
108 road crossings during monitoring. The majority (79 crossings) occurred on local roads, while 12 and 17 crossings occurred on arterial and collector roads, respectively.
Rate of road crossing per road type was in direct contrast to frequency of fox-vehicle collision per road type. Foxes most frequently crossed local roads, but most frequently died on arterial roads.
In addition to analyzing the effects of roads on kit foxes, we provide detailed recommendations on protection and compensation measures for urban road projects.
Specifically, we discuss the criteria for and construction of artificial dens and road crossing structures. These measures, when judiciously applied, may increase fox survival, habitat connectivity, and likelihood of persistence of urban fox populations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In addition to California Department of Transportation funding, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Fish and Game, Great Valley Center, ARCO Western Energy, and Chevron USA provided valuable financial support for the urbanized kit fox ecology research project. Additional support was provided by the Smithsonian Institute, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and City of Bakersfield. J. Storlie was integral to the early development of this project. We thank S.
Bremner-Harrison, A. Brown, J. Murdoch, and E. Tennant for ongoing field assistance.
All schematics in this report came from the pen of S. Harrison. S. Phillips’ expertise with GIS and report preparation were invaluable. Finaly, we thank H. Hunt (Caltrans), S.
Jones (USFWS), and T. Marshall (Caltrans) for reviewing draft versions of this report. viii
Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
INTRODUCTION
INFORMATION NEED
The San Joaquin kit fox historically occupied arid upland habitats throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Former and current conversion of these lands to agriculture, urban, and industrial uses has resulted in profound habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss. As a result, the San Joaquin kit fox was listed as Federally Endangered in 1967 and California Threatened in 1973 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
Kit foxes currently persist in a metapopulation consisting of 3 large “core” populations (Carrizo Plain National Monument, LoKern Natural Area, Panoche Hills region) and a number of smaller “satellite” populations. Movement of foxes between these populations is important for maintaining gene flow and avoiding inbreeding effects. Furthermore, kit fox populations exhibit marked fluctuations in the number of individuals as a result of natural and anthropogenic processes (e.g., Cypher et al. 2000). Risk of extinction due to catastrophic or random demographic events is increased for small populations in general and kit foxes specifically (White et al 2000). Thus, dispersal between populations may be necessary to prevent local extinctions or to recolonize lands where foxes are extirpated. The probability of long-term persistence of this species will increase with the number and stability of populations and the ability of animals to move between these areas.
Bjurlin and Cypher (2003) identified numerous potential impacts of roads on kit fox populations. While vehicle strike is the most obvious and documented, roads also may degrade or fragment habitat, increase chemical or noise pollution, alter prey or predator abundance, introduce invasive species, cause changes to fire regime, and increase human presence and development. The aforementioned have a variety of potential impacts on foxes, including mortality or morbidity, disrupted social ecology, reduced productivity, displacement, altered space use, inhibited dispersal, reduced genetic exchange, and decreased carrying capacity.
One study (Cypher et al., in prep) found few impacts of two-lane highways on kit fox ecology in natural lands. Probability of fox-vehicle collision was low, perhaps as a result of low traffic volumes (approximately 8,000 vehicles per day) and few vehicles during periods of peak fox activity. Similarly, there was no evidence that foxes avoided territories that bordered or crossed the roads, had decreased reproductive output along roadsides, encountered changes in availability or utilization of prey, or were more at risk from predation. Road presence, and associated human activity did significantly alter fire regime, increasing the frequency of wildfire, and changing native Atriplex spp. shrubland to non-native grassland. This change appeared to alter relative abundance of several Dipodomys spp., the primary prey of resident foxes. Furthermore, distribution (and perhaps abundance) of the coyote (Canis latrans) also was altered, with coyotes preferentially utilizing shrub remnants (Nelson et al., in prep). Clearly, potential impacts by roads are diverse, and perhaps mediated by other ecosystem processes (i.e., fire).
Furthermore, as road width, traffic volume, and speeds increase, the potential for direct impacts, such as vehicle strike will increase. Roads throughout the range of the San 1 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Joaquin kit fox are increasing in traffic volume. Therefore, lack of direct impact on San Joaquin kit fox as reported above is not necessarily indicative of future relationships between the kit fox and human transportation networks. For a synthesis of the literature on road impacts on San Joaquin kit fox refer to Cypher (2000) and Bjurlin and Cypher (2003).
The highest density of roads, peak traffic volume, and greatest potential for impact to foxes occurs in urban areas. Urban kit fox populations in California minimally occur in Bakersfield, Taft, Santa Nella, and Coalinga. Reports from the public and carcasses collected opportunistically indicate that kit foxes are dying by vehicle strike in the human developments of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Urbanized foxes may encounter roads while foraging, looking for mates, defending territories, and dispersing. Little is known, however, about the factors that influence where, when, and how vehicle strikes occur.
Furthermore, it is unknown whether there are changes to kit fox use or placement of dens, patterns of movement, susceptibility to predation, prey selection, or other elements of fox ecology as a consequence of proximity to roads in urban areas.
Why is the impact of urban roads on kit fox populations important? First, urban areas have rapidly grown throughout the range of the kit fox. In some cases, development has occurred in agricultural lands that long have been devoid of kit foxes. But in many other cases, urbanization has displaced or altered fox populations occurring in natural lands.
Conversion of natural lands permanently decreases availability of habitat, which is a major obstacle to species recovery. Second, the network of three core- and several satellite-populations identified in the recovery plan for this species is vulnerable to fragmentation associated with transportation networks. For this metapopulation to remain functional, individuals must be able to move between sub-populations. The potential for negative impact of roads on the ability of foxes to utilize corridors may be proportional to road width, traffic volume, and speed limit. Projections for the San Joaquin Valley indicate that the human population and associated urbanization and transportation networks will increase for the foreseeable future. The highest potential for fragmentation will occur in urbanized areas where roads are most prevalent. Third, as urban lands spread and natural lands diminish, urbanized fox populations may become more valuable to species recovery. Urban fox populations are relatively less susceptible to meteorological stochasticity, and may prove useful as a repository for genetic diversity and/or individuals for reintroduction efforts. Consequently, the influence of transportation networks on San Joaquin kit fox recovery is likely to grow simultaneously to the importance of urbanized fox populations where transportation networks are most prevalent. Identifying ways to reduce the impact of urban roads on the kit fox is therefore a conservation priority.
A less tangible, but still important, reason to reduce the impact of roads on urban fox populations is the interaction between urbanized kit foxes and the public. Standardized surveying shows that the citizens of Bakersfield (where the largest population of urbanized foxes occurs) generally have seen a kit fox on one or more occasions and support protection of the urban population (Bjurlin and Cypher, in press). Furthermore, respondents expressed widespread appreciation of urbanized foxes (in some cases becoming strongly protective). The greatest concern identified by respondents was that kit foxes would be killed by vehicle strike. Furthermore, fox-vehicle collision, or the 2 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
attempt to avoid it, may in some cases contribute to traffic accidents (unconfirmed citizen report) or unsafe road conditions. Measures designed to minimize kit fox crossing of busy roads at grade are likely to receive strong public support. To the extent that pedestrian and fox crossing structures can be combined for multiple use, the perceived benefits of this investment in infrastructure are likely to increase.
GOAL
Our goal was to determine whether roads affect the ecology of the urbanized San Joaquin kit fox. From 1997-2004, we outfitted kit foxes with radio transmitters and monitored survival, den use patterns, and movements. We examined these data for statistical and spatial associations to urban road networks. Based upon these results we provide detailed recommendations for the protection of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments during and after road projects. If implemented, these recommendations are likely to contribute to the long-term viability of urban fox populations and species recovery, receive strong public support, and may even increase public safety.
STUDY AREA
The study site is located in the southwestern quarter of the Bakersfield metropolitan area (Figure 1). Bakersfield lies at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley in central California and is the Kern County seat of government. The metropolitan area as of January 2003 was approximately 580 km2
(224 mi
2 ) with 394,234 residents
(http://www.bakersfieldchamber.org/pdf/community-profile.pdf). The urbanized area of Bakersfield grew by 23.6% from 1990-2000 and continued growth is expected (http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff).
Hot, dry summers, and cool, wet winters characterize the climate of the southern San Joaquin Valley. Average daily maximum temperatures range from 14°C in December to 37°C in July and average daily minimum temperatures range from 4°C in December to 21°C in July (Meadows Field Airport weather station). Annual precipitation averages
14.3 cm, but varies greatly between years.
3 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
METHODS
KIT FOX CAPTURE AND MONITORING
From May 1997 to July 2004 we captured kit foxes in live traps, outfitted them with radio transmitters, and monitored them for sources of mortality, nightly movements, daily resting places, and reproductive output. We captured foxes with wire-mesh box traps (38 x 38 x 107 cm) baited with assorted meats. Traps were covered with cloth tarps to protect animals from inclement weather and direct sun. Captured foxes were examined for injury and parasites, ear-tagged, sexed, aged, and fitted with a radio collar (40g, Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, Minnesota) containing a mortality sensor that altered signal pulse rate if the animal was motionless for four hours. We released foxes at site of capture after 0.5-1 hour of handling. Capture and handling protocols were in accordance with permits TE023496-1 and TE825573-2 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Memorandum of Understanding from the California Department of Fish and Game.
Figure 1. Urbanized San Joaquin kit fox study area, Bakersfield, CA. 4 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
At a minimum, we attempted to record one day-resting location and two night-activity locations for each animal with a functioning radio collar during each week. In some cases fewer locations were recorded because of collar failure, fox dispersal from typical home ranges, use of resting sites that attenuated radio signal, or other factors. Radio collar transition to mortality signal allowed us to promptly retrieve deceased foxes and increased the likelihood of confirming cause of mortality. Fox carcasses also were collected opportunistically during the study when spotted on roads, reported by citizenry, or collected by other organizations. Each spring, we conducted natal den observations to estimate litter size for all radio-tagged females. Finally, we collected kit fox feces for dietary analysis throughout the study duration. Locations of activity, mortality, resting, and pup whelping and rearing were recorded with GPS and entered in a GIS for spatial analysis.
MORTALITY
We conducted necropsy for all recovered fox carcasses. We limited our analysis of cause of death to animals that were actively being monitored with radio telemetry in order to decrease bias caused by differences in visibility of carcasses. We also report, however, on all carcasses retrieved during the study. Cause of death was determined using the pattern of injury, including external abrasion, broken bones, internal hemorrhaging, and bite wounds. The location that the carcass was retrieved from also was used in determining cause of death (e.g., within road right-of-way, buried at construction site, in carnivore scrape, etc.).
For all animals (transmitting or not) that died by vehicle strike, we assigned road type (local, collector, arterial, highway), traffic volume, and posted speed limit. Local roads had the primary purpose of providing access to abutting residential property, did not exceed 12.2m (40ft) in width, had no more than one traffic lane in each direction, and were not longer than 0.8km (0.5mile) without interruption. Speed limit was 25mph on all local roads, but was not always posted. Collector roads generally conducted local road traffic to the arterial road network, but sometimes were residential in nature. Speed limits (generally 30-45 mph) for collector roads were based upon speed surveys and were posted. Arterial roads had 1-3 lanes of traffic in each direction (typically more than one), carried the majority of city traffic, and connected the local and collector road networks to the State highway system. Arterial road speed limits (35-55mph) were always based on speed surveys and posted. Lastly, highways were State numbered roads with the primary purpose of conducting traffic into and away from the urban area. They included highways 58, 99, 178, and 119 and in some cases passed through residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Vehicle access to highway 99 and portions of 178 was by ramp only.
We compared road type where foxes died to an expected distribution based on road availability using contingency table analysis. Road availability was calculated by summing the length of three road types (local, collector, arterial) within the minimum convex polygon of the locations of vehicle strike (Figure 2). Vehicle strikes also were examined for temporal patterns. For this analysis we limited the time period to 6 complete years, 07/01/1998-06/30/2004 so that months wouldn’t be disproportionately represented. Strikes were separated by fox age (adult, juvenile) and gender (male, 5 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
female) and compared with other sources of morality by month. Temporal distribution in strikes was compared with frequency of fox scent marking, interaction with foxes outside of social group (Murdoch 2004), and traffic volume by month.
Finally, we examined spatial patterns of kit fox vehicle strikes that occurred on arterial or collector roads. We had insufficient sample size to conduct similar analyses for local and highway strikes. We limited the extent of this analysis to southwest Bakersfield where we had the greatest knowledge of roads and fox habits. Strikes were examined for association with intersections of the road where the mortality occurred and other linear rights-of-way. Linear rights-of-way for this analysis were defined as other roads (local, collector, arterial, highway), canals, railroads, rivers, or golf course crossings.
Figure 2. Minimum convex polygon of fox-vehicle collisions for individuals that had transmitting radio collars, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004. 6 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
In order to conduct this spatial analysis, we defined vehicle strike road segments. These segments were the shortest sections of road that were bounded by intersection with other arterial or collector roads and contained the vehicle strike location. This rule was modified when the mortality occurred at an intersection with arterial or collector road. In these cases, the segment was extended in both directions to the next, nearest intersection with a major road. We then assigned 100 randomly distributed points to the road segment for each vehicle strike. For example, if three strikes occurred on the segment, 300 randomly distributed points were assigned. We calculated the distance to nearest intersection with linear right-of-way for all points (confirmed strike and random).
Distance was coded into three categories, near (x <= 26m), intermediate (26m < x <= 52m), and far (52m < x) based on a mean road width of 26m. Therefore, strikes assigned as “near” occurred within one road width of the intersection, as “intermediate” within two road widths, and as “far” greater than two road widths.
Observed strikes versus random locations were examined with this coding scheme in a contingency table analysis for a departure from what would be expected by chance.
Lastly, we evaluated the type of intersections where vehicle strikes occurred for strikes coded as “near”. We then compared the frequency of observed mortalities and random points among intersection types.
DENS
Association between confirmed kit fox dens and major roads (highway, highway ramp, arterial, and collector) was examined for dens used by radio-collared foxes from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2004. Distance to nearest road centerline was calculated for each known den and compared across distance categories (34.5m, 69m, etc.). Distance categories corresponded with Fish and Wildlife exclusion zone distances for known kit fox dens (34.5m = 100ft).
MOVEMENTS
Kit fox space use was studied using vehicle-based monitoring of focal animals during 2003. Focal sessions typically began 1 or more hours after nightfall (full dark) and lasted for approximately four hours. Every 15 minutes we attempted to collect a new location for the focal animal. We described fox locations as accurately as possible using a combination of triangulation and spotlighting. With these data we calculated minimum straight-line distance (MSLD) between consecutive locations. We also calculated rate of travel (MSLD km/hour). Finally, we estimated number of road crossings (arterial, collector, local) using MSLD and visual sightings. We then adjusted these data for crossing rate per hour of observation and MSLD of movement. We used shapefile coverages of city roads and geo-referenced aerial photography to assign road crossings for this analysis.
7 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
SPATIAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Spatial analysis was conducted using ArcView version 3.2 (ESRI 1996). Data for roads and traffic volumes were generated with shapefile coverages from City of Bakersfield GIS and Traffic Engineering Departments, respectively (City of Bakersfield 2000-2004).
All spatial data were projected in Lambert Conformal Conic, California State Plane, NAD27. In some cases data on road location, size, or posted speed limit was unavailable for the year in which the kit fox feature was described (i.e., vehicle strike, den, movements). In these instances data from the closest available time period were used (usually less than one year distant). Geo-referenced aerial photography (AirPhoto USA) was used to assign the location of road intersections with other linear rights-of-way. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS Inc. 2002) and results were considered significant at P <= 0.05.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
8 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
RESULTS
URBAN KIT FOX ECOLOGY
From May 1997 to July 2004 we captured a total of 358 individual foxes (109 adults, 206 juveniles, and 43 juveniles that were captured again as adults). Of these, we outfitted 229 individuals with radio collars (84 adults, 79 juveniles, and 66 juveniles that continued to be monitored as adults). We monitored radio-tagged animals until they died, transmitters failed, or they were lost. We collected 8,115 night activity locations and 6,647 daytime resting locations during the study (Figure 3a-b). Kit foxes primarily rested diurnally within dens, of which we described 471 over the study period. We located kit fox litters on 54 separate occasions. With these data we will conduct additional analyses on survival rates, reproductive rates, den site selection, space requirements, preferred habitats, and foraging patterns. We will present these data in a comprehensive monograph of kit fox demographics and ecology in urban environments. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be supplied with a copy of the monograph and associated recommendations for the conservation of urban fox populations.
MORTALITY
We collected 156 kit fox carcasses from September 1985 to August 2004. Carcasses collected prior to 1997 were stored by California State University, Bakersfield. A near majority of mortalities were attributed to vehicle strike (48.1%, Table 1). These data, however, include animals that were received from a variety of opportunistic sources. By limiting analysis to animals that were actively being monitored with radio telemetry at time of death (N = 78) we reduce bias (e.g., differential reporting and accessibility to carcasses). Of this subset, confirmed vehicle strike accounted for 26.9% of mortality.
An additional 7.7% of foxes may have died from vehicle strike, but evidence, while suggestive, was not conclusive. Predation (16.7%) was the second most common cause of death for transmitting animals. Other sources of mortality included entombment, poison, drowning, gunshot, complications during parturition, and entanglement.
Due to advanced state of decay or lack of gross injury, we were unable to determine cause of death for 28.2% of carcasses. However, 73% of the 22 individuals with unknown cause of death were retrieved from fox dens. Pertinent to this report, animals retrieved from dens were unlikely to have died of vehicle strike (they lacked broken bones or contusions), and therefore the percentages calculated for vehicle strike are considered accurate when unknown cause of death is included. Overall, 30.8% of the 78 mortalities of foxes with operational radio collars were retrieved from dens. In natural lands where most research has been conducted and mortality generally is attributed to predation, carcasses are rarely retrieved from dens. There may be sources of mortality in urban environments (e.g., disease or poisoning) that have yet to be identified, but that do not leave clearly diagnostic evidence with our necropsy techniques. 9 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Figure 3. Nocturnal (a) and Diurnal (b) locations of San Joaquin kit fox in Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004.
10 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Table 1. Cause of death for all foxes (1985-2004) and foxes with transmitting radio signals at time of death (1997-2004), Bakersfield, CA.
Cause of Death All Foxes Transmitting Foxes
N % N %
Entombed - construction 5 3.2 3 3.8
Entombed - natural 1 0.6 1 1.3
Poison 3 1.9 0 0.0
Possible poison 5 3.2 4 5.1
Predation 16 10.3 13 16.7
Possible predation 5 3.2 4 5.1
Vehicle 75 48.1 21 26.9
Possible vehicle 8 5.1 6 7.7
Other 6 3.8 4 5.1
Unknown 32 20.5 22 28.2
Total 156 100.0 78 100.0
Table 2. Frequency of fox-vehicle collisions by road type for all foxes and those with transmitting radio signals at time of death, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004.
Road Type All Strikes Transmitting Strikes
N % N %
2-lane local 2 4.2 1 5.6
2-lane collector 8 16.7 1 5.6
2-lane arterial 2 4.2 1 5.6
4-lane arterial 17 35.4 7 38.9
6-lane arterial 16 33.3 7 38.9
6-lane highway 1 2.1 0 0.0
Not on road 2 4.2 1 5.6
Total 48 100.0 18 100.0
From January 1998 to August 2004, we had the necessary information on road status to describe association between road types and vehicle strikes. We retrieved 48 vehicle strike kit foxes in Bakersfield during this period. Of these, 18 were actively being monitored with radio telemetry at the time of death. Arterial roads accounted for 72.9% and 83.3% of strikes for all animals and actively monitored animals, respectively (Table 2). Collector roads, local roads, and highways were less significant sources of mortality. Within the 100% MCP of actively monitored animals (Figure 2), we identified 327.4 km of local roads, 49.9 km of collector roads, and 50.9 km of arterial roads. There was a significant difference between the observed frequency of roadkill by road type, and that which would be expected based on availability (χ
2 2 = 82.127, P < 0.001). Arterial
roads were far more often a source of vehicle strike than can be explained by chance occurrence.
11 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Roads with four or more lanes accounted for 70.8% and 77.8% of roadkill for all animals and actively monitored animals, respectively (Table 2). Approximately 90% of roadkill were retrieved from roads with posted speed limits of greater than 45 mph, irrespective of whether the animal was transmitting at time or death or was collected opportunistically (Table 3). Roads with a 55 mph posted speed limit accounted for over half of all vehicle strikes. Mean traffic volume at vehicle strike was 21,861 and 23,426 vehicles per day for all strikes and actively monitored strikes, respectively (Figure 4).
Table 3. Fox-vehicle collisions by posted speed limit, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004.
Speed Limit All Strikes Transmitting Strikes
N % N %
25 mph 1 2.1 0 0
35 mph 1 2.1 0 0
40 mph 1 2.1 1 5.6
45 mph 9 18.8 2 11.1
50 mph 6 12.5 5 27.8
55 mph 27 56.3 9 50.0
65 mph 1 2.1 0 0.0
Not on road 2 4.2 1 5.6
Total 48 100.0 18 100.0
Figure 4. Fox-vehicle collisions by traffic volume for all mortalities and mortalities of individuals with transmitting radio collars at time of death, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004. 12 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
There was no overall interaction between vehicle strike as cause of death (Coded Yes/No) and gender (χ
2 1 = 0.057, P = 0.812) or age (χ
2 1 = 0.709, P = 0.400) for 78 foxes
that were actively being monitored at time of death. Of 47 adult mortalities, 38.3% were either confirmed or possible vehicle strikes. Confirmed or possible vehicle strike accounted for 29.0% of 31 juvenile mortalities. Mortalities were evenly distributed between the genders (male = 39, female = 39), and approximately one third of each sex died of confirmed or possible vehicle collision. While all mortalities were distributed throughout the year, vehicle strikes showed a distinct peak in December during the sixyear period beginning 1 July 1998 (Figure 5). Further examination showed an association between gender, age, and vehicle strikes when the data were examined temporally. Of nine foxes that died of vehicle collision in December, seven were adult males. The winter (December/January) spike in male fox-vehicle collision corresponded with male rate of scent marking (Figure 6) and overall rate of interaction between focal foxes and conspecifics that were not within the social group (Figure 7). Both scent marking and interaction frequency may be indicators of reproductive behavior and territoriality (Murdoch 2004). There also appeared to be a smaller increase in vehicle strike from May to September. Many of these animals were pups that were at the age typical of increasing independence from the natal group, solitary foraging, and dispersal.
Vehicle traffic volume did not differ by month at six control stations spread across the urban area (Figure 8).
Figure 5. Fox-vehicle collisions by gender and month, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004. 13 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Figure 6. Fox-vehicle collisions (1998-2004) versus scent marking rates (Murdoch 2004) for male foxes, Bakersfield, CA.
Figure 7. Fox-vehicle collisions (1998-2004) versus interactions with foxes that were not within the immediate social group (Murdoch), Bakersfield, CA. 14 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
We identified 23 segments of arterial or collector roads where strikes occurred. Number of strikes per segment ranged from 1 to 5 and accounted for 38 strikes in all (Figure 9).
Along these segments we identified 136 intersections. Kit foxes died more often than expected by chance at intersections with a linear right-of-way (χ 2 2 = 15.75, P < 0.001).
Strikes within one road width (<=26m) of an intersection accounted for 47.3% of all roadkill. In contrast, only 22.5% of random points occurred within one road width of an intersection. Following a similar, but weaker, trend 21.1% of observed roadkill were between one and two road widths (26 < x <= 52m) of an intersection, versus 17.8% of random locations in the category. There did not appear to be a higher risk of strike at any one type of intersection. Across intersection types, frequency of vehicle strikes that occurred in the category nearest to intersections mirrored the frequency of random points (Table 4). For example, 38.9% of all strikes within one road width occurred at intersection with local roads, while 37.1% of corresponding random points occurred at local road intersections.
Figure 8. Mean (Std. Dev.) traffic volume by month at six control stations, Bakersfield, CA, 2003.
15 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Table 4. Observed versus random generated fox-vehicle collisions on arterial and collector roads that were within one road width (26m) of an intersection with a linear rightof-way, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004.
Intersecting Linear Feature Observed Strikes Random Points N % N %
Arterial road 1 5.6 99 11.6
Canal 4 22.2 191 22.4
Collector road 3 16.7 69 8.1
Golf course 1 5.6 59 6.9
Highway 1 5.6 58 6.8
Local road 7 38.9 317 37.1
Railroad 0 0.0 17 2.0
River 1 5.6 44 5.2
Total 18 100 854 100.0
Figure 9. Fox-vehicle collisions and road segments where mortality occurred, Bakersfield, CA, 1998-2004.
16 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
DENS
Kit foxes did not appear to avoid using dens or building dens at sites that were adjacent to major roads. We calculated nearest major road (arterial, collector, highway, or highway ramp) to each of 327 fox dens used from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2004. Of these, 9.5% occurred within 30.4m (100ft) of the nearest road centerline. A similar trend occurred for each subsequent 30.4m distance from road (Figure 10). Some foxes utilized features of a major road for den construction. One individual was known to den within a culvert beneath highway 99 (Figure 11). Other dens occurred in the embankments or underpasses of a raised portion of highway 99 (Figure 20b, Appendix), and at drainage basins (e.g., Figure 14c, Appendix) or canals directly adjacent to roads.
In some cases dens were directly adjacent to the roadway (Figure 12), but in other cases roadside dens were behind by a cement block wall or other barrier that increased isolation, decreased noise pollution, and may have made the site less likely to be impacted by human activity (Figure 13). Dens directly adjacent to roads are at risk of disturbance during road maintenance or construction. Four dens within a drainage basin at the intersection of two arterial roads (Figure 14c) were destroyed during earth moving associated with road widening and improvement. In fact, the entire drainage basin was removed in this instance. Four frequently occupied fox dens were destroyed when a local road, Kroll Way, was extended through a previously un-roaded area.
Figure 10. Number of known dens by distance to nearest centerline of major road, Bakersfield, CA, 2001-2004.
17 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Figure 11. Drainage culvert under Highway 99 in Bakersfield, CA that was used as a den by San Joaquin kit fox.
Figure 12. Kit fox dens at varying distances from collector and arterial roads in Bakersfield, CA, 2001-2004.
18 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Figure 13. Kit fox dens at varying distances from collector and arterial roads, Bakersfield, CA, 2001-2004. A barrier wall, indicated with dashed line, isolated dens from one roadway with relatively high traffic volume.
MOVEMENTS
We conducted 21 sessions of vehicle-based intensive monitoring on 15 different focal kit foxes, for a total of 4,633 minutes of observation. We collected an average of 16.2 unique locations per session. Mean interval between locations was 15.14 minutes. By connecting these locations sequentially, we were able to calculate minimum straight-line distance (MSLD) moved and minimum rate of travel. We recorded a total of 44,121m of MSLD, for an average of 2,101m per monitoring session. Using MSLD and observation time, we calculated that foxes traveled at an average rate of 0.5958 km/hr during monitoring. Of course, focal foxes were inactive during much of the focal period and minimum distances between points do not account for the more complex travel patterns that were likely to exist. Therefore, foxes traveled a greater distance in shorter time and actual rate of travel likely was considerably higher.
MSLD movements also allowed us to estimate number of road crossings during focal sessions. We directly observed foxes crossing local roads on 10 occasions and arterial and collector roads on one occasion, each. MSLD predicted that foxes made 108 road crossings during focal monitoring. The majority (79 crossings) occurred on local roads, while 12 and 17 crossings occurred on arterial and collector roads, respectively. On average, foxes made 2.43 road crossings per km MSLD and 1.46 crossings per hour during intensive monitoring. Crossing rate for arterial roads (the primary location of roadkill) dropped to just 0.32 and 0.16 crossings per km MSLD and hour, respectively.
Intersection of arterial roads with MSLD occurred in only six monitoring sessions (five individual foxes).
19 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
DISCUSSION
MORTALITY
As the single largest source of mortality for the Bakersfield fox population, vehicle strike clearly is an important factor for urbanized foxes. These data are in marked contrast with all other studies on kit fox in which vehicle strike rarely exceeded 10% of mortalities and was not considered a significant influence on fox demographics or population ecology (Bjurlin and Cypher 2003). In the largest study to date on the San Joaquin kit fox in natural habitats, Cypher et al. (2000) found that predation accounted for 57.2% of 222 fox deaths while vehicle strike was identified as cause of death in only 9% of occurrences. In contrast, predation during this urban study accounted for 16.7% of mortality, while vehicle strike, at 26.9%, was a more important cause of death. The coyote is the primary predator and competitor of the San Joaquin kit fox (Ralls and White 1995, Cypher and Spencer 1998) and is not abundant in Bakersfield (Cypher unpubl. data). Coyote distribution appeared limited to the Kern River corridor in the urban area included in this study. Therefore, it is possible that vehicle strike simply replaces mortality that would otherwise have been caused by depredation, had predators been more abundant. Indeed, some urban fox populations have persisted for decades and appear relatively stable given the dynamic alteration of urban environments that occurs during development and land conversion. Analyses of urban fox population viability and the impact of vehicle strike on viability are pending.
Arterial roads accounted for most strikes, a relationship that was significantly different from expected based on availability of this road type in the urban environment. Arterial roads typically have multiple lanes, relatively higher traffic volumes, and relatively higher posted speed limits. The San Joaquin kit fox is capable of rapid travel over short distances. The swiftness of this species may enable it to safely navigate two-lane roads where vehicle speeds and traffic volumes are lower. Indeed, only 10% of strikes occurred on roads that had posted speed limits that were lower than 45 mph. Low volume and speeds on local roads make it less likely that a fox crossing the road will need to avoid more than one vehicle. In contrast, a fox crossing four- or six-lane roads may have to evade multiple vehicles, which may travel in different directions and at different rates. Average traffic volume for urban roads with fox-vehicle collisions was nearly three times the volume of two-lane highways that transverse the LoKern Natural Area, one of three core areas for the San Joaquin kit fox (Cypher et al. in prep).
The incidence of vehicle strike was not evenly distributed. Foxes died more frequently within one road width of intersections between major roads and other linear rights-of-way then expected by chance. In fact, 68.4% of strikes on major roads occurred within two road widths of an intersection. The association between intersections and vehicle strike likely was the result of kit fox movement patterns. Species of the family Canidae (dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes) utilize linear features for travel (Trewhella and Harris 1990), and we observed urban kit foxes on linear corridors between habitat patches (C. Bjurlin, pers. obs.). Additionally, increased traffic at intersections and regular changes in vehicle speed or direction (particularly where two roads come together) could make navigating intersections confusing for foxes. Finally, roadways typically are wider at road/road 20 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
intersections to accommodate turning lanes. Greater distance to traverse equals greater time on the road and greater exposure to fox-vehicle collision. The lack of association of fox-vehicle collision with a specific type of intersection suggests that this relationship is broadly applicable.
Fox gender also was linked with vehicle strike when time of year was added as a variable. Males appeared particularly vulnerable during the breeding season (Dec-Jan).
Increases in male strikes closely mirrored rate of scent marking and interaction with animals outside of the social group (Murdoch 2004). During the reproductive season, male foxes are more active, travel greater distances, are more aggressive, and spend more time chasing females in courtship and males in territory defense (C.Bjurlin, pers. obs).
Furthermore, male foxes travel outside of the home territory in search of mating opportunities during December and January (Cypher et al., unpubl. data). One male in particular made these movements nightly for a period of a week and was observed successfully mating with a female in these new territories. While this example stands out in its detail, many males were observed in extra-pair copulation and outside of the typical home range during this study. On one occasion we witnessed four foxes in rapid and aggressive chase make their way through traffic on a collector road where several mortalities were known to have occurred. As interloper, transient foxes have to contend with similar agonistic interactions with resident males. It is likely that animals occupied with mating, aggressive interactions, or in unfamiliar territory are less aware of roads and traffic.
Vehicle strike during winter months also may be affected by shorter days and daylight savings time. Peak traffic volume occurs during morning and evening commutes. In the winter, the evening commute occurs up to two hours after sunset when male foxes are likely active and seeking mates. Fox activity and peak traffic volume have the greatest likelihood of overlap on the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year). Male vehicle strikes also appeared to be centered on the solstice. In contrast, traffic volume was constant throughout the year, so it is unlikely that monthly changes in traffic (e.g., holiday travel) contributed to patterns of fox mortality.
DENS
Kit foxes did not appear to prefer or avoid dens with respect to roads in urban environments. Urban land use is non-random and areas of similar zoning often are clumped. Kit foxes have shown preference for den sites with respect to some land uses.
Of the 471 dens described from 1997-2004, 36.3% were located along the banks of canals or water detention basins. These areas, however, accounted for only a small percentage of available land area in Bakersfield. It appears that open spaces, or lightly and infrequently disturbed areas (such as canals and basins) are more influential on kit fox den site selection than the proximity or size of adjacent roadways. It is possible that a positive or negative association with roads may occur as a result of a relationship between roads and other, desirable den sites. For example, many of the water transport canals in Bakersfield are adjacent to major roadways. This pattern may reflect a planned strategy, simple convenience, or historical artifact of past development. There is no current strategy for land planning in urban areas with regards to the San Joaquin kit fox. 21 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
Therefore, future development practices may increase or decrease the likelihood that foxes will select den sites near roadways.
Den proximity to major roads may elevate the risk of mortality in some cases. One family group along a collector road in Bakersfield lost two of nine juveniles to vehicle strike in 2004. The natal dens in this instance were less than 20m from the road. Kit fox pups are active and relatively naïve to external dangers, particularly in the first six months of life. Urban foxes also quickly habituate to human and vehicle presence.
While the process by which juvenile foxes learn how to successfully cross roads is unknown, there likely is a period of learning and perhaps elevated risk during youth, particularly when juveniles increase in independence and begin to venture farther from the natal site in search of prey and territory.
Fox dens are destroyed during road construction or modification. Because dens are an essential resource for the kit fox (see Appendix), development projects should avoid dens whenever possible, compensate for den destruction, and secure the necessary permissions from State and Federal authorities when altering lands upon which kit fox exist. In particular, kit foxes can be entombed within dens during earth moving. Road construction projects in Bakersfield have the potential to affect 9.5% or more of dens that occur within 100 ft of major road centerlines. The percentage of affected dens would have been far greater had local roads been included in this analysis. The Fish and Wildlife Service requires that an exclusion zone be created around these dens unless permission is given for den disturbance or destruction. The loss of den sites also decreases the general suitability of habitat, both for resident and for transient animals.
Whenever dens are potentially affected by transportation projects, we strongly encourage the supplemental protection and compensation strategies that are described in the appendix to this document.
MOVEMENTS
Our data on the movements of radio-collared animals show that kit foxes frequently cross roads. The majority of crossings occurred on local roads, mirroring their relative abundance in urban areas, but the majority of mortalities occured on arterial and collector roads. Clearly, the low traffic volumes and speeds associated with local roads decreases the danger to kit fox. While these road types, cover extensive area with the range of the fox (thereby decreasing habitat availability), loss of habitat in urban areas may be unavoidable. We do not proposal specific conservation measures for local road construction to decrease fragmentation of urban landscapes.
Arterial and collector roads offer a greater challenge. These roads accommodate an everincreasing volume of traffic in Bakersfield and other southern San Joaquin Valley human population centers. Kit foxes have shown that they can successfully cross major roads, but many animals maintained territories that did not bring them into frequent contact. It is unclear how increases in traffic volume affect the ability of animals to disperse in urban environments, which is a critical function for healthy kit fox populations.
Crossings appear to be habitual in some cases – with individual foxes repeatedly using a few locations to navigate the roadway. That and the association between fox crossings, fox-vehicle collisions, and linear rights-of-way suggest that these intersections would be 22 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
likely candidates for conservation measures. While reducing speed limits and road sizes would not be practical, it may be possible to reduce the likelihood of vehicle strike on arterial and collector roads by providing safe passage for foxes. Specifically, we propose that road modification projects include wildlife crossing structures where appropriate.
Criteria for selecting locations for crossing structures and instructions for building structures and associated infrastructure are provided in the appendix to this document.
CONCLUSIONS
Roads impact urban kit foxes. Fox-vehicle collision was the primary cause of mortality over a six-year intensive study of urban fox ecology. Because of the absence of predators in the urban environment, it is unclear whether vehicle strike was a limited factor for fox population growth, or simply a compensatory source of mortality for animals that would have been depredated had predator populations been robust. Analyses of survival and population viability are pending. Fox-vehicle collision spiked during the December reproductive season for male kit foxes. This spike in mortality may disrupt kit fox reproductive ecology by destabilizing pair bonds directly prior to whelping and rearing of young. Fox-vehicle collisions occurred more frequently than expected within one road width of an intersection with a linear right-of-way. Rights-of-way may be natural crossing locations for foxes due to habitual travel patterns. They also may be difficult to navigate safely due to wider roadways and irregular traffic speeds and directions. Kit foxes denned on roadsides at similar densities to more remote locations. Likewise, fox movements did not appear overtly affected by roads. Our study, however, was not specifically designed to test for an impact of roads on fox home range and dispersal patterns. An impact on either of these aspects of kit fox ecology is therefore unknown.
The effects of road construction and modification may be reduced by the installation of artificial dens and wildlife crossing structures as outlined in the appendix to this document. Efforts to conserve urban fox populations will contribute to the recovery of this endangered species. Because fox-vehicle collision is the primary source of mortality for urbanized foxes, changes to roads that decrease fox death should command a central role in future conservation programs.
23 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on the studies conducted to date by ESRP, further research and conservation efforts will benefit urban kit foxes. We have identified five topics for future investigation.
1) The factors that affect the suitability of urban habitats for kit fox are currently unknown. These factors may include road density, landuse (e.g., zoning), building density, and presence of refugia and/or corridors between habitat patches. A systematic census of kit fox in urban habitats (e.g., Bakersfield, Taft, Coalinga) using camera or hair traps is required to focus conservation and mitigation efforts in the areas that are of highest value. Previous urban fox research, while critical to identifying vital rates (births, deaths, migration), was not designed to rigorously test the variables that affect fox presence. Therefore, there is a significant data gap in this area.
2) Cause of death could not be determined for a number of foxes, and poisoning was strongly suspected in many of these cases. This question warrants further investigation to identify the types and sources of poisoning. 3) A recent pilot study has indicated that striped skunks, which are a host to rabies in the San Joaquin Valley, may present a future epidemiological threat to kit foxes in urban environments. Further research is required to quantify this threat and develop strategies to ameliorate it.
4) Conservation strategies have been identified that could potentially benefit urban kit foxes, such as road crossing structures, artificial dens, passages through walls and fences, and the construction of refugia and corridors in urban landscapes.
Further research on the efficacy of these strategies, and information packages detailing these strategies, would benefit urban kit foxes, city planners, and developers.
5) A recent survey indicated that Bakersfield residents harbored misconceptions regarding kit foxes and their population status (Bjurlin and Cypher, in press).
Resources directed toward developing and evaluating a coordinated outreach effort will benefit kit fox conservation in both urban and natural environments. 24 Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox
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. Pages 397-406 in C.L. Irwin, P.Garrett, and K.P.McDermott, editors. 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Bjurlin, C.D., and B. L. Cypher. In Press. Encounter frequency with the urbanized San Joaquin kit fox correlates with public beliefs and attitudes toward the species.
Endangered Species Update.
City of Bakersfield. 2000-2004. Geospatial data on roads and traffic volumes from Department of GIS and Traffic Engineering. http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/ 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. 2000. Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing data. Report for California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California.
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. 43pp.
ESRI Inc. 1996. Arcview 3.2 for Windows. ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA.
Murdoch, J. D. 2004. Scent marking behavior of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). M. S. Thesis. University of Denver, CO.
Ralls, K, and P. J. White. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids.
Journal of Mammalogy 76:723-729.
SPSS Inc. 2002. SPSS Base 10.0 for Windows User's Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.
Trewhella, W.J., and S. Harris. 1990. The effect of railway lines on urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) numbers and dispersal movements. J. Zool., Lond. 221:321-326 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 319 pp.
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. 25 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PROTECTION OF SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX DURING
ROAD PROJECTS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS
Prepared by: Endangered Species Recovery Program
in cooperation with: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office and the California Department of Transportation
July 2005
INTRODUCTION
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) was listed as Federally Endangered in 1967 and California Threatened in 1973. Specific measures implemented to protect the kit fox for any given project shall be determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) based upon applicant consultation with the Service. The purpose of this document is to provide an introduction to measures that may reduce impacts of road construction or modification in urban environments. Specifically, we discuss the criteria for and construction of artificial dens and road crossing structures. The measures outlined in this document are supplemental to standard Service and Caltrans guidelines, which will not be repeated here. Furthermore, these procedures are subject to modification or revision at the discretion of Service. The recommendations made in this appendix are those of the authors and are based on the findings of this research project and other current knowledge of the San Joaquin kit fox. These procedures are applicable to all urban environments where kit foxes are present or will be present in the future. Kit fox presence has been confirmed in Bakersfield, Taft, Santa Nella, and Coalinga, but surveys have yet to be conducted elsewhere. Kit foxes are likely to be found now or in the future in other urban or urbanizing areas.
DEN DISTURBANCE
Summary
Dens are a vital resource to the kit fox in urban environments (Koopman et al. 1998).
Dens provide refuge from predators and climatic extremes, and a location to whelp and rear young. Urban kit foxes typically occupy dens diurnally, but may spend considerable time within dens during the night, especially immediately preceding parturition and in the months post-parturition when young are nursing and vulnerable to predation. In the following text we describe kit fox dens in urban environments and make recommendations for the treatment of dens when they are encountered at a work site. In addition, we provide criteria and instructions for the creation of fox-specific artificial 26 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox dens. The construction of artificial dens may in some cases offset the destruction or disturbance of dens or fox habitat during road projects.
Urban Kit Fox Den Description
Many Federal guidelines pertain to the “known den” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). A known den is defined as any existing earthen 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 historic records, past or current radio telemetry or spotlighting data, kit fox sign such as tracks, scat, and/or prey remains, or other reasonable proof that a den or structure is being or has been used by a kit fox. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discourages use of the terms ”active” and “inactive” when referring to a kit fox den because occupied dens may 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.
Known dens in urban environments take a variety of forms. Most dens are earthen and have multiple entrances, occur in vacant or undeveloped lots, and appear similar to dens found in natural lands. Many earthen dens in urban environments, however, occur at atypical locations, such as dense landscaping, maintained lawns, building foundations, stacked materials, and canal, drainage basin, road or railroad embankments (Figure 14a-d).
Kit fox use of manmade structures presents a further complication when assessing fox presence in urban environments. Kit foxes regularly den within pipes, under storage containers, buildings with raised foundations, stacked materials, vehicles, or any other structure or object that offers shelter and is large enough for a fox to enter (Figure 15a-d).
Manmade structures may be permanent or temporary and may be occupied by kit fox for a single night or habitually. There may be little or no indication that a fox is present at the site. Because these features often are large and provide shelter without digging, typical sign of fox presence, such as dirt mounds, prey remains, or tracks, may be absent or obscured.
Detection and evaluation of kit fox dens in urban environments is challenging. Access to affected or adjacent properties may be restricted at the time of surveying. Irrigation associated with landscaping may degrade dirt mounds, prey remains, and tracks. In some cases dense thatch entirely obscures den entrances (Figure 16a-c). All potential earthen and manmade structures should be thoroughly inspected for sign of kit fox occupancy. In addition to standard procedures, the use of track plates and/or fiber-optic burrow probes may be necessary. Lastly, it is recommended that the surveying biologist interview local landowners, employees, and passersby about kit fox presence, den occupancy, and historic use of a potential project site. Local citizens often will have useful information on kit fox activity and habits that can focus survey efforts.
Natal dens, or dens where whelping and rearing of young occur, present a special circumstance that warrants increased protection. If a natal den is detected within or adjacent to the project site, all activities should immediately stop and the appropriate authorities should be notified. Natal dens typically have more entrances, tracks, scat, prey remains, and human garbage, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances (Figure 14b). As with non-natal dens, they may occur 27 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox in a wide range of circumstances, from earthen dens more typical of natural lands to manmade structures where presence of the family group is difficult to confirm without direct observation of young. If interviewed, local citizens often will provide detailed information on the whereabouts and historic use of natal dens.
Artificial Den Description
Every effort should be made to avoid destroying or damaging known dens during project activities, as per standardized recommendations by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., surveys, monitoring, and exclusion zones; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Den destruction may at times be unavoidable. Consultation must occur prior to disturbance or destruction of den sites. While careful excavation may reduce the potential for direct mortality, loss of den sites has long-term negative effects that reduce the quality and viability of urban environments for kit fox.
The construction of artificial dens is a recommended mitigation for the disturbance or destruction of earthen or manmade kit fox dens during project activities. Artificial dens are of two types: subterranean and escape. Subterranean dens consist of two entrance tunnels (3-m length of 20-cm diameter polyvinyl chloride or high-density polyethylene pipe) leading down at no more than a 30-degree angle to a subterranean chamber (0.5 m in diameter, 0.3 m tall). Entrance tunnels should be oriented such that water does not flood the chamber. It is also recommended that a longitudinal section of the tunnel floor be removed to increase drainage and provide better footing for foxes that are exiting the chamber. The floor of the chamber should be located approximately one meter below ground. The chamber may be either box- or dome-shaped, but must have an earthen floor that allows kit foxes to enlarge the den over time (Figure 17a-d).
Escape dens consist of 3- to 6-m lengths of 20-cm diameter pipe (polyvinyl chloride or high density polyethylene) placed on the surface of the ground and covered with 1-2 m of soil (Figure 18a-d).
Both subterranean and escape dens can be modified to exclude entrance by larger predators, particularly red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans). These predators could be excluded by narrowing the den entrances to a width of 10-15 cm. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as driving stakes in front of the entrances, or installing prefabricated diameter-reduction couplings.
Artificial subterranean and escape dens are regularly used by kit foxes in urban environments for resting, predator avoidance, avoiding temperature extremes, moisture conservation, and rearing of young. From June 2001 to June 2004, 22 subterranean and 9 escape dens in urban Bakersfield, CA were monitored using tracking media, remotelytriggered cameras, and radio telemetry (Cypher et al., unpublished data). Kit foxes used 29 of the 31 dens during the study period. These dens were checked with tracking media 8548 times, and fox tracks were detected on 1198 occasions (14%). This rate of visitation was a minimum estimate because precipitation, irrigation, and visitation by other animals at times made detecting kit fox tracks difficult. In spring 2003, and again in spring 2004, two different family groups raised young in artificial subterranean dens (Figure 19a-b).
28 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Artificial Den Installation Criteria
The following criteria should be met when selecting locations to construct artificial dens. 1) Artificial dens should be as close as possible to the destroyed or disturbed fox den. 2) The location should have a high likelihood of kit fox visitation. 3) Den entrances should be oriented to avoid flooding.
4) The den complex should have reduced likelihood of future disturbance, including development, regular maintenance, and human tampering.
Permanent cautionary devices that alert maintenance personnel to the presence of the artificial den may allow construction in regularly maintained areas. If a suitable site is unavailable along the road corridor it may be necessary to arrange for cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners to install artificial dens on their properties.
Suitable properties may include railway, canal, or utility corridors, drainage basins, golf courses, parks, and industrial sites. Throughout the site selection and construction process, the suitability for kit fox, the expected longevity, and the impacts on regular maintenance activities should be carefully evaluated.
KIT FOX ROAD CROSSING STRUCTURES
Summary
Vehicle strike is the leading cause of mortality for urbanized kit foxes. The likelihood of strike increases with increasing road width, speed limits, and traffic volume. Strikes often occur at the intersection of roads with linear rights-of-way. Linear rights-of-way include other roads (of all sizes), railroads, canals, utility corridors, golf course crossings, and riparian areas. Kit foxes appear to use linear corridors for movement, potentially accounting for the increase in strikes at these locations.
Major roads and associated features may restrict fox movements and consequently reduce gene flow, dispersal, colonization of habitat patches, and the resilience of fox populations to disturbance. This is especially likely in urban environments where road density, width, and traffic volume are increased and habitat is fragmented and susceptible to change.
Maintaining connectivity is identified as a primary recovery action for kit fox in section II.L.6.a. of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
The construction of fox-specific road crossing structures is a recommended conservation strategy for new high-volume roads, the widening of existing roads, or the rebuilding of existing structures that have the potential to facilitate kit fox road crossings. Potential crossing structures include underpasses, overpasses, and culverts. In the following text we describe crossing structures for urbanized kit foxes and provide criteria for site selection and instructions for building or modifying structures.
Road Crossing Structure Attributes
Little is known about the attributes that make crossing structures appealing to the San Joaquin kit fox. Clevenger (2005) conducted a comprehensive literature review on the 29 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox subject, but his conclusions suffered from a lack of data specific to kit fox. To fill this gap, Cypher et al. (Interagency Agreement No. 43A0068) have initiated a 2005-2006 study for California Department of Transportation to evaluate non-engineered crossing structures along 4-lane highways within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox and the ecologically similar desert kit fox of the Mojave eco-region. While these data will be useful when they become available, they will have limited applicability to kit fox crossing structures in urban environments.
Urban habitats are highly fragmented, and urban kit foxes develop habitual travel behaviors, often utilizing linear corridors for movement through the complex of human polygonal and linear development. In contrast, the Cypher et al. 2005-2006 study will examine crossing structures on roads that transect native habitat. There is no evidence that kit foxes in natural lands concentrate road crossings at specific features, such as drainage culverts, bridges, or road intersections when medians, fencing, or other impediments are absent.
In a recent study of the effects of two-lane highways on San Joaquin kit fox in natural lands (LoKern), Cypher et al (Interagency Agreement No. 06A0814, 55004872) found no evidence of fox avoidance of highways or of favored crossing locations. It should be noted, however, that traffic volumes on the highways in the LoKern study (approximately 8500 vehicles per day) were similar to volumes found on local roads in the city of Bakersfield (this study). Neither highways at LoKern nor local roads at Bakersfield significantly contributed to kit fox mortality. In other words, there may be little benefit to utilizing crossing structures or other habitual crossing locations when there is little risk of strike.
The following recommendations are based on knowledge of kit fox behavior, movements, territory use, and locations of mortality. We have combined these data with general recommendations on structure design and site selection for similar species.
Ideally, crossing structures in urban environments shall be institutionally linked with long-term monitoring programs and clear criteria for determining efficacy.
On the most basic level a crossing structure should satisfy two conditions. First, it should reduce mortality for the target species. Because vehicle strike is the primary cause of death for kit foxes in urban lands, and strikes occur disproportionately on major roads at identifiable geographic features (i.e., intersections with linear rights-of-way), we conclude that crossing structures have a high probability of reducing mortality.
Consequently crossing structures are an appropriate and necessary mitigation for urban road projects.
Second, crossing structures should increase habitat connectivity. This is a more difficult condition to evaluate. As noted, urban habitats are highly fragmented. To the extent that roads, and especially high-volume roads, contribute to fragmentation, we conclude that successful crossing structures will increase connectivity. As demonstrated (this study), kit foxes have seasonally influenced behaviors and susceptibility to vehicle strike.
During the month of December, male kit foxes increase scent marking frequency (an indicator of territory defense) and movements in search of mating opportunities. Not surprising, there is an increase in vehicle strike for male kit foxes during this period of instability in social dynamics. Furthermore, kit fox juveniles disperse during summer months, sometimes several miles from the maternal range, again encountering many 30 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox roads. Finally, urban kit foxes are displaced by new development and other human activities, resulting in range instability and dispersal to new territories. It is not known, however, whether the presence and types of roads in the urban environment influence the direction and length of movements and dispersal.
We take a hierarchical approach, from landscape to individual behavior, in describing requirements of fox-specific crossing structures. Criteria include: 1) road type; 2) kit fox presence and adjacent habitat suitability; 3) presence of natural crossing locations; 4) embankments, walls, or fencing that funnel individuals toward the crossing zone; and 5) passage design that meets kit fox behavioral requirements. We stress that these criteria are generated with expert opinion and data from ongoing observational studies of urban foxes. Hypothesis driven experiments will be necessary to evaluate the relative importance of these variables.
Criterion 1: Road type
We examined the distribution of fox-vehicle collisions on four types of urban roads - highway, arterial, collector, and local. Of these, kit foxes disproportionately died on arterial roads. Arterial roads typically were wider and had higher posted speed limits and traffic volumes than collector and local roads. Foxes also died on collector roads in Bakersfield from 1985-2004. In some cases, collector roads had similar traffic volumes and widths to arterial roads. Highways, which had the highest traffic volumes and speed limits, weren’t a marked source of fox mortality during this study. The absence of foxvehicle collision on highways can be explained by a barrier effect –animals that do not attempt to cross, will not be struck. Dispersal of individuals between habitat fragments, however, is an essential function of kit fox populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) and a reduction in dispersal due to roads has been shown to strongly impact the demographics and extinction probability of small populations (Jaeger and Fahrig 2004).
Therefore it is likely that highways posed a significant road effect (if not direct mortality) on urbanized foxes. Lastly, there was little evidence for an association between local roads and fox-vehicle collision or altered kit fox movements.
Based on these findings, we recommend that crossing structures be considered on all highway, arterial, and collector roads. We do not recommend crossing structures as a protection or compensation measure for local roads.
Criterion 2: Kit fox presence and adjacent habitat suitability Presence of kit foxes may be evaluated by spotlighting, surveillance or track stations, surveying for scat, tracks, and dens, or interviewing citizenry. Presence/absence data, however, may be fallible to some degree. Kit foxes may be absent not because the site is unsuitable, but because of localized extirpation. In fact, fox populations throughout the species’ range undergo cycles of extirpation and recolonization, known as metapopulation dynamics (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Metapopulation dynamics influence kit fox demographics and extinction probability, and increase in strength with increasing fragmentation. Furthermore, it has been shown that with growing isolation of habitat fragments, it is less likely that fragments will be recolonized in the event of local extinction. Nowhere is kit fox habitat more fragmented and more 31 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox frequently altered than in urban environments. Therefore, it is likely that at any given time a subset of suitable habitat in urban environments will be unoccupied by kit fox.
A conservative alternative to presence/absence surveys is to concentrate crossing mitigation at locations that have suitable adjacent habitats. As a general rule urban kit foxes occupy industrial and commercial lands, parks, golf courses, and schools. Within these lands, occupancy appears linked to the extent of contiguous habitat, the quantity of undeveloped or lightly developed lots, the presence of drainage basins (favored den sites), and the presence of linear features that provide den building and movement opportunities such as canals, utility corridors, railroads, and riparian areas. Kit foxes do not typically occupy residential zones unless a golf course or other large open space is present (in which case occupancy is highly likely).
Criterion 3: Areas of increased road crossing
Clevenger (2005) reports that animal use of a crossing structure is linked to placement near natural crossing points. This assessment is supported by crossing studies (e.g., Foster and Humphrey 1995, Yanes 1995). Urban kit foxes more often are killed in vehicle strikes at the intersection of major roads with linear rights-of-way including other roads (of all types), canals, railroads, utility corridors, and riparian areas (this study). The concentration of mortalities at these intersections increases the likelihood of successful mitigation. First it narrows the selection of sites for crossing structures to easily identifiable landscape features. Second, it decreases the need to inhibit crossing at other locations. Third, intersections with linear rights-of-way often have pre-existing crossing structures. For example, a bridge over a canal or river may only require a design modification to be suitable for kit fox. When implemented early in the planning process these modifications may have little additional cost.
Because of the concentration of road crossings and vehicle mortalities at linear rights-ofway, we recommend that mitigation efforts prioritize these locations. For practical reasons, it will not be possible to install crossing structures at most road-road intersections. Instead, we recommend placing highest priority on installing or modifying structures at intersections of roads with highways, railroads, canals, rivers, or utility corridors and other locations where an underpass, overpass, or culvert is required.
Criterion 4: Embankments, walls, and fences
Another important predictor of use of crossing structures and decrease in vehicle strikes is the construction of manmade barriers that funnel animals toward the passageway (e.g., Haas 2000, Clevenger 2005, Mata et al. 2005). Barriers may include embankments, walls, and fences.
Embankments appear to discourage road crossing. Cypher et al. (in prep.) observed regular use by kit foxes of a railway underpass on a raised portion of highway 99 in Bakersfield (Figure 20a). The embankment was approximately eight meters tall and the underpass span was approximately 50 meters wide. Radio-tagged foxes were never known to climb the embankment to travel across the highway surface. Kit foxes constructed dens in the earthen slopes within the underpass and even whelped and reared young at the site for multiple seasons (Figure 20b). Embankments on raised highways 32 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox may fragment the landscape in the absence of underpasses or other crossing opportunities. Crossing structures should always be considered when building or modifying raised roadways.
Most urban roads are at grade with the surrounding environment. Cement walls may border highways, arterial, and collector roads, but this is typical only of residential areas, which may not be suitable for kit fox. Other roads are bordered by vegetation, low walls, and metal or wood fencing, all of which may be permeable to kit foxes. Small, skilled at digging, and agile, the kit fox is adept at passing through barriers designed for humans or other large mammals.
We recommend the installation of walls at potential crossing sites that encourage use of the passage and discourage crossing the road above grade. Studies on other species suggest that barriers are more effective when they are shaped as a funnel that directs animals toward the structure. It also is recommended that there be a method of exit for animals that get onto the roadway within the barrier zone. The complexity of urban environments makes meeting these recommendations difficult. Nevertheless, barriers are an integral part of successful crossing structures and should be implemented with all crossing projects.
We make the following specific recommendations. Barriers should be approximately 1.5 meters in height and of a solid material, such as cement block, that discourages climbing.
Walls should be impermeable to kit foxes that approach from adjacent habitat, but permeable to foxes that are on the roadway. One method to achieve one-way permeability is to install a dirt embankment next to the wall on the side nearest the road that allows a fox to run to the top of the wall from roadside (Figure 21a-b). The wall should remain 1.5 meters above grade on the side that borders habitat to prevent entrance to the roadway. Based on behavioral observations of radio-collared kit foxes and location of kit fox mortalities (this study), barriers should lead directly from the passage and run parallel to the road for a distance of at least 50 meters. In some cases, barriers will best be implemented as part of and in addition to existing natural or manmade features, including embankments, walls, and buildings. Finally, landscaping is recommended between the barrier and roadside (i.e., on the embankment). Urban kit foxes are known to use landscaping for cover while traveling along arterial roadways that are bordered by cement block walls (C. Bjurlin, pers. obs.).
Criterion 5: Behaviorally suitable passage design
We have identified four characteristics that affect behavioral suitability of crossing structures for kit foxes. First, a clear line of sight should be maintained through the passage for the entire breadth of the roadway, with the exit visible from the entrance.
Second, approach to the entrances should be level or gently sloped and free from vegetation or obstacles. Third, the passage should be minimally one meter square, with passage dimensions proportional to the roadway (i.e., as road width increases, passage width and height increases). Fourth, one escape den (see above) should be installed within the passage and one escape den installed on the approach to each entrance to give kit foxes protection from predators. In the following text, we profile existing structures to illustrate the aforementioned criteria. We provide recommended modifications where appropriate.
33 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Profiled Crossing Structures
Seven Oaks Golf Course underpass
The Seven Oaks Golf Course in Bakersfield, CA was bisected by Buena Vista road, a four-lane, divided arterial road (Criterion 1). The road segment of interest (980 m) was bounded to the north by intersection with Ming Avenue and to the south by intersection with Chamber Blvd. Traffic volumes were estimated in 2002 at 13,750 vehicles per day (vpd). To maintain connectivity for golfers, an underpass structure was installed. This underpass met nearly all of the criteria for a successful crossing structure. The golf course was occupied by kit foxes and extended on both sides of the passage (Figure 22, Criterion 2). The greens narrowed where they approached the crossing site, creating a natural transverse point (Criterion 3). Two-meter high walls bordered the road (Criterion 4). The passage was greater than two meters square and had flanged and unobstructed entrances (Figure 22b-c, Criterion 5). One confirmed vehicle strike occurred at the site after construction of the barrier wall (Figure 22a). There were gates in the walls at a maintenance yard directly southeast of the passage and at a road access point to the southwest of the passage. A kit fox may have used one of these gates to gain access to the roadway.
Analysis - This design was suitable for locations with pedestrian or bicycle routes, utility corridors, golf courses, or other linear rights-of-way that are not associated with water transport. It would be improved by the installation of escape dens and the modification of the nearby gates to prevent kit foxes from entering the roadway.
Truxtun Extension horse culvert
Truxtun Extension was a 4-lane, divided collector road in Bakersfield, CA (Criterion 1).
Traffic volumes in 2002 were estimated at 35,000 vpd. The road segment of interest (5.3 km) occured between the intersection with Wible Road to the east and Coffee Road to the west. The segment was bordered to the north by the Kern River and to the south by a canal and mixed residential and commercial zones. Kit foxes occupied the surrounding lands. Radio-tagged animals repeatedly crossed the road and five confirmed vehicle strikes occurred along the road segment (this study). An underpass culvert was built 270 m east of the junction with Coffee Road. The passage location had suitable habitat to the north (Criterion 2). A pedestrian trail connected the passage to a canal on the southern side of the roadway (Figure 23a-b, Criterion 3). There was a chain link fence that may have impeded access to the road on the southern side, but it was broken by a pedestrian trail 15 m to the west of the southern entrance. The northern entrance had a 20-m chain link fence directly over the culvert (Figure 23c). The road was easily accessible from the north along the remainder of the segment. The culvert was approximately 2.5 meters in diameter with an earthen bottom that was seasonally flooded (Figure 23d, Criterion 5). On one occasion a kit fox was seen running north across the road directly over the crossing structure.
Analysis – This was a suitable passage at an appropriate location that required fencing and escape dens to become fully operational.
34 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Coffee Road bicycle path underpass
Coffee Road was a six-lane, divided, arterial road in Bakersfield, CA (Criterion 1).
Traffic volumes in 2002 were estimated at 45,100 vpd. The road segment of interest (1600 m) was bounded to the north by intersection with Brimhall Road and to the south by intersection with Stockdale Highway. Surrounding lands were a mixture of commercial and undeveloped properties and were suitable for kit fox (Figure 24a, Criterion 2). Several canals and the Kern River corridor intersected the road. A bridge that spaned the Kern River also provided passage for a bicycle path on the southern embankment. The river corridor, proximity to road and canal intersections, and presence of a bicycle path made the passage a natural crossing point (Criterion 3). The west side of Coffee Road was bounded by chain link fence, but the east side had open access to the roadway (Figure 24b-c, Criterion 4). The passage was greater than 3m in height and width, and free from obstruction (Figure 24d, Criterion 5). Five confirmed vehicle strikes occurred on the road segment, including one that was 60 m south of the passage (Figure 24a & d).
Analysis – This was a suitable passage under a road with high traffic volume that required fencing and escape dens to become fully functional.
Highway 58 canal bridge
Highway 58 was a four-lane, divided roadway (Criterion 1). The road segment (2200 m) was bounded to the east by intersection with Landco Drive and to the west by intersection with Patton Way. Traffic volumes in 2004 were estimated at 47,000 vpd. Surrounding lands were a mixture of commercial, industrial, and undeveloped properties. A canal and arterial road (Fruitvale Ave) formed a six-way intersection with Highway 58. Kit foxes and their habitat were abundant along the road segment (Figure 25a, Criterion 2). The confluence of canal, arterial road, and highway made it a natural kit fox crossing location (Criterion 3). Chain link fence occured sporadically along the canal, but gaps in the fence and at gates allowed foxes to gain access to the roadway. The road was not walled or fenced. This underpass complex was composed of two separate bridges, one on Fruitvale Ave, the other on Highway 58. The Fruitvale Ave. bridge was impassable at the time photos were taken. The canal was transporting water and there was no embankment along its margin beneath the bridge (Figure 25b). In contrast, the Highway 58 bridge remained passable while transporting water. There were dirt embankments on both margins of the canal beneath the bridge, along with unobstructed entrance and exit locations (Figure 25c-d, Criterion 5). No fox-vehicle collisions were recorded at the location, but kit foxes frequently crossed the road during a telemetry study (Figure 25a).
A radio-tagged kit fox was repeatedly tracked to the canal and twice tracked to the canal underpass when there was no water present.
Analysis - The confluence of multiple linear rights-of-way along with presence of kit foxes and frequent road crossings made this an appropriate location for a crossing structure. The fencing at the site was insufficient for keeping foxes off the roadway.
When transporting water, one of the bridges did not accommodate fox movement beneath the roadway. This location would require extensive modification to be fully functional. 35 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 14. Earthen kit fox dens in urban Bakersfield, CA. a) Single entrance den under building foundation. b) Natal den complex on canal bank. c) Multi-entrance den in drainage basin bordering intersection of two arterial roads. d) Single entrance den in vacant lot. 36 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 15. Non-earthen den locations for kit foxes in Bakersfield, CA. a) Fox emerging from stacked pipe. b) Narrow entrances to a kit fox den under a storage container. c) Fox resting beside stacked lumber at a construction site. d) Fox returning to a den within a modular housing unit.
37 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 16. Camouflaged earthen kit fox dens in urban Bakersfield, CA. a) Entrance to den in landscaping at parking lot. b) Thatch covered den entrance in a golf course fairway. c) Dirt mound from den in shrub-island at park. 38 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 17. Artificial subterranean dens for San Joaquin kit fox at Bakersfield, CA. a) Artificial den schematic. b) PVC two-entrance chamber den under construction. c) High-density polyethylene two-entrance den. d) PVC tunnel with floor removed longitudinally. 39 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 18. Artificial escape dens for San Joaquin kit fox at Bakersfield, CA. a) Escape den schematic. b) High-density polyethylene escape den under construction. c) Completed den. d) Kit fox entering escape den. 40 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 19. Kit fox pups at artificial subterranean dens at a golf course (a) and drainage basin (b) in Bakersfield, CA. Figure 20. Railroad underpass on highway 99 in Bakersfield, CA. a) Habitat view. b) Kit fox natal den at the top of the underpass embankment.
41 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 21. Barrier wall to encourage use of road crossing structures for the San Joaquin kit fox in urban environments. The roadside embankment allows foxes that are trapped on the roadway to clear the barrier wall. a) Cross-section view. B. Three-dimensional rendering.
42 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 22. Buena Vista Road golf cart crossing structure, Bakersfield, CA. a) Aerial view of roadkill and radio-tagged kit fox locations at crossing structure. b) Habitat view from east entrance of crossing structure. c) Approach view to east entrance. d) Passage interior. 43 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 23. Truxtun Extension horse culvert, Bakersfield, CA. a) Aerial view of radio-tagged kit fox locations at horse culvert. b) View from pedestrian trail at south culvert entrance (canal in background). c) North culvert entrance. Yellow line depicts extent of fencing on north side of road. d) Culvert interior. 44 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 24. Coffee Road overpass at Kern River bicycle trail, Bakersfield, CA. a) Aerial view of kit fox roadkill and radio-tagged night locations at crossing structure. b) Habitat view from west entrance. c) East entrance to bicycle path on southern embankment of Kern River. d) View of roadway from East with location of kit fox roadkill in red. No fences prevent fox access to roadway on eastern side. 45 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox Figure 25. Highway 58/Fruitvale Avenue canal bridge, Bakersfield, CA. a) Aerial view of radio-tagged kit fox night locations at crossing structure. b) East entrance to Fruitvale Bridge obstructed by water. c) South entrance to highway 58 bridge. d) Dirtembankment under Highway 58 Bridge. 46 Appendix A. Supplemental Recommendations for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox
LITERATURE CITED
Clevenger, A.P. 2005. Design and performance of wildlife crossings for kit foxes and ecologically similar small carnivores: A literature review and semi-annotated bibliography. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California.
Foster, M.L., and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23, 95-100.
Haas, C.D. 2000. Distribution, relative abundance, and roadway underpass responses of carnivores throughout the Puente-Chino Hills. MSc thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Jaeger, J.A., and L. Fahrig. 2004. Effects of road fencing on population persistence. Conservation Biology 1651-1657.
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.
Mata, C., I. Hervás, J. Herranz, F. Suárez, and J.E. Malo. 2005. Complementary use by vertebrates of crossing structures along a fenced Spanish motorway. Biological Conservation 124, 397-405.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for arid upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
Yanes, M., J.M. Velasco, and F. Suárez. 1995. Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: the importance of culverts. Biological Conservation 71:217-222. 47 View publication stats
SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE,
AND MOVEMENTS IN URBAN BAKERSFIELD
by
Nancy Frost
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Humboldt State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
In Natural Resources: Wildlife
December 2005
iii
ABSTRACT
San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield Nancy Frost
Habitat destruction and fragmentation has led to the decline of the federally endangered and state threatened San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley occur in and adjacent to several urban areas. The urban kit fox population in Bakersfield has the potential to contribute to recovery efforts, however, little is known about habitat use in the urban environment. Habitat use in the urban landscape was examined in 28 radiocollared adult kit foxes between 1 May 1997 and 15 January 1998.
The area of the urban environment needed to meet kit foxes’ ecological requirements varied among the sexes and fluctuated throughout the year. Mean home range size was 1.72 km2 (100% minimum convex polygon estimate) and mean concentrated use area (core area; 50% fixed kernel estimate) size was 0.16 km2. Females had a greater median number of core areas than did males, but core area size did not differ between the sexes. Mean home range size was significantly larger during the dispersal season than during the pair formation and breeding seasons. Home range size was greater for males than females during the breeding season.
To assess the extent to which kit foxes were concentrated around limited resources, the percentage of overlap between adjacent kit foxes’ home ranges and core areas was determined.
Mean home range overlap was greater than 71% for family group members and less than 16% for unrelated individuals, which was less than that reported for the nearby rural population. Overlap of adjacent kit foxes’ core areas indicated that kit foxes were concentrated around key urban habitat patches. Core area overlap was greater for members of the same family group than core area overlap of neighboring males and females or neighboring males. iv
To determine which attributes of the urban environment were used by kit foxes and may support the population over time, habitats used disproportionately were compared to what was available in home ranges and the urban landscape. Kit foxes used open and sump (water catchment basins) habitats more than their availability in both the home range area and study area. There was more open and sump habitat in home ranges than in the study area. Kit fox core areas contained a disproportionately high amount of sumps that had food and den sites and restricted public access.
Sump and open habitats were more suitable for denning and consequently, were used more than their availability in the study area. Kit foxes primarily used subterranean dens but also used pipes and other man-made structures. Dens were located farther from roads than expected and in habitat patches that were larger than the median habitat patch in the study area.
To identify which urban habitats kit foxes used for resting, foraging, and traveling, kit fox movements and travel paths through adjacent habitat patches were examined. Kit foxes moved an average speed of 1.33 km/h. Minimum speed for females was greatest from approximately 0330 - 0730 h and for males was greatest from approximately 1830 - 2230 h. Kit foxes used sump and open habitats for resting. Kit foxes also foraged in these habitats, as well as in transition and commercial habitats. Habitats used for traveling included manicured open and open habitats, in which total distance traveled per movement session was longest. Overall median speed was greatest in residential habitat. Kit foxes were observed crossing roads and using culverts and bridges to move under roads.
Demographic characteristics and weights of the kit foxes that were captured were used to assess habitat quality. Two of the 28 radiocollared kit foxes died during 6,036 days of active radiotransmitters. Radiocollared kit foxes had 15 litters, comprised of 2.8 + 0.45 (range = 1 – 7) pups. Urban kit fox weight was similar to that for rural kit foxes. v
The availability of sump and open habitats appeared to shape the distribution and abundance of the urban population. Therefore, retaining sump and open habitats throughout Bakersfield may promote the continued existence of the urban kit fox population. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the successful completion of this research project, especially my advisor, Dr. R. T. Golightly, for sharing with me both his advice and expertise. In addition, I thank my other committee members, Drs. T. L. George and D. W.
Kitchen for their support and constructive comments that greatly improved the quality of this thesis. My thanks go out to my professors and fellow students at Humboldt State University who contributed greatly to my educational growth. I would like to thank the San Joaquin chapter of The Wildlife Society for the research grant and the Eureka Rotary Club and the Stockton Sportsmen's Club for scholarships.
I would like to thank the California Department of Fish and Game, especially M. Potter and R. Reed, for assisting with this project by providing a vehicle and hiring three scientific aids, T. Chilton, J. Storlie, and R. Siebdrath, whose hard work, dedication, and willingness to learn contributed immensely to this project. I appreciate the volunteer efforts of M. Otten, G. Warrick, B. Vanherweg, B. Cypher, J. Hinshaw, and K. Brown. I thank the Department of Energy, Chevron USA, and Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., especially J. Killen and B. Cypher, for the loan of telemetry equipment, radio collars, kit fox handling equipment, and traps. I would also like to thank P. Hoffman from the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department and A. Abe from the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department for arranging access to city sumps and parks, respectively. Furthermore, I wish to thank J. Tobar, with the City of Bakersfield's Management Information Services Department, for the City of Bakerfield geographic information system coverages. I thank Dr. C. Hammans of the Coffee Road Animal Hospital and D. Kroger from the California Living Museum for their generous participation in the successful rehabilitation of an injured kit fox pup. I wish to acknowledge the Bakersfield SPCA for vii
"rescuing" one of my study animals that made its way to the third story of a parking garage and could not find the exit. My thanks go to A. Sullivan, J. Redmond, and M. Cantrell of the Sundale golf course, D. E. Keith Trucking, and K. S. Fabrication for allowing access to their property for implementation of the study. I wish to acknowledge Kelly Pipe Company for their cooperative efforts in helping me retrieve a kit fox pup that went for an unexpected "ride" in one of their pipes that was delivered from Bakersfield to Santa Fe Springs, California.
Special thanks go to my husband, S. Telthorst, for his tremendous support, encouragement, and participation in this research project. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to S.
Telthorst and my late mother, S. Castle, whose support and lifelong example of patience, perseverance, and persistence imparted me with the skills necessary to pursue and fulfill my dreams.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Transportation, and Humboldt State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #96/97.W.62) issued the necessary permits and memorandum of understanding for this project.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................xi LIST OF APPENDICES.......................................................................................................xii INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................5 METHODS............................................................................................................................9 Trapping ....................................................................................................................9 Locations...................................................................................................................9 Home Range ............................................................................................................12 Habitat Use ..............................................................................................................15 Movements ..............................................................................................................17 Demographics..........................................................................................................19 RESULTS............................................................................................................................21 Trapping ..................................................................................................................21 Locations.................................................................................................................21 Home Range ............................................................................................................21 Habitat Use ..............................................................................................................23 Movements ..............................................................................................................30 Demographics..........................................................................................................42 ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................43 Demographics..........................................................................................................43 Locations.................................................................................................................45 Home range..............................................................................................................46 Habitat use ...............................................................................................................50 Movements ..............................................................................................................53 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................57 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................59 x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Habitat types and their descriptions used to typify the urban setting and kit fox habitat use in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. ....................... 7 2 Home range (100% minimum convex polygon) and core area (50% fixed kernel) size for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. .........................................................................................................24 3 Seasonal home range (100% minimum convex polygon) size for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. ..............................25 4 Ranked radiocollared kit fox habitat use based on habitat availability at the study area and home range area scale, in Bakersfield, California between May 1997 to January 1998. Habitat types used similarly (p > 0.05) are grouped by column............28 5 Mean difference between the mean proportion of habitat available in the study area and kit fox home ranges (e.g., there was 16.7% less open habitat in the study area than within home ranges), and kit fox home ranges and core areas in Bakersfield, California between May 1997 to January 1998.......................................29 6 Influence of sex, movement session time, and their interaction on minimum, maximum, and mean speed and total adjusted distance moved for 10 radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. .....................................................................................................................36 7 Movement session time, type of movement, and habitat associations for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998. .........................................................................................................39 8 Rural kit fox and swift fox cause-specific mortality rates reported within their geographic range for comparison to that for urban kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998...............................................................44 9 Kit fox home range size reported within various habitats within their geographic range for comparison to home range size of urban kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998...............................................................47 xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The study area in Bakersfield, Kern County, California for investigations of kit fox habitat use from May 1997 to January 1998......................................................... 6 2 Behavior exhibited by directly observed kit foxes at independent daily locations (n = 2,087) in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.......................22 3 Percentage of home range overlap and core area overlap for pairs of radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. Vertical bars represent + 1 SE. .............................................................................................26 4 Mean percentage of each habitat type in the study area, which bounded the available habitat, and radiocollared kit fox home ranges (n = 27) and core areas (n = 58) in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. Different letters above the bars indicate a significant difference in habitat use versus availability. ............................................................................................................27 5 Mean number of passing vehicles, passing pedestrians, and people in the same habitat patch as radiocollared kit foxes at all daily locations (n = 4,824) in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. Vertical bars represent + 1 SE....................................................................................................................31 6 Number of dens used by radiocollared kit foxes in each habitat type in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998............................................32 7 Percentage of available habitat in the study area compared to percentage of habitat used by radiocollared kit foxes for denning in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. .............................................................................33 8 Minimum speed per movement session for male and female radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998. .....................35 9 Mean distance radiocollared kit foxes traveled in each habitat type in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998. Vertical bars represent + 1 SE.......37 10 Mean speed radiocollared kit foxes traveled in each habitat type in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998. Vertical bars represent + 1 SE.......38 xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A Sites of live-captured kit foxes, domestic cats, and opossums between May 1997 and January 1998 in Bakersfield, California..............................................................69 B Kit fox location data and estimates for home range size, core area size, and time to independence for 28 radiocollared kit foxes that were monitored between May 1997 and January 1998 in Bakersfield, California. ....................................................70 C Weight, hind foot, and ear measurements for captured adult, subadult, and pup kit foxes in Bakersfield, California between May 1997 and January 1998...................73 D Area-observation curves using the 100% minimum convex polygon home range for 27 kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.................74 E The percentage of all radiocollared kit fox daily locations (n = 4,824) and passing vehicles documented in linear habitats during each hour in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998......................................................75 1 INTRODUCTION
The kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) is the smallest North American member of the family Canidae, with an average weight of 2.1 kg for adult females and 2.3 kg for adult males in California (Morrell 1972). Kit foxes range throughout the western United States in shortgrass prairies and other arid areas (Whitaker 1998). The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica; hereafter kit fox) was described by C. H. Merriam in 1902 (McGrew 1979) and is the largest California subspecies in skeletal measurements, body size, and weight (Grinnell et al. 1937). Kit foxes inhabit arid habitats with flat to sloping terrain (Morrell 1971).
The kit fox historically ranged in the San Joaquin Valley of California, north of Tracy, west to San Joaquin County, east to La Grange, Stanislaus County, and south to Kern County (Grinnell et al. 1937, Morrell 1975). In the early 1900’s, the kit fox population started to decline (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1983), and by 1930, its range had been reduced by more than half, with the largest portion remaining in the southern and western parts of the San Joaquin Valley (Grinnell et al. 1937). In 1969, the kit fox was known to range from Los Banos, Merced County, east to White River, Tulare County, south to Kern County, and west to San Luis Obispo County (Morrell 1975). Currently, the largest remaining populations of kit foxes occur in western Kern County and in the Carrizo Plain Natural Area, San Luis Obispo County (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
In 1967, the San Joaquin kit fox was listed as a federally endangered subspecies (United States Department of the Interior 1967), and in 1971, it was designated a State threatened species (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The destruction and fragmentation of its native habitat has been a limiting factor that has led to the decline of the kit fox population (Knapp 1978, Spiegel 1996, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). This habitat fragmentation 2 has been due mainly to agriculture, urban development, and oil production (Morrell 1975, Spiegel 1996, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). In 1993, the San Joaquin Valley Biological Technical Committee estimated that only about 1 - 5% of the original habitat of the kit fox remained.
Kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley occur in and adjacent to several urban areas including the cities of Taft (Zoellick et al. 2002), Tulare, Visalia, and Porterville (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), and Bakersfield, where kit foxes have been observed throughout the city (Morrell 1975, Murphy 1992, Cypher and Warrick 1993, Bjurlin and Cypher 2003). Kit foxes are known to use the Kern River Parkway in Bakersfield (Murphy 1992, Beedy et al. 1992) for denning, foraging, and traveling, despite the fact that it is bounded on the north and south by urban and industrial development and receives intensive public recreation use (Beedy et al. 1992).
Additionally, urban kit foxes have been found to den close to human activities and structures (Murphy 1992), including water sumps (catchment basins) in and adjacent to urban development in Bakersfield (Stafford and Murphy 1992).
Urban habitats may be marginal for kit foxes, because the urban environment has a high level of disturbance and consists of a patchy mosaic of habitats (Morrell 1975). While urban developments negatively impact kit fox habitat, kit foxes may still survive in or near them if there are adequate den sites and prey base (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Positive attributes of urban habitats may include a constant source of water from sumps, canals, and lawn sprinklers (Murphy 1992) that could lead to a more stable prey population. While fewer natural predators, such as coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus), are found in the urban environment, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) occur in greater abundance. Food may be available on a more consistent basis due to the presence of refuse, which constitutes part of the kit fox diet in Bakersfield (Murphy 1992, Cypher and Warrick 1993). Such use of human-derived foods suggests that kit foxes may be able to adapt to the urban setting. 3 Smaller canid species, such as coyotes and foxes, often do well in human-altered environments because they scavenge and forage individually on a variety of small food items and are able to utilize new food sources (Kleiman and Brady 1978). If kit foxes are adaptable enough to persist in urban environments, as are coyotes (Quinn 1995, Romsos 1998, Grinder and Krausman 2001) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes; Harris 1977, Kolb 1984, 1986, Harris and Rayner 1986, Doncaster et al. 1990, Lewis et al. 1993, Sallee 1998, Kamler and Ballard 2002), the urban kit fox population could contribute to recovery efforts (Cypher and Warrick 1993). Urban kit fox populations could protect against extirpations in rural areas, and serve as a source of animals for reintroduction efforts (Cypher and Frost 1999). Favorable habitat features in urban areas also could serve as linkages or corridors between natural lands, which may minimize local extinction and genetic isolation of fox populations in fragmented habitats (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Wandeler et al. 2003).
It is important to understand how kit foxes use landscapes in all areas where they exist, including urban settings. Unfortunately, little is known about the urban kit fox population.
Morrell (1975) noted that a study should be conducted to gain a better understanding of kit fox ecology in areas other than natural habitat. As part of the recovery strategy in the San Joaquin Valley Multispecies Recovery Plan (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), it was recommended that better demographic information be collected for kit foxes living in residential and industrial areas. The San Joaquin Valley Biological Technical Committee (1993) expressed concern that urbanization threatens the remaining kit fox habitat and listed several kit fox research needs including further studies of mortality rates and causes, diet, distribution, home range requirements, and movements. Due to the continual loss of natural habitat, more information on urban kit fox space use, movements, survival, and reproduction may contribute to their recovery (Cypher and Warrick 1993).
4 Canid home range size is influenced primarily by food abundance, and also food distribution and availability of adequate denning sites (Kleiman and Brady 1978). In order to understand the ecological factors that facilitate habitat use, it is important to identify the areas of concentrated use (hereafter core areas) within the home range (Samuel et al. 1985). Optimal habitat conditions for a species may be identified by evaluating if and how core areas are used disproportionately (Ables 1969). Core areas likely have dependable food sources and rest sites (Samuel et al. 1985) such as dens, the availability of which limits the presence of kit foxes (Golightly 1981, Spiegel et al. 1996). If kit foxes are concentrated around limited resources, the home ranges and core areas of adjacent kit foxes may have substantial overlap (Golightly 1981).
If sufficient food and den sites are available, mortality is minimal, and reproduction occurs at reasonable rates, then urban habitat should support viable kit fox populations. The goal of my project was to determine which attributes of the urban environment were successfully used by kit foxes and may support the population over time. To identify the attributes of the urban environment that kit foxes used most, areas and habitats used disproportionately were compared to what was available in the urban landscape. The quantity and type of urban habitat needed to meet the ecological requirements of urban kit foxes (i.e., that used for denning, foraging, and traveling) was identified. To understand habitat use, kit fox home range size, core area size, spatial distribution of kit foxes in the urban landscape, habitat and den use, and movements were evaluated in relation to habitat type, time of night, and human activity. Assessment of habitat quality should be based on the survival, reproduction, and density of the species occupying the habitat (Van Horne 1983). Therefore, I also reported the demographic characteristics of captured urban kit foxes.
5 STUDY AREA
The study was conducted within the city limits of Bakersfield (Figure 1), at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, California. The average elevation of Bakersfield was 124 m (United States Geological Survey 1981) and in 1997, had a human population of 221,700 (State of California, Department of Finance 2002).
Bakersfield has an arid climate with an average annual precipitation of 14.5 cm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1997) that occurs mainly between October and April.
Total precipitation during the study was 10.9 cm, 3.0 cm higher than normal (Meadows Field Weather Station; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1997, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1998). Summers are hot and dry, while winters are cool and moist.
During the study, average temperatures ranged from 7.9° C in December to 27.2° C in July and annual mean temperature was 19.6° C, which was -14.3° C lower than normal (Meadows Field Weather Station; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1997, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1998).
Vegetation in the study area varied by land use and was composed mostly of introduced and exotic species. Manicured open, commercial, and residential habitats were planted mainly with non-native grasses and shrubs (Table 1). Conversely, open, industrial, and some linear habitats, such as the Kern River Parkway, had a mix of introduced and endemic grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Sumps were primarily barren on the sides, often contained standing water, and had scattered native and non-native vegetation near the upper edges. In addition, sumps were distributed throughout the city, fenced, and closed to the public. Sumps had sloping sides and ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 km2 in area.
ÊÚ
C alifo rn ia
Kern C ounty
S t o c k d a l e H i g h w a y
In te rsta te 5 Fre ew a y
H ig h w a y 1 7 8
Fre ew a y
9 9
G o sf o rd Ro a d
F re e w a y 5 8
S T U D Y A R E A
B a k e rsfi e ld
Ke rn Riv er
3 0 3 6 k m
N
Figure 1. The study area in Bakersfield, Kern County, California for investigations of kit fox habitat use from May 1997 to January 1998. 6 7
Table 1. Habitat types and their descriptions used to typify the urban setting and kit fox habitat use in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
Habitat type Description
Commercial Office buildings, hotels, medical facilities, and their associated parking areas.
Transition Areas in which residential, commercial, or industrial construction is in progress or has recently been completed.
Industrial Areas of industrial use not generally open to the public, such as manufacturing plants and shipping yards.
Linear Kern River Parkway, canals, roads, railroads, and highway and power line right-of-ways.
Manicured Open Parks, schools, and golf courses.
Open Vacant lots and fallow agricultural fields.
Residential Apartments and single-family housing developments.
Sumps Water catchment basins used to contain urban run-off and rainwater. 8 Kit fox predators, including bobcat, coyote, and domestic dog (Cypher et al. 2000), were observed at the study site. Bobcats and coyotes were only observed in the Kern River Parkway (personal observation). California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) (all urban kit fox prey; Cypher and Warrick 1993), were observed at the study site. Domestic cats (Felis catus) and opossums (Didelphis virginiana), which utilize some of the same food resources as urban kit foxes and red foxes, were observed in the study area (Catling 1988, Golightly et al. 1994, Read and Bowen 2001) (Appendix A).
9 METHODS
Trapping
Between 3 May and 18 July 1997, wire-mesh live-traps (38 x 38 x 107 cm; Model 208, Tomahawk Live Trap Company, Tomahawk, WI) were set in sumps, parks, the Kern River Parkway, and privately-owned land in Bakersfield. Traps were covered with canvas tarps to protect captured animals from sun and inclement weather, and baited with canned mackerel.
Trapping frequency and trap placement was opportunistic. The trapping was limited to areas in southwest Bakersfield where kit foxes or their sign (i.e., tracks, scat, and dens) were observed.
Captured kit foxes were transferred from traps to heavy cloth bags for handling. Each animal was sexed, eartagged, weighed (+ 3%), measured (+ 1 mm; right ear and hind foot length), and released at the capture location. Uniquely-numbered metal eartags (Model 1005-4, National Band and Tag Company, Newport, KY) were affixed to the right ear for females and left ear for males. Kit foxes were aged based tooth eruption and wear (Harris 1978). Individuals with partially erupted teeth were classified as juvenile, and those with permanent teeth were classified as adults. Young of the year were classified as puppies until 14 July, and subadults from 15 July to 30 November, after which they were considered to be adults.
Locations
I attached 50-g collar-mounted radiotransmitters (Model 80, Telonics, Mesa, AZ) to captured adults. Radiocollars were equipped with mortality sensors that pulsed approximately twice the normal rate if there was no movement for four hours. Between 14 December 1997 and 15 January 1998, all but four study animals were captured and had their radiocollars removed. 10 Radiocollared kit foxes were located using portable receivers (Model TR-4, Telonics, Mesa, AZ), an omni-directional antenna affixed to a car, and a hand-held 2-element yagi antenna.
Kit foxes were located between 1630 and 0900 h because they were primarily active at night (Egoscue 1956, Golightly 1981, White et al. 2000). At the onset of the study in May 1997, nine study animals were randomly monitored to verify that they were not active during daylight hours.
With the exception of delineating the study area, only locations obtained between one hour before sunset and one hour after sunrise were used in analyses. Each kit fox was systematically located approximately once per night (hereafter referred to as daily locations) but rotated in the schedule each night. Although sampling effort for each study animal was equal at study end, every kit fox could not be found during each sampling period. When a kit fox could not be found, the area where it was previously located was searched for at least 30 min and then, if not located, it was searched for elsewhere in the study area concurrent with searches for other kit foxes.
The transmitted signal was followed until the kit fox was observed (sometimes with the aid of a flashlight) or tracked to a den, or the habitat patch from which the signal was emitted was encircled (White and Garrott 1990). This technique ensured that the location of and habitat used by each kit fox was classified without error (Samuel and Kenow 1992). I tried to stay at least 100 m from the study animals, so as to not alter their behavior (i.e., cause them to move from one habitat patch to another). To assess if this technique created a sampling bias by altering their behavior, each animal was classified as resting/walking, trotting, or running at the time of observation. When this technique was not feasible (e.g., the habitat patch was not accessible), kit fox locations were determined with triangulation, based on three bearings taken as close as possible (< 300 m) from the loudest signal source (Springer 1979). Immediately after a kit fox was located, the observer plotted the location on a 1996 City of Bakersfield street map (scale 1:29,000, Compass Maps, Inc., Modesto, CA) and recorded the number of people that were visible (i.e., not in buildings or large habitat patches) in the same habitat patch as the kit fox. 11 Mapped kit fox locations were digitized into a geographic information system (GIS; ArcView 3.2 with Spatial Analyst 2.0, ESRI, Redlands, CA), and displayed over the City of Bakersfield's 1997 GIS file titled “Land Status Land Condition Land-use,” as a background for guidance during digitizing. This GIS file was developed through the input of bearing and distance measurements (taken by land surveyors) to define parcel boundaries (i.e., the coordinate geometry method; Amos, R. 2005. Personal communication. City of Bakersfield, GIS Department, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301). Using methods in Romsos (1998), I characterized the urban landscape and described urban kit fox habitat use by collapsing similar urban landscapes into eight categories (Table 1).
To verify the accuracy of the habitat types and boundaries depicted in the GIS, maps generated from the GIS were compared to the actual location of habitat patches throughout the study area. When habitat was not correctly represented in the GIS, a global positioning system (GPS Pathfinder Pro XR, Trimble, Sunnyvale, CA) was used to obtain the geographic coordinates of the edges of each habitat patch. These coordinate data were differentially corrected using the GPS Pathfinder Office program to improve accuracy to within + 1 m, imported into the GIS, and used to digitize polygons representing the correct habitat patches.
The accuracy of the habitat types and boundaries depicted in the GIS was further verified by comparison to aerial photographs (Farm Services Agency, USDA, Bakersfield, CA) of the study area that were photographed in June 1997, at the beginning of the study, and in June 1998, after the study concluded. This comparison was done primarily to identify habitats that were classified as open in 1997 but were in transition or residential in 1998. In these instances, the date each house was built was determined by consulting Kern County public records data. Any habitat patch that was open in the June 1997 aerial photograph, on which a house was built prior to the end of the study, was classified as transition habitat. 12 Home Range
Home range estimates were obtained using the GIS to generate the 100% minimum convex polygon, which defined the bounds of the area used (Mohr 1947, Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997). Use of kernel-based estimators may be important to identify disjunct areas of activity in urban landscapes where habitat may be fragmented (Grinder and Krausman 2001). For comparison to other urban canid studies (Romsos 1998, Grinder and Krausman 2001), home range was also estimated using the 95% fixed kernel, a probabilistic model that identified the most probable area of utilization (Worton 1989, Seaman and Powell 1996). To represent the core area for each study animal, I used the 50% fixed kernel, which identified the areas that encompassed 50% of the animal’s locations (Calhoun and Casby 1958, Jennrich and Turner 1969, Anderson 1982). Large bodies of water (e.g., Lake Truxtun) were removed from the estimates of home range area and available habitat (White and Garrott 1990).
Probabilistic home range techniques (e.g., fixed kernel) are sensitive to serial autocorrelation (Anderson 1982, Hooge et al. 1999). The minimum convex polygon home range estimator assumes that location data are not time correlated (Anderson 1982, White and Garrott 1990), but are robust to violation of this assumption. Only statistically independent data (i.e., the data point provided no indication of the category for the next data point) were used to estimate home range and core area size. Time to statistical independence between successive locations was based on the time it took each kit fox to cross its home range (White and Garrott 1990, Lucherini et al. 1995, Harrison 1997). To derive this estimate, I divided the mean speed for each of 10 kit foxes that were located approximately every 15 - 30 min during two to six 3 - 5 h movement sessions (hereafter referred to as sequential locations), by the longest axis of their 100% minimum convex polygon home range (Jenness 2003).
Area-observation curves were used to determine the minimum number of kit fox locations necessary for home range estimation (Odum and Kuenzler 1955). To do so, I iteratively 13 estimated the 100% minimum convex polygon home range for each kit fox, beginning with the first 10 locations and adding one consecutive location at a time. The area of each 100% minimum convex polygon was plotted against the number of locations from which it was estimated. The point on the curve at which each 10 additional locations did not increase the home range estimate by 10% was the minimum number of locations needed to estimate home range.
Because home range size may vary with sex (Burt 1943), a 2-sample t-test was used to determine if home range size differed between males and females (Hintze 1999). For comparison to rural kit fox studies in Arizona (Golightly 1981) and California (Zoellick et al. 1987, White and Ralls 1993, Koopman 1995), the 100% minimum convex polygon home range estimate was used for this analysis. All data were checked for normality and equal variance, and data that could not be normalized by transformation were analyzed with non-parametric tests. Significance level (α) was 0.05.
Home range size may also vary by season (Burt 1943). To assess if the area of the urban environment needed to meet kit foxes’ ecological requirements fluctuated throughout the year, I determined if home range size varied with biological season for urban kit foxes, as it did for rural kit foxes (Zoellick et al. 1987). Because kernel-based estimates from small sample sizes (e.g., from subsetting the data by season) tend to overestimate home range sizes (Seaman and Powell 1996), seasonal home ranges were estimated using 100% minimum convex polygons, which is more robust than other techniques when sample size is small (Harris et al. 1990). Data were normalized with a square-root transformation and analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance (Winer et al. 1991, Hintze 1999) to compare mean home range size for male and female kit foxes during three biological seasons: dispersal (1 June to 30 September); pair formation (1 October to 30 November); and breeding (1 December to 15 February; Zoellick et al. 1987, Reese et al. 1992, Koopman et al. 1998). A Fisher's least significant difference multiple comparison test (Hintze 1999) was used to determine what factors (i.e., season and sex) in the analysis of variance were 14 significantly different. Study animals were located too seldom to estimate home range during the pup rearing season (16 February to 31 May).
The presence of food-rich habitat patches within territories may allow additional group members. Macdonald (1983) predicted that the home range of a mated pair of red foxes may overlap and support other foxes if there were sufficient resources. However, if food is evenlydispersed among habitat patches, a larger home range would be required and the tolerance of additional adults in the territory of a pair would be predicted to be less. I predicted that if kit foxes were concentrated around limited resources, home ranges and core areas of adjacent kit foxes would have a high percentage of overlap. The GIS was used to identify the percentage of overlap between a) adjacent 100% minimum convex polygon home ranges and b) adjacent core area polygons between kit fox pairs comprised of a) mated pairs or family groups, b) adjacent females, c) adjacent males, and d) adjacent but unpaired males and females.
It was assumed that habitats that were used disproportionately more than available contained key resources. To assess if habitats with key resources (i.e., denning and foraging sites) were equally-dispersed or conversely, concentrated, the mean percentage of area of each 100% minimum convex polygon that the core area represented was determined. If areas of habitat use were concentrated, then the 50% fixed kernel should encompass less than 50% of the area used by each kit fox. If areas of use were uniform rather than concentrated, the 50% fixed kernel would comprise half of the area within the 100% minimum convex polygon. To assess if use of key resources differed among the sexes, the median number of core areas for females and males was compared with a Mann-Whitney U-test, and the mean core area size for males and females was compared with a 2-sample t-test.
15 Habitat Use
For those kit fox locations determined from triangulation, the likelihood for habitat misclassification increased with animal proximity to habitat edge and decreased as habitat-patch size increased (Samuel and Kenow 1992). To assess the probability of habitat misclassification, the GIS was used to determine the distance between each triangulated location and the nearest habitat-patch edge (Jenness 2004a). I reasoned that triangulated kit fox locations less than 100 m from the nearest habitat-patch edge may have had misclassification of habitat type. The 100 m value was selected because urban coyote studies that used similar methods to study habitat use, had average telemetry errors of 46 m (Grinder and Krausman 2001) and 102 m (Romsos 1998).
Use of habitat is considered selective if it is exploited disproportional to its availability (Johnson 1980). Habitat selection can occur at a variety of scales (Wiens 1973, Orians and Wittenberger 1991, Litvaitis et al. 1996, Apps et al. 2001). I analyzed habitat use within the individual kit fox home range and core area and for the kit fox population in the study area. To determine if kit foxes used urban habitat types (Table 1) with a frequency proportional to their availability, the independent locations that fell within a) the study area and b) each home range were selected. To delineate the study area, a 100% minimum convex polygon was generated using all daily, sequential, and trapping locations for all study animals (Litvaitis et al. 1996, Romsos 1998, Kamler et al. 2003). For comparison to other urban canid habitat use studies (Romsos 1998, Grinder and Krausman 2001), the 95% fixed kernel was used to represent the home range of each kit fox. The area of each habitat type in the study area and each home range was summed, and use of habitat types in each was compared with a Friedman's test (Alldredge and Ratti 1986, Hintze 1999; individual kit fox was the blocking factor, habitat type was the treatment factor, and the ranked numerical difference between the proportion of habitat used and the proportion of habitat available was the response variable). To determine which habitat types 16 were used significantly more than their availability, a Fisher's least significant difference procedure (Alldredge and Ratti 1986, Hintze 1999) was used.
How kit foxes used urban habitats was determined at two scales: within each home range in proportion to what was available in the study area; and within each core area in proportion to what was available in the corresponding home range. For each habitat type, I compared the proportion a) within each home range and the study area and b) within each core area and corresponding home range. Prior to analysis, the proportion data were arcsine transformed (Winer et al. 1991) and analyzed with a matched-pair t-test, or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test if data could not be normalized (Hintze 1999).
Fox habitat use may also be influenced by human presence (Lucherini et al. 1995); therefore, I treated human activity as an attribute of habitat. After each kit fox was located, an index of human activity was gained by counting the number of vehicles and pedestrians that passed by an imaginary line that was perpendicular to the nearest road in a 15 second period. The number of people that were visible (i.e., not in buildings or large habitat patches) in the same habitat patch as the kit fox was also recorded. To determine if human activity (i.e., the number of passing vehicles, passing pedestrians, and people in the same habitat patch as the kit fox) varied among the habitat types, a Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance was used, followed by a Kruskal-Wallis multiple comparison test to determine what factors in the analysis of variance were significantly different.
Relative to some rural landscapes that have uniformly-distributed resources (Koopman 1995, Kamler et al. 2004), urban landscapes are highly fragmented, have isolated, clumped resources (Grinder and Krausman 2001), and consist of a patchy mosaic of habitats (Morrell 1975). Some urban habitats may be more suitable for denning and consequently, are used more than their availability in the study area. If certain habitats were selected for denning, the spatial 17 arrangement of home ranges would be influenced by the availability of the selected habitat types (Golightly 1981, Hardenbrook 1987).
The geographic coordinates of each den (i.e., refugia receiving repeated use by the study animals) were determined using a GPS and imported into the GIS. Dens were categorized as subterranean, culvert (or pipe), or man-made structure. To understand if den sites influenced habitat use, a 1-proportion z-test (Winer et al. 1991, Hintze 1999) was used to determine if habitats were used for denning in proportion to their availability in the study area.
Using the GIS, I generated random points (with a uniform distribution) equivalent to the number of dens in the study area (Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997). To assess if road proximity influenced den locations, the GIS was used to determine the distance of each den and random point to the centerline of the nearest road (Jenness 2004a). A Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine if den sites and random points differed with regard to distance to the nearest road. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine if the median size of habitat patches within which dens were located differed from the median habitat-patch size in the study area.
Movements
Canid movement behavior may indicate use of habitat for resting, foraging, and traveling (Ozoga and Harger 1966, Laundré and Keller 1981, Romsos 1998). Between 8 September 1997 and 7 January 1998, a randomly-selected subsample (five females and five males) of radiocollared kit foxes was examined for movements and travel paths through adjacent habitat patches in order to identify which behaviors were associated with each habitat type. Based on behavior-specific movement types for canids in Ozoga and Harger (1966) and Laundré and Keller (1981), I categorized kit fox movement as resting/walking (i.e., inactivity at low speeds between 0 - 0.8 km/h), trotting (i.e., potentially searching for food at intermediate speeds between 0.8 - 1.8 km/h), and running (i.e., traveling from one point to another at high speeds greater than 1.8 18 km/h). Movements were assessed during three nocturnal sampling periods, approximately 1830 - 2230 h, 2230 - 0330 h, and 0330 - 0730 h. Each kit fox was followed two to six times during each of the three sampling periods.
While following kit foxes, sequential locations were determined approximately every 15 - 30 min during the sampling period. Movement sessions with more than one hour between any two successive locations were deemed incomplete and repeated on another day. The locations identified during each movement session were plotted on a 1996 City of Bakersfield street map (scale 1:29,000, Compass Maps, Inc., Modesto, CA). Time, habitat type, kit fox activity (e.g., resting/walking, trotting, running), and number of passing vehicles, passing pedestrians, and people in the same habitat patch as the kit fox were recorded.
GIS was used to digitize kit fox locations and generate a line from the set of sequential location points for each movement session. Each line was then intersected with the habitat types through which it passed (Jenness 2004b). Kit fox speed (the distance between two sequential locations divided by the time elapsed) was regressed against the number of passing vehicles, passing pedestrians, and people in the same habitat patch to examine the influence of humans on kit fox habitat use. A multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine if sex and movement session time influenced minimum travel speed, maximum speed, mean speed (using all speed estimates except when the kit fox was at a den or resting), and total distance moved per movement session (Woodruff and Keller 1982). Because movement session length varied, total distance moved was standardized by multiplying the distance measure by the ratio of 1) the length of time elapsed during the shortest movement session to 2) the length of time elapsed during the movement session with which the distance measure was associated.
To determine if total distance moved per movement session varied by habitat type, I used a Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance (Zoellick et al. 1989). A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance was used to determine if overall median speed was influenced by habitat 19 type. Kruskal-Wallis multiple comparison tests were used to determine what factors in these analysis of variance tests were significantly different.
A loglinear model was used to examine correlations between type of movement, frequency of relocations per habitat type, and time of movement session. To identify the habitat type and movement session (i.e., evening, middle of the night, and early morning) within which kit foxes rested/walked, trotted, and ran, standardized residuals were used to identify the greatest deviations from expected for kit fox movements.
Demographics
Reproduction and mortality in radiocollared kit foxes were measured to determine if demographic parameters of urban kit fox populations were similar to those for rural kit fox populations, and assess habitat quality in the urban landscape (Van Horne 1983). Kit foxes with a radiocollar in a mortality mode were immediately located and necropsied to assess cause of death.
This information was used to determine sources and rates of kit fox mortality, which were compared to data for rural kit fox populations. I determined the number of radio-days since each kit fox was radiocollared and the survival rate for that time interval, described by Heisey and Fuller (1985) as the interval survival rate. Paired tooth puncture wounds associated with subcutaneous hematomas on the carcass were indicative of a predator kill, and if the carcass exhibited massive trauma and was located near a road, the cause of death was determined to be vehicular impact (Spiegel and Disney 1996).
The number of pups incidentally trapped or observed with radiocollared adult kit foxes and their mates were identified. Additionally, as part of a concurrent study (Storlie 1998) of juvenile kit fox dispersal and mortality, trapping effort was conducted in areas where pups were captured or observed. Capture data from both studies were used to estimate litter size for kit 20 foxes in the study area. The annual reproductive success rate was based on the percentage of radiocollared females that produced pups.
21 RESULTS
Trapping
Between 1 May 1997 and 15 January 1998, 107 (30 adult males, 31 adult females, and 46 juveniles) kit foxes were captured in all habitat types in which traps were placed (Appendix A).
Mean adult kit fox weight was 2.47 + 0.05 (x¯ + 1 SE) kg for males and 2.16 + 0.03 kg for females.
Locations
Radiocollars were attached to 28 adults (13 males, 15 females). Each radiocollared kit fox was located 5.1 + 0.3 days each week. Of the 35 kit foxes located between 0900 and 1600 h, 34 were stationary (e.g., resting) or in a den. In 252 study days, a total of 1,882 sequential locations (during 111 movement sessions) and 4,824 daily locations were determined for the 28 study animals. Of these locations, 4,249 were independent, of which 2,898 (68%) were considered to be exact and the habitat types in which they occurred were correctly classified, based on being tracked to a den (n = 811) or directly observed (n = 2,087). Directly observed kit foxes were classified as stationary for 52% of the observations (Figure 2). Of the 1,351 triangulated locations, 66 were > 100 m from the nearest habitat-patch edge. The remaining locations were on average 31.3 + 0.6 m from the nearest habitat-patch edge.
Home Range
Based on the area-observation curves (Odum and Kuenzler 1955; Appendix D), the average number of locations needed to estimate a 100% minimum convex polygon home range was 27 + 1.7. All sequentially-located kit foxes could cross the longest axis of their 100% 22 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Resting/Walking Trotting Running Other
Behavior Type
Observations (%)
Figure 2. Behavior exhibited by directly observed kit foxes at independent daily locations (n = 2,087) in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. 23 minimum convex polygon home range in less than four hours (range = 1.23 - 3.89 h; Appendix B). Therefore, four hours was used as the time to independence between kit fox locations.
The 100% minimum convex polygon home range size for all study animals combined was 1.72 + 0.19 km2 and was larger for males than females (Table 2). Average 95% fixed kernel home range size for all study animals combined (excluding one outlier) was 1.2 + 0.19 km2 (range = 0.04 – 2.78). Excluding one outlier, core areas comprised 9.1 + 1.2% (range = 1.9 –
19.6) of the 100% minimum convex polygon home range. Kit foxes had an average of 2.15 +
0.23 distinct core areas, and females had more than males. Mean 100% minimum convex polygon home range size was significantly larger during the dispersal season than during the pair formation and breeding seasons (F = 7.79, df = 2, p < 0.001) and for males than females during the breeding season (F = 4.47, df = 1, p = 0.04), and there was no interaction between season and sex (F = 2.38, df = 2, p = 0.1) (Table 3). The percentage of home range and core area overlap between kit foxes was highest for family group members (Figure 3).
Habitat Use
The study area was 76 km2, and had 3,908 habitat patches that averaged 0.01 + 0.001 km2 (range was < 0.01 - 2.03, except for a 17.88 km2 patch that comprised all interconnecting linear features that was excluded from this calculation). Kit foxes used urban habitats disproportionate to their availability in the study area (Q = 103.5, df = 7, p < 0.001) and within home ranges (Q =
91.36, df = 7, p < 0.001; Figure 4). Open and sump habitats were used more than their availability in both the study area and in home ranges (Table 4). There was less area of residential habitat but more area of open and sump habitats in home ranges than in the study area.
Area of transition, commercial, manicured open, linear, and residential habitats were less, but area of sump habitat was greater, in core areas than in home ranges (Table 5).
Table 2. Home range (100% minimum convex polygon) and core area (50% fixed kernel) size for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
All Males Females Males vs. Females
Measurement x¯ SE Range x¯ SE Range x¯ SE Range Statistic df p Home range size (km2) 1.72 0.19 0.31 - 4.49 2.12 0.31 0.31 - 4.49 1.36 0.21 0.36 - 2.71 t = -2.08 25 0.02 Core area size (km2) 0.16a 0.03 0.01 - 0.5 0.18 0.05 0.01 - 0.5 0.15 0.04 0.02 - 0.43 t = -0.57 24 0.57 Core areas per kit fox 2.15 0.23 1 – 6 1.85 0.37 1 - 6 2.43 0.27 1 - 4 z = -1.98 25 0.02 a Excluding one outlier (the male with two distinct home ranges). 24 25
Table 3. Seasonal home range (100% minimum convex polygon) size for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
Home range (km2)
All Males Females
Season x¯ SE x¯ SE x¯ SE
Dispersal 1.24 0.11 1.32 0.16 1.17 0.15
Pair formation 0.77 0.11 0.79 0.16 0.74 0.16
Breeding 0.66 0.12 0.95 0.16 0.38 0.16
26 0
20 40
60 80
Family Group Male-Female Male-Male Female-Female
Pair Type
Overlap (%)
Home Range
Core Area
Figure 3. Percentage of home range overlap and core area overlap for pairs of radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. Vertical bars represent + 1 SE.
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Residential Linear Commercial Open Manicured
Open
Industrial Sump Transition
Habitat Type
Area (%)
Study Area
Home Range
Core Area
a
c
b
b
a
a
b
a
b
c
a b
a
b
a
b
Figure 4. Mean percentage of each habitat type in the study area, which bounded the available habitat, and radiocollared kit fox home ranges (n = 27) and core areas (n = 58) in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. Different letters above the bars indicate a significant difference in habitat use versus availability.
27 Table 4. Ranked radiocollared kit fox habitat use based on habitat availability at the study area and home range area scale, in Bakersfield, California between May 1997 to January 1998. Habitat types used similarly (p > 0.05) are grouped by column.
Study Area Home Range
Habitat Types
Statistically Similar in Use
Mean
Rank
Habitat Types
Statistically Similar in Use
Mean
Rank
Rank
of
Use
Open 2.1 Sump 2.3 Most
Sump 2.6 Open 2.5
Transition 4.0 Transition 3.5
Industrial 4.0 Industrial 3.9
Manicured Open 4.4 Manicured Open 5.3
Commercial 5.4 Commercial Commercial 5.8
Linear 5.6 Linear Linear 6.2
Residential 7.8 Residential 6.6 Least28
29 Table 5. Mean difference between the mean proportion of habitat available in the study area and kit fox home ranges (e.g., there was 16.7% less open habitat in the study area than within home ranges), and kit fox home ranges and core areas in Bakersfield, California between May 1997 to January 1998.
Study Area and Home Range Home Range and Core Area
Habitat Type Percent
Difference Statistic p
a Percent
Difference Statistic p
b
Commercial -1.3 t = 0.89 0.38 2.8 t = -2.79 <0.01
Industrial -1.2 z = 1.43 0.15 -2.2 z = 0.05 0.47
Linear 2.5 t = 1.47 0.15 4.3 z = -2.25 0.01
Manicured Open -6.2 t = -0.59 0.56 3.7 z = -1.77 0.02
Open -16.7 t = -3.83 <0.01 -7.5 t = 1.46 0.16
Residential 25.8 z = 4.52 <0.01 6.4 t = -5.5 <0.01
Sump -1.9 z = -2.88 <0.01 -7.6 z = 2.19 0.01
Transition -1.0 t = -0.66 0.51 0.2 t = -2.30 0.01
a,b Because the analysis used multiple t-tests, the probability of at least one false rejection of the null hypothesis was 1 – 0.958 = 0.34 (Winer et al. 1991). 30 Number of people in the same habitat patch as the kit fox varied between habitat types and was greatest in manicured open habitat (H = 285.7, df = 7, p < 0.001; Figure 5). Industrial and linear habitats had a higher incidence of passing vehicles than all other habitats (H = 355.1, df = 7, p < 0.001; Figure 5). A greater number of pedestrians were observed along roads near sumps than all other habitats (H = 136.8, df = 7, p < 0.001; Figure 5).
The study animals used 190 dens, comprised of 159 subterranean dens, 17 culvert or pipe dens, and 14 man-made structure dens (e.g., metal storage containers, modular office buildings, junkyard debris, a shed, and a garbage dumpster), most of which were located in open, sump, and linear habitats (Figure 6). Sump (z = 45.74, df = 1, p < 0.001) and open (z = 11.47, df = 1, p <
0.001) habitats were used for denning more than their availability in the study area (Figure 7).
Residential (z = -10.5, df = 1, p < 0.001) and commercial (z = -3.67, df = 1, p < 0.001) habitats were used for denning less than their availability in the study area. Linear (z = -1.24, df = 1, p =
0.19), manicured open (z = -0.53, df = 1, p = 0.59), industrial (z = -0.3, df = 1, p = 0.76), and transition (z = -0.45, df = 1, p = 1.0) habitats were used for denning in proportion to their availability in the study area.
Dens were located farther from roads (0.10 + 0.01 km, range = 0.01 - 0.5) than randomlygenerated points (0.06 + 0.01 km, range = 0.0001 - 0.55; z = 8.17, df = 378, p < 0.001). The median size of habitat patches within which dens were located (0.03 km2) was significantly larger than the median habitat-patch size in the study area (0.004 km2; z = 10.56, df = 1, p <
0.001).
Movements
Movement sessions (n = 100) lasted from 184 to 315 min long. Kit foxes moved at an average rate of 1.33 + 0.02 km/h. Minimum speed during each movement session was influenced Vehicles Passing on Nearest Road
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vehicles/15 s
Pedestrians Passing Along Nearest Road
0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pedestrians/15 s
People in Habitat Patch
0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 Linear Industrial Residential Sump Commercial Open Manicured Open
Transition
Habitat Type
People/15 s
Figure 5. Mean number of passing vehicles, passing pedestrians, and people in the same habitat patch as radiocollared kit foxes at all daily locations (n = 4,824) in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. Vertical bars represent + 1 SE. 31 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Open Sump Linear Manicured
Open
Industrial Commercial Residential Transition
Habitat Type Number of Dens
Man-made Structures
Culvert/Pipe
Subterranean
Figure 6. Number of dens used by radiocollared kit foxes in each habitat type in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998. 32 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Residential Linear Commercial Open Manicured
Open
Industrial Sump Transition
Habitat Type
Habitat (%)
Study Area Available
Used for Denning
Figure 7. Percentage of available habitat in the study area compared to percentage of habitat used by radiocollared kit foxes for denning in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
33 34
by the interaction of sex and time of night (Figure 8, Table 6). The regressions of kit fox speed and the number of passing vehicles (r2 = 0.0077), passing pedestrians (r2 = 0.0016), and people in the same habitat patch as the kit fox (r2 = 0.0002), respectively, indicated that these variables (all of which could not be normalized through transformation) were not related to kit fox speed. The distance traveled during each movement session was longer in manicured open and open habitats than all other habitats (H = 125, df = 7, p < 0.001; Figure 9). Overall speed was faster in residential habitat than all other habitats (H = 111.6, df = 7, p < 0.001; Figure 10).
There was a significant interaction between kit fox movements, movement session time, and habitat type (c
2 = 61.48, df = 28, p < 0.001). Kit fox resting/walking movements deviated most from expected from 1830 – 2230 h, during which linear habitat was used more than expected and from 2230 – 0330 h, during which residential habitat was used less than expected (Table 7). Kit fox trotting movements deviated most from expected from 2230 – 0330 h during which open habitat was used more than expected, and from 2230 – 0730 h during which sump habitat was used less than expected. The greatest deviations from expected kit fox running movements were from 2230 – 0330 h during which open habitat was used more than expected, and from 0330 – 0730 h during which industrial habitat was used less than expected.
Between 27 September and 4 October 1997, a male kit fox moved > 5.9 km from his previouslyestablished home range to another part of the study area, where he remained until the end of the study. Kit foxes were observed crossing roads (up to four lanes), but also used culverts to move under roads. One study animal was observed to use a 0.46-m in diameter culvert to cross under a State Route 99 offramp and a 4.26 m wide by 3.66 m high vehicle access road to cross under State Route 99. Other kit foxes were observed to cross under the State Route 99 bridge over the Kern River and use a foot bridge to cross a canal.
35 0
0.05 0.1
0.15 0.2
0.25 0.3
0.35 0.4
1830 - 2230 2230 - 0330 0330 - 0730
Time Period
Minimum Speed of Travel (km/hr)
Males
Females
Figure 8. Minimum speed per movement session for male and female radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998.
Table 6. Influence of sex, movement session time, and their interaction on minimum, maximum, and mean speed and total adjusted distance moved for 10 radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
Males Females Males vs. Females
Movement Session
Time Interaction
Measurement x¯ SE Range x¯ SE Range F-Ratio df p F-Ratio df p F-Ratio df p Minimum
Speed (km/hr2) 0.26 0.03 0.02 - 0.75 0.27 0.03 <0.01 - 1.16 0.05 1 0.82 0.58 2 0.56 3.17 2 0.047 Maximum
Speed (km/hr2) 2.19 0.13 0.26 - 4.65 2.17 0.22 0.32 - 9.06 0.1 1 0.75 2.5 2 0.09 0.21 2 0.81 Mean Speed
(km/hr2) 1.39 0.03 0.02 - 4.65 1.25 0.03 <0.01 - 9.06 1.32 1 0.25 1.08 2 0.34 0.15 2 0.86 Total Adjusted
Distance
Moved (km) 1.76 0.11 0.12 - 3.34 1.62 0.15 0.13 - 4.77 0.88 2 0.35 1.81 2 0.17 1.16 2 0.32 36 0
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8
1 1.2
Manicured
Open
Open Residential Linear Industrial Commercial Transition Sump Habitat Type
Mean Distance Traveled (km)
Figure 9. Mean distance radiocollared kit foxes traveled in each habitat type in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998.
Vertical bars represent + 1 SE.
37 0
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8
1 1.2
1.4 1.6
1.8 2
Residential Manicured
Open
Commercial Sump Industrial Open Linear Transition
Habitat Type
Mean Speed (km/hr)
Figure 10. Mean speed radiocollared kit foxes traveled in each habitat type in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998.
Vertical bars represent + 1 SE.
38 Table 7. Movement session time, type of movement, and habitat associations for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998.
Movement Type Movement Session Time (h) Habitat Type Observed Frequencya Standardized Residualb Resting/Walking 1830 - 2230 Sump 11 -5.19
Transition 18 -4.16
Residential 19 -4.02
Commercial 30 -2.40
Industrial 58 1.71
Manicured Open 107 8.91
Open 185 20.37
Linear 205 23.30
2230 - 0330 Residential 6 -5.93
Transition 12 -5.05
Sump 13 -4.90
Commercial 28 -2.69
Manicured Open 76 4.36
Industrial 78 4.65
Linear 89 6.27
Open 194 21.69
0330 - 0730 Commercial 15 -4.60
Residential 15 -4.60
Transition 26 -2.99
Sump 35 -1.67
Industrial 38 -1.23
Manicured Open 57 1.56
Open 164 17.28
Linear 174 18.75
39 Table 7. Movement session time, type of movement, and habitat associations for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998 (continued).
Movement Type Movement Session Time (h) Habitat Type Observed Frequencya Standardized Residualb Trotting 1830 - 2230 Sump 12 -5.05
Transition 12 -5.05
Residential 25 -3.14
Industrial 29 -2.55
Commercial 33 -1.96
Manicured Open 45 -0.20
Open 96 7.29
Linear 105 8.62
2230 - 0330 Sump 6 -5.93
Transition 13 -4.90
Residential 14 -4.75
Industrial 25 -3.14
Manicured Open 30 -2.40
Commercial 41 -0.79
Linear 94 7.00
Open 115 10.08
0330 - 0730 Sump 6 -5.93
Transition 20 -3.87
Industrial 25 -3.14
Commercial 28 -2.69
Manicured Open 29 -2.55
Residential 46 -0.05
Linear 72 3.77
Open 97 7.44
40 Table 7. Movement session time, type of movement, and habitat associations for radiocollared kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998 (continued).
Movement Type Movement Session Time (h) Habitat Type Observed Frequencya Standardized Residualb Running 1830 - 2230 Sump 6 -5.93
Industrial 14 -4.75
Transition 16 -4.46
Commercial 19 -4.02
Linear 50 0.54
Manicured Open 54 1.12
Residential 61 2.15
Open 64 2.59
2230 - 0330 Transition 6 -5.93
Sump 7 -5.78
Industrial 25 -3.14
Residential 27 -2.84
Commercial 35 -1.67
Manicured Open 38 -1.23
Linear 53 0.98
Open 66 2.89
0330 - 0730 Industrial 2 -6.51
Sump 4 -6.22
Transition 6 -5.93
Commercial 8 -5.63
Linear 21 -3.72
Manicured Open 24 -3.28
Open 30 -2.40
Residential 30 -2.40
a Number of times a kit fox movement path intersected each habitat type, separated by movement type and movement session time. b Negative values indicate that a habitat was used less than expected and positive values indicate that a habitat was used more than expected.
If the value is > + 2.00 (2 standard deviations), it is significant. 41 42
Demographics
During 6,036 days of active radiotransmitters, two of the 28 radiocollared kit foxes died and the interval survival rate was 0.92. One female was hit by a vehicle and another female was likely killed by a coyote or domestic dog, based on 30 to 35-mm paired puncture wounds on the torso of the intact, unburied carcass (Spiegel and Disney 1996). It was unknown if another female that could not be located after 3 September 1997, died, dispersed, or had a malfunctioning radiocollar.
Pups were detected with 15 family groups, comprised of 22 radiocollared adult kit foxes.
Eleven of the 15 radiocollared females reproduced during one breeding season. Four of these 11 females had radiocollared mates. An additional four radiocollared males had uncollared mates that also reproduced in the same breeding season. Kit fox litters averaged 2.8 + 0.45 (range = 1 – 7) pups. The litter of 7 pups was observed denning with two radiocollared females, of which one exhibited reproductive condition and one did not.
43 DISCUSSION
Demographics
The urban kit foxes had lower mortality and similar reproduction and body weight compared to rural populations (Morrell 1972). Conversely, Cypher and Frost (1999) found that kit foxes in Bakersfield (i.e., females in winter and juveniles) were heavier than their counterparts in a nearby rural population. Urban kit foxes’ normal weights may be attributed to good nutrition. The constant source of water from sumps, canals, and lawn sprinklers in Bakersfield (Murphy 1992) may provide a more stable prey population. Like urban red foxes in Orange County, California (Lewis et al. 1993) and Toronto, Canada (Rosatte et al. 1991), urban kit foxes were supplementally fed (i.e., anthropogenic sources of food, including bread and burritos) by people and observed opportunistically foraging on both anthropogenic and natural food items (personal observation).
Urban kit foxes in Bakersfield may have lower mortality rates than rural foxes (Table 8).
Of 22 adult kit foxes from a nearby rural population that were radiocollared prior to or during late November and December 1995 through September 1996, 15 (68.2%) died and two were lost (Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc. 1997). Of 35 adult kit fox mortalities (including the two from this study) in the Bakersfield area from 1997 to 2003, 23% were due to vehicular impact (Bjurlin and Cypher 2003). The interval survival rate for urban kit foxes (0.92) was much greater than that for rural kit foxes (0.58; Ralls and White 1995; 0.44; Cypher et al. 2000).
Coyote predation may be more likely if a fox is far from its den (Kitchen et al. 1999) or in the peripheral areas of its home range (Sovada et al. 1998, Olson and Lindzey 2002). The majority of swift fox (Vulpes velox) deaths were due to coyotes and occurred outside the 85% Table 8. Rural kit fox and swift fox cause-specific mortality rates reported within their geographic range for comparison to that for urban kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
Cause-Specific Mortality Rate (%)
Reference Species Location Predation Vehicular Impact
Cypher et al. 2000 Kit Fox Kern County, CA 48.5 5.0
Ralls and White 1995 Kit Fox Carrizo Plain, CA 78.0 4.0 Hardenbrook 1987 Kit Fox Churchill County, NV 60.0 10.0 Spiegel and Disney 1996 Kit Fox Kern County, CA 66.7 1.7 Standley et al. 1992 Kit Fox Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, CA 75.0 6.3 Kamler et al. 2003 Swift Fox Dallam County, TX 33.0 42.0 Matlack et al. 2000 Swift Fox Sherman and Wallace Counties, KS 45.0 36.0 44 45
(Kitchen et al. 1999) or 95% (Sovada et al. 1998, Olson and Lindzey 2002) isopleth of the fox’s home range and more than 1 km from the den that the fox most recently occupied. Likewise, the urban kit fox that died as a result of coyote or dog predation was located outside the 85% isopleth of her range.
Production of young exceeded the number of kit foxes that died, which may have indicated that the urban kit fox population was demographically healthy during the period of study and habitat was of sufficient quality to support a source population (Van Horne 1983, Pulliam 1988, Noss et al. 1997). Seventy-three percent of radiocollared females produced pups, more than that observed for rural kit foxes in southwestern Kern County (64%; Spiegel and Tom 1996; 61%; Cypher et al. 2000). The mean number of pups per litter was within the range of that for rural populations: 2 (White and Ralls 1993) to 4 (Morrell 1971, Cypher et al. 2000).
Kit fox reproduction has been positively correlated with prey availability (White and Ralls 1993). Raccoons and skunks in Toronto, Canada weighed more and had higher reproductive success than their rural counterparts, which Rosatte et al. (1991) attributed to abundant and varied natural and human-derived food sources in the urban setting. The results of a supplemental feeding study indicated that kit fox survival and reproductive success were influenced by food availability (EG&G Energy Measurements 1993). Supplemental feeding by humans and the availability of refuse may contribute to the demographic health of urban kit foxes.
Locations
During daylight hours, urban kit foxes were found to be resting or in dens on all but one occasion. Like rural kit foxes in California (Morrell 1971, Morrell 1972, White et al. 2000), Utah (Egoscue 1956, O’Neal et al. 1987, Arjo et al. 2003), and Arizona (Golightly 1981, Golightly and Ohmart 1983) and urban red foxes in Orange County, California (Sallee 1998), urban kit foxes 46 were almost entirely nocturnal. Similarly, urban coyotes in Orange County, California (Romsos 1998), Seattle, Washington (Quinn 1995), and Tucson, Arizona (Grinder and Krausman 2001) were less active during daylight than at night. Urban kit foxes were primarily nocturnal and limited their daytime activity to the immediate vicinity of the den, similar to rural kit foxes (Morrell 1971, Morrell 1972), rural swift foxes (Kilgore 1969, Kitchen et al. 1999, Kamler et al. 2004), and urban red foxes (Voight and Macdonald 1984). Urban canids may benefit from being active only at night when interactions with humans are less likely.
Home range
Knowledge of home range size and spatial distribution can be used to manage urban habitat for the benefit of kit foxes. Home range estimates were much smaller than those for rural kit foxes (Table 9), but consistent with observations that foxes (Voight and Macdonald 1984, Murphy 1992) and raccoons and skunks in urban areas have smaller ranges than their rural counterparts (Rosatte et al. 1991).
Macdonald (1983) and Doncaster et al. (1990) attributed the tendency for red fox home ranges to be smaller in cities (e.g., Oxford) than in rural areas, to the spatial and temporal patchiness of food dispersion. Red foxes in Orange County, California had smaller home ranges where they were supplementally fed (Sallee 1998). Ables (1969) noted that the smaller home ranges for red foxes in south-central Wisconsin may have been due to habitat richness (i.e., a high interspersion of habitat types and abundant wild fruits and berries). Artificial food sources associated with urban and oilfield development may have led to decreases in the home range size of kit foxes in southwestern Kern County (Zoellick et al. 1987, Spiegel and Bradbury 1992).
Conversely, kit fox home ranges increased in size during times of low prey availability (White and Ralls 1993) and were negatively correlated with prey density (Morrell 1971, White and Garrott 1997). Thus, the small size of urban kit fox home ranges indicated that abundant food Table 9. Kit fox home range size reported within various habitats within their geographic range for comparison to home range size of urban kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
Reference Location Habitat Estimator Range Type Area km2 Knapp 1978 Kern County, CA Agriculture 100% Minimum convex polygona Home Range 2.52 Koopman 1995 Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 100% Minimum convex polygon Home Range 3.52 Zoellick et al. 1987 Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 100% Minimum convex polygon Home Range 4.63 White and Ralls 1993 Carrizo Plain, CA Grassland 100% Minimum convex polygon Home Range 11.60 O’Neal et al. 1987 Great Basin, UT Saltbush scrub 100% Minimum convex polygon Home Range 3.11 Spiegel and Bradbury 1992 Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 97% Minimum convex polygonb Home Range 6.13 Spiegel and Bradbury 1992 Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 95% Minimum convex polygonb Nocturnal Range 5.82 Hardenbrook 1987 Churchill County, NV Greasewood Modified Minimum Area Method Home Range 9.74 Arjo et al. 2003 Tooele County, UT Salt playa 95% Adaptive Kernel Home Range 43.09 Arjo et al. 2003 Tooele County, UT Greasewood 95% Adaptive Kernel Home Range 13.29 Arjo et al. 2003 Tooele County, UT Sagebrush 95% Adaptive Kernel Home Range 11.51 Koopman 1995 Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 75% Harmonic Mean Core area 0.73 Spiegel and Bradbury 1992 Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 50% Hamonic Meanb Core area 1.18 Zoellick et al. (2002) Kern County, CA Saltbush scrub 50% Hamonic Mean Core area 1.2 a May have been underestimated due to small sample size. b Estimates using non-independent data may have been inflated, as demonstrated in Koopman (1995). 47 48
resources were concentrated in key urban habitats around which home ranges were configured.
Further evidence of this was that urban kit foxes’ core area size constituted only 9% of the home range size, whereas that for rural kit foxes constituted 17% of the home range (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992). This may be because suitable denning habitat for urban kit foxes was concentrated around sumps and undeveloped lots.
Female urban kit foxes had a greater median number of core areas than did males, indicating that females had a higher number of distinct denning sites. Female kit foxes in Arizona (Golightly 1981) and Nevada (Hardenbrook 1987) spent more time near their dens than males. Fenced sumps in core areas provide denning habitat that may ensure safe reproduction in the urban population.
The home ranges and core areas of adjacent kit foxes may have substantial overlap if kit foxes are concentrated around limited resources (Golightly 1981), such as food-rich habitat patches (Macdonald 1983). Mean home range overlap was greater than 71% for family group members and less than 16% for unrelated individuals, which was less than that for the nearby rural population (Zoellick et al. 2002, Spiegel and Bradbury 1992).
Core area overlap was greater for members of the same family group (61%) than core area overlap of neighboring males and females (29%) or neighboring males (11%), similar to that for rural kit foxes (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992). Unpaired male and female urban kit foxes had a higher percentage of core area overlap than home range overlap. Because core areas were centered around denning sites, male and female kit foxes’ home ranges may have overlapped in a central denning area, as was the case for kit foxes in Arizona (Golightly 1981) and Nevada (Hardenbrook 1987). Kitchen et al.’s (2005) findings that male swift foxes spent more time on the boundary of the home range, while females spent more time in the group core area, may explain why female urban kit foxes had the least home range overlap and no core area overlap. 49 Overlap of home ranges and core areas indicated that kit foxes were concentrated around key urban habitat patches and food resources were not evenly-distributed. It was likely that urban kit foxes were able to find foraging and denning habitat in close proximity because of uniformlydistributed sumps, which may be important to the success of the urban kit fox population.
Due to refuse and human-derived foods, urban kit foxes may be able to meet their resource needs in a smaller area than rural kit foxes. The presence of these food resources distributed among disjunct habitat patches may explain why urban kit foxes had smaller and less overlapping home ranges than their rural counterparts. Given the constant and widespread availability of human-derived food in the urban landscape, suitable denning habitat may be a limiting factor for the urban kit fox population. This is consistent with Golightly’s (1981) conclusion that kit fox den sites in rural Arizona were limited by soils suitable for denning.
Estimates of 100% minimum convex polygon home range size were greater for males than females, perhaps due to fewer seasonal movements by females and increased foraging requirements for males during pup-rearing (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992). While Golightly (1981) found that male kit foxes in Arizona had much larger home ranges than females, home range size for other rural kit fox (Zoellick et al. 1987, Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, White and Ralls 1993, Koopman 1995), swift fox (Kitchen et al. 1999, Kamler et al. 2003), and Blanford’s fox (Vulpes cana; Geffen and Macdonald 1992) populations did not differ among the sexes.
Because home range size may vary with season (Burt 1943), the quantity of urban habitat needed to meet kit foxes’ ecological requirements may fluctuate over time. Home range size was greater for males than females during the breeding season, but did not differ between the seasons for kit foxes in Utah (Arjo et al. 2003), swift foxes (Kitchen et al. 1999), Blanford’s foxes (Geffen and Macdonald 1992), and culpeo foxes (Pseudalopex culpaeus; Salvatori et al. 1999).
In order to search for a mate during the breeding season, male foxes may increase their number of exploratory movements, which may be especially pronounced in the urban environment where 50 patches of habitat suitable to support kit foxes are small and disjunct. Home range size may have been underestimated during the pair formation and breeding seasons, because fewer kit foxes were located during this time. This may explain why mean home range size was significantly larger during the dispersal season than the pair formation and breeding seasons.
Habitat use
Habitats were known to be correctly classified for 68% of all independent locations, which were obtained by following the transmitted signal until the animal was observed or tracked to a den. It was unlikely that visually observed kit foxes were behaviorally pushed from one habitat to another, because kit foxes were resting or walking 67% of the time. However, distance between the animal and the radio-receiver, as well as broken topography, can increase telemetry error (Harris et al. 1990). Telemetry error was a concern because correct assignment of habitat use required accurate locations. Based on average telemetry error in urban coyote studies (Romsos 1998, Grinder and Krausman 2001), triangulated kit fox locations less than 100 m from the nearest habitat-patch edge may have been misclassified. The remaining 32% of locations were determined by triangulation or encircling the habitat patch. These locations averaged 31 m from the nearest habitat-patch edge and may have included some misclassification.
Like urban kit foxes, rural kit foxes do not use habitat within their home range in a uniform manner (Golightly 1981, Hardenbrook 1987) and have distinct core areas of concentrated activity (Koopman 1995). Kit foxes used open and sump habitats more than their availability in both the study area and in home ranges, and there was significantly more open and sump habitat in home ranges than in the study area. Likewise, urban red foxes (Sallee 1998) and coyotes (Romsos 1998) in Orange County, California used vacant field habitats more than expected. The higher vegetative cover in vacant fields may facilitate predator avoidance and support a more abundant prey base (Adams and Dove 1989) than the other less used urban habitats. Likewise, 51 sumps had marsh vegetation, which provides food and cover for wildlife and facilitates use by terrestrial wildlife (Adams and Dove 1989). Therefore, sumps may serve as artificial urban wetlands that provide denning habitat with their sloping sides, foraging opportunities based on the abundance of active small mammal burrows (personal observation), and a constant source of water, which I observed an urban kit fox drinking. In hot environments, such as Arizona, rural kit foxes meet their water needs through prey consumption (Golightly and Ohmart 1984). With the availability of free-standing water in the urban environment, kit foxes may require less food.
The number of people in the same habitat patch as the kit fox was lowest in open and sump habitats. While the greatest number of pedestrians observed along roads were near sumps, the fencing around sumps provided a physical and visual barrier between kit foxes and passing pedestrians. The shelter and security that the fenced perimeters provided may also explain why Stafford and Murphy (1992) found kit fox dens in 10 of the 95 sumps that they surveyed in Bakersfield. Likewise, urban red foxes disproportionate use of industrial habitats may be attributed to security personnel and perimeter fencing, which limited intrusion by humans and their pets (Sallee 1998).
There was significantly less residential habitat in urban kit fox home ranges than in the study area; the opposite was true for urban coyotes in Tucson, Arizona (Grinder and Krausman 2001). Harrison (1997) found that gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in New Mexico avoided high-density residential subdivisions. Urban coyotes (Romsos 1998) and red foxes (Sallee 1998) in Orange County, California avoided high-density residential and commercial habitats, perhaps due to a greater possibility for human and domestic animal interactions.
Likewise, Lucherini et al. (1995) found that red foxes used habitats with less human access and disturbance.
Industrial and linear habitats had a higher incidence of passing vehicles than all other habitats. This may be because industrial habitats tend to occur along major roads. In linear 52 habitat, from 1800 to 1859 h and 0700 to 0759 h, both the number of kit fox locations and number of passing vehicles peaked (Appendix E). However, during these times, 84% of the kit foxes using the linear habitat were located in dens that sheltered them from the disturbance of the passing vehicles.
The kit fox is one of the few canids that utilizes an underground den throughout the year (Berry et al. 1987, Koopman et al. 1998). Because dens are used for whelping and rearing pups, for escape cover from predators (Grinnell et al. 1937), and to minimize water loss and heat stress in summer and metabolic costs in winter (Golightly 1981, Golightly and Ohmart 1983), kit fox presence is limited by the availability of (Spiegel et al. 1996) or their ability to build dens. Like rural kit foxes in California (Knapp 1978, Berry et al. 1987, Reese et al. 1992) and Utah (Egoscue 1956, Arjo et al. 2003) and swift foxes (Kilgore 1969), urban kit foxes primarily used subterranean dens. However, they also used alternative dens, including pipes. Use of pipes that are known to interfere with radio signals, may have caused an underestimation of the number of alternative dens used in this study (Berry et al. 1987, Spiegel et al. 1996, Koopman et al. 1998).
Like Golightly (1981), I found that kit foxes did not randomly select den sites. Because kit foxes selected sump habitats for denning, there was more area of sump habitat in core areas than in home ranges. Sumps may also be used for denning because they are fenced and not accessible to the public. Likewise, most urban red fox dens occurred within fenced areas that may have isolated dens from human disturbance (Sallee 1998). Stafford and Murphy (1992) found that the majority of sumps used by urban kit foxes for denning were adjacent to undisturbed habitat, which likely has a low human presence.
Furthermore, I found that urban kit foxes denned in open habitats more than their availability in the study area. Likewise, rural kit foxes in California (Morrell 1971, Morrell 1972), Utah (Egoscue 1956, Egoscue 1962), and Arizona (Zoellick et al. 1989) and urban red 53 foxes (Lewis et al. 1993) frequently denned in flat, open areas. Kit foxes may be less vulnerable to coyote and bobcat predation on flat or rolling grasslands (Warrick and Cypher 1998).
Linear habitats (i.e., along canals, railroads, freeway embankments, and powerline rightof-ways) were used in proportion to their availability for denning. Like swift foxes, urban kit foxes utilized dens in road right-of-ways (Matlack et al. 2000). However, urban kit foxes denned near roads less than expected and in larger habitat patches than expected. Similarly, red foxes used habitats with less human access and disturbance for resting (Lucherini et al. 1995).
Movements
Kit foxes moved at an average rate of 1.33 km/h, nearly identical to that for kit foxes in southwestern Kern County (1.35 km/h; Koopman 1995) but slower than that for kit foxes in Arizona (males: 2.73 km/h; females: 1.49 km/h; Golightly 1981) and faster than that for swift foxes (males: 0.68 km/h; females: 0.59 km/h; Kitchen et al. 1999). Between dusk and dawn (i.e., approximately 10 to 14 h, depending on time of year), rural kit foxes in Arizona moved an average distance of 14.3 km for males and 11.8 km for females (Zoellick et al. 1989) and in southwestern Kern County, moved an average distance of 9.8 km for males and 10.9 km for females (Zoellick et al. 1987), yielding average movement rates similar to that for urban kit foxes.
The average distance that captured urban red foxes, raccoons, and skunks in Toronto, Canada moved from the point of release was less than that for their rural counterparts, which indicated that food and habitat in the urban environment were not limited in availability (Rosatte et al. 1991).
Males, which had larger 100% minimum convex polygon home ranges than females, may travel at higher rates of speed during the early part of the evening to cover their larger territory.
In Arizona, kit fox activity peaked in the early evening and a few hours before sunset, and males spent twice as much time out of the den, traveled 3.6 times farther, and maintained home ranges 54 2.6 times larger than females (Golightly 1981). However, in the urban setting, I did not detect a difference between sexes, movement session times, or their interaction with regard to maximum speed, mean speed, or total adjusted distance moved during each movement session. Similarly, lengths of nightly movements did not differ among sexes for rural kit foxes (Zoellick et al. 2002) and Blanford’s foxes (Geffen and Macdonald 1992). Compared to Arizona, where male kit foxes spent much time by the boundaries of their territory to defend a non-uniformly distributed resource base (Golightly 1981), urban kit foxes were able to meet their resource needs within small home ranges and did not need to travel far due to the concentration of resources within distinct habitat patches in the urban landscape.
Kit fox movement speed was not correlated with the number of passing vehicles, passing pedestrians, or people in the same habitat patch. This is consistent with the findings in Lewis et al. (1993), which indicated that urban red foxes were tolerant of humans. Nevertheless, kit foxes may have attempted to avoid human interactions by traveling at a high rate through residential, manicured open, and commercial habitats, all which had a high incidence of people.
Sump and transition habitats were typically small patches that were free of people at night when kit foxes were active. Kit foxes were observed foraging in and caching food scavenged from construction sites. Furthermore, the remains of several species that live in sumps, including bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), duck (unidentified species), pocket gopher, squirrel, and opossum, were observed on kit fox dens in sumps (personal observation). Use of sump and transition habitats for hunting or scavenging refuse may explain why kit foxes traveled short distances at low speeds in these habitats.
Kit foxes used linear habitats (i.e., the Kern River Parkway, canals, and right-of-ways for highways, railroads, and powerlines) as corridors to move throughout their home range. Because highway, railroad, and powerline right-of-ways were fenced to prohibit public access, kit foxes may not have been compelled to move quickly through this habitat type. Kit foxes moved long 55 distances quickly through manicured open habitats, perhaps because this habitat had a high occurrence of humans and was used mostly as a corridor for traveling, similar to urban red foxes’ use of golf courses in Toronto, Canada (Rosatte et al. 1991).
Kit foxes in urban areas may have shorter nightly movements due to anthropogenic food sources (Zoellick et al. 1987). Consequently, movement distance may be influenced by foraging efficiency. Movement distance was less in commercial habitats (where kit foxes were observed foraging in parking lots and trash dumpsters) and transition habitats, both which tend to have an abundance of discarded food items (personal observation). Conversely, kit foxes moved longer distances in open, grassland habitat. This may have been because small, insectivorous prey of kit foxes and swift foxes tend to be evenly distributed in grassland habitats (Kamler et al. 2004).
Similarly, Koopman (1995) noted that food resources were uniformly distributed in rural kit fox home ranges.
Movements of kit foxes differed with regard to habitat type and time of night. From 1830 – 2230 h, linear habitat was used more than expected for kit fox resting/walking movements. This was probably because 23% of kit fox dens were in linear habitat. From 2230 – 0330 h, kit fox trotting and running movements were higher than expected in open habitat, which was likely used for foraging and traveling. From 2230 – 0330 h, kit fox resting/walking movements were less than expected in residential habitat, in which only one den was located. Kit foxes’ high rate of speed through residential habitat indicates that they used this habitat type as a means to get to a more used habitat. From 2230 – 0730 h, kit fox trotting movements were less than expected in sump habitat, which may be used primarily for denning rather than foraging.
From 0330 – 0730 h, industrial habitat was used less than expected for kit fox running movements. Kit fox speed may have been lower in industrial habitats during these hours due to the absence of humans or the presence of refuse.
56 Urban habitat was of sufficiently high quality to support kit foxes with low mortality and normal weight and offspring production. This was likely due to the widespread availability of natural and human-derived food sources and protected (i.e., fenced) areas with cover. Kit fox core areas contained a disproportionately high amount of sumps, which had food and den sites and restricted public access. The availability of sump and open habitats, which kit foxes selected for denning, may shape the distribution and abundance of the urban population. Portions of the urban landscape without these prime denning habitats may not be able to support kit foxes. 57 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The kit foxes in Bakersfield had low mortality, similar weight and mean litter size, and high reproductive success, compared to that for rural kit foxes. Urban kit foxes appeared to have adapted to urban conditions and resources, and may contribute to the San Joaquin Valley metapopulation.
Urban kit foxes were observed crossing roads (up to four lanes), but also used culverts and a bridge to move under them, which may help explain the relatively low mortality. Vehicular mortality should be monitored around sump and open habitats. If increased mortality is observed, additional culverts may need to be placed and maintained under roads, along with animal-proof fencing to direct kit foxes to the culverts (Ng et al. 2004). Mid-sized mammals’ (i.e., raccoons and skunks) use of culverts is positively correlated to culvert length and negatively correlated to culvert area (Ng et al. 2004). Small diameter culverts (i.e., 0.5 m) may serve a dual purpose by providing a place for urban kit foxes to hide from larger predators and facilitating kit fox movement in a fragmented landscape.
To promote the continued existence of kit foxes in urban settings, such as Bakersfield, habitat will need to be retained and managed to meet their needs. Urban kit foxes denned farther from roads than expected in habitat patches that were larger than expected, and thus, may benefit from the retention of larger open and sump habitat patches for denning. Urban kit foxes had less spatial overlap and smaller home ranges and core areas than their rural counterparts. The greater presence of anthropogenic food sources in cities may enable urban kit foxes to meet their energetic needs in a smaller area than kit foxes in rural, grassland habitats, where food resources may be more dispersed (Kamler et al. 2004). Kit foxes utilized open lots and sumps more than all other urban habitat types.
58 Golightly (1981) concluded that dens were important to kit fox energetics and a consideration in the management of this species. If kit foxes are to be retained in Bakersfield, open lots, to provide foraging and denning habitat, and uniformly-distributed, sumps that are fenced and closed to the public, to provide kit fox denning habitat, will need to be maintained throughout the city. Sump maintenance (e.g., grading or paving) may be a potential hazard to kit foxes (Murphy 1992) and should be avoided. With sensitivity to kit fox presence in the urban environment, much protection can be afforded at a low cost.
The kit fox recovery strategy identified that “connections need to be established, maintained, and promoted between populations to counteract negative consequences of inbreeding, random catastrophic events (e.g., droughts) and demographic factors” (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Urban kit foxes used the Kern River Parkway to move throughout their home range. The Kern River Parkway should be maintained and managed to facilitate kit fox movement. In addition, dog management may be required because dogs may pose a threat to urban kit foxes as they have for rural kit foxes (Ralls and White 1995, Cypher et al. 2000).
Like urban red foxes in Great Britain (Kolb 1984) and Toronto, Canada (Rosatte et al. 1991) that use railroad corridors to move throughout their home range, urban coyotes (Romsos 1998), red foxes (Lewis et al. 1993, Sallee 1998), and kit foxes used canals (including foot bridges over canals) and railroad, highway, and powerline right-of-ways for moving and denning.
The continued existence of these right-of-ways, which are fenced to prohibit public access, will facilitate kit fox movement throughout the city. Kit foxes can persist in urban areas if an adequate mosaic of habitat is conserved and managed appropriately. 59 REFERENCES
Ables, E. D. 1969. Home-range studies of red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Journal of Mammalogy 50:108-119.
Adams, L. W. and L. E. Dove. 1989. Wildlife reserves and corridors in the urban environment: a guide to ecological landscape planning and resource conservation. National Institute for Urban Wildlife. Columbia, Maryland. 91 pp.
Allredge, J. R. and J. T. Ratti. 1986. Comparison of some statistical techniques for analysis of resource selection. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:157-165.
Anderson, D. J. 1982. The home range: a new nonparametric estimation technique. Ecology 63:103-112.
Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, T. A. Kinley, and J. P. Flaa. 2001. Scale-dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:65-77.
Arjo, W. M., T. J. Bennett, and A. J. Kozlowski. 2003. Characteristics of current and historical kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) dens in the Great Basin Desert. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:96-102.
Beedy, E. C., V. K. Getz, and D. A. Airola. 1992. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) in the urban Kern River Parkway, Bakersfield, California. Pages 47-54 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.
Berry, W. H., T. P. O'Farrell, T. T. Kato, and P. M. McCue. 1987. Characteristics of dens used by radiocollared San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. United States Department of Energy, Topical Report, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations Report No. EGG 10282-2177, Santa Barbara, California. 32 pp.
Bjurlin, C. D. and B. L. Cypher. 2003. Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing data. Pages 397-406 in C. L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K. P. McDermott, editors. 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
60 Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24:346-352.
Calhoun, J. B. and J. U. Casby. 1958. Calculation of home range and density of small mammals.
United States Public Health Monograph 55, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Catling, P. C. 1988. Similarities and contrasts in the diet of foxes, Vulpes vulpes, and cats, Felis catus, relative to fluctuating prey populations and drought. Australian Wildlife Research 15:307-317.
Cypher, B. L. and N. Frost. 1999. Condition of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban and exurban habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:930-938.
Cypher, B. L. and G. D. Warrick. 1993. Use of human-derived food items by urban kit foxes.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29:34-37.
Cypher, B. L., G. D. Warrick, M. R. 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.
Doncaster, C. P., C. R. Dickman, and D. W. Macdonald. 1990. Feeding ecology of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the city of Oxford, England. Journal of Mammalogy 71:188-194.
EG&G Energy Measurements. 1993. Effects of supplemental feeding on survivorship, reproduction, and dispersal in San Joaquin kit foxes. United States Department of Energy, Topical Report, EG&G/EM Las Vegas Operations Report No. EGG 111265- 2059, Las Vegas, Nevada. 28 pp.
Egoscue, H. J. 1956. Preliminary studies of the kit fox in Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 37:351- 357.
Egoscue, H. J. 1962. Ecology and life history of the kit fox in Tooele County, Utah. Ecology 43:481-497.
Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc. 1997. Endangered species and cultural resources program, Naval Petroleum Reserves in California, Annual Report FY96. Report 97-1, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., Tupman, California. 56 pp.
Geffen, E. and D. W. Macdonald. 1992. Small size and monogamy: spatial organization of Blanford’s foxes, Vulpes cana. Animal Behaviour 44:1123-1130. 61 Golightly, Jr., R. T. 1981. The comparative energetics of two desert canids: the coyote and the kit fox. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 174 pp.
Golightly, Jr., R. T., Faulhaber, M. R., K. L. Sallee, and J. C. Lewis. 1994. Food habits and management of introduced red fox in southern California. Pages 15-20 in W. S.
Halverson and A. C. Crabb, editors. Proceedings of the 16th Vertebrate Pest Conference.
University of California, Davis, California.
Golightly, Jr., R. T. and R. D. Ohmart. 1983. Metabolism and body temperature of two desert canids: coyote and kit foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 64:624-635.
Golightly, Jr., R. T. and R. D. Ohmart. 1984. Water economy of two desert canids: coyote and kit fox. Journal of Mammalogy 65:51-58.
Grinder, M. I. and P. R. Krausman. 2001. Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:887-898.
Grinnell, J., J. Dixon, and J. Linsdale. 1937. Kit foxes. Pages 399-420 in J. Grinnell, J. Dixon, and J. Linsdale, editors. Fur bearing animals of California. Vol. 2. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Hardenbrook, D. B. 1987. Habitat usage and den sites of kit foxes in west-central Nevada.
Master’s Thesis. Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 83 pp.
Harris, S. 1977. Distribution, habitat utilization and age structure of a suburban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population. Mammal Review 7:25-39.
Harris, S. 1978. Age determination in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) – an evaluation of technique efficiency as applied to a sample of suburban foxes. Journal of Zoology 184:91-117.
Harris, S., W. J. Cresswell, P. G. Forde, W. J. Trewhella, T. Woollard, and S. Wray. 1990. Homerange analysis using radio-tracking data - a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mammal Review 20:97-123.
Harris, S. and J. M. V. Rayner. 1986. Urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population estimates and habitat requirements in several British cities. Journal of Animal Ecology 55:575-591.
Harrison, R. L. 1997. A comparison of gray fox ecology between residential and undeveloped rural landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:112-121.
Heisey, D. M. and T. K. Fuller. 1985. Evaluation of survival and cause-specific mortality rates using telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:668-674. 62 Hintze, J. L. 1999. User's guide - NCSS statistical system for windows. Number Cruncher Statistical Systems, Kaysville, Utah. 777 pp.
Hooge, P. N. and B. Eichenlaub. 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView. Version 2.0.
Alaska Biological Science Center, United States Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska.
Hooge, P. N., B. Eichenlaub, and E. K. Solomon. 1999. Using GIS to analyze movements in the marine environment. United States Geological Survey and National Park Service, Gustavus, Alaska. 20 pp.
Jenness, J. 2003. Longest straight line extension for ArcView 3.x. Version 1.3. Jenness Enterprises, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Jenness, J. 2004a. Nearest features extension for ArcView 3.x. Version 3.8a. Jenness Enterprises, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Jenness, J. 2004b. Alternate animal movement routes extension for ArcView 3.x. Version 2.
Jenness Enterprises, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Jennrich, R. I. and F. B. Turner. 1969. Measurement of non-circular home range. Journal of Theoretical Biology 22:227-237.
Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61: 65-71.
Kamler, J. F. and W. B. Ballard. 2002. A review of native and nonnative red foxes in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:370-379.
Kamler, J. F., W. B. Ballard, E. B. Fish, P. R. Lemons, K. Mote, and C. Perchellet. 2003. Habitat use, home ranges, and survival of swift foxes in a fragmented landscape: conservation implications. Journal of Mammalogy 84:989-995.
Kamler, J. F., W. B. Ballard, E. M. Gese, R. L. Harrison, S. Karki, and K. Mote. 2004. Adult male emigration and a female-based social organization in swift foxes, Vulpes velox.
Animal Behaviour 67: 699-702.
Kilgore, Jr., D. L. 1969. An ecological study of the swift fox (Vulpes velox) in the Oklahoma panhandle. American Midland Naturalist 81:512-534.
Kitchen, A. M., E. M. Gese, and E. R. Schauster. 1999. Resource partitioning between coyotes and swift foxes: space, time, and diet. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1645-1656. 63 Kitchen, A. M., E. M. Gese, S. M. Karki, and E. R. Schauster. 2005. Spatial ecology of swift fox social groups: from group formation to mate loss. Journal of Mammalogy 86:547-554.
Kleiman, D. G. and C. A. Brady. 1978. Coyote behavior in the context of recent canid research:
problems and perspectives. Pages 163-188 in M. Bekoff, editor. Coyotes: Biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Knapp, D. K. 1978. Effects of agricultural development in Kern County, California, on the San Joaquin kit fox in 1977. Final Report, Project E-1-1, Job V-1.21, Non-game Wildlife Investigations. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 48 pp.
Kolb, H. H. 1984. Factors affecting the movements of dog foxes in Edinburgh. Journal of Applied Ecology 21:161-173.
Kolb, H. H. 1986. Some observations on the home ranges of vixens (Vulpes vulpes) in the suburbs of Edinburgh. Journal of Zoology 53:636-639.
Koopman, M. E. 1995. Food habits, space use, and movements of the San Joaquin kit fox on the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. Master’s Thesis. Department of Forestry and Resource Management, University of California, Berkeley, California. 41 pp.
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.
Laundré, J. W. and B. L. Keller. 1981. Home-range use by coyotes in Idaho. Animal Behaviour 29: 449-461.
Lewis, J. C., K. L. Sallee, and R. T. Golightly. 1993. Introduced red fox in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report 93-10, Sacramento, California. 70 pp.
Litvaitis, J. A., K. Titus, and E. M. Anderson. 1996. Measuring vertebrate use of terrestrial habitats and foods in Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.
Pages 254-274 in H. S. Mosby, R. H. Giles, Jr., S. D. Schemnitz, and T. A. Bookhout, editors. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lucherini, M., S. Lovari, and G. Crema. 1995. Habitat use and ranging behaviour of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in a Mediterranean rural area: is shelter availability a key factor? Journal of Zoology 237:577-591.
Macdonald, D. W. 1983. The ecology of carnivore social behavior. Nature 301:379-384. 64 Matlack, R. S., P. S. Gipson, and D. W. Kaufman. 2000. The swift fox in rangeland and cropland in western Kansas: relative abundance, mortality, and body size. Southwestern Naturalist 45:221-225.
McGrew, J. C. 1979. Vulpes macrotis. Pages 1-6 in Virginia Hayssen, editor. Mammalian species. American Society of Mammalogists, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Mohr, C. O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. American Midland Naturalist 37:233-249.
Morrell, S. 1971. The life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. Master’s Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. 67 pp.
Morrell, S. 1972. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 58:162-174.
Morrell, S. 1975. San Joaquin kit fox distribution and abundance in 1975. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch Administration Report Number 75-3. 27 pp.
Murphy, T. D. 1992. Kit fox distribution and activity in Bakersfield, California. Page 380 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. (abstract only).
Ng, S. J., J. W. Dole, R. M. Sauvajot, S. P. D. Riley, and T. J. Valone. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conservation 115:499-507.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / National Weather Service. 1997. Local climatological data - Meadows Field Weather Station. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / National Weather Service. 1998. Local climatological data - Meadows Field Weather Station. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. Species and habitats. Pages 1-18 in R. F.
Noss, M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy, editors. The science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, D. C.
Odum, E. P. and E. J. Kuenzler. 1955. Measurement of territory and home range size in birds.
Auk 72:128-137.
65 Olson, T. L. and F. G. Lindzey. 2002. Swift fox survival and production in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Mammalogy 83:199-206.
O’Neal, G. T., J. T. Flinders, and W. P. Clary. 1987. Behavioral ecology of the Nevada kit fox (Vulpes macrotis nevadensis) on a managed desert rangeland. Pages 443-481 in H. H.
Genoways, editor. Current mammalogy. Volume 1. Plenum Press, New York, New York.
Orians, G. H. and J. F. Wittenberger. 1991. Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection.
American Naturalist 137:S29-S49.
Ozoga, J. J. and E. M. Harger. 1966. Winter activities and feeding habits of northern Michigan coyotes. Journal of Wildlife Management 30:809-818.
Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661.
Quinn, T. 1995. Using public sighting information to investigate coyote use of urban habitat.
Journal of Wildlife Management 59:238-245.
Ralls, K. and P. J. White. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. Journal of Mammalogy 76:723-729.
Read, J. and Z. Bowen. 2001. Population dynamics, diet and aspects of the biology of feral cats and foxes in arid South Australia. Wildlife Research 28:195-203.
Reese, E. A., W. G. Standley, and W. H. Berry. 1992. Habitat, soils, and den use by San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes velox macrotis) at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Training Site, California. United States Department of Energy, Topical Report, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations Report No. EGG 10617-2156, Santa Barbara, California. 36 pp.
Romsos, J. S. 1998. Home range, habitat use, and movements of coyotes in a southern California urban environment. Master’s Thesis. Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 60 pp.
Rosatte, R. C., M. J. Power, and C. D. MacInnes. 1991. Ecology of urban skunks, raccoons, and foxes in metropolitan Toronto. Pages 31-38 in L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy, editors.
Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments. National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Symposium Series 2, Columbia, Maryland.
Sallee, K. L. 1998. Spatial land use of urban red fox. Master’s Thesis. Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 70 pp.
Salvatori, V., G. Vaglio-Laurin, P. L. Meserve, L. Boitani, and A. Campanella. 1999. Spatial organization, activity, and social interactions of culpeo foxes (Pseudalopex culpaeus) in north-central Chile. Journal of Mammalogy 80:980-985.
66 Samuel, M. D., D. J. Pierce, and E. O. Garton. 1985. Identifying areas of concentrated use within the home range. Journal of Animal Ecology 54:711-719.
Samuel, M. D. and K. P. Kenow. 1992. Evaluating habitat selection with radio-telemetry triangulation error. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:725-734.
San Joaquin Valley Biological Technical Committee. 1993. A biological framework for natural lands and endangered species in the southern San Joaquin Valley. San Joaquin Valley Biological Technical Committee, Turlock, California. 26 pp.
Seaman, D. E. and R. A. Powell. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075-2085.
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.
Spiegel, L. K. 1996. Studies of San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas: an overview. Pages 1-14 in L. K. Spiegel, editor. Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. California Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Office, Sacramento, California.
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 Wildlife Society 28:83-92.
Spiegel, L. K., T. C. Dao, and M. Tom. 1996. Characteristics of San Joaquin kit fox dens at oildeveloped and undeveloped sites in southwestern Kern County, California. Pages 15-38 in L. K. Spiegel, editor. Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oildeveloped areas, California Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Office, Sacramento, California.
Spiegel, L. K. and M. Disney. 1996. Mortality sources and survival rates of San Joaquin kit fox in oil-developed and undeveloped lands of southwestern Kern County, California. Pages 71- 91 in L. K. Spiegel, editor. Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oildeveloped areas, California Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Office, Sacramento, California.
Spiegel, L. K. and J. Tom. 1996. Reproduction of San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oildeveloped habitats of Kern County, California. Pages 53-69 in L. K. Spiegel, editor.
Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas, California Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Office, Sacramento, California.
Springer, J. T. 1979. Some sources of bias and sampling error in radio triangulation. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:926-935.
67 Stafford, R. W. and T. D. Murphy. 1992. Use of water sumps as denning sites for San Joaquin kit fox. Page 383 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. (abstract only).
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. United States Department of Energy, Topical Report, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations Report No. EGG 10617-2157, Santa Barbara, California. 19 pp.
State of California, Department of Finance. 2002. Revised Historical City, County, and State Population Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. State of California, Department of Finance, Sacramento, California.
Storlie, J. T. 1998. Sources of mortality, survivorship, and dispersal of juvenile San Joaquin kit foxes in an urban environment. Senior Thesis. Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 21 pp.
United States Department of the Interior. 1967. Federal Register 32, 4001.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. San Joaquin kit fox recovery plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California/Nevada Operations Office, Portland, Oregon. 84 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California/Nevada Operations Office, Portland, Oregon. 319 pp.
United States Geological Survey. 1981. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:893-901.
Voight, D. R. and D. W. Macdonald. 1984. Variation in the spatial and social behaviour of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Acta Zoologica Fennica 171:261-265.
Wandeler, P., S. M. Funk, C. R. Largiade’r, S. Gloor, and U. Breitenmoser. 2003. The city-fox phenomenon: genetic consequences of a recent colonization of urban habitat. Molecular Ecology 12: 647-656.
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. 68 Whitaker, Jr., J. O. 1998. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. 2nd edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, New York.
White, G. C. and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
White, G. C. and R. A. Garrott. 1997. Factors regulating kit fox populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:1982-1988.
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 D. B. Siniff. 2000. Nocturnal encounters between kit foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 81:456-461.
Wiens, J. A. 1973. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological Monographs 43:237-270.
Winer, B. J., D. R. Brown, and K. M. Michels. 1991. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, New York.
Woodruff, R. A. and B. L. Keller. 1982. Dispersal, daily activity, and home range of coyotes in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science 56:199-207.
Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164-168.
Zoellick, B. W., C. E. Harris, B. T. Kelly, T. P. O'Farrell, T. T. Kato, and M. E. Koopman. 2002.
Movements and home range of San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) relative to oil-field development. Western North American Naturalist 62:151-159.
Zoellick, B. W., T. P. O'Farrell, and T. T. Kato. 1987. Movements and home range of San Joaquin kit foxes on the Naval Petroleum Reserves, Kern County, California. United States Department of Energy, Topical Report, EG&G/EM Santa Barbara Operations Report No. EGG 10282-2184, Santa Barbara, California. 38 pp.
Zoellick, B. W., N. S. Smith, and R. S. Henry. 1989. Habitat use and movements of desert kit foxes in western Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:955-961. 69 Appendix A. Sites of live-captured kit foxes, domestic cats, and opossums between May 1997 and January 1998 in Bakersfield, California.
Species captured
Habitat type Trap-nights Kit foxes Domestic cats Opossums Residential 5 1 0 0
Commercial 11 6 2 0
Industrial 41 13 5 0
Linear 84 19 3 1
Manicured open 53 21 0 0
Open 54 23 3 0
Sump 327 128 33 2
Total 575 211a 46 3
a Includes recaptures but excludes 32 captures which occurred when the number of traps in use was not recorded.
Appendix B. Kit fox location data and estimates for home range size, core area size, and time to independence for 28 radiocollared kit foxes that were monitored between May 1997 and January 1998 in Bakersfield, California.
Kit Fox Locations Home Range (km2)
Eartag Sex Sequential Daily Independent 100% MCP a 95% Fixed Kernel 50% Fixed Kernel
Core Area (km2) Time to Independence (h)
3468 F - 166 149 1.17 0.41 0.05 -
5468 F 190 193 166 1.36 0.94 0.08 1.69
5702 F 190 196 184 0.72 0.40 0.06 2.29
5703b F - 8 7 - - - -
5705 F - 183 163 2.71 2.70 0.20 -
5708 F 133 164 151 1.89 1.67 0.32 1.70
5713 F - 162 131 2.19 1.59 0.28 -
5723 F - 190 161 0.93 0.41 0.02 -
5741 F 166 181 174 1.32 0.66 0.08 3.89
5742 F - 213 177 2.69 2.78 0.43 -
5747 F 165 187 173 0.38 0.28 0.04 1.23
5752 F - 182 155 0.59 0.52 0.03 -
70 Appendix B. Kit fox location data and estimates for home range size, core area size, and time to independence for 28 radiocollared kit foxes that were monitored between May 1997 and January 1998 in Bakersfield, California (continued).
Kit Fox Locations Home Range (km2)
Eartag Sex Sequential Daily Independent 100% MCP a 95% Fixed Kernel 50% Fixed Kernel
Core Area (km2) Time to Independence (h)
5753 F - 198 162 1.07 0.67 0.06 -
5754 F - 79 64 1.63 2.75 0.32 -
5756 F - 189 164 0.36 0.35 0.07 -
5674 M 167 181 168 3.33 2.69 0.46 2.61
5701 M - 206 178 0.86 0.22 0.02 -
5704 M 230 203 193 2.16 2.40 0.39 1.80
5707 M - 179 160 2.70 2.50 0.50 -
5710 M 187 153 145 1.21 0.37 0.05 2.67
5711 M - 180 164 2.60 0.15 0.05 -
5712 M - 167 137 1.90 1.30 0.11 -
5721 M - 185 158 2.02 1.70 0.27 -
71 Appendix B. Kit fox location data and estimates for home range size, core area size, and time to independence for 28 radiocollared kit foxes that were monitored between May 1997 and January 1998 in Bakersfield, California (continued).
Kit Fox Locations Home Range (km2)
Eartag Sex Sequential Daily Independent 100% MCP a 95% Fixed Kernel 50% Fixed Kernel
Core Area (km2) Time to Independence (h)
5743 M 219 186 165 2.13 1.14 0.09 1.90
5744 M - 190 156 2.72 2.27 0.22 -
5746 M - 176 147 0.31 0.04 0.01 -
5755 M 163 168 154 1.11 0.30 0.03 1.74
5757 M - 159 143 4.49c 15.58d 4.00d-
Total 1810 4824 4249 - - - -
Mean 181 172.3 151.75 1.72 1.2 0.16 2.15
SE 9.04 7.62 6.89 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.24
a Minimum convex polygon.
b
Located too few times to be included in the home range and habitat use analyses. c Sum of two distinct home ranges in the southeastern (3.19 km2 ) and northwestern (1.31 km2) parts of the study area, approximately 3.1 km apart.
d Outlier that was excluded from calculation of x¯ + 1 SE. 72 Appendix C. Weight, hind foot, and ear measurements for captured adult, subadult, and pup kit foxes in Bakersfield, California between May 1997 and January 1998.
Male Female
Body Measurement Age n x¯ SE n x¯ SE Statistica p
Weight (kg) Adult 29 2.47 0.05 32 2.16 0.03 t = -5.53 <0.001 Subadult 7 2.09 0.11 6 1.87 0.14 t = -1.29 0.22
Pup 20 1.73 0.04 13 1.44 0.05 t = -4.25 <0.001
Hind foot (mm) Adult 27 125.5 1.0 31 119.8 0.8 t = -4.4 <0.001 Subadult 6 121 1.2 5 118.4 0.9 t = -1.67 0.13
Pup 18 121 1.2 9 112.2 1.4 t = -4.36 <0.001
Ear from notchb (mm) Adult 28 81.4 0.6 31 78.6 0.7 z = 3.28 <0.001 Subadult 6 82.5 0.6 5 78.4 1.3 t = -3.04 0.007
Pup 19 80.1 0.8 10 75.3 1.1 t = -3.65 <0.001
Ear from rearc (mm) Adult 28 84.4 0.7 31 81.5 0.7 t = -2.81 0.002 Subadult 6 84.8 1.1 5 81.2 2.2 t = -1.56 0.15
Pup 19 80.8 0.8 10 77.1 1.1 t = -2.6 0.007
a
I used a 2-sample t-test to determine if means differed between the sexes. For data that was not normally distributed, I used a Mann-Whitney U-test to determine if medians differed between the sexes. b Tip of ear to notch at anterior base.
c Tip of ear to posterior base.
73 74
Appendix D. Area-observation curves using the 100% minimum convex polygon home range for 27 kit foxes in Bakersfield, California from May 1997 to January 1998.
Females
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Home Range Area (km
2)
3468 5468 5702 5705
5708 5713 5723 5741
5742 5747 5752 5753
5754 5756
Males
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Number of Locations
Home Range Area (km
2)
5674 5701 5704
5707 5710 5711
5712 5721 5743
5744 5746 5755
5757
Appendix E. The percentage of all radiocollared kit fox daily locations (n = 4,824) and passing vehicles documented in linear habitats during each hour in Bakersfield, California from September 1997 to January 1998. 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 1500-1559 1600-1659 1700-1759 1800-1859 1900-1959 2000-2059 2100-2159 2200-2259 2300-2359 0000-0059 0100-0159 0200-0259 0300-0359 0400-0459 0500-0559 0600-0659 0700-0759 0800-0859 0900-0959 Time Percent
Kit Fox Locations in Linear Habitat
Vehicles Passing on Nearest Road
75 EXHIBIT E
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 7500 (Phased)
A u g u s t 5 , 2 0 2 6
NE corner Old River Rd and
Mc Cutchen Rd
Location
VTTM 7500
R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling)
Zone Classification
VTTM 7500
LR (Low-Density
Residential)
Land Use Designation
VTTM 7500
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 7500
Site Plan
VTTM 7500
END
A u g u s t 5 , 2 0 2 6
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Reports
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jaritza Nunez, Management Assistant
DATE: July 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Bakerfield Youth Commission Annual Project
[Document Description]
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the presentation.
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the Bakersfield Youth Commission (Commission) is responsible for developing and implementing an Annual Project that addresses an issue affecting local youth. In previous years, the Commission has partnered with community organizations to support initiatives such as informational booths, food drives, and school supply drives at local events.
At the January 26, 2026, regular meeting, the Commission approved the creation of "Little Libraries" as their Annual Project. The project was selected to promote youth literacy, improve access to free books, and encourage a lifelong love of reading among children and families throughout the community.
Throughout the year, commissioners worked collaboratively to complete the project by assembling and decorating the Little Libraries. Commissioners partnered with local schools, nonprofit organizations, private businesses, and local artists to assist with library placement and decoration. Commissioners also collected books to fill their libraries through donations and community book drives. The Commission completed the project within its allocated budget.
Each Little Library was installed within the respective ward of the commissioner responsible for the project, except for the mayor appointee's library, which was placed just outside the city limits in a highly populated area to maximize community access.
The Youth Commission will present the completed Annual Project and provide an overview of the project, including the locations of the Little Libraries.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All materials for the completion of the Youth Commission’s Annual Project were covered by the Bakersfield Youth Commission’s FY 2025 - 2026 budget. There are no further impacts to the budget.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Mayoral Appointees Little
Library
10500 Alfred Harrell Hwy, Bakersfield, CA 93306
Located at CALM
Decorated in collaboration with Alex
Gallardo and The Arts Council of Kern
Mayoral Appointees
Little Library
Ward 1
Tanvi Thallapalle
Commissioner
Imandeep Matharu
Alternate
Commissioner
Painting Place Art
Ward 3
Sravya Pudipeddi
Commissioner
Catelynn Hentges
Alternate
Commissioner
Jasmine Bajwa
and
Ella Pepper
Ward 6
Nathaniel Catalan
Commissioner
Samuel Chambless
Alternate
Commissioner
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Deferred Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: July 28, 2026
SUBJECT: Consider Appeal and Planning Commission’s Approval of Director Review No. 25-0002 and Modification No. 25-0007
and its Notice of Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act. Scout Services requested a Director’s Review and Approval No. 25-0002 to installation of a lattice tower to accommodate the City’s public safety radio system and related installation of new equipment shelter and generator equipment, and Zone Modification No. 25-0007 to permit a tower height of 150-feet and located within 300-feet of residentially zoned property located at 1000 Buena Vista Road. Bo Koenig submitted an appeal to Planning Commission’s approval. The Public Appeal Hearing was heard by City Council on June 24, 2026. City Council to act today. (Ward 5)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Director’s Review and Approval No. 25-0002 and Zone Modification No. 25-0007, and adopt the Notice of Exemption.
BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Director Review No. 25-0002 and Modification No. 25-0007 to allow a 150-foot radio communications tower located at 1000 Buena Vista Road. The appeal was submitted by Bo Koenig. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council directed staff to provide additional information and return this item to the Council on the August 5, 2026 agenda. City staff will provide comments to the requested information at the meeting.
Responses to Comments Submitted by Appellant at the June 24, 2026 Public Appeal Hearing.
On June 24, 2026, the City Council reviewed the appeal hearing that was filed by Bo Koenig, pertaining to the Planning Commission’s approval. Mr. Koenig’s objections to the installation of the tower are summarized follows:
1. CEQA Section 15300.2 (c) Exception forecloses the Class 2 , Section 15302 Exemption. That the unusual circumstances exception in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (c) forecloses using Class 2 exemption, Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Appellant argues a 150 foot tower 130 feet away from residentially zoned property and immediately adjacent to Ronald Reagan Elementary School is an unusual circumstance that forecloses the CEQA, Section 15302 exemption.
o Response: It is a known fact that there has been an elementary school and a residential neighborhood from the inception of the radio tower project. In fact, the existing tower has been at the Water Department location since at least 2003. While the City does not believe that unusual circumstances arise from the location of the proposed radio tower, the City’s Consultant hired an independent third party to conduct Electromagnetic Emissions testing which concluded that the maximum ground level exposure is within federal guidelines.
Therefore, CEQA exemption, Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) applies to the proposed radio tower and no CEQA exception forecloses said conclusion.
2. Staff cited the wrong noticing subsection in the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC). That City is incorrect in relying on BMC Section 17.64.050 (a) for purposes of noticing the radio tower and should have instead relied on BMC Section 17.64.050 (b). o Response: Appellant’s reliance on BMC Section 17.64.050(b) is incorrect since that noticing requirement section is specifically for conditional use permits and zone changes. City followed public noticing requirements as it pertains to a zone modification, pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 (a) which requires a 10 day notice to owners and/or occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the radio tower project. While not required, City also published the notice in the Bakersfield Californian for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. As such, City met all noticing requirements and went above and beyond what the BMC requires.
3. Findings are conclusory and will not survive Writ Review. That the findings of approval under BMC Section 17.64.060(B) are conclusory and will not survive writ review. o Response: Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64.060 (B). requires the following findings to be made for approval of a project based on the whole of the record which could include the applicant’s plans, statement of operation, justification, staff’s analysis, testimony and correspondence.
1. The granting of such director review and approval permit would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located; and
2. The granting of the director review and approval permit is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement or improvements on a lot or lots, including, but not limited to, modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero-lot -line or other atypical subdivision development; and
3. The granting of the director review and approval permit would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of Title 17 of this code.
4. Staff briefed the wrong legal standard on Property-Value Impact. Staff analyzed inverse condemnation however it is the wrong legal framework for the findings on the radio tower project since the focus should be on whether “granting the [zone] modification would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity.” (BMC Section 17.64.060 (B)(1).
o Response: The only reason staff analyzed inverse condemnation is because Appellant made such argument in its appeal letter. In terms of the framework for materially detrimental (BMC Section 17.64.060(B)(1), see response to #3 above. As stated in #2 above, City met all noticing requirements.
5. The Alternative Sites Analysis was Post-Hoc. Staff reviewed the alternative site of the Park at Riverwalk after the appeal was filed and had no alternative analysis. o Response: After the appeal was filed, the City reviewed alternative locations as requested.
The Park at River Walk appeared as a potential alternative, although the exact location is still unknown since fully evaluating the site would require an additional taxpayer cost of between $500,000-1.5 million for purposes of designating a location, additional design, construction, consulting costs, and environmental review, none of which has been budgeted. Construction costs would also be higher because the City entered into its current agreement with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the proposed site more than a year ago, and construction and material costs have increased since that time. Relocating the facility would also significantly affect the radio tower project schedule and have a direct effect on updating critical infrastructure that is relied upon every single day. The proposed site has taken nearly three years to reach its current stage, and bringing an alternative location to the same point is expected to take approximately 1-2 years. For these reasons, moving the radio tower project to an alternative site is not a practical or fiscally responsible approach. o From an engineering and operational standpoint, the existing location remains the most suitable site for the proposed public safety communications facility. It provides the required coverage and connectivity, avoids the need to develop a new wireless communications facility at another location, and is the most cost-effective option for the City. Planning practices generally favor continued use of existing communications sites when they can meet radio tower project requirements, rather than shifting to new locations that would increase cost, delay, and uncertainty.
o New environmental analysis, including an initial study will be required on an alternative site since the current proposed site relied on a CEQA exemption.
6. The EME Study does not answer the Public Health Question. That the radio tower’s emissions of being less than 1% of the FCC permitted level is not the entire inquiry since City Council has the authority to deny or relocate the radio tower on independent zoning grounds. o Response: Based on the independent Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Emissions study (attached), the site below the General Population Maximum Radio Exposure (MPE) limits are following FCC regulations. Therefore, there is no public health issue related to the tower’s electromagnetic emissions.
City’s Need for Updating Critical Infrastructure.
Bakersfield Fire Department Statement: Reliable communication is one of the most critical components of firefighter and public safety operations. Firefighters routinely operate in hazardous and rapidly changing environments where the ability to communicate with one another, incident commanders, dispatchers, and other responding agencies can mean the difference between a successful outcome and a tragedy.
When firefighters enter a burning structure, respond to a rescue, or operate at a large-scale emergency, they rely on their radios to report changing conditions, request resources, call for assistance, and communicate emergency situations. If communications are unreliable or unavailable, firefighters may be unable to receive critical information or alert others to imminent dangers. This creates a significant safety risk for both emergency responders and the public they serve.
The Bakersfield Fire Department has experienced radio communication challenges in portions of southwest Bakersfield, particularly when firefighters are operating inside large commercial buildings. In these situations, building construction, distance from radio infrastructure, and other factors can interfere with radio transmissions, making it more difficult for firefighters to communicate with one another and with incident command. These communication gaps create operational challenges and can impact firefighter safety during critical incidents.
The proposed radio system upgrades, including the placement of additional radio infrastructure, are intended to address these known coverage issues and improve the overall reliability of the system. The goal is to ensure that first responders can communicate effectively regardless of their location. Additionally, reliable communication enhances operational effectiveness. Clear and dependable radio communications allow emergency resources to be deployed more efficiently, improve coordination among responding agencies, reduce delays in decision-making, and support a faster and more effective emergency response.
As our community continues to grow and technology evolves, maintaining a modern and reliable radio system is essential to ensuring that first responders have the tools they need to protect lives, property, and the overall safety of our residents. When a firefighter calls for help, we must be confident that the call will be heard.
Bakersfield Police Department Statement: The City of Bakersfield, in conjunction with the County of Kern, has continued to make progress toward the overhaul of our aging public safety radio system. This project involves the complete replacement and modernization of our radio system to ensure first responders can effectively communicate during emergency and non-emergency needs. Radio communication is the foundation for our personnel to communicate with one another as well as receive transmissions from dispatchers.
Bakersfield Police Department’s frontline sworn and civilian personnel rely on radio communications as a lifeline to perform their duties and serve our community. Last year alone, the Bakersfield Police Department dispatched approximately 280,000 calls for service in which our radio system served as the means to relay vital information to and from the Communications Center. These personnel depend on their radios to safely complete their assignments and provide efficient service to victims, witnesses, and others in need of law enforcement services.
The necessity and urgency of this project cannot be understated. Our department has had numerous “close calls” with our current radio system due to inadequate reception and connectivity issues across our city. One such incident occurred in 2023 during an officer-involved shooting in a northwest Bakersfield neighborhood where one of our officers was grazed by gunfire from the suspect, yet the radio transmissions of critical details could not be relayed to our Communications Center or fellow officers near the scene.
The City of Bakersfield has made efforts to alleviate some of the radio system issues through temporary solutions while the full overhaul is still underway. This has included the purchase and installation of a portable radio repeater to improve connectivity issues in west Bakersfield. However, the Bakersfield Police Department respectfully urges city leadership to expedite the long-term project to ensure we do not jeopardize the safety of our personnel or community members. Reliable radio communications are a necessity within our profession and how we deliver effective public safety services to our community.
The radio system remains a vital foundational communication element of effective police response, particularly in high-priority and life-threatening situations. The existing public safety radio system no longer meets the operational demands of modern emergency response. The proposed upgrade to the City’s radio communication is needed for public safety and emergency response. The location of the tower at the Water Resources campus provides critical link within the overall system by servicing the growing southwest area of Bakersfield.
Summary of the Administrative Report from June 24, 2026 Appeal Hearing.
The attached Administrative Report (Report) prepared for the June 24, 2026 appeal hearing includes details related to the recommendations from the Planning Director and Planning Commission to approve the project. The Report provided discussion that the Project is consistent with General Plan policies. This project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures in accordance with Section 15302 (Class 02: Replacement or Reconstruction). All required public notices for each public hearing have been given in accordance with Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Findings. BMC Section 17.64.060. B and D contains specific findings that must be made to approve the requested Director Review and Approval Permit and Zone Modification. Specifically, the section states that a Director Review and Approval Permit and Zone Modification shall be granted only when it is found that:
1. The granting of the modification will not be materially detrimental to the public’s health and safety, or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone of vicinity in which the subject property is located.
2. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement on the subject property.
3. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
In addition, the Bakersfield Municipal Code also states that a zone modification may be subject to such conditions as deemed appropriate or necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and the various elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans and policies of the city or to protect the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the necessary findings. The proposal involves upgrading the City’s existing public safety radio communication system, which no longer meets the operational demands of modern emergency response. The installation of a 150-foot lattice wireless communication tower and accessary structures at an existing 5.26-acre City Water Resources facility provides a secure and optimal geographic location to serve the expanding urban growth of southwest Bakersfield. The modification requests to allow the tower to exceed the 65-foot height limit and be located 130 feet from residentially zoned property are mitigated by landscape screening, and public safety needs.
Therefore, staff recommends to deny the appeal and uphold the Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Director Review and Approval No. PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zoning Modification No. PP-ZM-25- 0007.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The site remediation (tower build) at this location at the Water Resources Department is $1.3M. This is one of six tower sites that, when completed, will comprise the Bakersfield Metro cell ($29M) within the larger Regional Public Safety Communications Network, which will span county-wide. This tower and associated shelter and equipment is included as part of Agreement No. 2023-137 with Motorola Solutions Inc. approved in June 2023, as amended in July 2025. In addition, this project is included in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for $730,000.
Locating the tower at Riverwalk Park incurs substantial additional costs and project delays that are not currently funded or under contract. Estimated additional costs for location, design, engineering, construction and environmental review depend on identifying a specific location within the Park, are estimated to be $500,000 -$1.5 million additional or a new total cost $1.23 million to $2.23 million. None of the potential additional costs are budgeted.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Safety and Resilience
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Administrative Report from June 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
3. Appeal Letter from Bo Koenig
4. Applicant Justification letter
5. Map Set
6. Site Plan and Drawings
7. Radio EME Compliance Assessment
8. Planning Commission Staff Report
9. Planning Commission Res. No. 12-26
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING DIRECTOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PERMIT AND ZONE
MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 150-FOOT TALL WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION TOWER FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY
RADIO SYSTEM IN A R-3 (MULTI-UNIT DWELLING) ZONE
DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD (DRA
25-0002 AND ZM 25-0007)
WHEREAS, Scout Services, representing the City of Bakersfield, is requesting the installation of a lattice tower to accommodate the City’s public safety radio system(BMC 17.59.020 C.). The requested zone modification would allow the proposed tower to be located within three hundred feet of a residentially zoned property (BMC 17.59.030.A.2) and permit a tower height of 150 feet, where the maximum allowable height is 65 feet or 20 percent above adjacent natural objects, whichever is less (BMC 17.59.030.B.2). The project also includes the installation of a new equipment shelter and generator on a 5.26-acre parcel zoned R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit Dwelling), at 1000 Buena Vista Road (City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department)(the “Project”); and WHEREAS, a Secretary of the Development Services Department set Thursday, November 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in the Development Services Department Conference Room 2 Large, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield California, as a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Division hearing officer to hear comments before considering the proposed zoning modification; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, testimony was received in opposition of the Project, requiring the Project to be referred to the Planning Commission or denied, BMC 17.64.060 A.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director rendered a decision on the application for a referral to Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Director Review and Approval Permit, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the above-described project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA in accordance with Section 15302; and
WHEREAS,the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, after the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 12-26 approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, Bo Koenig, filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s action; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, did set Wednesday, June 24, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public appeal hearing before the City Council to consider the appeal and the Project and of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, after the conclusion of the June 24, 2026, appeal hearing, the Council moved to place consideration of the Project on the August 5, 2026 agenda to allow time to provide additional information; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above-referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1. Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield City Hall North Building, 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law.
2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15302 because the project does not have the potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The granting of the modification will not be materially detrimental to the public’s health and safety, or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone of vicinity in which the subject property is located.
4. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement on the subject property.
5. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. This project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
3. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No.12-26 are hereby adopted.
4. Director Review and Approval Permit 25-0002 and Zone Modification 25-0007, as described in this resolution, is hereby approved subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and as shown in Exhibits B and C. o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on ____________________, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By
KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval
B. Location Map
C. Site Plan
ADR-25-0004 and ZM-25-0004 1 of 3 Pages
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Director Review and Approval PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zone Modification PP-ZM-25-0007 I. The applicant's rights granted by this approval are subject to the following provisions:
• The project shall be in accordance with all approved plans, conditions of approval, and other required permits and approvals. All construction shall comply with applicable building codes. • All conditions imposed shall be diligently complied with at all times and all construction authorized or required shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the premises shall be used for the purposes applied for under this approval.
• This approval will not be effective until ten (10) days after the date upon which it is granted by the Planning Commission to allow for appeal to the City Council. Any permit or license for any approval granted shall not be issued until that effective date.
• This approval shall automatically be null and void two (2) years after the effective date unless the applicant or successor has actually commenced the rights granted, or if the rights granted are discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more. This time can be extended for up to one (1) additional year by the approving body.
• The Planning Commission may initiate revocation of the rights granted if there is good cause, including but not limited to, failure to comply with conditions of approval, complete construction or exercise the rights granted, or violation by the owner or tenant of any provision of the Bakersfield Municipal Code pertaining to the premises for which the approval was granted. The Planning Commission may also consider adding or modifying conditions to ensure the use complies with the intent of City ordinances. • Unless otherwise conditioned, this approval runs with the land and may continue under successive owners provided all the above-mentioned provisions are satisfied.
II. The following conditions shall be satisfied as part of the approval of this project:
1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.
ADR-25-0002 and ZM-25-0007 3 of 3 Pages
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.
2. This Director Review and Approval permit and Zone Modification allows the installation and operation of one hundred and fifty (150) foot wireless communications tower at 1000 Buena Vista Road.
III. The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City’s development standards.
The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a building permit is issued.
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue) (661-326-3607 or [email protected])
1. Impact fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
2. Building permits are required for all construction on site. Submit plans for review and approval prior to obtaining all required permits for construction of the project.
3. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Prior to issuing a building permit, the Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fees.
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Michael Bell; 661-326-3431 or [email protected])
1. No noted conditions at this time.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff contact – Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or [email protected])
1. Prior to issuing building permit - All projects must comply with the current California Fire Codes and current City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and noted on the plan.
2. Prior to issuing building permit - must show the key Knox box locations for the gates/buildings on the plan for approval.
3. Prior to issuing building permit - Show on the plan the Project address, including suite number if applicable. If the project is within a shopping or business center, note the name and address of the center.
Administrative Review
25-0002
Zoning Modification
25-0007
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CLARION RIVER DR
R-1
WHITE RIVER
DR
R-2
R-2
-0
PP-ZM-25-0007
&
PP-ADR-25-0002
C-0 R-1
Ronald Reagan
Elementary
School
R-1
Zoning
R-1 One Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S·( ) Residential Suburban
1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single
family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
(multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density Multiple Family
Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-0 Professional and Administrative
Office
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial
Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Architectural Design Overlay
FP-P Floodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
� DI Drilling Island
c,: PE Petroleum Extraction Combining
E SC Senior Citizen Overlay
:3 HD Hillside Development Combining
c::, WM- West Ming Specific Plan
i 1:1 �
BAKERSFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
t
0 115 230
US Feet
10/29/2025
Exhibit B
CONSULTANT TEAM T-1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R DIRECTIONS TO SITE VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DRAWING INDEXPROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX Site Site River Run Blvd AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 KERN COUNTY DIRECTIONS TO HOSPITAL ············SITE INFORMATION RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED PROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX T-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN TOPOGRAPHY PLAN C-1 C-1.1 C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-3 Q-1 C-2.1 DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Q-1.1 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.4 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS A-1 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.2 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.3 C-2.2 SITE SIGNAGE C-1.2 SITE SURVEY Buena Vista Road Water Channel GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS E-1 OVERALL UTILITY SITE PLAN E-2 SHELTER ONE-LINE DIAGRAM Exhibit
C
E C-1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R OVERALL SITE PLAN Scope of Work Color Legend Overall Site Plan Buena Vista Road
Exhibit C
E 369 369 365 362 370 365 365 370 370 370 369 371 370 370 370 371 371 372 365 362 369 Contour Legend: Scope of Work Color Legend C-1.1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R TOPOGRAPHY PLAN Topography Plan Buena Vista Road
Exhibit
C
C-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 SITE SURVEY Exhibit
C
E Scope of Work Color Legend C-2
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R ENLARGED SITE PLAN Enlarged Site Plan
Exhibit C
Scope of Work Color Legend C-2.1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Dimensioned Site Plan
Exhibit C
C-2.2 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Tower ASR Registration Sign 1 RF Hazard Sign 2 Site Contact Information Sign 3 No Trespassing Sign 4 No Smoking Sign 5 SIGNAGE PLAN Exhibit
C
C-3 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Fort Wayne, IN 46804
6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C
AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION 4x3 Entry Port Detail 1 2 New Tower Elevation Exhibit
C
A-1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN Equipment Shelter Floor Plan Color Legend Exhibit C
Q-1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.3 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.4 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
! "#$#%&'()*&+#%&$,-./+-#0$1.(
2 ! 34.((.560%$789):)(#5;)$/<)%:.1)79.%)1/#%
! =0$)>>8?@?A
BC
!30'(.1D55)&(")&%.$E/#-#$7.,)%3(&$$.$E-#;;.77.#$F7D55%#:&(#G9.%)1/#%H):.)IJ#K?LM@@@? &$,*#,.G.1&/.#$J#K?LM@@@N&$,./7J#/.1)#GOP);5/.#$G%#;/4)-&(.G#%$.& O$:.%#$;)$/&(Q0&(./+D1/K
<1#0/<)%:.1)7%)R0)7/),&STUVWXYUZ[\V]TV^_`abccUY]_deYfghM@@@?/#.$7/&((&/.#$#G _d_XXTWVXY^VUXY_WWYiiYa_XVXjVkTXlZ[cmndTW[_oVXlU_aTY[l[XVi_`aUVd_XVa .$7/&((&/.#$#G$)I)R0.5;)$/74)(/)%&$,E)$)%&/#%)R0.5;)$/8&$,p#$)*#,.G.1&/.#$ J#K?LM@@@N/#5)%;./&/#I)%4).E4/#G>L@MG))/&$,(#1&/),I./4.$q@@MG))/#G %)7.,)$/.&((+r#$),5%#5)%/+(#1&/),&/>@@@60)$&s.7/&H#&,K6#t#)$.E70';.//),&$ _ccV_dXjVud_``T`vkYiiT[[TY`Z[_ccUY]_dfwx_Uahy
!
</&GG%)1#;;)$,7,)`lT`vXjV_ccV_d_`amcjYdaT`vXjVud_``T`vkYiiT[[TY`Z[aVWT[TY`XY_ccUY]V STUVWXYUZ[\V]TV^_`abccUY]_deYfghM@@@?&$,p#$)*#,.G.1&/.#$J#K?LM@@@N8&$,&,#5/.#$#G/4) J#/.1)#GOP);5/.#$K
Cz
B!
{4)-./+#G6&|)%7G.)(,4&7)P5&$,),&$,E%#I$7.E$.G.1&$/(+#:)%/4)+)&%785(&1.$E.$1%)&7.$E,);&$, #$./750'(.17&G)/+1#;;0$.1&/.#$77+7/);K}4.()/&%E)/),)P5&$7.#$7&$,)R0.5;)$/05E%&,)74&:) '))$.;5();)$/),/#&,,%)771#:)%&E)14&(()$E)78E&57%);&.$~5&%/.10(&%(+.$/4)E%#I.$E&%)&7#G /4)-./+K$%)75#$7)8/4)-./+4&7);'&%|),#$/4),):)(#5;)$/#G&$)I8;#,)%$.r),50'(.17&G)/+ 1#;;0$.1&/.#$77+7/);/4&/I.(():)$/0&((+5%#:.,)1#:)%&E)&1%#77t)%$-#0$/+K {4)5%#5#7&(.$:#(:)705E%&,.$E/4)-./+#G6&|)%7G.)(,Z[VT[XT`vc0'(.17&G)/+%&,.#7+7/);/#&$)I8 ;#,)%$.r),50'(.17&G)/+&$,);)%E)$1+1#;;0$.1&/.#$77+7/);K{4)10%%)$/.$G%&7/%01/0%)4&7 ,)E%&,),/#/4)5#.$//4&/./.7,.GG.10(//#;))//4)#5)%&/.#$&(,);&$,7K{4)10%%)$/.$G%&7/%01/0%)4&7 %)70(/),.$.$1#$7.7/)$/&$,0$%)(.&'()%&,.#%)1)5/.#$')/I))$#GG.1)%7.$/4)G.)(,&$,/4) 1#;;0$.1&/.#$71)$/)%8)75)1.&((+.$&%)&7I4)%)/4)-./+4&7)P5&$,),KO;)%E)$1+%)75#$7))GG#%/7 ;&+')1#;5%#;.7),&$,.$/%#,01)0$$)1)77&%+%.7|7/#'#/450'(.17&G)/+5)%7#$$)(&$,/4) 1#;;0$./+K
{4)$)I/#I)%&$,1#;;0$.1&/.#$7+7/);I.((%)5(&1)/4))P.7/.$EG&1.(./+7)%:.$EG.%7/%)75#$,)%%&,.# 1#;;0$.1&/.#$7(#1&/),&//4)}&/)%H)7#0%1)79)5&%/;)$/1&;507K{4.7(#1&/.#$7)%:.1)7/4) 7#0/4I)7/5#%/.#$#G/4)-./+&$,.7&$)77)$/.&((.$|.$/4)#:)%&((;#,)%$.r&/.#$#G/4).$/)%M&E)$1+ 1#;;0$.1&/.#$77+7/);I4.14I.(():)$/0&((+1#:)%t)%$-#0$/+K{4)10%%)$/7+7/);7055#%/71%./.1&( 1#;;0$.1&/.#$7G#%/4)3#(.1)&$,.%)9)5&%/;)$/78-#,)O$G#%1);)$/83&%|H&$E)%7&$,.$/)%M&E)$1+ G.%7/%)75#$,)%7.$1(0,.$E/4)-#0$/+#Gt)%$);)%E)$1+,)5&%/;)$/7K
! "
#
$
!!#!%" #
&$
! '$#
()#!%" # #
'$#
"*#&
&#$&'
"
%
%
+#
,"# " '
, "
"#-
&
&# -
& $ "# -
& "## $
&
%%
"&!!#
,
!
&
#%&'(
."
!#!%" #
#
#
% #
#-# $
& #
-#$# #%/
#%
'-
"'#'
"##& #$# "
%
%
&
-#0
#
# -!#
-
&
#%
'
(1!
#
##
+-!#!%" #
'
#+#
!#
## "#
&
%# (2" # %
!
! '
# 3!# "
#%
'# $
&#
& "$
"' #+(
2"43# !&)#5$#
" 6$#
&#&
"
%
$#
!
", 43# !&-$#
#',"
!#!%" # #$#
%
&#%
#
&
% (1
"
-
&
%
#
-&
!#
#&
!# #
#-
& "#! #
#!#
, "#& #
-
3
%
#&!!
!#!#!%" #
, "
"#
&
, "
&
&(2"
%$ # $#
"
%
&
$
!#!%" # ! '&
#
%#
&
(
2"$#$ &#& '
$%#& -
&
% "$
!&&
#&
!# #
#-#
&& &&# " 3
,
+#%
&
$#+ "+## '! " '
(2"
%
# " !# # $
&#
!! +'#%#& ! "#
(
7&&
'-#
"
$#
!! +
(8#
&&$
&#&
,
#%
'#
# &$'&
#!!
'-
$#+#&
%# $
&
%%
-#&
&'
&
/
3
%-
&
$$# ! #
&
#!! +
#%
'# $
(
7
#
'
%#,
& "
%'++ -
%
&#
&##&
'
#
% " !# # $
&# "+ " "'
& $# + -$#$# '-
& "+# ! '!
## &
(."
!#!%" # !#"$-,
!&
" "
,"#&(
9:
;
2"8 '!43# !&-
<
, " "8
'!=#
-
"
&
3$#%# ,#& "+#"
!
#%
%$
! '#& '
(2" $#<
++ "
$ #$
&
&#
*
!
##& '
#!# # $
&#
!! +'
&
#
%
#%
'
&
/
#%
'
& (&
"
!
&
!#
#$#
, "
"# , #+ #
!#
& $ "# (
>?@ABCDEAFGHIFEJAKAL?BMNAOMPCDBIOMFEOACQIBO?OGJEREFE?OLABCIOOAFBAFSIOB?GEIJINNTOEJ?MEIOC?C? !
$#!#
"#&
& #+
#
'(U '#
- "43# !&V
5$#
& $ "&$$#6
'WXY-YYY !# #+
,""
##& '
#+& "
#'+
!#
&!#
"8
8
#(2" $#
&$
&
"##&
!
"
#$%&' ()
())!*
+
,-,. /
01
2
3
3
3
01
014
01
5 6
7
/
2
8
/
/
7
9%&:;
<
8
1
01
=>?@AB>CD
7
3
01<
8
7/
1
E
0F
8 3
01<
8 6
G,H/
+
&'!!I% &%*JK"%*&!*"*
!:")L M&'!N"&!)O! ()
! P!Q")&K!*&; !
()!L
"KQ( RS
& &'!$%)!
!
KK(*%
"&% *& $!) '"
T!%* &"
!L$%&'%*"UV;IWV;Q)!M"T)%
"&!L
+
X7/
/
1
7
X
7 1
1
Y
7
X
7
Z
7
7
7
[B\]^BC]D
_`>a]\b]cdefghgijk
"**%*JP%)!
& ); l!")%*J
+
2
0Y3mnHo-H-pXqpmqp,q
5
6
53
_r]bcs@ctifghguj
1
/
53
_r]bcs@ctdvfghguj53
8
m,/,H
P%)!
& ); O!w%!$"*L
X
x ,G/---,y Y
x ,G/---n
!"#$%&'#%(!%& !)#%&
*"++%,,%"''"-$./01234056718/19:;<=>>048:?@4ABCD
$E"F"$% %( %"G"H
ID
JH
./01234056718/19:;<=>>048:?@4ABCDKKKB:??496/;63:??:3/4;4L:?:33/213491034L:2/?/3:313M1N/3O56 '#%(, $%",, +$# $((,,",!# $P%'+ HE"F"$% %( %"G"H ID
J
%(#$,P, "##"Q%(,% ! "Q!%&! "+
ID "I
D $##"Q ! "Q
"#"( $Q% !%R
D " ,%$ %##S"$'"' HT!'"U( ,% %,#"( $ ''"V%+ #R
" !Q, " '"' ,%$ %##S"$H
W(" W-%(,', $ !*% " XY, %#$ZT(!"#"&%(#W-%(,[% !,''#%( %",HT! Q,",'Y%"''",% %"$%& !'#%(!%&HT!)#%&*"++%,,%"%+",#''"-$ Q% ! Q"*"++%,,%",, H
\]]^_`abc`_ddedfgbhheiiebdjik^leiebdm
J
X"n"%&,%$ %#$
:>>1:?o:33:2M1<p343M1q?:;;/;rN4ss/66/4;56:>>048:?At0Au41;/r56?1331063:316M/64vw123/4;6343M1 %, ## %"" ! "Q,++%S$ "##"Q,x
yz
{|
}
~ }
| |}
| }
T!$(%,%" %#, "$P #(",%$ !
,%&% %( !# !("(,'",$( %&I
D "" #("++%( %", "Q%%++$%
'"V%+% ""#$&#+ W(!""#$$,#'"'# $,%$ %# %&!"!""$HT! "Q+!-$-,!# ! ( , "+ !$%" P( #( "+& %( %#$V'",HT!)#%&*"++%,,%"$%$" ##(",%$ !%,%,,$ , $%,H#%, " , $ (,Q%(#$$% !# V!%% ,DH
# !$, (",%$ %",!-( ##-# $ !"&!" !$,%&" !%,'#%(, ("++%( %", Q"YHT!P%'+ '"'",$ " !%,,% ,Q##, !P%'+ '"'",$ "" !'"U( ,% ,("+'#%,Q% !## ''#%(#$#*"++%( %",*"++%,,%"Z**[P%+ , "("++%( %", (%#% %,H# !"&!" P%$ !** !*% ""Y !$$% %"#'( %"" %%&%$'$ !%$' "("$( #( "+& %(&ZF[, $ " !%,,'(% %(#"( %"Z (!$! "[HT! , $(" %+$ ! !'"'",$ P%'+ Q%##+% #,, !" !F#-#'+% $ !**H$$% %" &%%& +, "+F" ""#W"# %",$$#&%%&" !-$", " ! *% ("( ! !'"'",$P%'+ Q%##"' , #$''#%(#** , $$,H
y
{
{
{ ~~
{
}
{
{ ~
}
T!, $$" %($%,
%,%, %(% "01:2M>1064;69M4s:Ov1:LL1231<vO3M13491056CKD "" !%&! H) ," , $ , "#$&#+ W(!""#Q" " % %$H
*% "##"Q$'#%(" %(%&P%+ ,', "XY, %#$F%(%'# *"$W( %"JH
H
I
Z[Q!%(!P%,
$" %( ""Q,$""((' ,"
'"' #"( $Q% !%R
" !'"U( ,% HG"-%$(Q,', $ "
,''" (#%+ ! *% $%$" "##"Q% ," %(%&P%+ ,H$$% %"#" % %( %" ,$,(%$ !''## %," P%$H
y
{}{
{ ~}
}{
''"-#$(", ( %"" !I
D ""
"Q%,%$ %#$$U( "#+ ,(!""#%,(", ( %- Y%&" '"' %&! ," ,"$%&!"+"Q,$,%$ ,,%(% Q%##(,,%&% %( $ +,#$%+% %"%-#H%, !, ! %(%+'( %,,-$-"%$#HW("$ !!# !# $, %&+,,"(% $Q% ! ! "QQ%##$',,'"' -#,H
!"##"$%&!'%%()*+$,(-.(!"$)(#$'/+"$01
2
3
45
6
24
2
7
4
2
2
8
24
7
2
2
9
2
2
:;<=>?@A@<B;C>DE
F@DG;H;AIDJ>KGJ><H;GDJDI;>=CDL;GIDEMNB;>DI>@>DJAO@M@A;HP@>DB;GHNQRSBJANTDLSUT VRUUWXX5Y
2
2
2
9
5
Z
92
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
453
2
2
2
2
22
2
94
4 9
F@DG;H;AIDJ>[JD@GOI<DN;\];NBJAI\;G>IJMNBJPHC<BGC<J^@\;GBLGI<DQ_>`NQ TRBJANTDLUaTVbccWXX5
4
2
4
4
5dBIDEeB;C>DE;\]J>fGJ>`I<`;
MNB;E>@9
2
2
2
2
g
2
g
4
g
2
2
g
2
9
92
2
BIDEJ>^B;C>DE;\]J>fGJ>`I<`;MNB;E>@QRShBJAN=HHNTDLRaRaVbcchXX5
i
2
2
g
j
4
j
2g
BIDEJ>^B;C>DE;\]J>fGJ>`I<`;MNB;E>@QRShBJAN=HHNTDL
RaRaVbcchXk5lmm(%%'$/n.)+#+$o/+"$+$,'%o('-po#($/+..oqr(!/+,(s.m(!o%'/+,('2
5
9
7
2
2
i
2
2
4
t
2u
32
4
2
2
2
4
2
22
2
5 vwxyz{|}~x{y|wyyxy}
y}{|5Y
4
4
4
t
2u
32
3
5
2
2
4
5
t
2u
32
tu3k3
5
2
22
4
4
k
2
45tu33
5
2
2
7
2
32
5 3
7
i
2
55Y4
4
24
2
i
2
55t4
5
7
2
2
2
4
tu355t
2
25 5
2
42
2
k4
2
2
4
9
i
4
22
5
2
42
2
k
99
2 9
29
2
4
2
i
2
2
2
!"
#$
%
&
!"
#$ !
' (
%
&
%
)
&
!"
*+,-./-0.1234250,-67/89:;<=>?<@ABC>DE=F>GG<E@E@<BFH<G=FECG<FI;J>@;>>HEGHBD;>>C
%
)
%
%
K
LMN
O0P-/8P0QR
STU$
V
W
&
L
M
%N
LMN
X
)
)K
LMN
X
LMNY
R
ZTT
)
%
%K
&
X
&
K
LMNY
[<D=F>G\]^_`ab
LMN
R
LMNY
)
%
! (
LMN
c
"
LK
R
ZTS)
W
W
)
K
%
%
d
)
R
ZTS)efghfijklmhnolpqrhnrksrtr)
u
%
%u
&
)
&
(
%
%
K
)
%
)
%
%
v
efghfijklmhnolpqrhnrksrtrwxxykrsjz{{j|}
~x~xj
K
%
X
%
%
X
LK
R
ZTSR
LMNY
*
7.06/1/8P70.460.8670760P9
%
(
V (
W
(
O0P-/8P0Qd
)
K
%
%c
&
%)
%)
'
%
V
%
K
%
X
&
)
) %)
%
N
)
%
&
%
)V (
W
()
%
&
(
%
)%
!
"
#
$
!
%
%
&'
(
!
#
!
#
)
*+,
-./.012321/45/6768./9:;
<=1>.8:?2.@./8A$
)
*+
B
)
#
!
C
%
!
<=.9875/4;3DE279=1>.8:
-5126A
&B
)
!
F
GB
!
!
!
!
352797.6A
&
#
%
#
%
F
!
H I& IG IJ
G"
#
!
H IJ
?/K705/@./812L.K7.MA$
#
%
!
NOPQRSOTUOVWXYZWXQV[\]V^_NY\`WOaVbU_QV[ScdWeURfcQUXagf_NY\hTiXUTUOVWVQSOjRS]UaZRUfQO
&kGHG,"
"
J$
%
#
!
lm
B%
3DE279n587>791875/Al
!
!
$
&o
dWeURfcQUXapZOQ]QiWX_SaUcSRVbUjXWOOQOqrQRU]VSRgfsUWRQOqbUXatSPUTuURvwxyzy{xjXWOOQOq
(
&|GG}
~G
GG}
4n4=n;
7/
7/6A)
&o}})
!
"!
l !+
!
"
#
$
% &'()*+,-.,)/0-'(1/2.0.3+-./,4.55,/-6(1+-(*.+5572(-*.1(,-+5-/-'(8965.3:;'(+5-'+,2 <
$
=
$
>
$
?
@#A@#
B
C
<@#
B
=
$
=
$
<<
<
0*/1-'(D885.3+,-:;*(E9(;-F&'(*(0/*(G.,+33/*2+,3(4.-'-'(H <
<I
J
K
=
$
!J"K
!J%K
@#
L
MNOPQQNRSTUVPRWI
BXY
<
98)*+2.,)-'(Z.-7:;([.;-.,)8965.3;+0(-7*+2./3/119,.3+-./,;7;-(1G4'.3',/5/,)(*1((-;-'(
?\]
^? "_] B`
^
@#
H
^ _?]
%\
=
<
<
B
LaCbA
b
]
]"?]\\\"
b
]]"?]\\\c
defghiejkhglm
J
K
`
n
%
^
<
<
@#
Jn"oK
IB
b
#<
]
H
b
"\"%]
%c
I
C
p
"\"%<p
"\"? C
<
$
"\"_]"\"c
BC
JBCK
nc%\<\\\
!"## $"%&&
'
#()#*#+ ,"-
&
."%&&
/
# 0"
1
2
3+ 4"
#5-56#(&
%( 7"1
+6#((#
&# 8"1
+6#((#"9#"!$:$4 ;"1
+6#((#1#31#&
# !<"6#
1#31#&
#
Technology Services
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
661-326-3016 FAX: 661-852-2064
Justification for Public Safety Radio System Upgrade
The City’s current public safety radio system is over 20 years old and no longer meets the demands of modern emergency response operations. This system supports critical communications for Police, Fire, Code Enforcement, and Park Rangers, and its age presents increasing risks to public safety and operational reliability.
Key Reasons for the Upgrade:
End-of-Life Equipment: Many components of the existing system are no longer supported by the manufacturer, making maintenance increasingly difficult and expensive. Replacement parts are scarce and software updates are no longer available.
Coverage and Capacity Limitations: As the city has grown, radio coverage has become inconsistent in some areas, especially in high-density and outlying regions. The current system lacks the capacity to reliably support simultaneous communications during high-traffic or emergency events.
Interoperability Needs: Modern radio systems offer improved interoperability with surrounding agencies and mutual aid partners. The existing system’s limitations hinder regional coordination, which is essential during large-scale incidents or disasters. This new system will allow inoperability with the county’s sheriff and fire departments.
Enhanced Features and Reliability: Upgrading to a modern digital system provides increased reliability, improved audio quality, encryption capabilities for secure communications, GPS tracking, and better resilience during natural disasters or infrastructure failures.
Public and First Responder Safety: Reliable communications are fundamental to protecting the public and ensuring the safety of first responders. Delays or failures in communication can directly impact emergency response times and outcomes. There have been documented incidents where officers experienced poor in-building transmission and reception. Inadequate coverage inside schools, government buildings, and large structures compromises their ability to call for assistance or coordinate response, directly putting lives at risk.
This upgrade is a critical investment in the safety and security of our community and our public safety personnel. A modern system will not only address current shortcomings but also ensure the city is prepared to meet future public safety communication demands.
MAP SET
CONSULTANT TEAM T-1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R DIRECTIONS TO SITE VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DRAWING INDEXPROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX Site Site River Run Blvd AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 KERN COUNTY DIRECTIONS TO HOSPITAL ············SITE INFORMATION RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED PROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX T-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN TOPOGRAPHY PLAN C-1 C-1.1 C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-3 Q-1 C-2.1 DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Q-1.1 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.4 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS A-1 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.2 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.3 C-2.2 SITE SIGNAGE C-1.2 SITE SURVEY Buena Vista Road Water Channel GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS E-1 OVERALL UTILITY SITE PLAN E-2 SHELTER ONE-LINE DIAGRAM E C-1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R OVERALL SITE PLAN Scope of Work Color Legend Overall Site Plan Buena Vista Road
E 369 369 365 362 370 365 365 370 370 370 369 371 370 370 370 371 371 372 365 362 369 Contour Legend: Scope of Work Color Legend C-1.1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R TOPOGRAPHY PLAN Topography Plan Buena Vista Road
C-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 SITE SURVEY E Scope of Work Color Legend C-2
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R ENLARGED SITE PLAN Enlarged Site Plan
Scope of Work Color Legend C-2.1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Dimensioned Site Plan
C-2.2 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Tower ASR Registration Sign 1 RF Hazard Sign 2 Site Contact Information Sign 3 No Trespassing Sign 4 No Smoking Sign 5 SIGNAGE PLAN C-3 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Fort Wayne, IN 46804
6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C
AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311
35.34640, -119.12552 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION 4x3 Entry Port Detail 1 2 New Tower Elevation A-1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN Equipment Shelter Floor Plan Color Legend Q-1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.3 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.4 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS
1 Radio Frequency Exposure - FCC Compliance Assessment
Site Information
Site Name: AG WATER
Site ID: AGW
Address: 1000 BUENA VISTA RD.
City: BAKERSFIELD
State: CA
County: KERN COUNTY
Zip Code: 93311
Latitude: 35.3464
Longitude: -119.12552
Report Information
Report Type: Pre-Activation Compliance Assessment
Prepared For: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Preparer: Rafael Gonzalez
Email: [email protected]
SUPERVISOR: DIEGO TORRES
SUPERVISOR EMAIL: [email protected]
Report Date: 02-10-2026
RFMaster Version: 1.0095.38
2 Compliance Statement
Compliant: Yes
Comprehensive Compliance
Policy and Compliance
Statement
Compliance with the established regulatory and internal standards, as detailed within this document, shall be officially deemed attained by the Client upon the successful and complete execution of the specific remediation measures outlined in the dedicated compliance and risk mitigation section of this report. These measures represent the primary and recommended course of action to address identified
recommendations.
Notes
SITE COMPLIANT AS DESIGNED (no additional mitigation required) Highest RF Emissions in accessible areas for this site are BELOW the General Population MPE limit Referenced Documents:
• AGW AG Water Zoning ZDs 09-11-2025
• AGW EME Parameters
• AGW_AG Water_Tower Mapping_1.3.24
• AG Water - Site Layout - 6.7.24 (004)
Please be advised that there is currently no fence installed at this location.
3 Contents
Antenna Inventory............................................................................................................. 4 Modeling Results .............................................................................................................. 5 All Carriers..............................................................................................................................5 Compliance...................................................................................................................... 9 Mitigation Summary .........................................................................................................12 Appendix A ......................................................................................................................13
4 Antenna Inventory
Ant
#
Carrier Manufacturer Antenna
Model
EDT
(deg)
Type Band
(MHz)
Az
(deg)
MDT
(deg)
HBW
(deg)
Length
(ft)
TPO
(W)
Paths Loss
(dB)
Gain
(dBd)
ERP (W) EIRP
(W)
Rad
Ctr
(ft)
1 City of
Bakersfield
RFI BA160-67 0 Omni 450.0 0.0 0.0 360.0 16.4 53.8270 1.0000 0.0 9.00 427.5630 701.4557 159.3 2 City of
Bakersfield
RFI BA160-67 0 Omni 450.0 0.0 0.0 360.0 16.4 53.8270 1.0000 0.0 9.00 427.5630 701.4557 159.3 3 City of
Bakersfield
RFI BA40-41 0 Omni 150.0 0.0 0.0 360.0 2.5 79.9834 1.0000 0.0 3.00 159.5879 261.8183 151.0 4 City of
Bakersfield
COMMSCOPE VHLP6-
11W-A
0 Microwave 11000.0 328.0 0.0 1.0 5.9 1.0000 1.0000 0.0 41.85 15310.8691 25118.8652 150.0 5 City of
Bakersfield
COMMSCOPE VHLP4-
11W_A
0 Microwave 11000.0 151.0 0.0 1.6 3.9 1.0000 1.0000 0.0 38.55 7161.4390 11748.9883 120.0 6 City of
Bakersfield
RFI BA160-67 0 Omni 450.0 0.0 0.0 360.0 16.4 53.8270 1.0000 0.0 9.00 427.5630 701.4557 129.3
5 Modeling Results
All Carriers
Ground Level
6 Tree Level
7 Elevation View
8 Birds Eye View
9 Compliance
Proposed Compliance at Access
Notice
10 Proposed
LOCATION
GUIDELINES NOTICE CAUTION WARNING INFORMATION CHAIN (FT) STANCHION(S) BASES MARKING(S) (Perimeter, Area, Painted Line)
Access Point(s) ☐ (0) ☒ (1) ☐ (0) ☐ (0) ☐ (0) (0) (0) (0) (0),(0),(0)
11 MPE Review Table
Study Zone/Pin
Name
Exposure
Profile
X Y Elev. MPE Value
Ground Level 2D Sula9 GP 1.0 res 84.30 -10.60 6.10 0.01% Rad Center 120' 3D Sula9 GP 1.0 res 85.50 -8.20 122.10 20.87% Rad Center 150' 3D Sula9 GP 1.0 res 84.00 -6.90 151.00 706.94% Tree's Level 3D Sula9 GP 2.5 res 94.80 -29.50 35.00 0.00%
12 Mitigation Summary
Summary Table
Sector Band RRH
Model
Antenna
Model
RRH
Max
Power
{Watts}
Power
Reduction
Required
due to EME
Restrictions
{%}
Maximum
allowed power
{Watts}\n{OSS
MAX power
setting}
eTilt MAX
due to EME
Restrictions
{degrees}
Antenna
Physical
Azimuth\n
[degrees]
Antenna
Rad Ctr
[ft]
1 BA160-67 53.8270 0.0000 53.8270 N/A 0.0 159.3
1 BA160-67 53.8270 0.0000 53.8270 N/A 0.0 159.3
1 BA40-41 79.9834 0.0000 79.9834 N/A 0.0 151.0
1 VHLP6-
11W-A
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 N/A 328.0 150.0
1 VHLP4-
11W_A
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 N/A 151.0 120.0
1 BA160-67 53.8270 0.0000 53.8270 N/A 0.0 129.3
Sign Details
Sign
Type
Status Carrier Location/Node Quantity Stay
Back
Material Dimensions Securement Type
FCC
Notice
8x12
Proposed City of
Bakersfield
Access 1 0.00 Aluminum 8x12 2
13 Appendix A
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates Electromagnetic Energy (EME)—commonly referred to as Radiofrequency (RF) exposure—to ensure that emissions from transmitters do not exceed levels safe for human health. These regulations apply to all FCC-regulated devices, including cell phones, base stations, and amateur radio equipment
Core Exposure Limits
The FCC defines safe exposure through two primary metrics based on the distance between the device and the human body:
• Specific Absorption Rate (SAR): For devices used within 20 cm (8 inches) of the body (e.g., cell phones), the limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over one gram of tissue. • Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): For devices used further than 20 cm from the body (e.g., cell towers, fixed antennas), the limit is based on power density (mW/cm²) or field strength (V/m).
Regulation Categories
FCC regulations for electromagnetic energy (EME) exposure are divided into two main tiers based on a person’s knowledge of the exposure and their ability to control it
1. General Population / Uncontrolled
This category is for the general public and individuals who have no reason to know they are being exposed to RF energy.
Target Group: Consumers, neighbors of radio towers, and bystanders.
Strict Limits: Because these individuals cannot take protective action, the exposure limits are 5 times more restrictive than the occupational category.
Time Averaging: Compliance is measured by averaging exposure over a 30-minute period.
Examples: Using a cell phone, walking past a Wi-Fi router, or living near a broadcast tower.
2. Occupational / Controlled
This category applies to people exposed as a consequence of their employment or who have been specifically trained to manage RF exposure.
Target Group: Telecommunications technicians, tower climbers, and amateur radio operators in their own controlled spaces.
Criteria for Use: To use these higher limits, the person must be "fully aware" of the exposure (via training or clear signage) and able to "exercise control" (e.g., by moving away or turning off the transmitter).
Time Averaging: Compliance is averaged over a 6-minute period.
Transient Persons: Non-technical workers (like a rooftop HVAC repairman) can sometimes fall into this category if they are briefed on the risks and supervised by trained personnel.
Signage and Safety Categories
To maintain these environments, the FCC often references standard safety signs to indicate the level of risk in a specific area:
Category 1 (Green/None): No potential to exceed General Population limits.
Category 2 (Blue): Potential to exceed General Population limits but not Occupational limits. Access must be restricted for the public.
Category 3 (Yellow): Potential to exceed Occupational limits. Strict access controls and "Caution" signs are required.
Category 4 (Orange/Red): Extreme exposure risk (10x+ over Occupational limits). Immediate danger of tissue damage or burns.
S:\04_Current Planning\03_MOD\01_Active\PP-ZM-25-0007_1000 Buena Vista_150' tower\01_PC Hearing\Final Prep\01_PP-ZM-25-0007_Staff Report.docx
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: 6.a
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: February 9, 2026
FILE: Director Review and Approval No. PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zone Modification No. PP-ZM-25-0007.
STAFF PLANNER: Michael Bell, Development Services Technician REQUEST: 1) Director Review and Approval for the installation of a lattice tower to accommodate the City’s public safety radio system (BMC 17.59.020 C.), and related installation of a new equipment shelter and generator. 2) Zone Modification request to a) allow the proposed tower to be located within three hundred feet of a residentially zoned property (BMC 17.59.030.A.2) and b) permit a tower height of 150 feet, where the maximum allowable height is 65 feet or 20 percent above adjacent natural objects, whichever is less (BMC 17.59.030.B.2). The project is on a 5.26-acre parcel site located at 1000 Buena Vista Road.
APPLICANT: Scout Services OWNER: City of Bakersfield
Daniel Waddell 1501 Truxtun Avenue
490 Quail Ridge Drive Bakersfield, CA 93301
Westmont, Illinois 60559
LOCATION: East side of Buena Vista Road APN: 390-011-08 near River Run Boulevard
PROJECT SIZE: Portion of 5.26 Acres CEQA: Section 15302 (Class 02, Replacement or Reconstruction)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P (Public Facilities) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit Dwelling) PP-ADR-25-0002 and PP-ZM-25-0007
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Director Review and Approval No. PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zoning Modification No. PP-ZM-25-0007 as depicted in the project description and subject to the listed conditions of approval.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The proposed project is located at the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department administration site. Surrounding properties are developed as: north – commercial office buildings; east, south and west – residential neighborhood.
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• September 12, 1978 – City Council approved annexation of the site into the City (Annexation No. 243; Stockdale No. 10; Resolution 91-78). The proposed project site was included as a portion of this annexation area.
• December 1, 1995 – The Board of Zoning Adjustment approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4984 to allow a 12,500 square foot office building with a 10,000,000-gallon potable water reservoir, and maintenance yard on this site (Board of Zoning Adjustment Resolution No. 6-90). • February 9, 2018 – Planning Director approved Site Plan Review No. 18-0041 to allow the construction of a 3,218 square foot expansion to an existing office building on a portion of the site to accommodate the City’s Water Resources Department.
• November 13, 2025 – Planning Director’s Hearing. Opposition was received during this hearing and in accordance with BMC 17.64.060 (A)(1)(2), the Planning Director referred the item to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
• February 5, 2026 – The project was agendized for a hearing before the Planning Commission. The project was referred back to staff to be re-advertised for a future public hearing before the Planning Commission.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
Director Review and Approval Request. Scout Services requests the installation of a 150-foot lattice wireless communication tower at an existing 5.26-acre city facility zoned R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit Dwelling).
Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.59.020 C (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Not In The Public Right-of-Way): This section authorizes the Planning Director to review and approve wireless telecommunication facilities such as, antenna, towers, mounted poles and satellite dishes, at locations not in the public right-of-way. The review is subject to a public hearing.
Background. The City of Bakersfield has expanded significantly over the years, placing increasing demand on its public safety communications system. While targeted expansions and equipment upgrades have been implemented to address coverage challenges, gaps remain — particularly in the growing areas of the city. In response, the City has embarked on the development of a new, modernized public safety communications system that will eventually provide coverage across Kern County.
PP-ADR-25-0002 and PP-ZM-25-0007
The City continues to address critical public safety communication issues as they emerge. One such issue is the deteriorating quality of radio communications in the southwest region of Bakersfield. The current infrastructure in that area has resulted in inconsistent and unreliable radio reception between officers in the field and the communications center. This may compromise emergency response efforts and introduce unnecessary risks to both public safety personnel and the community.
The proposal involves upgrading the City’s existing public safety radio system, which no longer meets the operational demands of modern emergency response. The current system supports critical communications for the Police and Fire Departments, as well as Code Enforcement and Park Rangers; however, its aging infrastructure presents increasing risks to public safety and operational reliability.
The new tower and communication system will replace the existing facility and will primarily serve first responder radio communications. It may also support the City’s network for security cameras and card access. The site is owned and maintained by the City and serves both Police and Fire Department operations, while also being available for use by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office and County Fire Department when operating within City limits. This project represents a coordinated City-County effort to enhance interagency communication and ensure dependable connectivity for first responders during major incidents such as fires, SWAT operations, and other emergency events throughout Kern County.
Radio communication remains a foundational element of effective police response, particularly in highpriority and life-threatening situations. In response to this urgent need, the Bakersfield Police Department and the Technology Services Department, with the support of the City Manager’s Office and in partnership with Scout Services, propose the replacement of a lattice tower radio tower at the Bakersfield Water Resources Department administration site. This new tower installation is intended to boost coverage strength and reliability in the southwest area.
The City is actively working to address urgent communication challenges as they arise. One such area of concern is the southwest region of Bakersfield, where the existing radio infrastructure has degraded emergency communication quality between police officers and the communications center. This ongoing issue poses a risk to both City staff and public safety.
Location. The proposed wireless communication tower will be installed within the existing maintenance yard at The City of Bakersfield Water Resources site. This maintenance yard is fully enclosed by a six-foot chain link fence with integrated privacy slats, providing visual screening and secured access. Entry to the yard is available from Buena Vista Road.
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department administration campus is a 5.26-acre facility. The tower and its associated equipment will be enclosed by bollards with within the existing maintenance yard of the Water Resources Department’s secured campus. A generator is adjacent to the wireless communication tower and shall be installed within a 10’ x 20’ prefabricated equipment shelter. An existing six-foot-tall block wall is along the north boundary. A mix of block wall and chain link fencing surround the remaining sides of the property. Mature trees exist within and surround the property. Along the southeast boundary of the facility, adjacent to the proposed tower, the area contains tall trees with dense foliage, many of which exceed seventy feet in height. Given the presence of these existing trees, the communication tower is expected to visually integrate with the surrounding environment and not appear out of character with the existing surroundings.
PP-ADR-25-0002 and PP-ZM-25-0007
Zone Modification Requests: The project requests modification to two development standards: a) reduction in the setback distance from residentially zoned property , and b) exceed the maximum height allowed.
Setback. The uncamouflaged lattice wireless communication tower is required to be set back 50 feet from any public or private street, and 300 feet where the property lines separate the lot from an adjacent lot zoned or designated residential. As proposed, the project site is set back approximately 275 feet south of River Run Boulevard and 650 feet west of Buena Vista Road. However, the nearest adjacent lot zoned residential, where the property line separates the lot is located approximately 130 feet southeast of the project site.
The zone modification request is to allow the location of the tower to be 130 feet instead of 300 feet from the nearest adjacent lot zoned residential southeast of the project site. The impact of reducing the setback is moderated by the existing height of mature trees, minimal height increase from the existing tower it replaces, and the canal separation.
Height. The maximum height for a wireless facility on property zoned or designated residential is 65 feet or no more than 20% above the existing height of adjacent natural objects, whichever is less. Natural objects do not include fabricated structures such as buildings, signs, utility poles/towers, or other telecommunication towers. The proposal will consist of a new 150-foot uncamouflaged lattice structure that will accommodate equipment for public safety communication system. Therefore, the second zone modification is to allow a 150 foot tower in height were the maximum height of is sixty-five feet or no more than twenty percent above the existing height of adjacent natural objects is being requested. For this project the maximum allowed height of 65 feet is applied.
The 150 foot height of the tower is a crucial design feature necessary to provide efficient, effective and modern telecommunications technology for emergency and public safety. The expanding urban boundaries of the City require a system that may be maintained and operated with advanced technology.
The tower is part of a modern system that replaces the current equipment that is at its “end-of-life.” As stated above, the existing mature tall trees, especially along the southeast boundary of the facility. The communication tower should visually integrate with the surrounding environment and not appear out of character with the existing surroundings.
General Plan Consistency:
Safety Element. The installation of the temporary wireless communication tower directly supports the goals and policies within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, specifically those outlined in the Safety Element. By enhancing radio communication capabilities for police and fire personnel in the northwest portion of the city, the project promotes reliable emergency response operations and strengthens overall public safety—especially in an area currently experiencing degraded service.
Section C: Public Safety
Goals.
1. Ensure that the Bakersfield metropolitan area maintains a high level of public safety for its citizenry.
2. Ensure that adequate police and fire services and facilities are available to meet the needs of current and future metropolitan residents through the coordination PP-ADR-25-0002 and PP-ZM-25-0007
of planning and development of metropolitan police and fire facilities and services.
Policies.
1. Identify future site location, projected facility expansions, projected site acquisition costs, construction costs and operational costs in a manner that would maximize the efficiency of new public safety services. (I-1, I-2, I-3)
2. Require discretionary projects to assess impacts on police and fire services and facilities (I-3)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
This project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures in accordance with Section 15302 (Class 02: Replacement or Reconstruction). This exemption includes projects that are the reconstruction of structures or facilities on the same site having substantially the same purpose and capacity. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City Hall North 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law.
Comments Received. As of this writing, no written public comments have been received.
CONCLUSIONS:
Findings. BMC Section 17.64.060. B and D contains specific findings that must be made for your Commission to approve the requested Director Review and Approval Permit and Zone Modification.
Specifically, the section states that a Director Review and Approval Permit and Zone Modification shall be granted only when it is found that:
1. The proposed use is deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare; and
2. The proposed use is in harmony with the key elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans.
3. The granting of the modification will not be materially detrimental to the public’s health and safety, or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone of vicinity in which the subject property is located.
4. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement on the subject property.
PP-ADR-25-0002 and PP-ZM-25-0007
5. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
In addition, the municipal code also states that a zone modification may be subject to such conditions as deemed appropriate or necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and the various elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans and policies of the city or to protect the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
As of this writing, no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that adverse impacts are anticipated to result from the Applicant’s request. Therefore, in accordance with the required findings, and as conditioned, Staff finds: (1) the proposal would not result in any detrimental impacts to the public welfare or to properties or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the project is located; (2) the proposal will allow appropriate improvements on the site and add value to the property and area; and (3) the proposal would be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the necessary findings. The proposal involves upgrading the City’s existing public safety radio communication system, which no longer meets the operational demands of modern emergency response. The installation of a 150-foot lattice wireless communication tower and accessary structures at an existing 5.26-acre City Water Resources facility provides a secure and optimal geographic location to serve the expanding urban growth of southwest Bakersfield. The modification requests to allow the tower to exceed the 65-foot height limit and be located 130 feet from residentially zoned property are mitigated by landscape screening, and public safety needs.
Therefore, staff recommends that your Commission adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Director Review and Approval No. PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zoning Modification No. PP-ZM-25-0007.
ATTACHMENTS:
Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
Development Plans
• Site Plan
• Landscape Plan
• Floor Plan
• Elevations
Applicant Letter of Justification
Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.59.020
Resolution with Exhibits.
MAP SET
CONSULTANT TEAM T-1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R DIRECTIONS TO SITE VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DRAWING INDEXPROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX Site Site River Run Blvd AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 KERN COUNTY DIRECTIONS TO HOSPITAL ············SITE INFORMATION RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED PROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX T-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN TOPOGRAPHY PLAN C-1 C-1.1 C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-3 Q-1 C-2.1 DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Q-1.1 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.4 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS A-1 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.2 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.3 C-2.2 SITE SIGNAGE C-1.2 SITE SURVEY Buena Vista Road Water Channel GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS E-1 OVERALL UTILITY SITE PLAN E-2 SHELTER ONE-LINE DIAGRAM E C-1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R OVERALL SITE PLAN Scope of Work Color Legend Overall Site Plan Buena Vista Road
E 369 369 365 362 370 365 365 370 370 370 369 371 370 370 370 371 371 372 365 362 369 Contour Legend: Scope of Work Color Legend C-1.1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R TOPOGRAPHY PLAN Topography Plan Buena Vista Road
C-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 SITE SURVEY E Scope of Work Color Legend C-2
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R ENLARGED SITE PLAN Enlarged Site Plan
Scope of Work Color Legend C-2.1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Dimensioned Site Plan
C-2.2 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Tower ASR Registration Sign 1 RF Hazard Sign 2 Site Contact Information Sign 3 No Trespassing Sign 4 No Smoking Sign 5 SIGNAGE PLAN C-3 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Fort Wayne, IN 46804
6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C
AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311
35.34640, -119.12552 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION 4x3 Entry Port Detail 1 2 New Tower Elevation A-1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN Equipment Shelter Floor Plan Color Legend Q-1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.3 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.4 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Technology Services
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
661-326-3016 FAX: 661-852-2064
Justification for Public Safety Radio System Upgrade
The City’s current public safety radio system is over 20 years old and no longer meets the demands of modern emergency response operations. This system supports critical communications for Police, Fire, Code Enforcement, and Park Rangers, and its age presents increasing risks to public safety and operational reliability.
Key Reasons for the Upgrade:
End-of-Life Equipment: Many components of the existing system are no longer supported by the manufacturer, making maintenance increasingly difficult and expensive. Replacement parts are scarce and software updates are no longer available.
Coverage and Capacity Limitations: As the city has grown, radio coverage has become inconsistent in some areas, especially in high-density and outlying regions. The current system lacks the capacity to reliably support simultaneous communications during high-traffic or emergency events.
Interoperability Needs: Modern radio systems offer improved interoperability with surrounding agencies and mutual aid partners. The existing system’s limitations hinder regional coordination, which is essential during large-scale incidents or disasters. This new system will allow inoperability with the county’s sheriff and fire departments.
Enhanced Features and Reliability: Upgrading to a modern digital system provides increased reliability, improved audio quality, encryption capabilities for secure communications, GPS tracking, and better resilience during natural disasters or infrastructure failures.
Public and First Responder Safety: Reliable communications are fundamental to protecting the public and ensuring the safety of first responders. Delays or failures in communication can directly impact emergency response times and outcomes. There have been documented incidents where officers experienced poor in-building transmission and reception. Inadequate coverage inside schools, government buildings, and large structures compromises their ability to call for assistance or coordinate response, directly putting lives at risk.
This upgrade is a critical investment in the safety and security of our community and our public safety personnel. A modern system will not only address current shortcomings but also ensure the city is prepared to meet future public safety communication demands.
17.59.020 Review process.
A. All wireless telecommunication facilities not in the public right-of-way, including antennas, towers, mounted poles, and satellite dishes shall be subject to review as follows:
1. Exemptions. The following installations are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
a. The installation of one ground-mounted satellite dish antenna for the private, personal use of the occupants of a dwelling, which is less than ten feet in diameter and less than fifteen feet in height and complies with all applicable accessory structure setbacks. b. One satellite dish antenna for the private, personal use of the occupants of a dwelling, which is less than twenty-four inches in diameter installed on a building providing that such antenna does not extend above the roof-line of the building.
c. One single-pole, tower roof, or ground-mounted television, or amateur radio antenna for the private, personal use of the occupants of a dwelling provided such antenna is no more than sixty-five feet in height from grade and complies with all applicable accessory structure setbacks.
B. Director Review and Approval. The following shall be reviewed by the planning director or designee, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall include with their plans all drawings, renderings, photographs and other necessary documents that clearly show how the proposed facilities will meet the required development standards.
1. Antennas mounted on a building or rooftop and that are screened from view from all adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent residentially zoned or designated properties.
2. Antennas architecturally integrated within a building or structure, or concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as clock towers, carillon towers, flagpoles, and steeples. These antennas may be permitted in any zone district.
3. Antennas mounted on other existing structures including, but not limited to, water tanks, pump stations, utility poles, field lighting and signs (excluding outdoor advertising structures), where the antenna height does not exceed the structure height nor project more than eighteen inches from the structure. The antenna shall also be painted to match the color of the building or structure, and/or be covered or architecturally screened with materials using the latest stealth design features so that it is indistinguishable from the main structure.
These antennas may be permitted in any zone district.
4. Antennas mounted on existing electrical transmission towers in any zone district where the antenna height is no more than ten feet above the height of the tower, the antenna blends with the architectural design of the tower, and the utility company has given written permission for such co-location.
5. Co-location of new equipment on an existing legally approved antenna or tower that blends with the architectural design of the existing facility and meets all other requirements of this chapter.
Ch. 17.59 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Not in the Public Right-of-Way | Bakersfield Municipal Code Page 1 of 2 The Bakersfield Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 5199, passed June 11, 2025.
The Bakersfield Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 5199, passed June 11, 2025.
Disclaimer: The city clerk has the official version of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.bakersfieldcity.us
City Telephone: (661) 326-3000
Hosted by General Code.
6. Modification of existing telecommunications facilities that existed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter where the physical area of the reconfigured or altered antenna does not exceed twenty-five percent of the original approval, blends with the architectural design of the existing facility, and meets all other requirements of this chapter.
7. Stand-alone monopole camouflaged as a palm tree, pine tree or other natural object.
8. Stand-alone slim-line monopole with flush-mounted vertical antennas employing the latest stealth design features. A slim-line monopole shall measure no more than twenty-four inches in diameter at the base that tapers smaller toward the top. The maximum distance of antenna arrays projecting from the pole shall not exceed eighteen inches.
C. Director Review and Approval. The following shall be reviewed by the planning director, subject to a director review and approval permit in accordance with Chapter 17.64 of this code. The applicant shall include with their plans all drawings, renderings, photographs and other necessary documents that clearly show how the proposed facilities will meet the required development standards.
1. Facilities that do not meet the requirements of subsection B of this section or the development standards in Section 17.59.030.
2. New uncamouflaged monopoles.
3. All other wireless communication facilities not in the public right-of-way, including lattice towers.
4. Placement of a commercial antenna or satellite dish antenna on any building not screened from view from all adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent residentially zoned or designated properties.
5. On property zoned or designated residential, residential suburban, agricultural, or open space unless otherwise provided by this chapter. (Ord. 5020 § 21, 2020; Ord. 4876 § 2, 2016; Ord. 4231 § 1, 2005) Ch. 17.59 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Not in the Public Right-of-Way | Bakersfield Municipal Code Page 2 of 2 The Bakersfield Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 5199, passed June 11, 2025.
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A DIRECTOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PERMIT
AND ZONE MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 150-FOOT TALL
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY
RADIO SYSTEM (B.M.C.17.59.020 C., B.M.C. 17.59.030.A.2.
AND B.M.C. 17.59.030.B. 1.) IN A R-3 (MULTI-UNIT
DWELLING) ZONE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1000 BUENA VISTA
ROAD (DIRECTOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROJECT
PP-ADR-25-0002 AND ZONE MODIFICATION PROJECT NO.
PP-ZM-25-0007)
WHEREAS, Scout Services, representing the City of Bakersfield, is requesting the installation of a lattice tower to accommodate the City’s public safety radio system(BMC 17.59.020 C.). The requested zone modification would allow the proposed tower to be located within three hundred feet of a residentially zoned property (BMC 17.59.030.A.2) and permit a tower height of 150 feet, where the maximum allowable height is 65 feet or 20 percent above adjacent natural objects, whichever is less (BMC 17.59.030.B.2). The project also includes the installation of a new equipment shelter and generator on a 5.26-acre parcel zoned R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit Dwelling), at 1000 Buena Vista Road (City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department)(the “Project”); and WHEREAS, a Secretary of the Development Services Department set Thursday, November 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in the Development Services Department Conference Room 2 Large, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield California, as a time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Division hearing officer to hear comments prior to consider the proposed zoning modification; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing testimony was received in opposition of the Project, requiring the Project to be referred to the Planning Commission or denied, BMC 17.64.060 A.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director rendered a decision on the application for a referral to Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Assistant Planning Director to consider the proposed Director Review and Approval Permit, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing (no testimony was received either in support or opposition of the Project) (testimony was received only in support/opposition/both in support and opposition of the Project); and
WHEREAS,the laws and regulations relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the above described project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA in accordance with Section 15302; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1. Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law.
2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15302 because the project does not have the potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The granting of the modification will not be materially detrimental to the public’s health and safety, or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone of vicinity in which the subject property is located.
4. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement on the subject property.
5. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. This project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
3. Director Review and Approval Permit PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zone Modification PP-ZM-25-0007 as described in this resolution, is hereby approved subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and as shown in Exhibits B and C.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of February 2026, on a motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
MB\S:\04_Current Planning\03_MOD\01_Active\PP-ADR-25-00042 and PP-ZM-25-0007_1000 Buena Vista Rd_150' tower\07_Planning Commission\06_ADR-25-0002_ZM-25-0007_Resolution.docx MB\S:\04_Current Planning\03_MOD\01_Active\PP-ADR-25-00042 and PP-ZM-25-0007_1000 Buena Vista Rd_150' towerS:\04_Current Planning\03_MOD\01_Active\PP-ZM-25-0007_1000 Buena Vista_150' tower\07_Planning Commission\06_ADR-25-0002_ZM-25-0007_Resolution.docx
RECUSE:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED
____________________________________
ADAM STRICKLAND, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval
B. Location Map
C. Site Plan
ADR-25-0004 and ZM-25-0004 1 of 3 Pages
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Director Review and Approval PP-ADR-25-0002 and Zone Modification PP-ZM-25-0007 I. The applicant's rights granted by this approval are subject to the following provisions:
• The project shall be in accordance with all approved plans, conditions of approval, and other required permits and approvals. All construction shall comply with applicable building codes. • All conditions imposed shall be diligently complied with at all times and all construction authorized or required shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the premises shall be used for the purposes applied for under this approval.
• This approval will not be effective until ten (10) days after the date upon which it is granted by the Planning Commission to allow for appeal to the City Council. Any permit or license for any approval granted shall not be issued until that effective date.
• This approval shall automatically be null and void two (2) years after the effective date unless the applicant or successor has actually commenced the rights granted, or if the rights granted are discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more. This time can be extended for up to one (1) additional year by the approving body.
• The Planning Commission may initiate revocation of the rights granted if there is good cause, including but not limited to, failure to comply with conditions of approval, complete construction or exercise the rights granted, or violation by the owner or tenant of any provision of the Bakersfield Municipal Code pertaining to the premises for which the approval was granted. The Planning Commission may also consider adding or modifying conditions to ensure the use complies with the intent of City ordinances. • Unless otherwise conditioned, this approval runs with the land and may continue under successive owners provided all the above-mentioned provisions are satisfied.
II. The following conditions shall be satisfied as part of the approval of this project:
1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.
ADR-25-0002 and ZM-25-0007 3 of 3 Pages
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.
2. This Director Review and Approval permit and Zone Modification allows the installation and operation of one hundred and fifty (150) foot wireless communications tower.
III. The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City’s development standards.
The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a building permit is issued.
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue) (661-326-3607 or [email protected])
1. Impact fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
2. Building permits are required for all construction on site. Submit plans for review and approval prior to obtaining all required permits for construction of the project.
3. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Prior to issuing a building permit, the Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fees.
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Michael Bell; 661-326-3431 or [email protected])
1. No noted conditions at this time.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff contact – Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or [email protected])
1. Prior to issuing building permit - All projects must comply with the current California Fire Codes and current City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and noted on the plan.
2. Prior to issuing building permit - must show the key Knox box locations for the gates/buildings on the plan for approval.
ADR-25-0002 and ZM-25-0007 3 of 3 Pages
3. Prior to issuing building permit - Show on the plan the Project address, including suite number if applicable. If the project is within a shopping or business center, note the name and address of the center.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY PROJECT APPLICANT:
I agree to the project’s conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with any and all conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.
Signature Date
Print Name
Administrative Review
25-0002
Zoning Modification
25-0007
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CLARION RIVER DR
R-1
WHITE RIVER
DR
R-2
R-2
-0
PP-ZM-25-0007
&
PP-ADR-25-0002
C-0 R-1
Ronald Reagan
Elementary
School
R-1
Zoning
R-1 One Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S·( ) Residential Suburban
1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single
family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
(multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density Multiple Family
Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-0 Professional and Administrative
Office
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial
Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Architectural Design Overlay
FP-P Floodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
� DI Drilling Island
c,: PE Petroleum Extraction Combining
E SC Senior Citizen Overlay
:3 HD Hillside Development Combining
c::, WM- West Ming Specific Plan
i 1:1 �
BAKERSFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
t
0 115 230
US Feet
10/29/2025
Exhibit B
CONSULTANT TEAM T-1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R DIRECTIONS TO SITE VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DRAWING INDEXPROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX Site Site River Run Blvd AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 KERN COUNTY DIRECTIONS TO HOSPITAL ············SITE INFORMATION RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED PROJECT INFORMATION, LOCATION MAPS, AND DRAWING INDEX T-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN TOPOGRAPHY PLAN C-1 C-1.1 C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-3 Q-1 C-2.1 DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Q-1.1 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.4 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS A-1 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.2 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Q-1.3 C-2.2 SITE SIGNAGE C-1.2 SITE SURVEY Buena Vista Road Water Channel GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS E-1 OVERALL UTILITY SITE PLAN E-2 SHELTER ONE-LINE DIAGRAM Exhibit
C
E C-1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R OVERALL SITE PLAN Scope of Work Color Legend Overall Site Plan Buena Vista Road
Exhibit C
E 369 369 365 362 370 365 365 370 370 370 369 371 370 370 370 371 371 372 365 362 369 Contour Legend: Scope of Work Color Legend C-1.1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R TOPOGRAPHY PLAN Topography Plan Buena Vista Road
Exhibit
C
C-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 SITE SURVEY Exhibit
C
E Scope of Work Color Legend C-2
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R ENLARGED SITE PLAN Enlarged Site Plan
Exhibit C
Scope of Work Color Legend C-2.1
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig.
R DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN Dimensioned Site Plan
Exhibit C
C-2.2 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 Tower ASR Registration Sign 1 RF Hazard Sign 2 Site Contact Information Sign 3 No Trespassing Sign 4 No Smoking Sign 5 SIGNAGE PLAN Exhibit
C
C-3 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Fort Wayne, IN 46804
6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C
AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 TOWER ELEVATION AND ANTENNA LOADING INFORMATION 4x3 Entry Port Detail 1 2 New Tower Elevation Exhibit
C
A-1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 EQUIPMENT SHELTER FLOOR PLAN Equipment Shelter Floor Plan Color Legend Exhibit C
Q-1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.1 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.2 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.3 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
Q-1.4 FOR REFERENCE ONLY Fort Wayne, IN 46804 6202 Constitution Drive, Suite C AG WATER (AGW) 1000 BUENA VISTA RD. BAKERSFIELD, CA 9311 35.34640, -119.12552 MICROWAVE ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS Exhibit
C
From: Janette Dunivan
To: City_Clerk; City_Council; Karen Goh, Mayor, Bakersfield, CA Subject: Request to Change Location of Communication Tower Date: Thursday, July 30, 2026 6:59:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Members of the Bakersfield City Council,
I am writing to respectfully express my opposition to the proposed installation of a communication tower adjacent to Ronald Reagan Elementary School.
The safety and well-being of our children should always be a top priority when making decisions that impact our community. While I understand the importance of improving communication infrastructure, placing a tower immediately next to an elementary school raises significant concerns among parents and community members. In addition to questions about potential long-term health effects, many residents are concerned about the visual impact, property values, and the appropriateness of locating this type of infrastructure so close to young children.
I respectfully ask the City Council to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would meet the project’s objectives while minimizing its impact on students, families, and the surrounding neighborhood. Exploring sites farther from schools and other areas where children gather would demonstrate the City’s commitment to balancing technological needs with community interests.
I appreciate the work the City Council does on behalf of Bakersfield residents and ask that you give thoughtful consideration to the concerns of families who may be affected by this proposal. Thank you for your time and your commitment to protecting our community.
Respectfully,
Janette Dunivan
Bakersfield, CA
Radio Tower Project
Katie Reed, Assistant Director of Technology Services
1 1. Analyze the Park at River Walk as an alternative site and determine whether it is an appropriate location
2. Show renderings and compare the current and proposed tower at the Water Resources Department
3. Were any other sites were considered
2 Pending City Council Questions
Pros
• Location may be farther from homes and
schools (pending site selection)
• City-owned property
Cons
• Unknown location will require starting
over to identify new location:
• Design tower to fit new location
• Determine site capability for project
• Environmental review needed – no CEQA
exemption applies
• Project near Kern River may require state
and federal permits
• Time delay for critical infrastructure (1-2
years)
• Additional unfunded costs ($500,000-$1.5
million in taxpayer dollars)
• Public location less secure, requiring
more
surveillance/monitoring/maintenance
• Increased viewshed exposure to public
frequenting the park
3 1. Park at River Walk as an Alternative Location
Pros
• Already analyzed, engineered and
funded, resulting in no delays
• Provides necessary coverage and
meets communications needs of
emergency services
• Maximum ground level exposure well
below federal guidelines; the new
taller tower will have lower ground
level exposure than the exposure
from the existing tower
• CEQA exempt
• City-owned property, enclosed,
secure, and not accessible to public
Cons
• Appellant opposed to site because of
proximity to home and elementary
school
• Threatening CEQA lawsuit, which will
delay critical infrastructure from being
built
4 Water Department Location
• Multiple views from various
locations
From School
From Neighborhood
From Commercial Center
5 2. Renderings of Current and Proposed Towers
6 Water Department Renderings
7 Water Department Renderings
8 Water Department Renderings
9 Water Department Renderings
10 Water Department Renderings
11 Water Department Renderings
12 Water Department Renderings
• Site selection for the Regional Radio System Project was based on existing tower sites within current radio system. No other locations were considered.
• Water Department site chosen because it is part of the existing system and could easily be upgraded/replaced for the modern critical infrastructure equipment.
• Site provides optimal coverage, successfully pushing signal into critical periphery, covering dense residential neighborhoods and local schools in northwest Bakersfield.
13 3. Consideration of Other Locations
14 Questions?
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: July 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting a Traffic Safety Policy for the Construction and Improvement of City Streets.
[Document Description]
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution.
BACKGROUND:
Particularly in recent years, the City Council has highlighted traffic safety as a Council priority, including through creation of the Multi-Modal Transportation & Traffic Safety Committee, updates to the City’s Complete Streets policy, adoption of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and Safe Routes to Schools GIS map, and implementation of numerous traffic calming measures throughout the City.
Based on more recent referrals from Councilmember Smith, staff explored the feasibility of expanding the traffic safety policies of the City to more specifically prioritize bike and pedestrian facilities. This most often arises in the context of pavement rehabilitation projects that occur each year (repaving, restriping, etc.), as there may be opportunity to reduce vehicle lane widths and increase bicycle lane widths.
In conjunction with the Council’s recent ordinance adoption of the Urban Street Design Guide, published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which is an additional acceptable design manual endorsed by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the attached resolution formally sets forth the following Council priorities for the construction, design, and improvement of City streets:
1. Establishes the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide as the preferred design manual for lane widths and bicycle facilities;
2. Prioritizes the incorporation of wider and/or buffered bicycle lanes into City street designs, unless determined infeasible due to existing constraints.
City staff has consulted with Caltrans and FHWA in recent months to affirm that even in instances of arterials on the National Highway System, in which the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards remain the default, the City retains discretion to determine appropriate local design alternatives. Adoption of the proposed resolution provides greater legal protection to the City when City engineers evaluate roadway designs and utilize the NACTO guidelines in furtherance of adopted Council standards. The resolution also allows for a more robust traffic safety policy that is consistent with Council action to incorporate traffic calming and complete streets features.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of this resolution. The adoption of the resolution will give more discretion to the staff to narrow lanes and slow vehicles down allowing for safer travel along the streets for all who share the roadway. The reduction of speed will increase the reduction of conflicts on the roadway and potential the reduction of liability for the City. Potentially future cost savings can be a result from a less accidents or potential accidents from occurring.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Reliable Infrastructure
Safety and Resilience
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
A Resolution of the Bakersfield City Council Adopting a Traffic Safety Policy for the Construction and Improvement of City Streets.
-- Page 1 of 4 Pages --
RESOLUTION NO. __________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING A TRAFFIC SAFETY POLICY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF CITY STREETS
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 108-2023, updating the City’s Complete Streets Policy to affirm the Council’s direction to incorporate a context-sensitive “Complete Streets” approach to the planning, design, development, construction and maintenance of City facilities; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5143, adding Section 13.12.035 to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to formally incorporate the Complete Streets Policy into the City’s design standards, and directing City staff to incorporate a multi-modal approach with complete streets features in the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of transportation projects; and WHEREAS, state law, including Streets and Highways Code section 890 et seq. (the “California Bicycle Transportation Act”) and Vehicle Code section 21949, establishes State legislative intent to allow people of all ages using all types of mobility devices to safely travel on public roads, unless prohibited by Vehicle Code section 21960; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5221 to adopt by reference the Urban Street Design Guide, published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO, most recent edition), and include it as an approved standard manual in the City’s development improvement standards and specifications set forth in Bakersfield Municipal Code section 13.12.030(B); and WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have both endorsed the NACTO guidelines to advance complete street planning, design, and engineering practices; and WHEREAS, the Urban Street Design Guide acknowledges that consideration of lane widths for motorists, buses, trucks, bikes, and parked cars should all be considered to delineate space that safely serves all needs; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Street Design Guide states that vehicle lane widths of ten (10) feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on safety without impacting traffic operations; and
A Resolution of the Bakersfield City Council Adopting a Traffic Safety Policy for the Construction and Improvement of City Streets.
-- Page 2 of 4 Pages --
WHEREAS, as referenced in the Urban Street Design Guide, research suggests that lane widths less than twelve (12) feet on urban and suburban arterials do not increase crash frequencies, and narrower lane widths can effectively manage speeds without decreasing safety (e.g., see Dumbaugh and Li, “Designing for the Safety of Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Motorists in Urban Environments” Journal of the American Planning Association 77 (2011): 70); and
WHEREAS, the City Council therefore finds that the Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO, most recent edition) is consistent with the City’s Complete Streets Policy and the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends by this resolution to adopt a Council policy that establishes the priorities and preferences for design standards to be used for the construction and improvement of City roadways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The City Council hereby establishes the following priorities in the construction, design, and improvement of City streets:
A. Reliance on the design standards for lane widths and bicycle facilities set forth in the Urban Street Design Guide, published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO, most recent edition) is preferred and shall be utilized whenever feasible.
B. In order to prioritize roadway safety for all users of City streets, bicycle lanes with wider widths than the minimum required and/or buffered bicycle lanes shall be incorporated into City street designs, unless determined infeasible due to constraints in the existing roadway conditions and/or built environment.
3. Nothing in this resolution is intended to remove the discretionary authority granted to the City Public Works Director and/or designated City Engineer in developing and approving plans for City projects, as set forth in applicable state law and Bakersfield Municipal Code sections 13.12.040 and 13.12.050.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ---------o0o---------
A Resolution of the Bakersfield City Council Adopting a Traffic Safety Policy for the Construction and Improvement of City Streets.
-- Page 3 of 4 Pages --
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on _ , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CPMC, MMC
CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO CLERK of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: _________________
By
KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By___________________________
ASHLEY E. ZAMBRANO
Deputy City Attorney
A Resolution of the Bakersfield City Council Adopting a Traffic Safety Policy for the Construction and Improvement of City Streets.
-- Page 4 of 4 Pages --
AZ/vlg
S:\COUNCIL\Resos\26-27\TrafficSafetyNACTOandSafetyPriorities.Reso.docx Traffic Safety Resolution
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS
Policy Foundation
Recent City Council actions established policy framework for traffic safety:
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
July 22, 2023
Council adopted
Resolution No. 108-
123 to update the
City’s Complete Street
Policy.
Nov. 29, 2023
Council adopted
ordinances
establishing policy for
complete street
design.
July 15, 2026
Council incorporated
the Urban Streets
Design Guide into City
ordinance.
Development of the Multi-Modal Subcommittee
What does this Traffic Safety Resolution do?
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Roadway Rehabilitation: Prioritizes the
Urban Street Design Guide when
rehabilitating and developing City
roadways.
Preferred Methods: Establishes
preferred approach for future public works
road projects.
Proactive Infrastructure: Focuses on
long-term safety, efficiency and
accessibility for all roadway users.
■
■
■
Narrower Vehicle Travel Lanes Lane Reductions
Buffered Bike Lanes Target Speed Reduction
Traffic Safety Priorities from Urban Street Design Guide AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Prefers narrower travel lane widths,
typically 10 to 11 feet
Change roadway cross-sections to
promote traffic safety for all roadway
users.
Provides dedicated, protected buffer
zones between cyclists and motorized
vehicle lanes.
Integrates physical roadway geometry
explicitly intended to reduce travel
speeds.
Engineering Cross-Section Example
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Speed Reduction Tools from Urban Street Design Guide
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Speed Humps
Vertical deflections designed
to reduce vehicle speeds in
residential areas. Medians
Can deflect traffic and
enhance pedestrian safety. Bulb-outs / Curb Extensions
Reduces pedestrian crossing
distances and pinch points for
vehicle traffic.
Feasibility & Design Limitations
Preferred methods apply where feasible. Certain existing roadway conditions may require alternative designs:
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Geometry Constraints
Older roadways with restricted right-of-way width or rigid existing infrastructure limit available space.
High Traffic & Freight
Corridors with heavy truck volumes or higher traffic speeds may require travel lanes wider than 10 feet.
Policy Justification & Alignment
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Formalizes City Practice: The Public Works Department has already implemented many traffic safety measures.
Strengthens Policy: Provides a clear policy framework justifying staff design choices and approach during project planning.
Preserves Existing Codes: Enhances local design preferences while not eliminating other Council-adopted regulatory documents. ■
■
■
Recommended Action
AUG. 5, 2026 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS
Recommendation
Adopt the Traffic Safety Resolution.
Questions &
Discussion
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | CITY OF BAKERSFIELD