July 1988 FREMONTIA A Journal of the California Native Plant Society !&Ss^x*'¦¦&¦*: ¦<•¦¦ !¦¦¦¦¦¦;«.¦; :;¦¦.¦"¦ -¦.¦.'-..>¦-;.¦:¦ ¦,.!¦ . . - ¦ '>!;!¦-»" ***..-V' ¦¦» . " . ¦ ^•V^V.'i'>v 4 FREMONTIA Vol. 16 No. 2 July 1988 Copyright © 1988 California Native Plant Society Phyllis M. Faber, Editor Laurence J. Hyman, Art Director Beth Hansen, Designer EDITORIAL California Native Plant Society Dedicated to the Preservation of the California Native Flora The California Native Plant Society is an organization of laymen and professionals united by an interest in the plants of California. It is open to all. Its principal aims are to preserve the native flora and to add to the knowledge of members and the public at large. It seeks to accomplish the former goal in a number of ways; by monitoring rare and endangered plants throughout the State; by acting to save endan- gered areas through publicity, persuasion, and, on occasion, legal action; by providing expert testimony to governmental bodies; and by supporting financially and otherwise the establishment of native plant preserves. Much of this work is done through CNPS Chapters throughout the State. The Society's educational work includes: pub- lication of a quarterly journal, Fremontia, and a quarterly Bulletin which gives news and announcements of Society events and conser- vation issues. Chapters hold meetings, field trips, and plant and poster sales. Non-members are welcome to attend. The work of the Society is done by volunteers. Money is provided by the dues of members and by funds raised by chapter plant and poster sales. Additional donations, bequests, and memorial gifts from friends of the Society can assist greatly in carrying forward the work of the Society. Dues and donations are tax-deductible. The subject of preserves and the protection of rare species of plants is the focus of this issue of Fremontia. This theme emerged from the November 1987 CNPS conference on rare plants where several presentations focused on the many varying but specific requirements of plant populations, particularly those species endemic to California. The lead article by Laura Huenneke, former- ly of Stanford University's Conservation Biology Depart- ment, provides an overview of considerations for the sur- vival of rare plant species. Coincidentally, Laura's paper also serves as a kind of summation of the new and inte- grative discipline of conservation biology. Subsequent articles give a glimpse of what the state of the art is for protecting rare or special plants in a private organization, The Nature Conservancy, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the U.S. Forest Service. We are setting aside this space on page two for editor- ial comment through a desire to better communicate with CNPS members and to be able to point out special or interesting features of the current issue of Fremon- tia. To support the ambitious and critically important program CNPS has developed to preserve California's native flora, it is important that the CNPS membership continue to grow. Each of us must do our part to make that happen, and better communication is a part of the task. Your letters and opinions are always welcome. Phyllis M. Faber NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS W. James Barry is senior state park ecologist in the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Robin Cox is preserve design ecologist for The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco. Kent E. Holsinger is assistant professor of biology in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. Laura F. Huenneke is assistant professor of biology at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, and was formerly in the Conservation Biology Department at Stanford University. Lynn Lozier is director of the Landowner Contact Program at The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco. Edward Ross is curator emeritus of entomology at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and an early member of CNPS. He pioneered the use of single-lens reflex cameras and electronic flash in close-up nature photography. He is well- known for his world-ranging expeditions and the resulting photographs and articles. James R. Shevock is regional botanist and planning biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Fran- cisco. Jim has discovered twelve new, previously unnamed plant species in California, five of which have been named for him. The latest of these is Allium shevockii. THE COVER: Moses Mountain (9,331 feet) on the western edge of the Golden Trout Wilderness, Sequoia National Forest, shown in a photograph by James R. Shevock, contains the largest population of Kaweah fawn lilies estimated at over five million plants. 2 MANAGING LAND TO PROTECT RARE PLANT POPULATIONS by Laura F. Huenneke The protection of rare plants and animals has become a major issue for both conservation professionals and the public. Protecting a rare organism may be the pri- mary objective of land management, as in the case of a preserve, or it may be only one of several management objectives, as, for example, in our multiple-use national forests or on privately owned land. Land use, and specific management practices, may have dramatic impacts on the persistence and vigor of plant popula- tions on a site. What features of the ecology of a plant need to be considered in planning for its protection? In this article we discuss some of the biological character- istics of plants and the effects of various management strategies that are relevant in designing and carrying out management plans. We begin with the assumption that any management decision affecting a site, or its plants, should be evaluated in terms of the biological charac- teristics of the plants themselves. All plants possess traits that make them vulnerable to certain kinds of environmental change. Some plants, such as the dune tansy (Tanacetum camphoratum) are found in areas with frequent natural disturbances; others, such as the dwarf downingia {Downingia humilis), are typical of areas with little disturbance. Spe- cies vary tremendously in other respects as well, so that the management of a plant population, or of the land supporting it, must be geared to many aspects of the ecology of the target species. Some general guidelines for managing plant populations are discussed below. Protection from Direct Loss Because plants are sessile, they are extremely vulner- able to physical disturbance. Direct losses may result from trampling by humans or livestock, off-road vehi- cle use, grazing (wild, domestic, or feral herbivores), cul- tivation, logging or clearing of land, and collection. Plants differ in their responses to disturbance; for exam- ple, some are vulnerable to grazing by livestock, while others are enhanced by it. Part of this difference may reflect a plant's evolutionary history. For example, there were few bison or other large, grass-feeding mammals in much of the far west for thousands of years before European settlement, so native bunchgrasses, such as species in the genus Stipa, evolved in the absence of extensive grazing and trampling. Midwestern prairies, on the other hand, had long been adapted to the impacts of bison and were more resilient when domestic livestock The dune tansy (Tanecetum camphoratum), known only in the coastal dunes of the San Francisco Bay region and endangered by the loss and alteration of its habitat, has evolved with the frequent natural distur- bance of a moving dune system. Photographs by William T. Follette. were introduced. In many of California's habitats high grazing levels can cause severe mortality among suscep- tible species; the endemic Catalina mahogany, Cer- cocarpus traskiae, was reduced to only seven individuals before grazing was controlled on Santa Catalina Island. 3 The seeds of the annual Emmenanthependuliflora and the perennial Eriophyllum confertiflorum germinate at high rates only when exposed to high soil temperatures and extracts from charred wood following a chaparral fire. To protect plant populations from direct losses, one should first identify any incompatibility between pos- sible land uses and the persistence of the plant. For instance, if the plant is vulnerable to trampling, then site access to grazing animals, off-road vehicles, and prob- ably hikers must be limited. One should consider the adaptations and tolerances of the target plant, then decide on an appropriate land use. If a land use poten- tially damaging to the plant is to continue for practical or political reasons, steps must be taken to protect the plant population. Permanent fencing may be required, for example, to exclude livestock. For some plants, maj or losses result from collection by plant enthusiasts, nursery owners, or casual visitors to an area. Such losses have been particularly severe for some showy species of wild lilies and cacti in the west, as they have been for wild orchids and Venus fly-trap in the east. For these species, management of human visitors is as important as management of the plant population. Habitat Maintenance It is often assumed that disturbance always plays a negative role in plant communities. However, plants often are adapted to a natural disturbance regime, and are associated with a specific stage in the successional sequence of recovery after disturbance. The timing and intensity of disturbances are critical factors determin- ing plant responses. Many plants actually require a specific sort of disturbance at some point in their life cycle. For example, many herbs and grasses germinate and flourish after fires in chaparral. The seeds of several species of Phacelia, other annuals such as Emmenanthe penduliflora, and even a few perennials such as Eriophyl- lum confertiflorum germinate at high rates only when exposed to the high soil temperatures and charred wood experienced in a chaparral fire. These species flourish for one or a few years following a fire, but soon are shaded out and replaced by the recovering chaparral shrubs. Unless fire recurs periodically, these plants will persist only as seeds in the soil. The physical environment or microclimate surround- ing an individual plant—soil and air temperature, light levels, and so on—are often affected by natural distur- bances, affecting, in turn, plant growth and survival. Early successional forest stands or open grassland plants, for example, are adapted to open, high-light environments. If the forest matures or if shrubs invade the grassland, then early successional species of open environments will vanish. In managing large areas with a variety of species, some adapted to disturbance and others not, one would ideally allow natural disturbance processes to continue unhindered; some portions of the area would be disturbed periodically (by fire, wind- storms, etc.), but overall the area would be a mosaic of patches at different successional stages. Then the target species would be maintained in a particular successional stage by "migrating" from one area to another as habi- tat openings became available. If only a single patch of a target species exists within a small preserve, however, disturbance might extirpate the population and recol- onization could take place only by reinvasion from another population or colony. Historically, land management by humans has at- tempted to minimize or eliminate natural disturbances, sometimes with undesirable results. Fire suppression in some western forests may have prevented seedling establishment by some tree species. Dune stabilization projects on the coast could lead to decline of plants such as the Santa Cruz wallflower {Erysimum teretifolium), which is adapted to the environment of shifting dune sands. One practical alternative is to identify the critical suc- cessional stage or disturbance effect and to duplicate it. Careful clearing of invading species or the prevention of natural successional processes may maintain a site in an 4 open state. The careful, small-scale use of disturbance such as fire or grazing may create favorable conditions for a target plant in a small area. Small controlled burns, for example, are being tested in Sequoia National Park as a means of encouraging reproduction by the giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum). One must weigh the benefits to be gained in habitat improvement against the potential damage to the target plant or to other plant or animal species in the community. Of course, many rare plants are adapted to successionally mature sites or areas of low disturbance. In these cases management consists of minimizing disturbance, not encouraging or simulating it. Some plants also require soil disturbance, ranging from the small mounds of bare soil produced by burrow- ing animals to the large mud flats left after stream flood- ing, for seeds to germinate and establish successfully. Small-scale disturbances usually occur frequently enough, even in small preserves, that managers need not concern themselves with creating such sites. However, when a rare plant is declining rapidly, or is failing to reproduce, manipulations to create suitable germination sites may be necessary. Protecting Habitat Quality Many plants, of course, are adapted to specific envi- ronmental conditions or habitats. Habitat loss, usually through development or conversion to another vegeta- tion type, causes direct and irrevocable loss of associated plant populations, even when individual plants are not directly damaged or removed. California's vernal pools represent a classic example; vernal pool plants are restricted to small, discrete patches of habitat, many of which in recent years have been altered and destroyed by draining, by cultivation, or by elimination as construc- tion sites. Even when native vegetation and habitats persist, hab- itat degradation may occur as a result of activities nearby. Wetlands of all sorts, ranging from vernal pools to large river floodplains, are often sensitive to changes in local hydrology or watershed. Development even in distant parts of a watershed may increase the amount, intensity, or direction of rainwater runoff; upstream dams may decrease the intensity or alter the timing of floods. Water quality may also deteriorate, and in managing wetlands care should be taken to prevent such adverse impacts. In practice this involves concern with runoff from pesticide and fertilizer applications, from stables and other livestock areas, or from paved park- ing or roadway areas within the watershed. Why should nutrient additions from sources such as fertilizer be considered habitat degradation? Plants adapted to stressful or low-fertility environments may be susceptible to changes in nutrient availability. For example, in Californian serpentine grassland, where soils formed from serpentine rock are naturally low in nitro- gen and phosphorus, application of fertilizer increases non-native annual grasses such as Bromus mollis and Lolium multiflorum and decreases native annuals such as Plantago erecta and Lasthenia californica. Weedy spe- cies, both native and non-native, grow vigorously with additional nutrients and outcompete natives adapted to poor soils. This may be happening on a broad scale. In northwestern Europe the diverse and interesting flora of nutrient-poor sites is becoming increasingly dominated by weedy grasses, apparently as a result of increased deposition of nitrogen and other minerals from atmo- spheric pollution. Other examples of habitat degradation include soil compaction, erosion or other soil disturbance, and the dumping of pesticides or other chemicals that affect soil microorganisms or chemistry. Soil disturbance by feral pigs has become a major management problem in Cal- ifornia, as well as in national parks from the Great Smoky Mountains to Hawaii Volcanoes. Habitat restoration should be mentioned here as one approach to countering the losses of healthy native ecosystems. The restoration of a serpentine grassland at Ring Mountain, the construction of several "artificial" vernal pools in Southern California, and dune restora- tion projects in several areas along the California coast represent major contributions. However, such efforts are enormously costly and limited in scope. For most land managers the more feasible approach is to limit the effects of outside disturbance and habitat degradation on remaining examples of native ecosystems. Some plant species can be readily eliminated by heavy grazing. The Catalina mahogony (Cercocarpus traskiae), found on Catalina Island, was reduced to seven individuals before grazing was controlled. Some agaves in the deserts of the Southwest are experiencing lower reproductive success because of reductions in their pollinator, the bat, which is being depleted by increased cave vandalism. Relationships with Pollinators and Seed Dispersers Many plants rely on insects, birds, or mammals to carry pollen from flower to flower or to disperse seeds to germination sites. The continued reproductive success of a plant population may depend on the presence and numbers of the animal partner in this mutual relation- ship. For example, some agaves in the deserts of the American Southwest apparently are experiencing lower reproductive success because of reduced populations of bats that serve as pollinators. Human disturbance of roost caves and widespread insecticide use apparently are responsible in part for the decline in bat populations. Of course, plants vary in the specificity of their relation- ships with pollinators or dispersal agents, and animals vary in their sensitivity to human disturbance or habi- tat fragmentation. The more specific the relationship, the more closely coupled are the fates of the plant and animal populations. In general, vertebrates are more sus- ceptible than insects to human disturbance, so plants that depend on vertebrate mutualists may be more vul- nerable as well. The hummingbird-pollinated Humboldt County fuchsia (Zauschneria septentrionale) is more likely to suffer from human encroachment in surround- ing habitats, for example, than the bee-pollinated Burke's goldfields (Lasthenia burkei) or the wind- pollinated awned bent grass (Agrostis aristiglumis). Managing land to encourage animal mutualists may be difficult. Ideally, one would design a refuge large enough and with the proper habitat to support viable populations of the pollinators or seed dispersers. Such an approach may be impossible, however, because ani- mal species may be only infrequent visitors or dependent on conditions outside the land manager's control. Fur- thermore, a detailed ecological study might be necessary to identify the animals that serve as pollinators. If the plant of interest is insect-pollinated, extreme care should be used in the timing and type of insecticide use near the target population. If the plant is pollinated by humming- birds, or if birds are important in the dispersal of its seeds, many steps can be taken to encourage bird popu- lations in the area. Encouraging other native plant spe- cies that serve as alternate sources of pollen or fruit may aid in attracting and maintaining mutualist populations on the site during critical periods or throughout the year. Relationships with Other Plants There may be close links between two plant species, as in the case of parasitic or hemiparasitic plants. These plants form connections with the vascular systems or roots of other plants. Mistletoes, for example, grow as parasites on several California oak species. The owl clovers {Orthocarpus spp.) are hemiparasites in Califor- nia grasslands; they form root connections with other annual plants and steal some of their nourishment from their neighbors. Finally, many plants are depen- dent on the presence of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. Without the close association between fungus and plant roots, the plants are unable to absorb enough phospho- rus from the soil. A less specific relationship occurs when individuals of one species provide shade or protection from grazing for seedlings of another. This "nurse plant" phenome- non is important in deserts, where small individuals of some rare cacti are almost always found in the protec- tive vicinity of large shrubs. In woodlands and other areas, nurse plants are important where grazers usually destroy unprotected seedlings. Minimizing Competition In some ecosystems competition with non-native plants may be a serious problem for a rare plant popu- lation. Some exotics are aggressive invaders and physi- cally exclude natives or prevent successful reproduction of natives. California's plant communities have suffered greatly from plant invasions. For example, in most Cal- ifornia grassland sites, non-native invasive species have come to dominate the vegetation. In some cases these aggressive plants threaten the persistence of rare native species. For example, some populations of Clarkia tem- bloriensis subsp. calientensis are threatened by competi- tion with introduced annual grasses, primarily wild oats and wild barley. Similarly, competition from non-native annual grasses may be playing a role in limiting the reproductive success of Amsinckia grandiflora, a rare species found in only a single area in the east San Fran- cisco Bay region. Managing non-native plants can be difficult. If a single problem species is involved, sometimes direct removal (cutting, judicious use of herbicides, fire) is pos- sible. Such control efforts may be labor-intensive and costly, and often fail to control the invader for long. In other cases the dominance of non-native species is related to site degradation or disturbance, and the only feasible approach is to attempt to restore the optimal habitat by protecting the site from heavy grazing or from nutrient inputs. In still other cases small amounts of dis- turbance, such as from moderate grazing, may actually reduce competition from invaders sufficiently to bene- fit the target plant. Managers of large tracts of land often attempt to maintain a community or assemblage of species: a viable, functioning example of a particular ecosystem or plant community. Such management includes the main- tenance of a natural disturbance regime, natural resource levels, and viable populations of associated plants and animals. However, efforts on this scale require very large 7 land areas. There also may be value in maintaining a par- ticular plant population in an area that is no longer an excellent example of a natural ecosystem, possibly because of previous disturbance. The following general guidelines are applicable when land is being managed for the protection of specific target plants. First, strive to understand the biological and ecolog- ical requirements of the target species. One should con- sider the factors discussed above, including sensitivity to disturbance, habitat requirements, and relationships with other species. There is no substitute for knowledge of a plant's ecology and historical distribution. Choose appropriate boundaries for the management area. One must consider the desired size (both number of individuals and area) of the population to be main- tained, and set boundaries that will minimize the effects of undesirable disturbance or activities outside the pre- serve area. Protecting multiple populations of a single species, or other means of protecting natural patterns of genetic variation, should be considered. Of course, the ultimate criterion is practicality—which parcels of land can be obtained, and how protection can be estab- lished, whether by zoning, land-use decisions, or ease- ment acquisition. Choose compatible on-site land uses, appropriate for maintaining proper environmental conditions and the plant population itself. This also will entail deciding whether to allow the natural disturbance regime to pre- vail, to simulate natural disturbances, or to prevent dis- turbance altogether. Lastly, provide for long-term protection. This may be easier for institutions or governments than for individuals. Even the creation of a permanent preserve is not sufficient; there still must be periodic monitoring of the status of the target population. Monitoring may be expensive in effort as well as in dollars, but it is a vital part of any protection program. There also must be some flexibility in redesigning the management plan if conditions in the management area or the status of the target plant change. The Private Landowner Preserve establishment is only one method of protect- ing rare plants. Federal and state governments, The Nature Conservancy, and other administrative agencies are attempting to conserve rare species and to protect examples of natural ecosystems. Given the finite resources of these groups, however, only a fraction of our biota will be protected in such preserves. The majority of species will persist only on privately owned land or in areas devoted to uses other than preservation. Con- sequently, the private land owner plays an important role in the continued existence of many species, and, if he or she decides to accept the responsibility, faces many of the same decisions about the best management strate- gies as do other preserve managers. Clearly some management strategies are more feasi- ble than others. The appropriate steps depend on a detailed knowledge of the target plant, of natural dis- turbances and resource levels, and of the possible impacts of alternative disturbances. The most important first step any land owner or manager can take is to learn something about the biology of the plant and to become aware of the potential impacts of land use policies. Many plants depend on close associations with other plants such as the owlsclover (Orthocarpus floribundus) shown here that is a partial para- site on other grassland species. Water-shield (Brasenia schreberi), first described from a collection made at Boggs Lake, floats in deeper water and has a thick gelatinous coat- ing on its leaves. It is reported to push its flowers above the water and open them twice: once to become pollinated and the second time to shed pollen for the pollination of other water-shield flowers. Photograph by Alice Howard. SELECTING AND DESIGNING PRESERVES: THE CALIFORNIA NATURE CONSERVANCY'S APPROACH by Robin Cox California's conservation organizations are faced with an overwhelming number of urgent species protection projects. According to recent estimates, over one thou- sand plants, animals, and natural communities may be threatened with severe reduction or extinction in Cali- fornia. Sites supporting these unique species and natu- ral communities are in need of immediate protection. Clearly, the number of acres of biologically unique and threatened lands vastly exceeds the resources avail- able for their protection. How, then, does The Califor- nia Nature Conservancy, an organization dedicated to the preservation of natural diversity, select and design a system of nature preserves from the thousands of needy sites? Site Selection In its early days the Conservancy's selection of proj- ects was guided more by opportunity than by systematic analysis. Projects were brought to the staff's attention by a small network of energetic volunteers. There was limited statewide scientific review to ascertain the quality and diversity of a candidate site relative to other areas supporting the same species and communities. While many worthy areas were set aside in this manner, some eventually were found to be less unique, less threatened, or less pristine than related areas. The importance of screening sites on the basis of uniform ecological criteria was early recognized throughout the organization. 9 In the past decade The Nature Conservancy has devel- oped systematic criteria for choosing its conservation projects in order to concentrate limited resources on the rarest and most outstanding remnants of California's unique natural heritage. To aid selection, the Conser- vancy depends on the Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento, which ranks California's most threatened species and natural com- munities on the basis of rarity, degree of threat, and related factors. Because hundreds of rare, endangered, and unique species are tracked by the Data Base, only those in the highest tier of data base priorities—those generally occurring on fewer than twenty sites world- wide—are channeled through the Conservancy's inter- nal site selection process. Through this process imperiled sites are evaluated on the basis of their biological qual- ities and other criteria such as land use, ownership, and defensibility. Sites considered most appropriate for Con- servancy preservation efforts are identified. These sites represent the best (and sometimes only) remaining exam- ples of their type, whether it is a population of the once- common Bakersfield saltbush (Atriplex tularensis) or an undisturbed stand of Mendocino pygmy cypress (Cu- pressus pygmaea) forest. Candidate sites currently number several hundred and are the Conservancy's so-called potential preserves. They range from small enclaves of rare plants measured in square feet—such as a rocky outcrop supporting Laguna Beach live-forever {Dudleya stolonifera) — to entire ecosystems covering several hundred square miles, such as the Carrizo Plain. Designing a Preserve Identifying and selecting a potential preserve is only the first step for the Conservancy. Once this process has been completed, a blueprint for the design of a preserve at this site must be created. Just as a prospective homebuyer has concerns about whether a house is large enough to accommodate the entire family, is situated in a good neighborhood, and needs only minimal upkeep, a preserve designer must be sure that a given site is large enough to sustain the rare species to be protected, is sur- rounded by compatible land uses, and can be managed to sustain target species over time within a reasonable budget. These and related biological concerns are incor- porated into the Conservancy's blueprint for the pre- serve. This document, referred to as the preserve design, takes the form of a topographic map and shows the minimum and ideal boundaries of the proposed pre- serve, irrespective of ownership patterns. Although there is a rapidly growing literature on bio- logical theory in preserve design, practical applications of the theory have been limited and ecological common sense has been the guiding principle in designing a pre- serve. Ideally, preserve boundaries for a given site in- clude all known populations of the threatened or target species as well as broad, protective buffer zones. These buffer zones provide insurance against damage by off- site threats such as invasion by weedy exotics, aerial drift of pesticides, or polluted runoff from adjacent slopes. Although easy to design on paper, the ideal preserve is difficult to achieve because of the cost of acquiring land, the tendency for ownership boundaries to cut across ecological boundaries, and the difficulty of gain- ing the cooperation of every land owner within the ideal boundary, which might be an entire watershed. In many cases urbanization has already reduced a species to an area much smaller than is optimally necessary to main- tain the species in perpetuity. Thus, to guide negotiations and acquisition priorities in less than ideal circumstances, a minimum boundary is also drawn, representing a "bare bones" preserve site capable of maintaining a species. This area is considered the biological bottom line, and if planners are unable to secure the majority of this area, an alternate site of lesser ecological quality, but offering a greater potential for long-run protection, may have to be chosen. The Conservancy has found that the stakes are high for preserves meeting only minimum design require- ments; target species stand a much greater chance of being lost, and, as a result, management is much more intensive and costly. For example, in one of our pre- serves, boundaries stopped short of a ridgeline above a rare plant preserve situated in a ravine. Development on the ridgeline altered the hydrology of the ravine, and the plants now are in serious jeopardy. Once both minimum and ideal boundaries have been drawn, Conservancy staff examine the site in light of ownership patterns. The final step in the preserve design process, therefore, is to analyze the relative importance of individual ownerships in the context of design criteria. Does the proposed minimum preserve encom- pass dozens of half-acre parcels, or is it virtually all under one ownership? Sometimes critical parts of a site have to be dropped from consideration because they involve so many different land owners that the likelihood of successful negotiations is very low. Preserve design goals are modified as necessary to reflect the difficul- ties and opportunities posed by ownership patterns, and the agenda for future negotiations is then complete. Boggs Lake: an Early Example Establishing a rare plant preseve may sound straight- forward enough, but in practice design objectives change as familiarity with a site or with the ecology of a plant species increases. Often, years pass between initial selec- tion of a site and fulfillment of the ideal or near-ideal preserve design. As an example of the evolution of a typi- 10 cal Conservancy preserve, let us look at the history of Boggs Lake Preserve in Lake County (see Fremontia, October 1974). Representatives of the California Native Plant Society and botanists from the University of California alerted Conservancy staff to the existence of Boggs Lake in the early 1970s. Actually a large vernal pool, the lake recedes every year, exposing seasonally moist flats. These flats and an adjacent meadow support five unique plant spe- cies, all ranked extremely high on the list of Natural Diversity Data Base priorities and on List lb (rare and endangered in California and elsewhere) in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Three of these species — slender orcuttia {Orcuttia tenuis), few-flowered navarretia (Navarretia pauciflora), and legenera (Legenere limosa)—are now formally desig- nated endangered by the state, and two species — many- flowered navarretia (N. pleiantha) and Boggs Lake hedge hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) occur nowhere else in the world. The site was virtually undisturbed when brought to CSS3 Rare Plant Area ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Minimum Preserve Boundary • • • • Ideal Preserve Boundary ------------- Original Parcel (101 acres) N ^s 'sN^Vs^V The Nature Conservancy Preserve Design map showing the three boundaries: original, minimum, and ideal. CNPS members, shown here exploring the drying lake bed, played an important role in the development of the Boggs Lake Preserve, one of The Nature Conservancy's earliest projects in California, by helping to pursuade the Fibreboard Corporation to donate the original site to TNC Photograph by Rick York. 11 the Conservancy's attention, but local citizens, CNPS members, and botanists from the University of Califor- nia were concerned that logging operations and other types of development (geothermal, recreational) in the area would destroy this unique vernal pool ecosystem. CNPS members intervened, asking the owners, the Fibreboard Corporation, to consider setting aside Boggs Lake and a small adjacent forested area. CNPS con- tacted TNC to help with the legal and stewardship aspects of ownership. Clearly, Boggs Lake met the Con- servancy's site selection criteria relative to rarity, biolog- ical quality, and need for protection. It was immediately added to TNC's portfolio of preserves. Fifteen years ago the Conservancy's preserve design process was not yet standard procedure, and evaluation of the opportunities afforded by economics and by ownership superseded ecological considerations. In 1973 the Fibreboard Corporation generously donated this 101-acre parcel, containing most of the lake, to the Conservancy, solidly establishing Boggs Lake Pre- serve. At that time TNC staff felt that the new preserve was adequate, and the Conservancy's focus shifted from negotiations to management. Boggs Lake Ten Years Later Created soon after the preserve itself, the Boggs Lake Preserve Committee proceeded to map and monitor rare plant populations. After almost a decade of scientific observation by the committee and staff, the Conser- vancy realized that the existing preserve configuration was not adequate for several reasons. Outstanding popu- lations of several unique plant species grew unprotected outside preserve boundaries. Increasing off-road vehi- cle use within and adjacent to the preserve demonstrated its extreme vulnerability to external threats. Potential housing development near one side of the lake also raised questions of septic tank infiltration and resultant increases in algal growth. Logging activities in the nearby forest could increase sedimentation. And the possibil- ity existed for commercially extractible geothermal energy since the preserve lay within a 360-square-mile geothermal resource area. In 1984 Conservancy staff and volunteers drafted a new preserve design consistent with the more rigorous standards developed in recent years and to address the new threats to the preserve. Designers had the advantage of a decade of experience both in managing the site and in studying the distribution of its rare plants. Negotia- tors were alerted to the urgent need to expand Boggs Lake Preserve. The proposed minimum preserve was expanded to address the threats that could cumulatively result in sig- nificant habitat degradation. A major concern was water quality and quantity for the vernal pool flora. Two major and six small parcels of lake edge were included in the expanded reserve to reduce the likelihood of development disturbance and septic system infiltration. This area about the lake edge is the choicest vernal pool flowering zone associated with Boggs Lake. An entire meadow west of the lake and a portion of pine forest also were included to preclude road building and future development. While there continues to be logging nearby, the watershed is quite flat and there are no sig- nificant levels of sediment transfer. At present the mini- mum preserve at Boggs Lake is just over one hundred sixty acres, a sixty-acre increase over the initial donation by the Fibreboard Corporation. Designers defined the larger ideal preserve boundary to eliminate future management problems and to reduce the vulnerability of the preserve to trespassing, off-site residential development, timber harvest, and erosion. The ideal configuration now includes a wide buffer area, extending at least 300 feet beyond the lake's edge into the surrounding pine forest. Addition of the buffer to the preserve enhances its physical integrity, in essence sheltering the preserve behind a protective zone free of residential development, logging, and pollutants. The buffer zone also adds the forest-lake ecotone to the pre- serve, an area known to support a wide array of bird spe- cies. This ideal preserve, not yet completed, encompasses 256 acres, an area more than twice the size of the origi- nal preserve. Late in 1984 negotiators went back to work armed with the new vision for Boggs Lake Preserve and a com- plete list of priority parcels. Success was almost immedi- ate. Several individuals, as well as the Dean Witter and Goodhill foundations, generously gave funds to pur- chase the forty-two-acre, species-rich wet grassland west of the lake. Addition of this parcel also enhanced oppor- tunities for public enjoyment of the preserve, as it provided access from a major road. Negotiations con- tinue with surrounding land owners, and within a few more years, the Conservancy hopes that the ideal and the real will be difficult to distinguish. Future Needs If we are to preserve the natural diversity of a state as large and complex as California, each and every con- servation decision must be a sound one. To select sites wisely we need more precise biological information, not only on the presumed best site, but for the full array of alternative sites. Fortunately, the members of CNPS have taken the leadership in gathering this information and sharing it with the Natural Diversity Data Base. Combined with a carefully drafted and defensible pre- serve design, this information forms the driving force for The California Nature Conservancy's land acquisition program. 12 The Yreka plox (Phlox hirsuta) is protected by private owners in The Nature Conservancy landowner program at the only two known sites in the world, both in Siskiyou County. Photograph by Tom Hesseldenz. PRIVATE LAND OWNERS PROTECT RARE PLANTS by Lynn Lozier Since 1985 The California Nature Conservancy has operated a Landowner Contact Program aimed at edu- cating and eliciting the voluntary participation of own- ers of properties on which there are rare or endangered plants, animals, and natural communities. To date forty species (thirty-seven of them plants) have been protected on twenty-eight sites in agreements with forty-six land owners. The insights gained in the three years of the pro- gram's operation may be of value to amateur or profes- ional botanists and plant enthusiasts who enjoy looking for plants in the field and are concerned about their future. Voluntary protection can be an effective approach where there are low to moderate immediate pressures on a site and the owners still have some options in decid- ing how their land will be used. The Landowner Contact Program recognizes the rights of land owners and as- sumes that if owners know that they have special plant or animal populations on their land, and realize the signi- ficance of these species, they will often find a way to take steps to protect them. The opening paragraph of a letter in a package of materials we provide them says: "Cer- tain places in our state support plants, animals, or nat- ural communites which are so rare, threatened, or endan- gered that the decision about whether they will survive for the future or disappear from the face of the earth can fall to a single individual—you the land owner." Just as people may have the legal right to change their land in ways that can harm a species or threaten its sur- vival, so too do they have the capability to enhance the future prospects of those same species. In many cases land owners are the only ones who can make the differ- ence. Given such potential for species conservation by land owners, we have given a great deal of thought about how best to approach them. The first objective of the Conservancy's Landowner Contact Program is to prevent the inadvertent destruc- tion of important sites for rare species. An owner cannot be expected to protect a rare plant if he or she doesn't know it is there. We prepare a package of information tailored for each owner that outlines, in layman's terms, what we know about the species. In addition to a cover letter, this package includes information about the site, the species (with a drawing and an explanation of how to distinguish it from similar but more common species), photographs, and a map. Woven throughout are refer- ences to known threats to the plant as well as land use 13 actions we believe would have an influence on the spe- cies, whether good or bad. For example, the packages provided to two owners of Humboldt County sites where western lily (Lilium occidentale) grows made it clear that fencing is absolutely necessary to protect the plants when grazing animals are present. It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and there are risks in bringing something sensi- tive to the attention of a land owner. However, once land owners have been informed about a rare species, at least they are less likely to do something destructive and then say they didn't know about it. Fortunately, in almost one hundred new contacts with owners, we have encountered only two whom we would characterize as belligerent. Most owners in the Conservancy's Landowner Contact Program are initially reached by letter in which we explain that something special grows on property that county records indicate belongs to them. We indicate that we are interested in knowing more about the current status of this rare species and about future plans for the property. We try to provide owners with information that will encourage them to conserve the rare species. A key point in making a good connection is to respect their rights as property owners and to assure them that we are not look- ing for an opportunity to tell them what to do. We have concerns that we simply want owners to know about, and we hope they will take them into consideration. Most owners are curious about a rare species on their property and are willing to meet, if only long enough to share some photographs. In cases in which owners are difficult to contact, or unwilling to spend half an hour discussing their land with a stranger, it is often possible to obtain an introduction through a sympathetic mem- ber of the local community. In order to connect with the owners of what was, in 1987, the only known site of the California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), we scoured The Nature Conservancy's membership rolls and located a veterinarian who was willing to introduce us to a nearby rancher who owned a portion of the land in question. They, in turn, introduced to the owners of the jewelflower population. Owners typically have three questions for the Conser- vancy staffer: Who are you? How do you know I have a special plant? And what is the big deal? The first is straightforward. The second requires an explanation of the Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base. It is easier to explain if the site was first dis- covered by some pioneering botanist before the tenure of the current owner, but the Data Base information is now a matter of public record. The most difficult ques- tion to answer is the third one, and the explanation provided will largely determine the land owner's willing- ness to participate in the program. In order to enlist owner support for the program, it is necessary to place his or her local experience in a statewide and global perspective. The owner may be Betty and Phil Selby, owners of what, in 1987, was thought to be the only known site of the California jewelflower, hold a plaque acknowledging their participation in the Landowner Registry program of TNC. Photograph by the author. aware that the area is interesting to botanists but have no idea that it is one of very few places in which a par- ticular species is found. Many people, particularly those who have been on the land for a long time, find it diffi- cult to believe that some plant they see every year is not equally abundant elsewhere. The packet of materials prepared for the owner includes information about the range, number of known occurrences, and current status of the species in question. Once it is established that the plant is indeed rare, the significance of the owner's actions becomes clear. At this point one must look for some values with which the owner can justify making a decision to protect the plant. Such a decision may cost money or reduce options for land use, and even a sympathetic owner needs to be able to explain his or her actions to family members or neigh- bors. Listening closely to owners can help to reveal what they consider important. There are as many reasons for protecting rare species as there are people who hold the property on which they grow. There is a good discussion of this in the book Extinction by Erlich and Erlich (1981). In addition to widely held values involving love of the land, individuals may consider religious beliefs, local pride, or the far-off potential of economic gain. The owners of the site of the newly rediscovered Humboldt milkvetch {Astragalus agnicidus) see the value of preserving that species in the contributions its potent chemical components may offer to cancer therapy (see Fremontia, April 1988). Encouraging informed stewardship and building a lasting relationship are other objectives of the Conser- vancy's Landowner Contact Program. We have created 14 a formal structure to facilitate these goals while reinforc- ing owners with recognition for their interest in rare spe- cies and their involvement in protecting them. Owners with qualifying sites —those that harbor a rare, threat- ened, or endangered species or natural communities as defined by the Natural Diversity Data Base—are invited to participate. Listing in the Register of Owner-protected Natural Areas is entirely voluntary and not legally binding. It simply reflects the owner's intention to protect a rare plant and the Conservancy's commitment to work with the owner to see that it survives over time. To be included owners must agree to protect the plant to the best of their ability; to contact the Conservancy for assistance if there are threats with which they cannot deal; to permit the Conservancy to survey the population annually at a mutually acceptable time; and to contact the Conser- vancy if they plan to sell or transfer the property so that the new owner can be contacted. Owners adding their property to the Register are presented with an oak and brass plaque honoring them with "having made a commitment to protect an impor- tant example of our natural heritage." Many owners also consent to some local publicity. Interestingly, although the program was designed with the private land owner in mind, municipalities have also participated. The City of Woodland in Yolo County, which owns a site on which the palmate-bracted bird's-beak {Cordylanthus palmatus) is found, has added that property to our Reg- ister of Owner-protected Natural Areas. Owners who have agreed to protect rare species begin an open-ended relationship with the Conservancy. We work together to assure a future for the species on their land. The materials provided outline the kinds of management considerations the plants are likely to need. For the four owners of the Aliso Canyon site in Orange County on which the Laguna Beach live-forever (Dud- leya stolonifera) grows, this meant controlling ice plant, honeysuckle, and ivy that spilled down into the habitat from gardens on the top of the cliff. For others it has meant changes in grazing practices, mowing schedules, and even building plans. However, for more than half of the owners in the program so far, protecting their rare plants has required no immediate action because these areas are already being well managed. Thus the program serves to support existing good management practices as well. Each year Conservancy staff or volunteers visit the sites to meet with owners and monitor plant popula- tions. Owners are kept up to date on how their efforts are paying off. If it appears that additional action is needed, the details are worked out with the owners. With owners in most cases living on or near the site, a level of attention is possible that would otherwise be prohibi- tively expensive for The Nature Conservancy to provide through its own staff. Future Prospects The biological future of these voluntarily protected sites will depend on a number of variables, many of which are unpredictable. The preserve design consider- ations that are so important when the Conservancy pur- chases a site also come into play in voluntarily protected areas. Still, when few sites remain for a species, one cannot ignore them simply because none are available or meet the criteria for purchase. The Landowner Con- tact Program enables the Conservancy to greatly expand the range and impact of its preservation efforts. In some areas it is clear that changes will take place. The Yreka phlox (Phlox hirsuta) is protected by owners at the only two known sites in the world, both in Siskiyou County. The largest, seventy-three acres within city limits, has been subdivided into nine holdings. Six of the owners, including the City of Yreka, have added their properties to the Conservancy's Register. When the site is built upon, they will work with the Conservancy to avoid impacting the plants and to see that undeveloped portions of the project protect as much habitat as possible. The Landowner Contact Program clearly depends on individuals for its success. Voluntary protection agree- ments often are just the first step toward more perma- nent protection of a site. Over time some owners have scaled up to conservation easements or, through estate planning, have provided for their eventual bequest. The program has demonstrated that people, not pieces of paper, are the key to protection of rare plants. The City of Woodland in Yolo County has added a piece of their prop- erty to The Nature Conservancy Register of Owner-protected Natu- ral Areas because of the presence of the very rare Ferris' bird's beak (Cordylanthuspalmatus). Photograph by the author. In Sinkyone Wilderness State Park passive management is generally practiced, which includes baseline studies and long-term monitoring. Photo- graphs by the author. MANAGEMENT OF SENSITIVE PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS by W. James Barry One of the three major missions of the California Department of Parks and Recreation is to preserve representative examples of California's natural and scenic landscape and its ecosystems — its natural heri- tage. The other two missions are to preserve examples of California's cultural heritage and to provide Califor- nians with recreational opportunities. Natural heritage lands in the state park system are placed in several cate- gories, including state parks, state reserves, and state recreation areas. Within these units additional protec- tion for natural features can be provided through desig- nation as a wilderness area or natural preserve. According to the California Resources Code, the pur- pose of natural preserves "shall be to preserve such fea- tures as rare or endangered plant and animal species and their supporting ecosystems, representative examples of plant and animal communities existing in California prior to the impact of civilization ... Areas set aside as natural preserves shall be of sufficient size to allow, where possible, the natural dynamics of ecological inter- action to continue without interference, and to provide in all cases, a practicable management unit. Habitat manipulation shall be permitted only in those areas found by scientific analysis to require manipulation to 16 preserve the species or associations which constitute the basis for the establishment of the natural preserve." Not all sensitive species (rare, endangered, threatened, or endemic native species of very limited distribution) within the state park system are protected by inclusion within a natural preserve. For example, disjunct popu- lations or natural fluctuations in the distribution pat- terns of annuals may make designation as a natural pre- serve impractical for the entire population of a particular species. However, the habitats of sensitive spe- cies are protected by specific or general policies. Park Policies The California Park and Recreation Commission Policy Number 7, entitled Preservation of Vegetation Entities, states in part that "It shall be the policy of this commission, in concert with other agencies and organi- zations, to acquire and preserve outstanding examples of native California species, and to acquire and perpetu- ate significant natural plant communities, associations, and examples of rare, endangered, endemic, or otherwise sensitive native California plants, as indicated on state or federal lists. Whenever possible, significant vegeta- tive entities shall be acquired in natural ecological units so that their integrity may be better perpetuated." Poli- cies governing sensitive and special interest plants are formulated in the resource elements of the general plans required by law for each unit of the state park system. Typical policy statements taken from within the resource law and state park general plans to protect sensitive spe- cies include: rare and endangered plants shall be pro- tected and managed for their perpetuation in accor- dance with state law; systematic surveys for sensitive species shall be made throughout the unit during the appropriate flowering season; each species, population, stand, and, in some cases, individual, shall be mapped, and niche management guidelines for its protection and perpetuation shall be formulated and implemented as part of the unit ecosystem restoration and management plan; the plan shall be based on sound scientific analy- sis; prior to any potentially deleterious activity, includ- ing, but not limited to, campground development, facil- ities or trail construction or relocation, or prescribed burns, site-specific surveys of potential sensitive species ecotypes in impacted areas shall be conducted; working drawings or site-specific plans shall be modified, when necessary, to minimize the impact of development on sensitive species. Once a general plan is adopted by the California Park and Recreation Commission, where park development is proposed, surveys of rare and endangered species are budgeted as park of the major capital outlay program. The ecological research necessary for a unit ecosystem restoration and management plan also may be funded .«;^» .»'¦¦¦ III'¦£•'.'J*-ii ¦ .¦¦ ! $$*p* Leafy reed-grass (Calamagrostisfoliosa) dominates miles of bluff and cliff faces in the Sinkyone Wilderness State Park. as park of the major capital outlay program in a partic- ular park unit, or it may be funded in the Statewide Resource Management Program. Implementation of a restoration and management plan may be funded through either the Statewide Resource Management Program or the Statewide Stewardship Program. Ecosystem Management One of the Department's management objectives is to perpetuate natural ecosystems in as near a pristine state as possible. Ecosystem management may involve a num- ber of tasks. Special consideration is given to the habitats of sensitive species and to archeological sites. Both pas- sive and active forms of ecosystem management are practiced in the state park system. Passive management essentially leaves the ecosystem alone, although park biologists watch for habitat degradation from heavy public usage. Ideally, passive management includes the establishment of quantitive baselines followed by long- term monitoring. Additional passive management tech- niques include protection of a species through additional land aquisition or by classification and special designa- tion within the park system. The exclusion of human- initiated disturbance such as off-road vehicles or cattle grazing is also regarded as passive management. Fire is not suppressed in areas designated for passive manage- ment. This is the usual management option for state wilderness areas and remote desert, alpine, or subalpine areas of state parks. In Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, for example, leafy reed-grass (Calamagrostis foliosa) dominates several miles of bluff and cliff faces. Trail alignment appears to be all that will ever be necessary to protect this plant in such an inaccessible and special- ized place. 17 Shift to Active Management Data developed from a monitoring program may indi- cate that a shift from passive to active management is necessary. An example of the need for such a shift occurred in the management of an area in Red Rock Canyon in the Mojave Desert supporting the Red Rock tarplant {Hemizonia arida), perhaps one of California's rarest plants. By 1972 the single population of this spe- cies was being affected adversely by off-road vehicles and by invasions of the alien weed, Tamarix. The annual Red Rock tarplant is endemic to Red Rock Canyon, and its population size varies with annual climatic condi- tions. It grows on a subalkaline seep near the confluence of two forks of the ephemeral Tarweed Creek. The site is about one hundred yards northeast of a freeway bridge. In normal years its range is restricted to the wet, sandy wash bottom. In 1972, a year of extreme drought, I found only thirteen individuals scattered along the dry stream bed for about sixty feet. This stand presumably represented the entire population that year. In favorable wet years the population increases to several stands, including a main stand that may extend along the wash for about half a mile. In 1974, two years after I recom- mended a change in status, Hagan Canyon was classi- fied as a natural preserve with a monitoring program established through the resource element of its general plan (1981). The plant was mapped again in 1973, and this time eight stands were found. In 1979 two additional stands were recorded on the rare plant distribution map. The shift to an active management program has given state park rangers of Red Rock Canyon State Park the 18 enforcement power needed to protect the Red Rock tar- plant and other rare and sensitive species growing there. These actions provide hope that the tarplant will remain for future generations to enjoy. Examples of Active Management Active ecosystem management, which includes alter- ing one or more environmental factors, is often referred to as resource management, habitat manipulation, or habitat enhancement. These terms are all somewhat mis- leading, as, for the most part, external forces or sub- stances are not manipulated. In the state park system the term niche management is used to describe the focused management necessary to maintain sensitive species. An ecosystem may contain a number of niches, such as the subsets of coastal dunes (coastward dunes, leeward dunes, dune crests, and swales), all of which must be considered when making management decisions. Restoration of natural fire cycles is often difficult, since up to eighty years of fire suppression has caused unnatural build-ups of fuels as well as unnatural plant successional patterns throughout much of the state. For many rare cypresses and some rare pines (JPinus contorta, P. bolanderi, and P. torreyana, for example) the fre- quency and intensity of fire may be critical. If fire is too frequent trees may not produce cones, or the cones of these closed-cone species will not mature enough to pro- duce viable seed. The rare Cuyamaca cypress (Cupressus stephensonii) forms a single population along and near the headwaters of King Creek on the southwest slope of Cuyamaca Peak. One other population is reported from the Sierra Juarez in Baja California. The Cuyamaca cypress is adapted to chaparral fires with a frequency greater than thirty years. The Boulder fire of 1970 was the was the last fire to burn the stand in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. The current active management strategy is to suppress fire until after the year 2000. Similar niche management decisions have been made with Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Gowen cypress (C goveniana) at Point Lobos State Reserve, and with Mendocino cypress (C. pygmaed) at Salt Point, Van Damme, and Russian Gulch state parks and Jughandle State Reserve. Small burn plots in, or adjacent to, these rare conifers may be established in order to determine optimum fire frequencies and inten- sities needed to perpetuate these species or to expand their niches. At Torrey Pines State Reserve the Torrey pine has shown little regeneration over the past seventy years, with one exception. In the area of the 1972 high-intensity wildfire, I observed many young seedlings on sites missed by ryegrass erosion control seeding. However, where ryegrass was present the pine seedlings were not present. The policy for the perpetuation of the Torrey 3^P ii« .,.¦*«?¦ ¦•» ..,,1,, -'a"'Vt.Vi *•*'* jt**""* ,!i ix * .J *¦**«' ,—™,. - ¦¦*¦ -JGi> ».*¦¦"" ^ Hagan Canyon in Red Rock State Park was classified in 1974 as a natural preserve to aid in the protection of the Red Rock tarplant (Hemizonia arida), one of California's rarest plants. .«#*• pine ecosystem includes a study to determine historic fire frequencies using records and aging fire scars, as well as the use of prescribed burns to restore fire's role in this ecosystem. An important aspect of this program is a long-term Torrey pine monitoring program. Alien Species Control In grassland ecosystems prescribed fire has been useful in controlling some invasive alien plant species, but it also enhances the competitive advantage of others. In the coastal prairie ecosystem at Point Lobos State Reserve prescribed burns have been conducted each autumn since 1980 with a dramatic increase in native bunch grasses. Large stands of field mustard (Brassica campestris) were nearly eliminated after five years of burning, and alien grasses have decreased. Interestingly, alien perennial grasses have increased along with the native perennials in some plots. Three stands of Triteleia versicolor, endemic to Point Lobos, occur in this coastal prairie ecosystem. One stand in a mound meadow was burned and, with a reduction in competition from field mustard and annual grasses, it is hoped that the size of this population will increase. This plant, which may be a sterile hybrid, is currently being vegetatively propagated. Plants have been set out in places where they have been documented to grow historically. Where alien species cannot be controlled effectively by other means, the use of herbicides is necessary. Her- bicides are being used at Asilomar State Beach to remove ice plant from dunes where Menzies' wallflower (Erysi- mum menziesii) and Tidestrom's lupine (Lupinus tides- tromii var. tidestromii) grew historically. The niches of many sensitive coastal dune plants have been dramatically altered due to the widespread prac- tice of planting European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) for dune stabilization. This invasive alien crowds out native dune species wherever it occurs. One of the most critical areas affected by European beach- 19 grass is the Oso Flaco Lake Natural Area within the Pismo Beach State Vehicular Recreation Area. In 1982 I proposed a dune revegetation and stabilization project that would have eradicated the beachgrass and revege- tated the dunes with native shrubs and forbs. This pro- ject would have included the propagation and planting of fifteen sensitive species. Several phases of this project were completed, including ecological studies of sensitive and common dune species, and fencing has protected the area from off-road vehicles. However, because of an administrative change in jurisdiction from the State Parks system to the State Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, the dune grass eradication part of the project has been eliminated. In MacKerricher State Park in Humboldt County the seaward side of the Menzies' wallflower niche is being in- vaded by European beachgrass that has spread down the coast for several miles since my first observations in 1971. European beachgrass is to be eradicated from the park using the only practical means for such a large-scale pro- ject, which, unfortunately, involves the use of herbicides. Hand removal of easily identified alien species is the preferred method of control where a sufficient labor force is available. An example is the removal of ice plant from the coastal bluffs at Point Lobos State Reserve. Ice plant is directly competing with the dune eriogonum (Eriogonum parvifolium var. lucidum). Ice plant has also been removed from the understory of Torrey and Mon- terey pines, where it appears to compete with the pines for moisture, thus adding to the stress that weakens these trees during drought years. Soil Amendment and Revegetation Where the distribution of sensitive species is limited by soil conditions, the addition of soil amendments, including nutrients, may increase the distribution of the species. In the Ten Mile Dunes at MacKerricher State Park, Menzies' wallflower is often associated with the edges of ancient native American kitchen midden sites. It appears that the shell leachate contains a micro- nutrient or forms a nutrient gradient that is used by the wallflower. Fertilizer field plots have been established and standard pot nutrient tests are planned to determine if dune soils can be chemically modified to give Menzies' wallflower and Howell's spineflower (Chorizanthe howellii) competitive advantage. Soil stabilization techniques often are necessary in efforts to protect unique ecosystems and sensitive spe- cies. The rare swamp harebell (Campanula californica), for example, grows in the wetland ecosystem at Ingle- nook Fen. Several mechanical stabilization techniques have been developed to halt dune encroachment into the fen. Used in combination with revegetation, these methods include crimped straw, straw mulch with net- 20 The frequency and intensity of fire is critical in the reproduction of many pines and cypresses, including the Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) shown here in Point Lobos State Park. ting, plastic polymer spray coatings, and sand fencing. The value of the procedures has not been fully tested. Part of the revegetation plan for a portion of Ten Mile Dunes includes the reestablishment of natives such as beach sagebrush (Artemisia pycnocephala). Menzies' wallflower is associated with this plant both at Mac- Kerricher State Park and at Asilomar State Beach. Along with other associates, young seedlings of wall- flower were successfully planted into stabilized dunes in January 1987. The wallflower population at Marina State Beach has dramatically increased through a com- bination of dune stabilization, fencing, and plug plant- ing of seedlings in suitable niches. Next Steps Some active management of sensitive species has been accomplished through the Statewide Stewardship Pro- gram. In the proposed California Park, Recreational, and Facilities Bond Act of 1988 the Department re- quested $15 million for stewardship, and $10 million has been allocated in Propositon 70, the CALPAW initiative. Stewardship funding has been used, for the most part, to solve critical problems. It is hoped that the new stew- ardship funding will include provisions for investigat- ing the needs of sensitive species and long-term monitor- ing ecological studies that eventually will preclude the need for active ecosystem and niche management. View toward Mt. Harrington (11,005 feet) on the trail to Happy Gap in the Monarch Wilderness Area, Sequoia National Forest. Photographs by James R. Shevock. NATIVE PLANT DIVERSITY AND SPECIAL AREA DESIGNATIONS ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN CALIFORNIA by James R. Shevock The Forest Service has a long history of managing for biological diversity, beginning with the establishment of the National Forest System (NFS) by President Roose- velt in 1905. Early forestry leaders such as Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot combined vision with action. Their principles and philosophies helped mold Forest Service values and culture of conservation leadership, a strong land ethic, and public service. Today the Forest Service administers 191 million acres of forest and rangelands in forty-five states. Congress has directed that these working lands be administered for range, outdoor recre- ation, watershed, fish and wildlife, and timber, col- lectively referred to as multiple uses. Although not explicitly mentioning biological diversity, early Forest Service policies reflected concerns for forest health and wildlife conservation. The notion of biological diversity only recently has become known to the general public. It provides a new focus for addressing the areas in which the Forest Service has a long history of accomplishment, such as the recovery of endangered and threatened spe- cies, protection of soil, water, and rare plant communi- ties, and enhancement of natural resources used in com- merce and recreation. The challenge for the Forest Service today is to pro- 21 tect and enhance biological diversity while continuing to meet the need for renewable natural resources as man- dated by federal law. Biological diversity is the founda- tion for sustainable productivity of resources and the variety of lifestyles and livelihoods of American who depend on these resources. Maintenance and enhance- ment of biological diversity thus are an integral part of multiple-use, sustained-yield conservation. Biological diversity in National Forest management today is achieved through a variety of management strategies and practices. Diversity and Forest Planning ¦-<.'.'¦.¦'* '¦/¦. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 provided statutory direction for consideration of biological diversity in managing NFS lands. Within NFMA, regulations were written pertaining to biologi- cal diversity. These regulations formed the building blocks for the current round of Forest Plans that have been developed with considerable public involvement, including CNPS members (see Fremontia, January 1986). Other regulations pertaining to biological diver- sity are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, which states: "Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning area. Such diversity shall be considered throughout the plan- ning process. Inventories shall include quantitative data making possible the evaluation of diversity in terms of its prior and present condition. For each planning alter- native, the interdisciplinary team shall consider how diversity will be affected by various mixes of resource outputs and uses, including proposed management practices. "Management prescriptions, where appropriate and to the extent practicable, shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities, including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal spe- cies, so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree spe- cies similar to that existing in the planning area. Reduc- tions in diversity of plant and animal communities and mnnln h"g7f RTf Mea£ows (above>in the Jen™ Lakes Wilderness, Sequoia National Forest, established in 1984 The meadow is sur- -¦***-:>>:¦: **J Bald Mountain Botanical Area, established in the final Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan, is the type Ux.ilii\ loi i he Kei n l'l a ¦ teau endemic Bald Mountain horkelia (Horkelia tularensis). tree species from which would be expected in a natural forest, or from that similar to the existing diversity in the planning area, may be prescribed only where needed to meet overall multiple-use objectives. Planned type con- versions shall be justified by the analysis showing bio- logical, economic, social, and environmental design con- sequences, and the relation of such conversions to the process of natural change." Chief Dale Robertson of the Forest Service has iden- tified several key points regarding diversity on the National Forests. Biological diversity, he states, is essen- tial to the maintenance of strong, productive ecosystems over the long term. Two of the most important compo- nents of the concept of biological diversity are geo- graphic scale (watershed, mountain range, or continent) and time frame. Management, if carefully carried out, can enhance naturally occurring biological diversity, including the protection of all species and their habitats. The maintenance of biological diversity requires the interdisciplinary skills of natural resource professionals (botanists, biologists, soil scientists). And, principles of biological diversity must be built into plans and actions at the local level. The NFMA and accompanying regulations, along with the chief's direction, make it clear that diversity includes both plants and animals, species and commu- nities, variety, distribution, and relative abundance and that it is to be guided by overall multiple-use objectives. Diversity, however, is not an end in itself. It is a relative term, most useful when variety, abundance, and pattern of biotic elements in resource ecosystems are compared among alternatives or to prior conditions. Sensitive Plant Management How does the Forest Service go about providing pro- tection and/or conservation to enhance biological diver- sity? Forest Service plans display several management strategies for maintaining biological diversity through 23 time. California has a rich and diverse flora with nearly 7,500 species. It is estimated that over two-thirds of the state's plant species occur on National Forest lands. The rarest species occurring on National Forest lands are either state and/or federally listed species or designated by the Regional Forester as "sensitive." These species, because of low population numbers, few occurrences, or specific concerns regarding long-term viability, receive the greatest attention in day-to-day forest management. The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endan- gered Plants plays a vital role in assessing the rarity of California plants, and a significant number of the plants listed in the inventory are known to occur on National Forest System lands in California. At present 285 spe- cies are on the regional forester's Sensitive Plant List for the National Forests in California, with one hundred species endemic to NFS lands. Some noteworthy exam- ples are Ramshaw Meadows abronia (Abronia alpina), Pleasant Valley mariposa {Calochortus clavatus var. avius), Camatta Canyon amole (Chlorogalum pur- pureum var. reductum), July gold (Dedeckera eureken- sis), Trinity buckwheat (Eriogonum alpinus), Cantelow's lewisia (Lewisia cantelowii), Scott Mt. phacelia (Phace- liadalesiana), Feather River stonecrop (Sedum albomar- ginatumir]), and Big Bear checker mallow (Sidalcea pedata). Section 2670 of the Forest Service Manual, entitled "Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals," pro- vides forest supervisors and district rangers with Forest Service policy and direction for managing these species. In addition, a new Forest Service publication, entitled Endangered Plants Program Handbook, has been devel- oped for the National Forests in California. This hand- book provides the sensitive plant coordinator with direc- tion and procedures to ensure that sensitive plants are conserved on National Forest lands. Both the manual and the handbook directives system are available for public review at any Forest Service office. All of the forest plans also contain standard minimum manage- ment requirements (MMRs) and minimum implemen- tation requirements (MIRs) applied equally to all alter- natives developed in the planning process. The specific MMR for sensitive plants states that such plants should be managed to ensure that they do not become threat- ened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. As the forest inventories for sensitive plants reach completion, long-range species management guides are being developed. These guides are working documents that outline activities needed to ensure that sensitive plant populations are conserved or enhanced through forest management. Sensitive plant species management guides are updated as new information is gathered and contain a monitoring section to evaluate the effective- ness of the guide. The distribution patterns, habitats, and ecological parameters obviously differ for each sen- sitive plant species. We have learned that conserving and enhancing sensitive plants does not necessarily mean keeping all activities away from the plants. Timing and the intensity of management action play key roles in preserving species diversity. Some species, for example, require frequent burning, while others appear only during early serai stages in the development of a plant community, and still others require a specific micro- environment to optimize population numbers. An excel- lent overview of Forest Service efforts in the manage- ment of sensitive plants is presented by Regional Forester Smith in the CNPS Proceedings of the Conference on the Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Species (1987). Allocation of Special Areas Within the 20.5 million acres of National Forest System lands in California (about twenty percent of the state's total area), several allocated land uses affect the type and distribution of biological diversity at any point in time. The major land allocations where natural proc- esses affect biological diversity include wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, research natural areas, and spe- cial interest areas. Nearly twenty percent, or 3.9 million acres, of Nation- al Forest lands in California are congressionally desig- nated wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness areas are over 5,000 acres, undeveloped, and unroaded. The Forest Service has more established wilderness acres in California than the combined totals of wilderness acres designated on National Park Serv- ice, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands in California. At present there are forty-six wilderness areas within NFS lands in Califor- nia. The two largest are the John Muir wilderness area in the central and southern Sierra Nevada and the Trinity Alps wilderness area in the northwest corner of the state, with 580,275 and 498,141 acres respectively. These two wilderness areas together are larger than the state of Rhode Island. Also included within the federal Califor- nia Wilderness Act of 1984 was the establishment of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area, comprising 117,000 acres. Section 305 required the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study of the ecology of the scenic area with the National Academy of Sciences and report back to Congress. Review of preferred alternatives in several draft forest plans also recommend additional areas to Congress for establishment and inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation system. The second land allocation category includes congres- sionally designated wild and scenic rivers. These areas are established under the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 and are of three types: wild, scenic, and recrea- tional. Boundaries for wild and scenic rivers generally are within one-quarter mile of each bank of the desig- 24 *-'%'¦ . .», ? msml&ssmR. mmmmm i>»( ^.*;.-jv*<.;ft;»-: •R*» :«e!S7*r*;v ¦ <¦ ,-.» **.¦-*.*¦¦?¦• ¦l..; ..4.-!-, ywri;' h*: s*tf «kv &2a t'...-> ^.;: N* fc# $ ^ ' ¦&£#*" ¦*' • tm* -*!- cc < DC ffl _l CC 3 o >- cc o li. w CO LLI z V) z> m cc 3 cc o o o cc CO CO < _l o cc 3 a. o California's Oaks California's Serpentine California's Weeds Forest Service Planning California's Chaparral Natives in your Garden ial Issues BRA .3 October 1983 -ri O 30 January 1984 ¦< O April 1984 c 30 ¦a January 1985 r-m July 1985 > c January 1986 m October 1986 O October 1987 31 Back issues available from: The California Native Plant Society 909 12th Street, Suite 116 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-2677 3 c 30 O I- > CO CO 3D O O 2 ¦n O 30 a c 3D aansvand unoA aoj 'Auvuan anoA aod 'ssamsna 31 California Native Plant Society MEMBERSHIP Dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the Bulletin. Life (Individual/Couple). $450/500 Individual or Library. $18 Supporting.................$50 Student or Retired ... $12 Household .................$30 Retired Couple......$15 ADDRESSES Memberships; Address Changes; Officers; General Society Inquiries: CNPS, 909 12th St., Suite 116, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 447-CNPS Fremontia (Editor): Phyllis M. Faber, 212 Del Casa Drive, Mill Valley, CA 94941. (415) 388-6002 Fremontia (Advertising): Dal Leite, Box 2157, Walnut Creek, CA 94595. (415) 939-4911. Bulletin: Carol LeNeve, Box 1012, Carmel, CA 93921, (408) 624-8497 CNPS Botanist, Data Base: Ken Berg, 909 12th St., Suite 116, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 324-3816 or (916) 447-CNPS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL President..............................Charlice Danielsen Vice President, Administration.............Suzanne Schettler Vice President, Finance...................R. Arthur Hayler Vice President, Conservation................Deborah Jensen Vice President, Legislation.......................Bob Berka Vice President, Rare Plants.................Thomas S. Elias Vice President, Publications...................Phyllis Faber Legal Advisor................................Kathy Janes Recorder..................................Suzanne Smith Corresponding Secretary.................Margaret Huffman DIRECTORS-AT-LARGE Ray Butler, Marvin Chesebro, Alice Mehdy, Mary E. Meyer Kristina Schierenbeck, Lorraine Van Kekerix CHAPTER PRESIDENTS (AND DIRECTORS) Bristlecone (Inyo-Mono)...................Doris Fredendall Channel Islands............................Ron Wilkinson Dorothy King Young (Gualala)...............Paul Jorgensen San Francisco Bay (East Bay).................Patricia Allen Kern County.............................Jack Zaninovich Marin...................................Fraser Muirhead Milo Baker (Sonoma County)...............Barbara Hopper Monterey Bay...........................Suzanne Schettler Mount Lassen.............................Mary E. Meyer Napa.......................................Cheryl Cline North Coast..................................Dave Imper Northern San Joaquin Valley (Modesto).........Gloria Weigel Orange County..............................Dave Bramlet Riverside/San Bernardino Counties...........Karen Kirtland Sacramento Valley...............................Zoe Tyler San Diego...................................Joan Stewart San Gabriel Mountains.........................Rick Fisher Sanhedrin (Ukiah).........................Robert C. Jones San Luis Obispo.............................Linda Ellison Santa Clara Valley.............................Ken Himes Santa Cruz...............................Julia Davenport Santa Monica Mountains....................Steve Hartman Sequoia (Fresno)...........................Jeanne Larson Shasta..................................Rowena Goodner South Coast (Palos Verdes)................Frederick Braden Tahoe........................................Ray Butler Yerba Buena (San Francisco)....................Bruce Perez TABLE OF CONTENTS Managing Land to Protect Rate Plant Populations 3 by Laura F. Huenneke Selecting and Designing Preserves: The California Nature Conservancy's Approach 9 by Robin Cox Private Land Owners Protect Rare Plants 13 by Lynn Lozier Management of Sensitive Plants in California State Parks 16 by W. James Barry Native Plant Diversity and Special Area Designations on the National Forests in California 21 by James R. Shevock Does Epipactis gigantea Mimic Aphids? 28 by Edward S. Ross Notes and Comments 30 Book Received 31 Perm San F c+ S ^P ' "° z o nci >3»3 o SCO, n era ,a 03 > 32