Appendix C Appropriate Uses

Appendix D Compatibility Determinations

To fully evaluate the uses proposed for implementation on the Refuge under Alternatives A or B, draft compatibility determinations have been prepared and are provided for review in association with the Draft CCP.

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography

Refuge Name: Guadeloupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), San Luis Obispo County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR was established in 2000. Legal authority is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended.

Refuge Purpose(s): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) acquired these lands"... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ... or (B) plants." 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1543, as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use: Two provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act are to “maintain the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the Refuge System” and to recognize “wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses.” This Compatibility Determination is for only two of six public uses (Environmental Education and Interpretation) given priority on refuges as defined by Executive Order 12996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

Opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography will mainly be concentrated in the northwest corner of the Refuge, with access by foot from Oso Flaco Lake Natural Area (from the north) or Rancho Guadalupe County Park (from the south). Activities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography will highlight the habitat and resources at Myrtle Pond, Hidden Willow Valley, and Oso Flaco Peak. A pilot two-mile undeveloped trail system (Goddard Jones Trail) will be created from the open beach to the back dune area. From March 15 through September 30, beach access to the inland areas of the Refuge will be limited to a designated foot path to protect western snowy plover nesting habitat. The planned access within plover nesting habitat would allow year-round access to a dune trail system, provided that a 100-meter buffer around any nests can be maintained. Beach access points may change over time depending on the location of nesting western snowy plover or the presence of rare plants. The number of annual nesting snowy plover and the amount of public use and trespass has been low compared to other sites. The original conceptual plan envisioned signed public access.

D-1

Figure 1. Refuge Access and Trail

D-2

Wildlife Observation The Goddard Jones Trail provides a variety of wildlife observation opportunities through different habitat types of the Refuge. In 2013, two wildlife viewing areas were created 300 yards inland from the beach at Myrtle Pond as part of the Wildlife Ponds Project. The wildlife viewing areas consist of two overlooks on the north and south side of Myrtle Pond, which can contain different wetland plant and animal species. From Myrtle Pond, the trail would continue east to Hidden Willow Valley, another wetland area, then to Oso Flaco Peak, the highest point on the Refuge, where visitors can enjoy a scenic view of the beach and rare coreopsis plants. The trail would then loop back to Myrtle Pond. The trail will be relatively undeveloped and will follow the natural contours of the dunes. The trail loop will provide unique wildlife observation opportunities in coastal scrub, sand dune, freshwater pond, and ocean beach habitats. A variety of bird species can be seen in the different habitat types. There are currently no orientation kiosks, but there are several interpretive signs at key points along the trail. Existing signage will be improved, and additional signage will be installed.

Wildlife Photography Photography, including other image-capturing activities such as videography, has occurred on the Refuge. There are no developed photography blinds or platforms on the Refuge and none are proposed at this time. However, ample opportunities exist for photography on the Refuge, including viewing platforms at Myrtle Pond. The viewpoint at Oso Flaco Peak would also provide scenic photographic opportunities. This Compatibility Determination applies to personal photography only; commercial photography or videography would be permitted on a case-by-case basis and require a Special Use Permit.

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to manage for wildlife observation and photography in a limited sense (e.g., visitors taking self-guided tours of the Refuge). However, an information and education specialist should be hired to plan and conduct wildlife observation and photography events, as well as maintain infrastructure and monitor visitor activities. Improved signage, interpretive panels, kiosks, visitor contact station, pergola, benches, and other estimated costs that facilitate wildlife observation and photography are incorporated into the Compatibility Determination for environmental education and interpretation.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Based on data from plover monitoring surveys and other field activities conducted by Refuge staff, the Refuge averages about 1,500 visitor-use days (primarily self-guided) per year (G. Greenwald, Refuge Manager, USFWS, personal observation, 2014). The majority of these visitors visit the Refuge beach area. A smaller number of visitors venture to the inland areas of the Refuge, often as members of Refuge- sponsored hikes. The expected addition of a foot path and other visitor amenities (e.g., benches, pergola) are not expected to significantly increase visitation.

Habitat Wildlife observation and photography activities may result in minor disturbance to habitat, such as trampling of vegetation and soil erosion in the coastal dune and wetland environments unique to the Refuge. However, soil erosion naturally occurs in this dune environment due to wind and storm events. Therefore, soil erosion from foot travel is expected to result in negligible effects, especially with the number of visitors anticipated. Trails function as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species, including non-native, invasive plants (Dale and Weaver 1974). Refuge visitors provide a potential mechanism for non-native seed dispersion. Vehicular traffic associated with Refuge management activities may introduce and spread non-native species onto the Refuge. Installation of additional infrastructure (e.g., pergolas, benches, kiosks, interpretive panels, and other simple infrastructure) would also result in impacts to wildlife habitats or displacement of wildlife species. However, such loss is expected to be minor based on avoidance, minimization, and other best management practices.

D-3

Wildlife Human activity can have direct and indirect adverse impacts on beach nesting birds. In addition to the potential for visitors to trample eggs and/or chicks, human presence near nesting or foraging habitats may induce flushing responses in birds, which may increase their probability of being detected by a predator (Weston and Elgar 2007, Chalfoun and Martin 2010), increase intraspecific aggression in colonial species (Burger 1981), expose chicks and eggs to adverse environmental conditions, such as high radiant heat that can cause embryo death (Weston et al. 2011), and/or generally divert energy from feeding or reproduction (Pepper et al. 2003). Birds may also avoid otherwise suitable habitats (Tarr et al. 2010), potentially forcing displaced individuals to use inferior habitats, which could decrease productivity or survival. Each of these behavioral responses to human presence may negatively impact bird populations (Hillman 2012).

The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the Refuge. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy plover, whose breeding habitat is increasingly scarce due to development and heavy public use of beaches throughout its range. Although current levels of public use are low on the Refuge, human activity in the dunes and beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover reproductive success (Lafferty et al. 2006). Western snowy plovers use the entire beach profile, from the foredune through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide lines) for breeding and foraging. Pedestrians entering the foredune and coastal strand habitats during the breeding season have the potential to trample well-camouflaged western snowy plover eggs and/or chicks or to disturb adults, keeping them away from the nest for extended periods and leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators, wind, and/or extreme temperatures.

Wintering snowy plovers may also be adversely affected by public beach use. Lafferty (2001) reported that wintering plovers reacted to disturbance at 40 meters, which is half the distance as reported for breeding snowy plovers.

The federally endangered California least tern, although not known to nest on the Refuge, does nest at adjacent State and county park lands. The same potential human threats that could impact western snowy plovers could impact California least terns.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include the California red-legged frog, Gambel’s watercress (Rorippa gambellii, endangered), La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis, endangered), and marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola, endangered). Visitors walking through the wetland areas have the potential to damage listed plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or other propagules. However, many listed plants occur within already exclosed areas surrounded by fencing, and other populations will be posted with signs accordingly to mitigate negative impacts by visitors. The potential for illegal collection of rare plants, animals, and insects at the Refuge is an additional concern.

Litter discarded by anglers and other visitors can entangle wildlife or be ingested, resulting in injury or death. Because of the limited number of visitors to the Refuge, this would not pose a significant problem and could be handled with existing staff.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP for Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR. The public will be provided at least 30 days to review and comment upon the CCP and this Compatibility Determination. Following the public review and comment period, related comments and Service responses will be summarized here.

D-4

Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To continue to allow public access to the Refuge for wildlife observation and photography, the following measurers would be taken:

1. The entire foredune will be closed to public access for the western snowy plover from March 15 through September 30, except for well-marked crossover locations to access an interior trail system. 2. Trail crossovers may need to be adjusted, moved, or temporarily closed during western snowy plover nesting season. 3. The Refuge manager can close the trail system at any time, due to impacts to wildlife. 4. The trail will be monitored and documented for trespass and for invasive species. 5. Portions of the Refuge will be permanently closed to the public, including sensitive endangered plant habitat within pond exclosures.

Over the five-year pilot program, monitoring and recording of visitor compliance through direct observation (when breeding surveys are conducted) and indirect observation (evidence of footprints in closed areas) would occur to determine if the trail through plover nesting habitat should be permanently established or discontinued.

Western snowy plover breeding activities on the Refuge and throughout the larger Guadeloupe-Nipomo Dunes Complex have been closely monitored by Service staff, adjacent land managers, and volunteers. The Refuge will maintain existing partnerships and establish new ones to monitor and document western snowy plover use of the Refuge and to document causes of disturbance and mortality, including human disturbance. Other threatened and endangered species and Refuge resources will also be monitored by Refuge staff to ensure public compliance with regulations.

In addition, improved signage will be installed at the plover nesting habitat boundary by 2018. This will include seasonal closure signs at the beach front in addition to permanent signs at the back dunes to inform the public of plover nesting habitat closure from March 15 through September 30.

To further mitigate disturbance to nesting plovers, in coordination with the agencies and organizations representing the Dunes Collaborative (http://dunescenter.org/dunes-collaborative), the Refuge will develop and implement a docent program by 2018. During the snowy plover breeding season, the program will educate the public on the ecology of the species and its habitat, as well as the sensitivity of nesting and foraging birds to human disturbance. The docent program will also collect data on public use and any related disturbance to nesting shorebirds. Docents would be stationed strategically, within and exterior to the Refuge, particularly during anticipated periods of high public use.

The Refuge will also conduct law enforcement patrols in cooperation with adjacent land management agencies. The Refuge Zone Law Enforcement Officer will be activated as needed for patrols and law enforcement investigations.

D-5

Within five years of CCP approval, interpretive signs and an orientation kiosk will be installed on the Refuge to inform visitors about the Refuge’s habitats and wildlife and ways of avoiding adverse impacts. The kiosks will be located at the Refuge’s north and south beach boundaries and will include three signs: (1) a sign providing a trail map, trail information, and regulations; (2) a sign that describes the National Wildlife Refuge System; and (3) a sign describing snowy plover ecology and management.

The trail segment from the beach to the back dunes will be seasonally marked with symbolic fencing and rope to guide visitors safely through potential plover nesting habitat. The trails will be monitored routinely by Refuge staff and volunteers, and it will be moved as needed to accommodate a minimum 100-meter buffer from the nearest known plover nest. This will minimize trespass through closed areas and reduce disturbance to nesting birds within the beach and foredune habitats. Symbolic fencing will be placed around plover habitat, including the eastern edge of plover habitat (Refuge Priority Management Area 1) to limit disturbance from hikers heading east to west.

Access to the Refuge will be allowed only between sunrise and sunset, unless a permit for alternative hours is acquired from the Refuge manager in advance. Because the State Lands Commission controls lands below the mean high tide line, complete closure of the beach profile by the Service is not possible. However, public access to the Refuge will be restricted to areas where access will put minimal stress on endangered and threatened animal and plant populations. Visitors will be directed to remain a safe distance from snowy plover nesting areas through use of signs, barriers, and Refuge personnel and trained volunteers. Visitors will be directed away from areas where native plant restoration projects are under way to prevent damage to fragile plants by trampling or by the introduction non-native plant species.

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation and wildlife photography as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. As expressed priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System, these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in Refuge planning and management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Currently, the Refuge’s visitor use is relatively low; an estimated 1,500 visitors use the Refuge per year, most being anglers who mainly use the State-managed intertidal area. By contrast, annual visitation at the adjacent Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area ranges from 1.6 to 2 million visitors per year (R. Glick, CA State Parks, personal communication). The Refuge does not anticipate a substantial increase in overall visitor use over the next 15 years, primarily due to the four-mile round trip beach hike required to access the Refuge from adjacent State and county park lands. These parks have easier access, offer public use facilities, and support a wider variety of uses. At present, the Refuge primarily attracts anglers and visitors looking for solitude and a high quality wildlife-oriented experience; this is not expected to change in the future.

Enhancing wildlife observation and photography opportunities would allow the visiting public to continue to experience, enjoy, and learn about native wildlife species in their natural habitats. There are few coastal public lands available along California’s central coast where the public can view and enjoy wildlife in a roadless and relatively undisturbed setting. Many of California’s public beach lands allow various types of non-wildlife-dependent recreation, which can detract from the more natural setting that the Refuge visitor typically seeks.

With management conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein, wildlife observation and photography would be compatible with the Refuge purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.

D-6

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

______Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority public uses)

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date) Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional Director, Refuges: ______(Signature) (Date)

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography

D-7

References Cited:

Burger, J. 1981. Behavioural responses of Herring Gulls Larus argentatus to aircraft noise. Environmental Pollution (Series A) 24:177-184.

Chalfoun, A., and T. E. Martin. 2010. Parental investment decisions in response to ambient nest predation risk versus actual predation on the prior nest. Condor 112:701–710.

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky Mountain forests. J. Applied Ecology 11:767-772.

Hillman, M. D. 2012. Evaluating the Impacts of Military and Civilian Overflights and Human Recreation on Least Terns, Common Terns, Gull-billed Terns, and Black Skimmers at Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. 140 pp.

Lafferty, K. D., D. Goodman, and C. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2217-2230.

Lafferty, K. D. 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 101:315- 325.

Pepper, C.B., M.A. Nascarella, and R.J. Kendall. 2003. A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environmental Management 32:418-432.

Tarr, N. M., T. R. Simons, and K. H. Pollock. 2010. An experimental assessment of vehicle disturbance effects on migratory shorebirds. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1776-1783.

Weston, M. A., and M. A. Elgar. 2007. Responses of incubating hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research 23:569–576.

Weston, M. A., G. Ehmke, and G. S. Maguire. 2011. Nest return times in response to static versus mobile human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:252-255.

D-8

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), San Luis Obispo County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR was established in 2000. Legal authority is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended.

Refuge Purpose(s): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) acquired these lands “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species … or (B) plants.” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1543, as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee]).

Opportunities for environmental education and interpretation will mainly be concentrated in the northwest corner of the Refuge with access by foot from Oso Flaco Lake Natural Area (from the north) or Rancho Guadalupe County Park (from the south) (Figure 1). Activities for environmental education and interpretation will highlight the habitat and resources at Myrtle Pond, Hidden Willow Valley, and Oso Flaco Peak. A pilot two-mile undeveloped trail system (Goddard Jones Trail) will be created from the open beach to the back dune area. From March 15 through September 30, beach access to the inland areas of the Refuge will be limited to a designated foot path to protect western snowy plover nesting habitat. Additionally, some docent-led environmental education and interpretation will take place from the Beigle Road administrative entrance. Beach access points may change over time depending on the location of nesting western snowy plover or the presence of rare plants. The number of annual nesting snowy plover and the amount of public use and trespass has been low compared to other sites. The original conceptual plan envisioned signed access where public could gain access and that docent programs would assist in environmental education.

D-9

Figure 2. Refuge Access and Trail

D-10

Environmental Education

Outdoor Classroom Areas A pergola with tables and benches near Myrtle Pond would be constructed to provide shade and serve as an outdoor classroom. A smaller shade area with pergola and benches would be constructed at Hidden Willow Valley, and only a bench(s) would be installed at Oso Flaco Peak. These sites are along the two- mile trail system. Refuge staff and partners would lead local high school and/or college groups to conduct environmental education. These groups would conduct at least one Citizen Science project to support management of Refuge priority species and habitats, while learning technical field biology skills.

Education through Partners Due to staffing constraints and the difficulty of bringing young children onto the Refuge (due to the hike in through neighboring lands), it will be vital to rely on and support local partners to conduct environmental education about the Refuge. Annually, at least two elementary school-aged environmental education programs would be conducted in collaboration with a non-profit dune conservation organization such as the Dunes Center. These programs will be conducted off-Refuge. An environmental education curriculum will be designed to coordinate with existing programs offered by partners.

Interpretation

Guided Programs Four interpretive walks and at least two special events would be offered annually. During the walks, Refuge staff or volunteer docents would interpret the unique flora and fauna, conservation of western snowy plover, sensitive and endangered plants, invasive animals and plants, migratory birds, cultural history, beach dynamics, and other topics. Hikes would range from moderate to arduous to ensure a variety of public participation. Sites visited would include the Craters, Oso Flaco Peak, Myrtle Pond, and Hidden Willow Valley. Some of the guided tours would be accessed through the Beigle Road entrance. The two special events would be unique opportunities, such as tours to during coreopsis blooming at Oso Flaco Peak or service events (e.g., trash removal, weed pulling) to celebrate Earth Day or National Wildlife Refuge Week.

Self-guided Interpretation The Refuge will provide self-guided interpretation through a marked interpretive loop trail with interpretation points at Myrtle Pond, Hidden Willow Valley, and Oso Flaco Peak. Interpretation will be provided through panels, kiosks, and other simple structures, as appropriate. Additional kiosks will interpret western snowy plover conservation and protection. A trail guide brochure will be designed and made available online for visitors.

Interpretation Off-Refuge The Refuge will participate with other environmental groups and agencies working on coastal dune conservation, such as the Dunes Center or neighboring parks to improve outreach to the public.

Availability of Resources: Funding and staffing is currently limited to a Refuge manager and the Complex Information and Education Specialist. The Refuge will depend on partner and volunteer support to assist in environmental education and interpretation.

Additional funding is needed for the design, construction, and installation of the pergolas, benches, kiosks, interpretive panels, and other simple infrastructure that may be required. The local surrounding community is bilingual, and a Spanish speaking environmental educator is needed to bridge the language barrier. Currently the Dunes Center is the only contact station for the Refuge to outreach to the public. We

D-11

will continue to support and foster the partnership but also recognize our need for an administrative site and contact station.

Item One-Time Cost ($) Annual Costs ($) Interpretive trail kiosks and signage 100,000 2,500 (at Myrtle Pond, Hidden Willow Valley, Oso Flaco Peak, and other sites as identified)

Environmental education pergola (2), 150,000 2,500 tables (2-3) and benches (3) Bilingual Environmental Education N/A 79,000 Specialist (GS-1701-9) New interpretive displays for Dunes 50,000 N/A Center Curriculum design and materials to 5,000 2,500 conduct environmental education Additional education 10,000 3,000 program sites Contract for Spanish translation 15,000 1,000

TOTAL: 330,000 90,500

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Conduct at least one research or Citizen Science partnership annually with local university and high school science classes or clubs. It is anticipated that this will be a small group of students, around 15 individuals. Four interpretive walks will be offered, and no more than 20 individuals will participate in these walks each time. The two annual special events are expected to have roughly the same number of participants. These group sizes are supervised, so they are expected to have only minor, temporary impacts to habitat and not expected to have any significant impacts to wildlife.

Habitat Environmental education and interpretation activities may result in minor disturbance to habitat, such as trampling of vegetation and soil erosion. However, soil erosion naturally occurs in this dune environment due to wind and storm events. Therefore, soil erosion from foot travel is expected to result in negligible effects. Refuge visitors also provide a potential mechanism for non-native seed dispersion. Trails function as conduits for movement of plant species, including non-native, invasive plants (Dale and Weaver 1974). Vehicular use associated with Refuge management activities for this use may introduce and spread non-native species onto the Refuge. Installation of additional infrastructure (e.g., pergolas, benches, kiosks, interpretive panels, and other simple infrastructure) would also result in impacts to wildlife habitats or displacement of wildlife species. However, this construction is expected to be minor given the size of the Refuge and by avoiding or minimizing intrusion into sensitive wildlife habitat. The location of these activities will be in areas with little to no vegetation and are not expected to significantly affect sensitive plant species. Also, guided programs would be supervised by Refuge staff, volunteers, or partners. Information on reducing impacts to habitat would be provided via website, visitor center, and staff to visitors enjoying self-guided interpretation opportunities.

D-12

Wildlife Trail based environmental education and interpretation events can cause immediate responses by wildlife, particularly bird species. The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the Refuge. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy plover, whose breeding habitat has become increasingly scarce due to development and heavy public use of beaches throughout its range. Responses from human activity can range from behavioral changes (e.g., nest abandonment or changes in food habits) to physiological changes (e.g., elevated heart rates due to flight) to death (Knight and Cole 1991). Western snowy plover and California least tern (not known to nest on the Refuge) may avoid otherwise suitable habitat due to human disturbance (Lafferty et al. 2006). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: avoidance, habituation, and attraction.

The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend on a number of factors, including the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the disturbance; time of day and time of year; weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, and reproductive status (Knight and Cole 1991, Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance.

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor for determining how wildlife would respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will accept human presence (Oberbillig 2000). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals seem to have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain than to humans following a distinct path.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include the California red-legged frog, Gambel’s watercress (Rorippa gambellii, endangered), La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis, endangered), and marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola, endangered). Visitors walking through the wetland areas have the potential to damage listed plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or other propagules. However, many listed plants occur within already enclosed areas, and other populations will be posted with signs accordingly to mitigate negative impacts by visitors. The potential for illegal collection of rare plants, animals, and insects at the Refuge is an additional minor concern.

Environmental education and interpretive programs have the benefit of informing visitors that their actions can have negative impacts on birds, which will increase the likelihood that visitors will abide by restrictions on their actions. For example, Klein (1993) demonstrated that visitors who spoke with Refuge staff or volunteers were less likely to disturb birds. Increased surveillance and imposed fines may also help reduce visitor caused disturbance (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Monitoring is recommended to adjust management techniques over time, particularly because it is often difficult to generalize about the impacts of specific types of recreation in different environments. Local and site-specific knowledge is necessary to determine effects on birds and to develop effective management strategies (Hockin et al. 1992; Klein et al. 1995, Hill et al. 1997). Informed management decisions coupled with sufficient public education could do much to mitigate disturbance effects of wildlife-dependent recreations (Purdy et al. 1987).

Environmental education and interpretation activities generally support the Refuge’s purposes, and impacts can largely be minimized (Goff et al. 1988). The minor resource impacts attributed to these activities are generally outweighed by the benefits gained by educating the public about Refuge resources.

D-13

Environmental education is a public use management tool used to develop a resource protection ethic within society.

The disturbance by environmental education activities is considered to be of minimal impact because the number of students permitted through the programs offered will be limited (i.e., likely no more than 15 per trip, students and teachers will be instructed in etiquette while on the Refuge and the best ways to view wildlife with minimal disturbance, and activity areas will be located away from sensitive wildlife habitat.

Overall, increased visitation resulting from the environmental education and interpretation program may impact sensitive species and their habitats. However, these effects would be monitored and managed to ensure that impacts do not reach significant levels. The pilot trail system may be closed in the event that monitoring yields a higher number of trespassers and violators than previous estimates.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP for Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR. The public will be provided at least 30 days to review and comment upon the CCP and this Compatibility Determination. Following the public review and comment period, comments and Service responses related to this Compatibility Determination will be summarized here.

Determination: ____ Use is Not Compatible

Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: The following measurers would be taken to provide environmental education and interpretation:

1. The entire foredune will be closed to public access for the western snowy plover from March 15 through September 30, except for well-marked crossover locations to access an interior trail system. 2. Trail crossovers may need to be adjusted, moved, or temporarily closed during western snowy plover nesting season. 3. The Refuge manager can close the trail system at any time, due to impacts to wildlife. 4. Trail will be monitored and documented for trespass and for invasive species. 5. Portions of the Refuge will be permanently closed to the public, including sensitive endangered plant habitat within pond exclosures.

D-14

Within five years of CCP approval, interpretive signs and an orientation kiosk will be installed on the Refuge to inform visitors about the Refuge’s habitats and wildlife and ways of avoiding adverse impacts. The kiosks will be located at the north and south Refuge beach boundaries and will include three signs: (1) a sign providing a trail map, trail information, and regulations; (2) a sign that describes the National Wildlife Refuge System; and (3) a sign describing snowy plover ecology and management.

The trail segment from the beach to the back dunes will be seasonally marked with symbolic fencing and rope to guide visitors safely through potential plover nesting habitat. The trails will be monitored routinely by Refuge staff and volunteers and will be moved as needed to accommodate a minimum 100- meter buffer from the nearest known plover nest. This will minimize trespass through closed areas and reduce disturbance to nesting birds within the beach and foredune habitats. Symbolic fencing will be placed around plover habitat, including the eastern edge of plover habitat (Refuge Priority Management Area 1) to limit disturbance from hikers heading east to west.

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies environmental education and interpretation as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. As expressed priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge system, these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in Refuge planning and management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public uses will be limited to a small portion of the Refuge only. The Refuge manager will document public use and any associated violations. The Refuge manager will document western snowy plover interactions with the public and adjust, move, or close the trail to the public if deemed necessary. The beach and the crossovers will

D-15

be signed clearly during the recommended periods. The Refuge will work with local non-profits and agencies to garner local stewardship for plover conservation.

Potential impacts of education and interpretation activities on Refuge resources will be minimized because sufficient restrictions would be included and will be monitored by the Refuge manager and biologist. The Refuge manager will also ensure the research program and associated projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats, thereby helping the Refuge fulfill the purposes for which it was established, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the need to maintain ecological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Providing environmental education and interpretation opportunities would allow the public to continue to experience, enjoy, and learn about native wildlife species in their natural habitats.

With management conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein, environmental education and interpretation would be compatible with the Refuge purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

______Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority public uses)

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional Director, Refuges: ______(Signature) (Date)

Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation

D-16

References Cited:

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. Fifth ed. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, MA. 625pp.

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky Mountain forests. J. Applied Ecology 11:767-772.

Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95- 107 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp.

Goff, G.R., D.J. Decker and G. Pomerantz. 1988. A diagnostic tool for analyzing visitor impacts on wildlife refuges: A basis for a systematic approach to visitor management. Trans. Northeast Sect. Wildl. Soc. 45:82.

Hill, D., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:275-288.

Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M.A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36:253-286.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39.

Klein, M.L., S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands in Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247.

Knight, R.L., and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372 pp.

Lafferty, K.D., D. Goodman, and C. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2217-2230.

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie Communications, Missoula, MT.

Purdy, K.G., G.R. Goft, D.J. Decker, G.A. Pomerantz, and N.A. Connelly. 1987. A guide to managing human activity on National Wildlife Refuges. Office of Information Transfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, CO. 57 pp.

D-17

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Research

Refuge Name:

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), San Luis Obispo County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR was established in 2000. Legal authority is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended.

Refuge Purpose(s):

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) acquired these lands"... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ... or (B) plants." 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1543, as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use:

Two provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act are to “maintain biological integrity, diversity and environmental health” and to conduct “inventory and monitoring.” Research investigations are designed to address these provisions by answering specific management questions. These include, but are not limited to, evaluation of vegetation and wildlife response to habitat management, wildlife and plant population monitoring, documentation of seasonal wildlife movements and habitat use, investigations, and development of invasive species management strategies. Pertinent results from research investigations are incorporated into management plans and actions, and help strengthen the decision-making process.

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR receives requests each year to conduct scientific research at the Refuge. The Refuge issues Special Use Permits (SUP) for approved research and monitoring projects. SUPs would only be issued for monitoring and investigations which contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native Refuge plant and wildlife populations and their habitats. Research applicants are required to submit a proposal that outlines: (1) objectives of the study; (2) justification for the study; (3) detailed methodology and schedule; (4) potential impacts on Refuge wildlife or habitat, including disturbance (short and long term), injury, or mortality (this includes a description of measures the researcher will take to reduce disturbance or impacts); (5) research personnel required; (6) costs to Refuge, if any; and (7) progress reports and end products (i.e., reports, thesis, dissertations, publications). Research proposals are reviewed by Refuge staff, and if approved, a SUP is issued by the wildlife refuge manager to formally authorize any project.

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:

▪ Research that will contribute to specific Refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other research requests.

▪ Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will not be granted.

▪ Research projects that can be accomplished off -Refuge are less likely to be approved.

▪Research which causes undue disturbance or is overly intrusive will likely not be granted. Level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request. Suggestions may be made to adjust certain aspects of the research proposal such as the location, timing, scope, number of permittees, study methods, or number of study sites to be conducted.

▪ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the Refuge to monitor researcher activity in a sensitive area, the research request may be denied.

▪ The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval. Projects will be reviewed annually.

Availability of Resources: Needed resources Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge. Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR – Research Task Estimated cost per year1 Administration and management of the use $2,500 (evaluation of applications, management of permits, and monitoring of research projects) TOTAL $2,500 1 Annual cost. Annual personnel costs = 2013 step 5 salary for appropriate GS/WG level x 35% for benefits.

Adequacy of existing resources The Refuge has sufficient resources to administer the research program in an efficient manner. The primary staff required to administer the program is the Refuge Manager to create and implement the permit and a biologist to review potential biological impacts and/or benefits.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Conducting management-oriented research benefits Refuge fish, wildlife, plant populations, and their habitat. Monitoring and research investigations will be designed to answer habitat or population management questions, thereby contributing to adaptive management of the Refuge. An expected short- term effect of monitoring and research investigations is that Refuge management activities would be modified to improve habitat and wildlife populations, as a result of new information. Expected long-term and cumulative effects include a growing body of science-based data and knowledge from which to draw upon to implement the best Refuge management possible. Natural resources inventory, monitoring and research are necessary tools towards maintaining biological integrity and diversity and environmental health. Information gained from well-thought out research will improve habitat and wildlife populations.

Some negative direct and indirect effects could occur through disturbance which is expected with some research activities, especially where researchers are entering sensitive habitats. Researcher disturbance would include altering wildlife behavior, temporarily displacing wildlife, collecting soil and plant samples, or trapping and handling wildlife. However, most of these effects would be short-term because only the minimum of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates) required for identification and/or experimentation and statistical analysis would be permitted and captured and marked wildlife would be released. Long-term effects would be negligible because refuge evaluation of research proposals and conditions of SUPs would ensure that impacts, such as disturbance, to wildlife and habitats are avoided or minimized. Refuge staff would ensure research projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats thereby helping the Refuge fulfill the purposes for which it was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Protected or Special Concern Species

The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the Refuge. Past monitoring of this species has documented important refuge habitats and critical time periods necessary to provide for the species’ needs. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy plover, whose breeding habitat is increasingly scarce due to development and heavy public use of beaches throughout its range. Although current levels of public use are low on the Refuge, human activity in the dunes and beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover reproductive success (Lafferty et al. 2006). Western snowy plovers use the entire beach profile, from the foredune through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide lines) for breeding and foraging. Pedestrians entering the foredune and coastal strand habitats during the breeding season have the potential to trample well-camouflaged western snowy plover eggs and/or chicks or to disturb adults, keeping them away from the nest for extended periods and leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators, wind, and/or extreme temperatures.

The federally endangered California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), although not known to nest on the Refuge, does nest at adjacent State and county park lands. The same potential human threats that could impact western snowy plovers could impact California least terns.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii, threatened), Gambel’s watercress (Rorippa gambellii, endangered), La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis, endangered), and marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola, endangered). Visitors walking through the wetland areas have the potential to damage listed plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or other propagules. However, many listed plants occur within already exclosed areas surrounded by fencing, and other populations will be posted with signs accordingly to mitigate negative impacts by visitors.

Stipulations in SUPs would be written to ensure that research projects do not negatively impact important habitat areas such as breeding or rearing sites and/or avoid activities during sensitive time periods. Research results could fill important information gaps on habitat requirements or impacts of various management practices that could improve conditions for sensitive species over the long term. All research proposals will be evaluated relative to potential impacts to protected species as well as other refuge resources. Research activities that may affect a listed or candidate species will require consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

Public Review and Comment:

Public Involvement Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP for Guadalupe- Nipomo Dunes NWR. The public will be provided at least 30 days to review and comment upon the CCP and this Compatibility Determination. Following the public review and comment period, related comments and Service responses will be summarized here.

Determination (check one below):

______Use is Not Compatible

___X____ Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 1. The criteria for evaluating a research proposal, outlined in the Description of Use section above, will be used when determining whether a proposed study will be approved on the Refuge.

D-20

2. If proposed research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential adverse impacts on refuge wildlife or habitat, then the refuge would determine the utility and need of such research to conservation and management of refuge wildlife and habitat. 3. If the need was demonstrated by the research permittee and accepted by the refuge, then measures to minimize potential impacts (e.g., reduce the numbers of researchers entering an area, restrict research in specified areas) would be developed and included as part of the study design and on the SUP. 4. SUPs will contain specific terms and conditions that the researcher(s) must follow relative to activity, location, duration, seasonality, etc. to ensure continued compatibility. 5. Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise permitted in writing by Refuge management. 6. The Refuge also requires the submission of annual or final reports and any/all publications associated with the work conducted on the Refuge. 7. Each SUP may have additional criteria. Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas would be avoided unless sufficient protection from research activities (i.e., disturbance, collection, capture and handling) is implemented to limit the area and/or wildlife potentially impacted by the proposed research. 8. Where appropriate, some areas may be temporarily/seasonally closed so that research would be permitted when impacts to wildlife and habitat are no longer a concern. Research activities will be modified to avoid harm to sensitive wildlife and habitat when unforeseen impacts arise. 9. Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for potential impacts to the refuge and for compliance with conditions on the SUP. The refuge manager may determine that previously approved research and SUPs be terminated due to observed impacts. The refuge manager will also have the ability to cancel a SUP if the researcher is out of compliance with the conditions of the SUP.

Justification: Conducting management-oriented research benefits Refuge fish, wildlife, plant populations, and their habitat. Monitoring and research investigations will be designed to answer habitat or population management questions, thereby contributing to adaptive management of the Refuge. This program as described is determined to be a compatible activity. Well-designed research investigations will directly benefit and support refuge goals, objectives, and management plans and activities. Fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat will improve through the application of knowledge gained from monitoring and research. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health would benefit from scientific research conducted at the Refuges. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses (e.g., wildlife observation, interpretation, photography, environmental education) would also benefit as a result of increased biodiversity and wildlife and native plant populations from improved restoration and management plans and activities associated with research investigations that address specific restoration and management questions.

Mandatory 10- 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: Provide month and year for allowed uses only.

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place “X” in appropriate space.

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

Lafferty, K. D., D. Goodman, and C. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers following 21 protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2217-2230.

Lafferty, K. D. 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 101:315- 325.

D-22

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional Director, Refuges: ______(Signature) (Date)

23 Appendix E Refuge Plant Species List Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

formerly Sambucus Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea blue elderberry Adoxaceae mexicana Amaranthus deflexus amaranth* Amaranthaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum western poison oak Anacardiaceae Apiastrum angustifolium wild celery Apiaceae Apium graveolens celery* Apiaceae Berula erecta cutleaf water parsnip Apiaceae Conium maculatum poison hemlock* Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare fennel* Apiaceae

E-1 Oenanthe sarmentosa marsh parsley Apiaceae Lemna sp. duckweed Araceae Wolffiella lingulata mud-midget Araceae Hydrocotyle ranunculoides marsh pennywort Araliaceae Hydrocotyle verticillata marsh pennywort Araliaceae Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae Ambrosia chamissonis beach-bur Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Asteraceae Artemisia californica California sagebrush Asteraceae Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Asteraceae Artemisia dracunculus tarragon Asteraceae Aster chilensis aster Asteraceae formerly B. Baccharis glutinosa marsh baccharis Asteraceae douglasii Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

Baccharis pilularis coyote bush Asteraceae Cirsium brevistylum thistle Asteraceae Cirsium occidentale var. occidentale cobweb thistle Asteraceae Cirsium rhothophilum surf thistle Asteraceae T 1B.2 formerly Cirsium Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis La Graciosa thistle Asteraceae E T 1B.1 loncholepis Cirsium vulgare bull thistle* Asteraceae Conyza canadensis horseweed Asteraceae Jepson 2012 does not include E-2 Corethrogyne filaginifolia California aster Asteraceae Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia Cotula coronopifolia brass buttons* Asteraceae Ericameria ericoides mock heather Asteraceae Erigeron blochmaniae Blochman's leafy daisy Asteraceae 1B.2 Eriophyllum confertiflorum golden yarrow Asteraceae Eriophyllum staechadifolium coastal golden yarrow Asteraceae Euthamia occidentalis western goldenrod Asteraceae Gnaphalium canescens everlasting Asteraceae formerly Picris Helminotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue* Asteraceae echioides Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Asteraceae Isocoma menziesii var. vernonioides coastal goldenbush Asteraceae Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

only known on Jaumea carnosa jaumea Asteraceae refuge from Myrtle wetland formerly (Coreopsis Leptosyne gigantea giant coreopsis, giant tickseed Asteraceae gigantea) Sparganium Pond, Madia gracilis gumweed Asteraceae west side of shoreline Malacothrix californica California dandelion Asteraceae Malacothrix incana dunedelion Asteraceae 4.3 formerly E-3 Matricaria doscoidea pineapple weed* Asteraceae Chamomilla suaveolens formerly Pseudogaphalium californicum California everlasting Asteraceae Gnaphalium californicum formerly Pseudognaphalium biolettii bicolored everlasting Asteraceae Gnaphalium bicolor Senecio blochmaniae Blochman's ragwort Asteraceae 4.2 Senecio californicus California ragwort Asteraceae Senecio elegans red-purple ragwort** Asteraceae Silybum marianum milk thistle* Asteraceae formerly Solidago Solidago velutina subsp. californica California goldenrod Asteraceae californica Sonchus asper subsp. asper prickly sow thistle* Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus common sow thistle* Asteraceae Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

Stephanomeria elata wire lettuce Asteraceae Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium cocklebur Asteraceae Carpobrotus chilensis ice-plant/ sea fig** Azioaceae Carpobrotus edulis freeeway ice-plant** Azioaceae Conicosia pugioniformis narrowleaf ice-plant** Azioaceae Azolla filiculoides mosquito fern Azollaceae Amsinckia spectabilis fiddleneck Boraginaceae Cryptantha leiocarpa beach cryptantha Boraginaceae E-4 formerly Heliotropium curassavicum var. seaside heliotrope Boraginaceae Heliotropium oculatum curassavicum Phacelia distans common phacelia Boraginaceae Phacelia douglasii phacelia Boraginaceae Phacelia ramosissima branching phacelia Boraginaceae Pholisma arenarium pholisma / sand food Boraginaceae Brassica nigra black mustard* Brassicaceae Cakile maritima sea rocket* Brassicaceae Dithyrea maritima beach spectaclepod Brassicaceae T 1B.1 formerly Erysimum Erysimum suffrutescens suffrutescent wallflower Brassicaceae 4.2 insulare subsp. suffrutescens formerly in genus Lepidium draba heart-podded hoary cress** Brassicaceae Cardaria Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

Lepidium lasiocarpum subsp. peppercress Brassicaceae lasiocarpum Nasturtium gambelii Gambel’s watercress Brassicaceae E T 1B.1 Lonicera involucrata var. ledebourii twinberry Caprifoliaceae Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Carophyllaceae E E 1B.1 Cardionema ramosissimum sand mat Carophyllaceae formerly Silene Silene laciniata subsp. laciniata Mexican pink Carophyllaceae laciniata subsp. major Atriplex californica coastal saltbush Chenopodiaceae E-5 Atriplex leucophylla beach saltbush Chenopodiaceae Atriplex patula spear oracle Chenopodiaceae formerly A. Atriplex prostratus spearscale* Chenopodiaceae triangularis Chenopodium californicum California goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Previously known as Chenopodium Chenopodium littoreum coastal goosefoot Chenopodiaceae 1B.2 carnosulum Moq. var. patagonicum Salsola australis Russian thistle* Chenopodiaceae iSalsola tragus Calystegia soldanella dune morning-glory Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis bindweed* Convolvulaceae Cuscuta californica chaparral dodder Convolvulaceae Dudleya lanceolata lance-leaved dudleya Crassulaceae Dudleya pulverulenta chalk dudleya Crassulaceae Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

Carex praegracilis clustered field sedge Cyperaceae Only found at one location - Carex bog Carex sp. sedge, unid. Cyperaceae in NE section of Refuge Cyperus eragrostis nutsedge* Cyperaceae Eleocharis macrostachya common spikerush Cyperaceae Scirpus microcarpus small-headed bulrush Cyperaceae Dryopteris arguta wood fern Dryopteridaceae Equisetum hyemale subsp. affine common souring rush Equisetaceae E-6 Equisetum laevigatum smooth scouring rush Equisetaceae Croton californicus California croton Euphorbiaceae formerly Lotus Acmispon glaber deerweed Fabaceae scoparius formerly Lotus Acmispon heermannii woolly deerweed Fabaceae heermannii formerly Lotus Acmispon prostratus Nuttall's acmispon Fabaceae nuttallianus ocean bluff milkvetch, Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii Fabaceae 4.2 locoweed Lupinus arboreus yellow bush lupine Fabaceae Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine Fabaceae Lupinus chamissonis silver bush lupine Fabaceae formerly Melilotus Melilotus albus white sweet clover* Fabaceae alba Melilotus indicus sour clover* Fabaceae formerly Melilotus Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

indica Trifolium repens white clover* Fabaceae Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree* Geraniaceae Geranium dissectum cut-leaved geranium*? Geraniaceae Ribes divaricatum var. pubiflorum straggly gooseberry Grossulariaceae Ribes sanguineum red flowering currant Grossulariaceae Phacelia ramosissima shrubby phacelia Hydrophyllaceae Juncus bufonius toad rush Juncaceae Juncus effusus bog rush Juncaceae E-7 Juncus lesueurii creeping rush Juncaceae Marrubium vulgare horehound* Lamiaceae Mentha sp. mint* Lamiaceae formerly Monardella undulata subsp. crispa crisp monardella Lamiaceae 1B.2 Monardella crispa formerly Monardella undulata subsp. undulata San Luis Obispo monardella Lamiaceae 1B.2 Monardella frutescens Salvia mellifera black sage Lamiaceae Lemna sp. duckweed Lemnaceae Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks Liliaceae Malva parviflora cheeseweed* Malvaceae Malva sylvestris high mallow* Malvaceae Claytonia perfoliata miner's lettuce Montiaceae Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

formerly Myrica Morela californica wax myrtle Myricaceae californica Abronia latifolia yellow sand verbena Nyctaginaceae Abronia maritima beach sand verbena Nyctaginaceae 4.2 Abronia umbellata purple sand verbena Nyctaginaceae formerly in genus Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia beach evening-primrose Onagraceae Cammissonia Epilobium ciliatum willow-herb Onagraceae Oenothera elata subsp. hookeri Hooker's evening primrose Onagraceae Castilleja affinis Indian paintbrush Orobanchaceae E-8 Castilleja exserta owl’s clover Orobanchaceae Orobanche parishii subsp. brachyloba short-lobed broom-rape Orobanchaceae 4.2 Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup* Oxalidaceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy Papaveraceae formerly Meconella Hesperomecon linearis carnival poppy Papaveraceae linearis Mimulus guttatus monkeyflower Phrymaceae Plantago erecta annual plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago major common plantain* Plantaginaceae Plantago subnuda plantain Plantaginaceae Ammophila arenaria European beachgrass** Poaceae Avena barbata slender wild oats* Poaceae Avena fatua common wild oats* Poaceae Bromus diandrus ripgut brome* Poaceae Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

Bromus hordeaceus soft-chess brome* Poaceae Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome** Poaceae Cortaderia jubata jubata grass** Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass* Poaceae Distichlis spicata saltgrass Poaceae Ehrharta calycina perennial veldt grass** Poaceae formerly Leymus Elymus condensatus giant wild-rye Poaceae condensatus Elymus glaucus blue wildrye Poaceae

E-9 Hordeum marinum Mediterranean barley* Poaceae Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyu grass* Poaceae Poa annua annual bluegrass* Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass* Poaceae Eriastrum densifolium ssp. densifolium giant wool star Polemoniaceae formerly Leptodactylon californicus prickly phlox Polemoniaceae 4.2 Leptodactylon californicum Chorizanthe angustifolia spineflower Polygonaceae Eriogonum parvifolium coastal buckwheat Polygonaceae Mucronea californica California spineflower Polygonaceae 4.2 formerly Polygonum Polygonum aviculare subsp. depressum common knotweed* Polygonaceae arenastrum Rumex crispus curly dock* Polygonaceae Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel Myrsinaceae Common Name Fed State CNPS Plant Species (as per Jepson 2012) Family Notes (* = introduced; ** = invasive) Status Status Status

Delphinium parryi subsp. blochmaniae dune larkspur Ranunculaceae 1B.2 Ranunculus occidentalis western buttercup Ranunculaceae formerly Rhamnus Frangula californica California coffee berry Rhamnaceae californica Fragaria chiloensis beach strawberry Rosaceae Horkelia cuneata horkelia Rosaceae Potentilla anserina subsp. pacifica cinquefoil Rosaceae Prunus fasciculata var. punctata sand almond Rosaceae 4.3 Rubus ursinus California blackberry Rosaceae

E-10 Galium californicum California bedstraw Rubiaceae Galium nuttallii subsp. nuttallii Nuttall's bedstraw Rubiaceae formerly Populus Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood Salicaceae balsamifera subsp. trichocarpa Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salicaceae Anemopsis californica yerba mansa Saururaceae Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco* Solanaceae Solanum douglasii Douglas' nightshade Solanaceae Sparganium eurycarpum var. broad-fruit bur-reed Typhaceae eurycarpum Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail Typhaceae Hesperocnide tenella western nettle Urticaceae Urtica dioica subsp. holosericea hoary nettle, stinging nettle Urticaceae Verbena lasiostachys vervain Verbenaceae Appendix F Refuge Wildlife Species List Species Common Name Family Order

Invertebrates Ixodes pacificus western black-legged tick Ixodidae Acari Latrodectus hesperus black widow spider Theridiidae Araneae Apleurus sp. weevil Curculionidae Coleoptera California broad-necked darkling Colocnemis californicus beetle Tenebrionidae Coleoptera Cuterbra sp. rodent bot fly Oestridae Diptera Armadillidium vulgare pillbug Armadillidiidae Isopoda Acrolophus sp. undet. 1 Acrolophus moth Acrolophidae Lepidoptera Anoncia sp. undet. 1 Anoncia moth Cosmopterigidae Lepidoptera Comadia bertholdi Comadia moth Cossidae Lepidoptera F-1 Dicymolomia metalliferalis Crambid moth Crambidae Lepidoptera Jocara tarabalis Crambid moth Crambidae Lepidoptera Loxostege immerens Crambid moth Crambidae Lepidoptera Pyrasuta nexalis Crambid moth Crambidae Lepidoptera Aristotelia argentifera Gelechiid moth Gelechiidae Lepidoptera Aroga “paraplutella” Gelechiid moth Gelechiidae Lepidoptera Chionodes sp. undet. 1 Gelechiid moth Gelechiidae Lepidoptera Eusarca falcata Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Geometrid moth, unid. Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Neoterpes edwardsata Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Pero macdunnoughi Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Pherne subpunctata Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Plataea personaria Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Synaxis hirsutaria Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Synchlora faseolaria Geometrid moth Geometridae Lepidoptera Lithariapteryx elegans Heliodinid moth Heliodinidae Lepidoptera Species Common Name Family Order

Icaria icarioides Boisduval's blue butterfly Lycaenidae Lepidoptera Plebejus acmon Acmon blue butterfly Lycaenidae Lepidoptera Plebejus icarioides moroensis Morro blue butterfly Lycaenidae Lepidoptera Autographa californica Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Cisthene liberomacula Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Copablepharon robertsoni Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Cryphia viridata Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Cucullia antipoda Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Euxoa formalis Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Euxoa pluralis Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Euxoa serricornis Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Euxoa sp. undet. 2 Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Grammia ornata Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera F-2 Lacinipolia patalis Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Notarctia proxima Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Oligia marina Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Orgyia vetusta Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Orthosia pacifica Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Parabagrotis insularis Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Pseudorthodes puerilis Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Spilosoma vagans Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Ululonche niveiguttata Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Zosteropoda hirtipes Noctuid moth Noctuidae Lepidoptera Furcula scolopendrina Notodontid moth Notodontidae Lepidoptera Chlosyne leanira Leanira checkerspot butterfly Nymphalidae Lepidoptera Chlosyne leanira elgans Oso Flaco patch butterfly Nymphalidae Lepidoptera Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly Nymphalidae Lepidoptera Papilio rutulus western tiger swallowtail Papilionidae Lepidoptera Rhagea stigmella Pyralid moth Pyralidae Lepidoptera

Species Common Name Family Order

Toripalpus tarabilis Pyralid moth Pyralidae Lepidoptera Apodemia mormo Mormon metalmark butterfly Riodinidae Lepidoptera

Apodemia virgulti arenaria sand dunes metalmark Riodinidae Lepidoptera Smerinthus cerisyi Sphingid moth Sphingidae Lepidoptera Endothenia hebesana Tortricid moth Tortricidae Lepidoptera Phaneta misturana Tortricid moth Tortricidae Lepidoptera Phaneta, new species Tortricid moth Tortricidae Lepidoptera California orange-winged Arphia ramona grasshopper Acrididae Orthoptera Conozoa texana cristate grasshopper Acrididae Orthoptera Melanoplus cinereus ssp. cyanipes grayish sagebrush grasshopper Acrididae Orthoptera Melanoplus marginatus margined spur-throat grasshopper Acrididae Orthoptera F-3 Microtes pogonata Microtes grasshopper Acrididae Orthoptera Oedaleontotus phryneicus Oedaleontotus grasshopper Acrididae Orthoptera Scorpiones, unid. scorpion, unid. unk Scorpiones

Scientific Name Common Name Family Status Notes

Amphibians Anaxyrus boreas halophilus Southern California toad Bufonidae NT Pseudacris sierra Sierran treefrog Hylidae species under taxonomic review FT, Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Ranidae NT

Reptiles CSSC, Actinemys marmorata Pacific pond turtle Emydidae VU Sceloporus occidentalis bocourtii Coast Range fence lizard Phrynosomidae species under taxonomic review Plestiodon skiltonianus skiltonianus Skilton's skink Scincidae

F-4 Elgaria multicarinata webbii San Diego alligator lizard Anguidae Anniella pulchra California legless lizard Anniellidae CSSC Diadophis punctatus Monterey ring-necked vandenburghi snake Colubridae species under taxonomic review Coluber lateralis lateralis California striped racer Colubridae Pituophis catenifer annectens San Diego gopher snake Colubridae Thamnophis sirtalis California red-sided garter infernalis snake Colubridae Thamnophis elegans terrestris coast garter snake Colubridae Thamnophis hammondii two-striped garter snake Colubridae CSSC C. v. oreganus and/or hybrids may also be Crotalus oreganus helleri southern Pacific rattlesnake Viperidae present Status Abbreviations: CSC: California State species of special concern; FT: federally threatened; NT (IUCN): near threatened, or candidate; VU (IUCN): vulnerable, considered to be facing a high risk of extinction.

Conservation Conservation Bird Species Common Name Status - Federal Status - State Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk FP Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk Circus cyaneus northern harrier Elanus caeruleus white-tailed kite Cathartes aura turkey vulture Pandion haliaetus osprey Anas platyrhynchos mallard

F-5 Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird Phalaenoptilus nuttallii common poorwill Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover T SSC Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover Charadrius vociferus killdeer Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover Larus californicus California gull Larus heermanni Heermann’s gull Larus delawarensis ring-billed gull Larus occidentalis western gull Sternula antillarumbrowni California least tern E Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt Recurvirostra americana American avocet Actitis macularius spotted sandpiper Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone Arenaria melanocephala black turnstone

Conservation Conservation Bird Species Common Name Status - Federal Status - State Numenius americanus long-billed curlew Calidris alba sanderling Calidris alpina dunlin Calidris mauri western sandpiper Limnodromus sp. dowitcher Limosa fedoa marbled godwit Numenius phaeopus whimbrel Phalaropus lobatus red-necked phalarope Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs Tringa semipalmata willet Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern Thallaseus elegans elegant tern

F-6 Thallaseus maxima royal tern Columba livia rock pigeon* Patagioenas fasciata bandtailed pigeon Zenaida macroura mourning dove Falco columbarius merlin Falco mexicanus prairie falcon Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon Falco sparverius American kestrel Callipepla californica California quail Fulica americana American coot Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Eremophila alpestris horned lark Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus blackheaded grosbeak

Conservation Conservation Bird Species Common Name Status - Federal Status - State Piranga flava hepatic tanager Piranga ludoviciana western tanager Aphelocoma californica western scrub jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting Junco hyemalis darkeyed junco Melospiza melodia song sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Spizella passerina chipping sparrow

F-7 Zonotrichia atricapilla goldencrowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys whitecrowned sparrow Empidonax difficilis Pacific slope flycatcher Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence's goldfinch Carpodacus cassinii Cassin's finch Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Carpodacus purpureus purple finch Hirundo pyrrhonota cliff swallow Hirundo rustica barn swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern roughwinged swallow Tachycineta thalassina violetgreen swallow Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole Icterus galbula Baltimore oriole

Conservation Conservation Bird Species Common Name Status - Federal Status - State Quiscalus mexicanus great-tailed grackle Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Anthus rubescens American pipit Dendroica coronata yellowrumped warbler Dendroica petechia yellow warbler Dendroica townsendi Townsend's warbler Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat Setophaga citrina hooded warbler Vermivora celata orangecrowned warbler

F-8 Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's warbler Passer domesticus house sparrow* Polioptila caerulea bluegray gnatcatcher Phainopepla nitens phainopepla Regulus calendula rubycrowned kinglet Regulus satrapa goldencrowned kinglet Sturnus vulgaris European starling* Chamaea fasciata wrentit Cistothorus palustris marsh wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Troglodytes aedon house wren Catharus guttatus hermit thrush Catharus ustulatus Swainson's thrush Sialia mexicana western bluebird Turdus migratorius American robin Contopus sordidulus western wood peewee Myiarchus cinerascens ashthroated flycatcher

Conservation Conservation Bird Species Common Name Status - Federal Status - State Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird Vireo gilvus warbling vireo Ardea herodias great blue heron Bubulcus ibis cattle egret Butorides virescens green heron Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis

F-9 Colaptes auratus northern flicker Melanerpes formicivorous acorn woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Lewis' woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker Sphyrapicus ruber redbreasted sapsucker Aechmophorus clarkii Clark's grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis western grebe Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe Athene cunicularia hypugaea western burrowing owl Bubo virginianus great horned owl Megascops kennicottii western screech-owl SSC Tyto alba barn owl Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt's cormorant E: endangered; T: threatened; SSC: State Species of Concern

Conservation Species Common Name Family Order Status Mammals Odocoileus hemionus mule deer Cervidae Artiodactyla Sus scrofa wild pig Suidae Artiodactyla introduced pest Canis latrans coyote Canidae Carnivora Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox Canidae Carnivora Vulpes vulpes red fox Canidae Carnivora introduced pest Lynx rufus bobcat Felidae Carnivora Felis catus domestic cat Felidae Carnivora introduced pest Felis concolor mountain lion Felidae Carnivora Mephitis mephitis striped skunk Mephitidae Carnivora Taxidea taxus American badger Mustelidae Carnivora CSSC Zalophus califonianus California sea lion Otariidae Carnivora Mirounga angustirostrus northern elephant seal Phocidae Carnivora F-10 Phoca vitulina Pacific harbor seal Phocidae Carnivora Procyon lotor northern raccoon Proycyonidae Carnivora Ursus americanus American black bear Ursidae Carnivora Didelphis virginiana Virginia oppossum Didelphidae Didelphimorphia Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae Lagomorpha Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail Leporidae Lagomorpha Sylvilagus bachmani brush rabbit Leporidae Lagomorpha Microtus californica California vole Cricetidae Rodentia Neotoma fuscipes duskyfooted woodrat Cricetidae Rodentia Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse Cricetidae Rodentia Peromyscus truei pińon mouse Cricetidae Rodentia Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse Cricetidae Rodentia Thomomys sp. pocket gopher Geomyidae Rodentia Dipodomys heermani arenae Lompoc kangaroo rat Heteromyidae Rodentia Mus musculus house mouse Muridae Rodentia Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Sciuridae Rodentia

Conservation Species Common Name Family Order Status Sorex sp. shrew, unid. Soricidae Soricomorpha Talplid, unid. mole, unid. Talpidae Soricomorpha CSSC: CA Species of Special Concern F-11

Appendix G Vegetation Map

G-1 Appendix H Refuge Priority Management Areas

H-1

RPMA Area RPMA # (Acres) Description at least 95% of Refuge's western snowy plover breeding activity occurs in this area; also has good examples of coastal 1 88.00 strand and coastal dune mat communities; surf thistle present at many locations; threatened by beach grass, ice plant, and purple ragwort contains Myrtle Pond and Myrtle Marsh; La Graciosa thistle seeds planted here; marsh sandwort and Gamble's watercress planted here; California red-legged frog breed here; waterfowl; 2 0.82 western pond turtle; breeding habitat for red-winged blackbird; also contains California wax myrtle; a hiking destination that should be kept native; perimeter of this area threatened by beach grass includes Oso Flaco Peak - the highest point on Refuge; good 3 18.56 example of coreopsis dune scrub; a hiking destination with great vistas; needs treatment for beach grass and ice plant largest open sand sheet on Refuge; periodically supports 4 91.21 western snowy plover breeding good coreopsis dune scrub and open sand sheet; beach 5 44.65 spectacle-pod present

6 20.24 best and densest coreopsis dune scrub on Refuge good examples of open sand sheet, coastal dunes scrub, and 7 15.15 coastal dunes swale; this area supports one of the densest population of beach spectacle pod on the Refuge Hidden Willow Valley - the number one hiker destination for the inland portion of Refuge; contains several willow riparian communities; large Juncus/Carex wetlands; good coastal dune 8 85.79 scrub; good habitat for neotropical migrant birds present here, primarily in willows; owl and hawk roosting; threatened by beach grass; a hiking destination that should be kept native Lunar Craters - a very dynamic and very scenic migrating sand 9 51.60 sheet; popular hiking destination; has dramatic 40-foot deep hollows from wind scour; threatened by beach grass Phoebe Valley - one of best examples of coastal dunes scrub in entire dunes complex; a congregation area for Say's phoebe 10 34.42 (in winter) and mule deer (year round); threatened by veldt grass (but is still controllable) tallest forested area on Refuge - cottonwood/willow forest; contains only Santa Barbara sedge wetland on Refuge (1.56 AC); several scattered willow wetlands present; good 11 25.26 examples of coastal dunes scrub; owl and hawk roosting; portions of this area threatened by veldt grass and poison hemlock

H-2 RPMA Area RPMA # (Acres) Description contains eastern portion of Long Valley, Woodpecker Valley, and Southeast Sand Sheet; Woodpecker Valley contains largest continuous willow forest on Refuge; Snakebite Pond provides habitat for California red-legged frog, many neotropical migrants, and two-striped gartersnake; Gambel's 12 60.27 watercress and marsh sandwort previously planted at Snakebite Pond; good examples of dune swales present; owl and hawk roosting; some good examples of native coastal dune scrub also present; this area threatened by veldt grass and feral swine west end of Sparganium Valley; contains only known population of La Graciosa thistle on Refuge; good willow forest 13 4.21 present; California red-legged frog present; Gambel's watercress and marsh sandwort previously planted here; owl and hawk roosting; threatened by feral swine Four Pond Valley - Colorada Pond, Icebox Pond, and Four Pond Valley East Pond present here; California red-legged frog breed at most of these ponds; Gambel's watercress and 14 9.14 marsh sandwort previously planted here; La Graciosa thistle seed planted here; owl and hawk roosting; threatened by feral swine Total 549.32 Acreage Percent of 21% Refuge

H-3 Appendix I Trail Map

I-1