JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY · 2018-03-30 · the addition of CRPRs 2A and 2B,...

F R E M O N T I AV O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

$5.00 (Free to Members)

VOL. 43, NO. 1 • JANUARY 2015

FREMONTIA

PROTECTING RARE PLANTS

V43_1_cover.pmd 11/24/14, 1:21 PM1

F R E M O N T I A V O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

The California Native Plant Society(CNPS) is a statewide nonprofit organi-zation dedicated to increasing theunderstanding and appreciation ofCalifornia’s native plants, and to pre-serving them and their natural habitatsfor future generations.

VOL. 43, NO. 1, JANUARY 2015

F R E M O N T I A

Copyright © 2015California Native Plant Society

Disclaimer:

The views expressed by authors publishedin this journal do not necessarily reflectestablished policy or procedure of CNPS,and their publication in this journal shouldnot be interpreted as an organizationalendorsement—in part or in whole—oftheir ideas, statements, or opinions.

Protecting California’s Native FloraSince 1965

Bob Hass, Editor

Nick Jensen, Aaron E. Sims,Advisors

Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer

Ileene Anderson, Brad Jenkins, andMary Ann Showers, Proofreaders

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

MEMBERSHIPMembership is open to all. Membership form is located on inside back cover;

dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the CNPS Bulletin

Mariposa Lily . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500Benefactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $600Patron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300Plant Lover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100

Family or Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75International or Library . . . . . . . $75Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45Student/Retired/Limited Income . $25

CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130Phone: (916) 447-CNPS (2677) Fax: (916) 447-2727

Web site: www.cnps.org Email: [email protected]

10+ Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,5007-10 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000

4-6 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5001-3 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150

CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL

Milo Baker: Liz ParsonsMojave Desert: Timothy ThomasMonterey Bay: Brian LeNeveMount Lassen: Catie BishopNapa Valley: Gerald TombocNorth Coast: Larry LevineNorth San Joaquin: Jim BruggerOrange County: Thea GavinRedbud: Denise Della SantinaRiverside/San Bernardino: Katie BarrowsSacramento Valley: Glen HolsteinSan Diego: David VarnerSan Diego: Marty FoltynSan Gabriel Mtns.: Orchid BlackSan Luis Obispo: David ChippingSanhedrin: Allison RofeSanta Clara Valley: Judy FenertySanta Cruz County: Deanna GiulianoSequoia: VacantShasta: Ken KilbornSierra Foothills: VacantSouth Coast: David BermanTahoe: Brett HallWillis L. Jepson: Mary Frances Kelly-PohYerba Buena: Ellen Edelson

BOARD OF DIRECTORSLaura Camp: PresidentDavid Bigham: Vice PresidentNancy Morin: TreasurerCarolyn Longstreth: SecretaryKristie Haydu: DirectorGordon Leppig: DirectorJean Robertson: DirectorMichael Vasey: DirectorSteve Windhager: DirectorCarol Witham: DirectorGlen Holstein: CC RepresentativeDavid Varner: CC Representative

CHAPTER COUNCIL OFFICERS

Orchid Black: CC ChairLarry Levine: CC Vice ChairMarty Foltyn: CC Secretary

STAFF

Dan Gluesenkamp: Executive DirectorAaron Sims: Rare Plant BotanistBecky Reilly: Events CoordinatorCari Porter: Finance and Admin. Mgr.Caroline Garland: Office & Sales Coord.Daniel Hastings: Vegetation Field Asst.Danny Slakey: Rare Plant Treasure Hunt

Project CoordinatorDeidre Kennelly: Communications Man.Greg Suba: Conservation Prog. DirectorHei-ock Kim: Special Projects Coord.Jaime Ratchford: Assoc. Veg. EcologistJennifer Buck-Diaz: Vegetation EcologistJosie Crawford: Education Prog. DirectorJulie Evans: Vegetation Prog. DirectorKendra Sikes: Vegetation EcologistSara Taylor: Vegetation Field LeadShanna Goebel: Administrative AssistantStacey Flowerdew: Membership and

Development Coord.Susan Krzywicki: Horticulture Prog. Dir.

CNPS CONTRACTORS & CHAPTERSTAFF

Bob Hass: Fremontia/CNPS Bulletin EditorMack Casterman: E. Bay Conserv. AnalystMark Naftzger: WebmasterSandy McCoy: Development ConsultantVern Goehring: Legislative Analyst

CHAPTER COUNCIL—CHAPTERS/DELEGATES

Alta Peak: Joan StewartBaja: César García ValderramaBristlecone: Steve McLaughlinChannel Islands: David MagneyDorothy King Young: Nancy MorinEast Bay: Lesley HuntEl Dorado: Susan BrittingKern County: Dorie GiragosianLA/Santa Monica Mtns.: Betsey LandisMarin: David Long

Staff and board listings are as of January 2015.Printed by Modern Litho: www.modernlitho.com

MATERIALS FOR PUBLICATIONCNPS members and others are welcome to contribute materials for publication inFremontia. See the inside back cover for submission instructions.

california NativePlant Society

V43_1_cover.pmd 11/25/14, 10:59 AM2

F R E M O N T I A 1V O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

CONTENTS

THE COVER: Mount Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus) is a prime example of the beautiful rare flora of Californiathat is threatened primarily by development and grazing. It is also part of the logo that appears on the cover of The JepsonManual. Photograph by Neal Kramer.

CNPS RARE PLANT PROGRAM: PAST AND PRESENT by Nick Jensen andAaron E. Sims ............................................................................................................ 2Over the past 40 years CNPS has served as a trusted source of information on rareplant science and conservation.

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANNING AND RARE PLANTS by CarolWitham ...................................................................................................................... 6How are rare plants faring 12 years after enactment of the Natural CommunitiesConservation Planning Act? Here are three perspectives from around the state.

COACHELLA VALLEY NCCP by Katie Barrows ................................................... 8

SANTA CLARA VALLEY NCCP by Kevin Bryant .............................................. 10

DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN NCCP by GregSuba ........................................................................................................................ 12

RARE PLANT MANAGEMENT SUCCESS STORIES IN CALIFORNIA byLinnea Hanson and Julie Kierstead Nelson ............................................................ 14Four case studies highlight how rare plant conservation is being achieved on federaland preserve lands in California.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE CNPS RARE PLANTPROGRAM by Heath Bartosh and James M. André ........ 20In the next 40 years the CNPS Rare Plant Program will needto expand its science and conservation goals to preserve ournative flora against increasingly diverse threats.

A TRIBUTE TO ROXANNE BITTMAN by Kristi Lazar .......................................................................... 28

BOOK REVIEW by Joe Mueller .................................................................................................................. 28

WHAT SHAPED YOUR LOVE OF NATURE? MARGARETA (GRETI) SÉQUIN............................ 29

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:41 PM1

2 F R E M O N T I A V O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

CNPS RARE PLANT PROGRAM: PAST AND PRESENTby Nick Jensen and Aaron E. Sims

he CNPS Rare Plant Program(RPP) got its start in 1968when legendary botanist andgeneticist Dr. G. Ledyard

Stebbins began compiling a list ofplants having a distribution of lessthan 100 miles, using the distribu-tions in Dr. Philip Munz’s A Cali-fornia Flora. This original and im-portant attempt to document thestate’s rarity was recorded on a setof notecards, and served as thefoundation for the first CNPS Inven-tory of Rare and Endangered Plants(the CNPS Inventory), published inDecember 1974.

At this time, the CNPS Inventorywas the most detailed assemblage ofrare plant data for any state in thenation, and it quickly became themost widely used reference on thesubject in California (FremontiaOctober 1990). Over the past 40years the CNPS Inventory and RPPhave continued as a model of scien-tific accuracy and integrity, servingas a tool for education, research, con-servation, and advocacy.

By 1980 CNPS hired its first full-time Rare Plant Botanist (RPB), RickYork, whose salary initially camefrom a one-year contract with TheNature Conservancy (TNC) in re-turn for access to CNPS’s rare plantinformation. At that time the Cali-

fornia Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB) was a cooperative effortof TNC and the California Depart-ment of Fish and Game (now knownas the California Department of Fishand Wildlife, or CDFW). By com-bining staff time and data in a col-laborative effort, the success of theeffort exceeded all expectations. Inlate May of 1981, however, theCNDDB became a part of the Plan-ning Department of CDFW, nolonger involving TNC. With thisshift in management and end of theinitial contract, a new agreement was

proposed. It maintained the sameworking relationship between CNPSand CNDDB, but stipulated thatCNPS would have to fund the RPBposition. The benefits of this rela-tionship were numerous so themotion passed unanimously, andthe cooperative agreement betweenCNPS and CNDDB continues tothis day.

CNPS has now funded the RPBposition for more than 33 years. Thislong-term commitment to the RPPprovides continuity in the mainte-nance of the state’s primary catalog

The recent addition of five newly describedrare monkeyflowers to the CNPS Inven-tory exemplifies the Rare Plant Program’sreliability in providing the state with themost up-to-date conservation status on theCalifornia flora. CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT:Sierra Nevada monkeyflower (Erythranthesierrae), limestone monkeyflower (Eryth-ranthe calcicola), Carson Valley monkey-flower (Erythranthe carsonensis), SantaLucia monkeyflower (Erythranthe hardha-miae), and Red Rock Canyon monkey-flower (Erythranthe rhodopetra). All weredescribed in late 2012 and added to theInventory in 2013. All photographs byNaomi Fraga.

T

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:41 PM2


of rare plants. Although the contentand composition of the CNPS Inven-tory has changed (see Figure 1,right), the RPB’s primary role ofmaintaining the state’s rare plant in-formation has remained constant.These 33 years also serve as a land-mark for celebrating CNPS’s exten-sive commitment to collaborationwith the state’s natural heritage pro-gram, the CNDDB. This close rela-tionship, which includes data shar-ing and cooperation in the rare plantstatus review process, is a model ofcollaboration between a nonprofitorganization and a governmentagency. For more information onthe CNDDB, see the July/October2001 Fremontia, a special doubleissue on rare plants, and also thetribute on page 28 of this issue byKristi Lazar on the tremendous long-term commitment of former CNDDBlead botanist, Roxanne Bittman.

Since 2001 when the last rareplant issue of Fremontia was pub-lished, the RPP has undergone sev-eral major changes. In 2001 the lastprint edition of the CNPS Inventorywas published. In the same year, theOnline CNPS Inventory, 7th Edition,was developed (see sidebar, page 5).Since then, the Society has focusedon maintaining the CNPS Inventoryas a free, online, continuously up-dated and searchable database.

Another major change occurredin 2005 when the rare plant statusreview process—the procedurethrough which plants are added to,removed from, or re-ranked withinthe CNPS Inventory—transitionedfrom reviews during in-personmeetings to an email group andonline forum-based process. Thisreduced the cost associated withconducting status reviews, im-proved transparency, and fosteredthe involvement of hundreds ofexpert reviewers from various occu-pations throughout California andthe world (see Figure 2).

Also, the incorporation of nowwidely available online data intothe status review process, such as

specimen data in the Consortiumof California Herbaria (CCH), hasmade the ranking of the state’s rareplants more efficient and accurate.(See Table 1, page 4, for a list of theCalifornia rare plant ranking sys-tem categories.) For example, YollaBolly Mountains bird’s-foot trefoil(Hosackia yollabolliensis) was addedto California Rare Plant Rank(CRPR) 4, plants of limited distri-bution, in the first edition of theCNPS Inventory based on review-ers’ consensus of its rarity duringan in-person meeting. Yet a 2013review of the plant’s rarity usingCCH specimen data indicated thatthe trefoil is actually known from

fewer than ten occurrences. For thatreason it was subsequently re-ranked to CRPR 1B, plants rare,threatened, or endangered in Cali-fornia and elsewhere.

Other changes to the CNPSInventory in recent years includethe addition of CRPRs 2A and 2B,in recognition that some plants onCRPR 1A, presumed extinct, areactually found outside of Californiaand are not endangered. The cre-ation of CRPR 2A as the list contain-ing plants extirpated in California,but common outside of the state,calls attention to some of the threatsto plants at the edge of their range.

Additionally, in 2013, in collabo-

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM3


TOP: The review of newly available online data revealed that Yolla Bolly Mountain bird’s-foot trefoil (Hosackia yollabolliensis) was much rarer than originally thought, and it wassubsequently reranked. Photograph by Kate Ludwig, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. •ABOVE LEFT: Green-flowered wintergreen (Pyrola chlorantha) is one of five species that wererecently included in the novel Rank 2A—plants presumed extirpated in California, butcommon elsewhere. Photograph by Amadej Trnkoczy. • ABOVE RIGHT: Although some plantsare found to be more rare after further investigation (as was seen with the Yolla BollyMtns. bird’s-foot trefoil), Brandegee’s clarkia (Clarkia biloba subsp. brandegeeae) wasfound to be more common than previously thought, through the work of Rare Plant TreasureHunt volunteers. Subsequently its status was changed from CRPR 1B to CRBR 4. Photographby Keir Morse.

different parts of the state and playsa central role in helping to set RPPpriorities. Furthermore, the groupis responsible for reviewing changesin rare plant occurrences and help-ing to achieve consensus when thereis disagreement during the statusreview process.

In recent years collaboration hasincreased between the RPP, theCNPS Education Program, CNPSChapters, and members of the pub-lic. The Rare Plant Treasure HuntProject, initiated in 2010, provides

ration with the California LichenSociety, CNPS made the decision toinclude rare lichens in the CNPSInventory. This addition and the as-sociated survey protocols (in devel-opment) call attention to rare andimportant members of ecosystems

that are often ignored in biologicalsurvey work. Changes such as theseare made possible through the guid-ance of the Rare Plant Program Com-mittee. Created in 2009 and chairedby Jim André, the committee con-sists of 14 esteemed botanists from

TABLE 1. THE CALIFORNIARARE PLANT RANKINGSYSTEM (CRPR).CRPR 1A: Plants Presumed

Extirpated in California andEither Rare or Extinct Elsewhere

CRPR 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened,or Endangered in California andElsewhere

CRPR 2A: Plants PresumedExtirpated in California, ButMore Common Elsewhere

CRPR 2B: Plants Rare, Threatened,or Endangered in California, ButMore Common Elsewhere

CRPR 3: Plants About Which MoreInformation is Needed—AReview List

CRPR 4: Plants of Limited Distribu-tion—A Watch List

THREAT RANKS0.1: Seriously threatened in

California (over 80% of occur-rences threatened; high degreeand immediacy of threat)

0.2: Moderately threatened inCalifornia (20–80% occurrencesthreatened; moderate degreeand immediacy of threat)

0.3: Not very threatened inCalifornia (<20% of occurrencesthreatened; low degree andimmediacy of threat or nocurrent threats known)

Source: California Native PlantSociety, 2014, cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM4


citizen scientists with the trainingand background information neces-sary to search for and document his-

CNPS INVENTORY: FROM PRINT TO PIXEL

n 1983 Rick York, Rare Plant Program Botanist, began the task of com-puterizing more than 15 years of CNPS rare plant data on nearly 1,400

taxa. At the time, one of the claims for computerizing the data was that itwould allow users to generate lists of plants by county and by quadrangle(Fremontia January 1982). Fewer than ten years later, CNPS released theElectronic Inventory, which was acclaimed by then CNPS Vice President forRare Plants, Dr. Bruce Pavlik, as “one of the most sophisticated naturalheritage and inventory software programs in the world.”

The Electronic Inventory continued for nearly a decade, alongside thepublication of the CNPS Inventory, 5th Edition, in 1994, and 6th Edition in2001, which would be the last in print format. However, the need for it tobe continuously updated and publicly available was becoming increas-ingly apparent, and North Coast Chapter Delegate, Larry Levine, took itupon himself to develop the Online CNPS Inventory, 7th Edition. With noformal training in programming, Larry developed the 7th Edition using freeacademic software developed in Slovenia that he discovered through anInternet search.

The 7th Edition is still in use today, but new programming tools andmapping software led to the need for a revised version in December of2010, and the current Online CNPS Inventory, 8th Edition, was born. The 8th Edition not only allows users tocreate lists of rare plants by selecting a location from a map (something past rare plant botanists could onlyhave dreamed of), but allows one to perform a search based on nearly 60 different criteria, as well as by naturalcommunities and key search terms.

Whiteworm lichen (Thamnolia vermicularis) is one of fourteen rare lichens now includedin the CNPS Inventory thanks to recent collaboration between CNPS and the CaliforniaLichen Society. It is growing with curled snow lichen (Flavocetraria cucullata), a greenish-yellow shrub-like lichen. Photograph by Stephen Sharnoff.

torical occurrences of rare plantsthroughout California. To date, theproject has involved nearly 700

volunteers who have clocked over12,000 hours while visiting morethan 2,100 rare plant occurrencesstatewide. This is just one exampleof the tremendous amount of workthat volunteers do for the RPP eachyear.

The value of the thousands ofhours spent by CNPS memberssearching for, documenting, andmonitoring rare plants cannot beunderstated. Yet, as discussed inBartosh and André’s article in thisissue of Fremontia, protections forCalifornia’s rare plants are still in-adequate, and a lot more needs tobe accomplished if we are to pro-tect them. Nevertheless, we remainpositive and confident that the RPPand all of its partners will continueto do their part to help preserveCalifornia’s botanical legacy.

Nick Jensen, 1500 North College Avenue,Claremont, CA 91711, [email protected]; Aaron E. Sims, 2707 K Street, Suite 1,Sacramento, CA 95816, asims@cnps. org

I

Longtime member of CNPS NorthCoast Chapter and current ChapterCouncil Vice Chair, Larry Levine,independently developed the firstOnline Inventory in 2001 with noformal training. This was a momen-tous accomplishment that set theprecedent for immediate public accessto the most up-to-date informationon California’s imperiled flora. Pho-tograph by Johanna Rubba.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM5


REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANNINGAND RARE PLANTS

by Carol Witham

he Natural Community Con-servation Planning (NCCP)Act requires taking a broadbased ecosystem approach to

planning that focuses on protectionand perpetuation of biological di-versity within a region. An approvedNCCP (Natural Community Con-servation Plan) allows destructionof endangered species and theirhabitat in certain locations providedthat they are conserved in others.

In its earliest form the NCCPAct lacked standards for develop-ment or approval. After some con-servation plans in Southern Califor-nia that contained vague and discre-tionary provisions failed to achieve

expected conservation goals (Rolfe2001), the NCCP Act was reformedby the California legislature in 2002to require standards for approval.This revised NCCP Act set the stagefor many new regional-scale plan-ning processes.

The three articles that follow givean overview of CNPS’s participationin three large-scale NCCP planningendeavors, each at a different stageof development. Katie Barrows talksof the Coachella Valley Plan, whichwas adopted in 2008 and is well intoits implementation phase. KevinBryant discusses the Santa Clara Val-ley Habitat Plan, which was adoptedin 2013. Greg Suba covers the plan-

ning and negotiation phase of theyet to be completed Desert Renew-able Energy Conservation Plan. Eventhough these are located in differentareas of the state and involve differ-ent conservation priorities and plan-ning issues, several themes are com-mon to all three accounts.

The plans themselves are a good idea.They can protect rare plants andhabitats, and ecological processesthat might otherwise be lost duringindividual project planning and per-mitting. While plants can be over-looked if the focus of the plan is onanimal species, they and their natu-ral habitats must be included in or-

T

Eastern Merced County was part of an NCCP planning effort initiated in 2002. Due to lack of political leadership, there is still noconservation plan for this area. Photograph by Carol Witham.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM6


der to maintain integrity of the land-scape. Plant advocates should alsoinsist upon the best available sci-ence and use of precautionary prin-ciples when faced with uncertain-ties. The Coachella Valley Planmakes good use of partnering withscientists both during the planningphase and now into the implemen-tation phase.

Participation in the planning effortis both necessary and time-consum-ing. To ensure that rare plants andtheir habitats are conserved as partof the planning process, advocatesfor native plants must be at the tableduring all phases of the planningeffort. Negotiations on these planscan last years and usually requirebuilding respectful relationshipswith odd bedfellows in order to findcommon ground. It is also impor-tant to gain the interest and supportof elected officials such as in theSanta Clara Valley Plan. Without apolitical champion to help drive the

effort, these plans can takedecades to develop.

Advocates should ask for maxi-mum protection of rare plantsand their habitats. This is es-pecially important when facedwith uncertainty regarding thedistribution of any coveredspecies. Covered species arethose that may be destroyed aslong as they are protected else-where in the planning area. Asin the Desert Renewable En-ergy Conservation Plan, a well-prepared vegetation base mapmay need to suffice for moredetailed species distribution in-formation. Remember thatduring the negotiation processof plan development, acre-age in conservation will getwhittled away. Once some-thing is given up, it may be impos-sible to get it back even if the otherside reneges on their part of thedeal.

Along with other CNPS advo-cates, I worked on the legislationthat reformed the NCCP Act in 2002;have participated in the South Sac-ramento Plan for nearly two decades;and have been observing the devel-opment of several other plans in theSacramento Valley. It is my opinionthat politics will drive most plans. Ifthe planning process has a strongpolitical advocate, then the final planis less likely to be modified duringthe eleventh hour by influentialconstituents. All stakeholders shouldbe at the table and fully engagedduring the entire process. Only thenwill the entire group be vested inthe negotiated common ground.However, it is important to remem-ber that politics can also drive theimplementation of the plan. If thelanguage of the plan allows too muchdiscretion, political influence andlow quality science will determinethe conservation outcome.

Regardless of the unsavory po-litical aspects of regional conserva-tion planning, the outcome can be a

science-driven regional preserve sys-tem that protects not only coveredanimals and plants, but also the eco-system processes necessary to main-tain them in perpetuity. The alter-native would continue to be post-age stamp avoidance areas with littlelong-term conservation value. So myadvice is to get out there and be the“voice of the plants” in these plan-ning processes. The following addi-tional perspectives are from othersalso experienced in the ins and outsof negotiations to conserve nativeplant communities. We hope youwill find them useful, and inviteyou to contact any of us to discusschallenges in your own conserva-tion work.

REFERENCES

Rolfe, Allison. 2001. Understandingthe political realities of regionalconservation planning. Fremontia29(3,4): 13–18.

Witham, Carol W. 2001. The future ofregional conservation planning.Fremontia 29(3,4): 19–26.

Carol Witham, 1141 37th Street, Sacra-mento, CA 95816, [email protected]

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM7


COACHELLA VALLEY NCCPby Katie Barrows

onserving the rare and en-demic plants and animalsinhabiting the deserts ofthe Coachella Valley re-

quires more than protecting the landwhere they occur. To do so requiresmaintaining ecological integrity andprotecting ecosystem processes—

hydrological regimes and sand trans-port—in an environment of activedesert washes and blowing sanddunes.

When the Coachella Valley Mul-tiple Species HCP/NCCP (CVMSHCP)was begun in 1996, NCCPs providedthe proactive planning tool that al-lowed this ecosystem approach towork over a 1.1 million-acre areafrom Palm Springs to the Salton Sea.This tool was used to develop a re-serve design to protect 27 speciesincluding 2 federally endangered and3 unlisted endemic plant species,and 27 natural communities includ-ing native fan palm oases, desert drywash woodland, and mesquite hum-mocks (honey mesquite growing inlarge mounds of sand).

Since the CVMSHCP started ac-quiring land, over 85,000 acres have

The endangered Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) is adapted to the dynamic and rare sand duneecosystem. Photograph by Kathleen Fleming.

C

The tiny local endemic Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus maculatus,left) and the small shrub, Mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata, right) are two of the unlistedspecies receiving protection through the Coachella Valley NCCP. Linanthus photographby Kathleen Fleming. Aster photograph by Colin Barrows.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM8


been conserved. Intime, 230,000 acreswill be added to thenetwork of existingconservation landsthat include theSanta Rosa and SanJacinto MountainsNational Monu-ment, BLM wilder-ness areas, and partsof Joshua Tree Na-tional Park. Beforestate and federalpermits were signedin 2008, stakehold-ers and a team of in-dependent scienceadvisors were in-volved in Plan de-velopment. Now,implementation in-volves local, state,and federal partnersworking together toreach conservationgoals.

How is it work-ing? Given the limi-tations for protec-tion of plants in thefederal EndangeredSpecies Act, withoutan NCCP plantshave little protec-tion. For the Little San BernardinoMountains linanthus (Linanthusmaculatus), an unlisted local en-demic, the emphasis on natural com-munities allowed for protection ofthe braided washes that are habitatfor this species. With conservationobjectives requiring protection of aspecific number of acres of specieshabitat, a proposed development thatthreatened this tiny plant was aban-doned for lack of funding. Now, over60% of the habitat for this plant hasbeen permanently conserved andmore acquisition is in the works.

The federally endangered Coa-chella Valley milkvetch (Astragaluslentiginosus var. coachellae), whichinhabits blowing sand dunes anddesert washes, is another species that

received protection through thisNCCP. To ensure its persistence,conservation objectives requiredprotection of a set number of acresof both habitat and sand transportareas. Conservation proponentsfought hard to protect this sand duneecosystem, and their victory willensure that the dynamic nature ofthis habitat is maintained.

What are the key elements ofsuccess? Certainly, having scientistsand nonprofit partners involved onan ongoing basis is essential. Localelected officials, in this case theCoachella Valley ConservationCommission as the implementingagency, have an investment in theCVMSHCP’s success. Ongoing moni-toring, research, and adaptive re-

source managementfocus on concep-tual models to iden-tify environmentalstressors and factorsthat affect each spe-cies’ survival. Re-serve managementcommittees and abiological workinggroup are respon-sible for monitoringecosystem healthin the conservationareas and imple-menting best man-agement practices.Adequate fundingis also key. Initiallya mitigation fee col-lected on new devel-opment was onlyused to acquire con-servation lands. Sev-eral years ago, theConservation Com-mission approved arevised fee so it cannow also be usedfor biological moni-toring and landmanagement. Still,funding remains achallenge; withoutadequate funds, ac-

quisition and management of con-servation lands will be limited.

What could we have done bet-ter? Because NCCPs require thatmany people be involved in thedecision-making process, these planstake time. In a rapidly developingarea, opportunities for conservationcan be lost. The NCCP is a “bigpicture” planning tool for ecosys-tem level conservation. Developinga shared vision among all partici-pants early on is highly desirable,because it speeds the process andfacilitates more effective conser-vation.

Katie Barrows, 73710 Fred WaringDrive, #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260,[email protected]

Recent acquisition of lands on this alluvial fan, formerly proposed for development,will ensure the conservation of desert riparian habitat and an important biologicalcorridor. Photograph by Bill Havert.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM9

1 0 F R E M O N T I A V O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

SANTA CLARA VALLEY NCCPby Kevin Bryant

hile representing CNPSas a member of theStakeholder Group forthe Santa Clara Valley

Habitat Plan (both an HCP and anNCCP, adopted in 2013), I learnedthat the path toward plan approvaland adoption is often a highly po-liticized process, depending moreon the formation of coalitions andthe creation of political pressure thanon best available science.

This complex conservation planaims to protect and preserve plantand animal species across more than500,000 acres of southern SantaClara County, in a diverse area thatincludes over 10,000 acres of fragileserpentine grassland, most of thison Coyote Ridge (see Fremontia 36:1Winter 2008). Four federally endan-gered rare plant species and at least16 CRPR IB plant species are knownto occur within the Plan boundaries.

The Stakeholder Group, con-

vened in 2005, was comprised pri-marily of environmental groups,despite the Plan manager’s efforts toenlist and retain representatives ofdevelopment-minded and propertyrights organizations. Over the courseof five years, a process involving rea-sonable negotiations and generallyscientifically-based decisions wascarried out in consultation with theStakeholder Group regarding all as-pects of the Plan, and in 2010 a DraftPlan was released to the public.

It included 15 rare plants as cov-ered species (those species addressedin the Plan for which conservationactions will be taken), with a con-servation strategy of acquiring over48,000 acres to be added to a Re-serve System managed for the pro-tection and recovery of these spe-cies. The prospects of such a com-prehensive landscape-level conser-vation plan that was centered on theprotection of rare serpentine habi-

tats had environmental groups suchas CNPS eager to support it.

A series of public meetings heldafter the release of the Plan broughtout very vocal opposition to the Plan.This came mostly from propertyrights and pro-development groups,and they caught the attention of sev-eral local politicians from the part-ner agencies who would need to voteto approve the Plan. Suddenly theseorganizations began attending themonthly Stakeholder Group meet-ings, and also talking behind closeddoors with the Plan managers andlocal politicians.

The compromises that resulted,including removing six coveredplant species from the Plan, decreas-ing the amount of land to be ac-quired for the Reserve System from48,000 to 33,000 acres, and allow-ing exemptions for smaller develop-ments in rural lands, made severalenvironmental organizations (in-cluding CNPS) less enthusiasticabout the Plan. However, the longview became clear to all of us: therevised Plan would still be a vastimprovement over the existing piece-meal mitigation, and many speciesbeyond those covered by the Planwould benefit.

Despite the compromises, strongopposition to the Plan continued,and several politicians spoke pub-licly about greatly reducing or elimi-nating the Plan altogether, usuallyciting its perceived high financialcost. To counter this opposition,CNPS members helped to form adiverse coalition, known as HabitatConservation Now, dedicated to cre-ating the political pressure neededto ensure the Plan would be ap-proved. A year-long effort includedmany direct contacts with key poli-ticians, mail-in campaigns featuringpostcards of beautiful natural scenesfrom the Plan area, and email cam-

Mt. Hamilton thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon), CRPR 1B.2, is a covered species inthe Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, and grows in serpentine seeps within the Plan area.Coyote Ridge, April 2010. All photographs by the author.

W

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM10

F R E M O N T I A 1 1V O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

paigns to contact local decision-makers and urge them to approvethe Plan. These efforts finally paidoff when the Plan was approved by

The federally threatenedBay checkerspot butter-fly (Euphydryas edithabayensis), collectingnectar on Layia sp., is akeystone species in theSanta Clara ValleyHabitat Plan.

Coyote Ridge is situated immediately adjacent to the heavily urbanized Santa Clara Valley, with portions of the ridge within theboundaries of the city of San Jose. This serpentine grassland is a refuge for dozens of threatened and endangered plant and animal species.The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan will help to protect this unique wildland area. Coyote Ridge, April 2009.

the last partner agency, the City ofSan Jose, in January 2013, and for-mally adopted in April 2013.

Involvement in the develop-ment of the SantaClara Valley HabitatPlan through theStakeholder Groupallowed CNPS to“speak for the plants,”

bringing the best available scienceto the table. And while we arguedfor the inclusion of many more spe-cies that were rejected for largelypolitical reasons, the landscape-levelconservation provided by the NCCPportion of this plan is likely to bene-fit not only the rare species that wereincluded, but all species of plantsand animals living within the Planboundaries. The future of serpen-tine grasslands in the southern SantaClara Valley is much more certainnow than it was a decade ago thanksto the NCCP Act.

Kevin Bryant, 303 Vine Hill Road, SantaCruz, CA 95065, [email protected]

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:42 PM11


THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGYCONSERVATION PLAN NCCP

by Greg Suba

nitiated by state and federal au-thorities in 2010, the goal of theDesert Renewable Energy Con-servation Plan (DRECP) is to pro-

vide certainty and expedited per-mitting for renewable energy devel-opers while ensuring the ecologicalneeds of desert species and plantcommunities are met, and ecologi-cal processes are preserved. TheDRECP, if approved, will guide stateand federal desert land managementactions for decades. Without a

DRECP, California’s sensitive desertvegetation and wildlife will continueto be destroyed as long as there isinterest in building large-scale desertsolar projects.

Dwarfing the geographical sizeof all other Natural CommunityConservation Plans (NCCPs) todate, the DRECP’s 23 million-acrearea presents a challenge to plan-ners and stakeholders. How can wecreate a plan that meets the conser-vation standards of the NCCP Act

over such a vast area? How can weidentify lands for development thatcontain comparatively less biologi-cal value given the significant gapsin our knowledge of where desertrare plant species are located and oftheir environmental requirements,so they will persist not only today,but also in an uncertain future ofclimate change? These questionsmust still be answered.

To improve the chances ofachieving effective plant conserva-

A conservation priority is transitional habitats like this Joshua tree stand at the interface between the Mojave Desert and Great BasinDesert ecosystems, Inyo County California. Photograph by Greg Suba.

I

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM12


tion through the DRECP, CNPS be-came involved in the planning pro-cess early on by helping gather in-formation on the distribution andlife history of plant species in needof protection. As of this writing, theplan nears its first public draft andCNPS continues to identify and ad-vocate for the protection of areaswhere rare plant species and rareplant communities occur.

Many rare plants are at risk.There are currently over 300 Cali-fornia Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1Band 2 plants documented within theDRECP area. Of these, 63 CRPR 1Bspecies have 75% of their Californiadistribution within the plan area,and 75 CRPR 2 species occur no-where else in California beyond theDRECP boundary. What’s more,each year botanists discover anddescribe new rare plants across re-mote areas of the planning region.As planning progresses, we updaterare plant maps, highlighting thoseoccurrences that overlap the latestiteration of proposed developmentareas. We then incorporate thisinformation into priority conser-vation reserve maps drafted byDRECP’s environmental stake-

holder coalition. Much of this on-going work was made possiblethrough funding from the Giles W.and Elise G. Mead Foundation.

The vegetation maps originallyproposed for use in the DRECP werebased on spatially inaccurate veg-etation models (LandFIRE, GAP2008 maps) that misidentify vegeta-tion types and miscalculate theiracreages across much of the planarea. Multiple DRECP stakeholders,including an independent scienceadvisory panel, identified the needfor a new DRECP vegetation map asa critical first step in the desert plan-ning process. After more than a yearof persuading, planning agenciesagreed to fund new mapping, eventhough early drafts of several plancomponents had already been de-veloped with the old maps. Todaywe have a new vegetation map formuch of the plan area that meets orexceeds state standards.

The new DRECP vegetation mapidentifies with high accuracy thelocations and the areal extent of rareand common plant communitiesalike. It establishes a pre-develop-ment baseline for the location andquality of Joshua tree stands, micro-

Plants at risk from desert energy development include those yet to be discovered withinthe DRECP area. The following are just six of several newly described desert plantsrecently added to the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. LEFT TO RIGHT: Rosamond eriastrum(Eriastrum rosamondense). Photograph by Don M. Davis. • Limestone monkeyflower(Erythranthe calcicola). Photograph by Naomi Fraga. • Joshua Tree poppy (Eschscholziaandrouxii). Photograph by Shannon Still. • Orocopia Mountains spurge (Euphorbia jaegeri).Photograph by Keir Morse. • Pioneertown linanthus (Linanthus bernardinus). Photographby Duncan Bell. • Lilliptian linanthus (Linanthus maculatus subsp. emaculatus). Photographby Duncan Bell.

phyll woodland communities, raredune plant communities, and morein the plan area. With this informa-tion, planners can identify lands toinclude in core conservation areas,while prioritizing additional landscontaining ecologically valuablehabitat that warrant protection.

Greg Suba, CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1,Sacramento, CA 95816, [email protected]

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM13


RARE PLANT MANAGEMENT SUCCESS STORIESIN CALIFORNIA

by Linnea Hanson and Julie Kierstead Nelson

ederal agencies manage morelands in California than anyother entity, and are requiredby various federal laws to pro-

tect botanical diversity and rareplants. Rare plant programs and poli-cies differ among federal agencies,but all use the California Rare PlantRanks (CRPR) established by CNPSand the California Natural DiversityDatabase (CNDDB) as the basis forselecting the California rare plants

in need of conservation. The princi-pal federal land management agen-cies in California are the US ForestService (USFS), the Bureau of LandManagement, and the National ParkService. These and other federalagencies also contribute funds andexpertise to restore rare plants andtheir habitats on private lands.

Fremontia readers may be par-ticularly interested in the methodsand results of rare plant and habitatmanagement projects. Our purposehere is also to bring attention to thelegal compliance, environmentalimpact analysis and planning, andfunding necessary to make theseprojects successful.

Conservation methods on fed-eral lands and on private lands pre-served through land trusts includefield surveys to determine the ex-tent of species and habitats, speciesrestrictions to distinct habitats, andthe response of plants to distur-

bance. Rare and listed species arethen identified that need manage-ment assistance. Most rare plantmanagement projects start with aformal environmental analysis pro-cess, including public comment. Thelaw governing the analysis of envi-ronmental effects on federally au-thorized, funded, or implementedprojects is the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA). Compli-ance with the California Environ-mental Quality Act (CEQA) is gen-erally not required for federal rareplant projects.

Active management of specieslisted under the Endangered Spe-cies Act requires consultation withthe US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Non-listed species do notrequire USFWS involvement. Rareplant management work may be paidfor by allocated agency funds, grants,and partnerships with various stateand federal agencies, non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs), andprivate parties.

Three of our four case studiesare located on federal lands in North-ern California. The fourth case studyinvolves a state and federally listedEndangered plant located on pre-serve land in central California.

CASE STUDIES

Webber’s milkvetch (Astragaluswebberi) Habitat Enhancement andPopulation Augmentation Project,Plumas National Forest (Jim Belsher-Howe, botanist, Mount Hough RangerDistrict, and Michelle Coppoletta,ecologist, Sierra Cascade Province)

Webber’s milkvetch is an ex-tremely rare species (CRPR 1B.2)endemic to the upper Feather River

F

ABOVE: Jim Belsher-Howe sowing seeds of the CRPR 1B.2 Webber’s milkvetch (Astragaluswebberi) on Mount Hough in the Plumas National Forest. Photograph by MichelleCoppoletta. • TOP: Close-up showing the plant’s cream-colored flowers and habit. Photographby Jim Belsher-Howe.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM14


region of the northern Sierra Nevadain central Plumas County. In 2003an inventory of the 13 known occur-rences documented fewer than 2,000individuals. Comparisons with pastsurvey information revealed thatmany of the occurrences were indecline; the number of individualsin some locations had decreased byalmost 22% over 20 years. Monitor-ing suggested that since Webber’smilkvetch habitat is found in forestopenings, increasingly dense forestgrowth that shades out the forestfloor was severely threatening thepersistence of plants and restrictingthe potential for expansion at knownsites. These findings prompted For-est Service botanists and ecologiststo initiate a series of projects fo-cused on expanding the number ofWebber’s milkvetch occurrences andindividuals. Currently the species hassensitive species status on ForestService lands in California, includ-ing Plumas National Forest (NF).

Jim Belsher-Howe worked inclose collaboration with KyleMerriam and Michelle Coppoletta ofthe USFS Sierra Cascade Ecology Pro-gram. NEPA environmental analysisdocuments were completed for all ofthe ground disturbing activities as-sociated with this series of projects.

The first project, initiated in2007, focused on enhancing exist-ing Webber’s milkvetch habitatand the creation of five additionalacres of suitable habitat alongsidethe edge of an existing Webber’smilkvetch occurrence. The projecttook three years, from the initialplanning phase to implementation,and included thinning small diam-eter conifer trees, pile burning,prescribed burning, and outplant-ing. Greenville High School stu-dents scarified seeds, grew andmonitored plants in the greenhouse,and planted seedlings in the newlycreated forest openings. Studentsand teachers will continue to beactive partners throughout the lifeof this project.

Seeds collected from the adja-

cent occurrence were used to testgermination requirements in thefield; seeds were also sown in thegreenhouse and cultivated for out-planting. Monitoring of seed trialsdemonstrated that prescribed firealone was not sufficient for germi-nation of the existing seedbank orsown seeds. In contrast, seeds in thegreenhouse readily germinated aftermechanical scarification. Within thethinning and prescribed fire treat-ment units there was an increasein Webber’s milkvetch, which wasmost likely the result of inadvertentmechanical seed scarification whiledoing the forest thinning and burn-ing. After being grown in cultiva-tion, 74 plants were successfullyplanted into the treated site and over70% have survived to date.

These encouraging resultsprompted a second project in 2010.It included thinning around two ad-ditional Webber’s milkvetch occur-rences to create more suitable habi-tat. Researchers conducted geneticanalysis of all known occurrences todetermine levels of genetic variationand to assist in developing seedtransfer and reintroduction guide-lines. They also initiated a study to

define the species’ ecological require-ments. Seeds were collected fromsix occurrences and grown in theGreenville High School greenhouseby students. In the fall of 2013, 420Webber’s milkvetch plants wereplanted within the two treated sitesand will be monitored over time todetermine survival and vigor.

In 2012 researchers began a thirdproject. They identified three newsites where Webber’s milkvetchwould be introduced. These siteswere thinned to create suitable habi-tat and then planted with scarifiedseed and greenhouse-grown seed-lings. Results of this project will de-termine the most efficient, cost ef-fective method of establishingWebber’s milkvetch in the wild. Itwill also help define the ecologicalrequirements of this extremely rarespecies.

These projects have taken overeight years to plan and implement(2007–2014). Accomplishments in-clude over 27 acres of Webber’smilkvetch habitat enhanced throughthinning and burning; about 550greenhouse-grown plants trans-ferred to the wild; and over 1,700seeds sown in the field. This has

Stakes, labels, and irrigation infrastructure for saltbush scrub restoration on the PanoramaVista Preserve. This is one of the habitats associated with Bakersfield cactus (Opuntiabasilaris var. treleasei). Photograph courtesy of River Partners.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM15


increased the total number of plantsby 20% and almost tripled theamount of suitable habitat near ex-isting populations. Funding forthese projects came from PlumasNF annual budgets for wildlife, fish,and rare plants, and from wildfirerestoration funds.

Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basi-laris var. treleasei) Habitat Restora-tion on the Panorama Vista Pre-serve with River Partners (AndrewRayburn, restoration ecologist, TomGriggs, senior restoration ecologist,and Julie Rentner, director of specialprojects)

The state and federally listed en-dangered Bakersfield cactus is foundin limited distribution in centralKern County near the city of Bakers-field. Known habitat associationsof the cactus include grasslands,oak and riparian woodlands, andsaltbush scrub. Decline of Bakers-field cactus has primarily been dueto conversion of these communi-ties to irrigated agriculture, urbanand residential development, andpetroleum production. What suit-able habitat remains has beenheavily invaded by exotic annualgrasses and other weeds. Remnantcactus populations are highly frag-mented, and further threatened byoff-highway vehicle activity, high-intensity fires, trash dumping, andsand and gravel mining.

Two small populations of Bakers-field cactus occur on the 936-acrePanorama Vista Preserve in KernCounty. The preserve is located ad-jacent to the 10,000+ acre Kern RiverOil Field, and is owned wholly bythe Kern River Corridor Endowmentand Holding Company, Inc. (KCRE)based in Bakersfield. River Partners,a statewide California nonprofit spe-cializing in riparian habitat restora-tion, currently coordinates theLower Kern River Saltbush Scruband Riparian Habitat RestorationProject on the preserve. In the firstphase of this long-term project, RiverPartners assisted with planning fora 30-acre riparian forest restorationproject implemented in 2010 byKCRE. Under the funding condi-tions, both federal (NEPA) and state(CEQA) processes were completedfor this project, with the Bureau ofReclamation and the City of Bakers-field as lead agencies. Native woodyspecies, including cottonwood, sy-camore, a variety of willows, andelderberry were planted to create adiverse habitat mosaic.

The second phase of the projectwill restore 129 additional acres ofriparian woodland and saltbushscrub habitat. This restoration pro-cess includes aggressive weed con-

TOP: The state and federally listed Bakersfield cactus is now part of a restoration effort toenhance remnant populations and establish new ones. Photograph by Brian Cypher. •BOTTOM: A close-up photo of the diminutive, prostrate Cooke’s phacelia (Phacelia cookei),a CRPR 1B.1 species that is the object of a restoration project near Mount Shasta. Photographby Brenna Montagne.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM16


trol and planting of thousands ofnative trees, shrubs, and vines, andwill increase restored habitat con-nectivity to existing riparian andsaltbush scrub habitat including theKern River Parkway. A dense nativeunderstory will also be establishedto further enhance habitat and tolimit weed invasion. Throughout theprocess, emphasis has been placedon local engagement and partner-ship building with local, state, andfederal stakeholders.

Restoration efforts directly sup-port conservation efforts for theBakersfield cactus by limiting com-petition from exotic weeds and cre-ating habitat conditions suitable forexpansion of remnant populations.Restored habitats will also providesafe sites for cactus reintroduction,which is a specific goal of the plant-ing design. Removal of annualgrasses should limit high-intensityfires that are thought to play a ma-jor role in cactus mortality.

Restoration work at PanoramaVista Preserve has been made pos-sible through grant agreements withmultiple funders and participants,including federal and state agencies,NGOs, and private parties.

Cooke’s phacelia (Phacelia cookei)Special Treatments in the BolamTimber Stand Improvement andFuelbreak Project, Shasta TrinityNational Forest (Rhonda Posey, bota-nist, Shasta-McCloud ManagementUnit)

Special treatments for Cooke’sphacelia, a CRPR 1B.1 species, wereincorporated into the Bolam Tim-ber Stand Improvement andFuelbreak Project on the north sideof Mount Shasta. Cooke’s phaceliais geographically restricted to a smallarea at the northern foot of themountain, on either side of theboundary between the Shasta-Trin-ity and Klamath National Forests,where it grows in full sun on sandyvolcanic soil.

From annual monitoring of the

species by Shasta-Trinity and Kla-math NF botanists since 2005, itwas apparent that some action wasneeded to improve and/or increasehabitat for this species. Its num-bers had dropped from a high inthe late 1970s of 100,000 plants to

fewer than 2,000 plants in 2008.Two populations in the Shasta-Trinity NF have not been found inrecent years and are presumed ex-tirpated.

Monitoring observations, com-bined with recent research findingsby Melissa Patterson of CaliforniaState University, Chico, led us toconclude that too much vegetativecover and lack of soil disturbancewere likely inhibiting seed germina-tion and contributing to the decreas-ing numbers of Cooke’s phacelia. Afortuitous opportunity arose to bene-fit Cooke’s phacelia populations due

to a proposed project on the Shasta-Trinity NF that involved building afuelbreak (thereby creating increasedsoil disturbance) and thinning pon-derosa pine and nearby shrubs. Theproject avoided as much as possiblemulching phacelia habitat with

chipped woody vegetation, and ex-tended the tree and shrub thinningwork 50 feet from the road to createadditional favorable phacelia habitatin the project interior.

Environmental Assessment plan-ning started in 2008 and the treeand shrub thinning work was com-pleted in 2013. Funding came fromtimber stand improvement andfuels funds allocated to the Shasta-Trinity NF. Data from post-projectmonitoring transects showed thatCooke’s phacelia increased in num-bers and extent following the vege-tation thinning and soil disturbance.

Mastication—the shredding of smaller trees and shrubs—was used in an area of the ShastaTrinity NF that had been overgrown with vegetation to create sunny, disturbed ground,habitat preferred by the extremely rare Cooke’s phacelia. Post-project monitoring hasshown a significant increase in numbers of this species. Photograph by Rhonda Posey.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM17


Most encouragingly, phacelia plantswere found as far as 50 feet awayfrom the road; before the projectwork, phacelia plants were prima-rily limited to roadsides. Monitor-ing will continue as needed.

Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei)at Murken Bench vernal pool,Lassen National Forest (Don Lepley,assistant forest botanist)

Among the many rare plant spe-cies in California is a small group ofgrasses that are only found in vernalpools. One is Greene’s tuctoria, asmall, hairy annual grass whose flo-rets are protected by veiny bractstipped by numerous tiny teeth. Mostoccurrences are thinly scatteredthrough the Central Valley and ad-jacent foothills, and the species is sorare that the USFWS listed it as en-dangered in 1997. Its CRPR is 1B.1.

Greene’s tuctoria is also knownfrom the mountains of Modoc andShasta counties. The sole Shasta siteis at Murken Bench, a volcanic ter-race roughly 25 miles north ofLassen Peak. An estimated 2,000tuctoria plants were found there in1991, in a vernal pool at the foot of alava field. By 1995, only 1,000 plantswere found, and numbers declinedprecipitously thereafter: 35 in 1998and none at all in 2010. The occur-rence itself is on private land, butLassen National Forest managesthe surrounding watershed, whichUSFWS designated as critical habi-tat in 2003. Therefore, Lassen NFacted to support the survival of thetuctoria colony.

Murken Bench, which has littleor no available surface water for mostof the year, has been used for early-season grazing for about a century.Ranchers dug water holes for cattleto use and installed fences to helpdivide resources among their herds.One of the water holes was insidethe Murken Bench pool, little morethan 100 feet from the tuctoria, andwas large enough to hold water thatwould otherwise have covered the

Aerial view of the vernal pool habitat on the Murken Bench of the Lassen National Forest,home to the federally listed annual grass, Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei). Photographby Don Lepley.

pool. Cattle using the waterhole in-tensified the drawdown (one cowconsumes about 30 gallons of waterdaily), and their trampling of thepool soil was sometimes heavy.

When Lassen NF followed the

NEPA planning process and con-sulted with USFWS to renew thegrazing allotment permits in 2009,agreements were made with theranchers and with the USFWS tochange conditions at the vernal pool.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:43 PM18


year later—a very encouraging trend.Perhaps with further improvementsthat restore the natural hydrologythe tuctoria will continue to expand.Funds for this work came from theLassen NF fish, wildlife, and rareplant budget.

Rare plant conservation has nowbeen a part of public land manage-

ment for several decades. Once weknow the extent of rare species’ dis-tribution, habitat requirements andpreferences, responses to distur-bance, and current threats, we willbe better able to identify rare plantspecies that need management as-sistance. Then we can plan andbegin to implement rare plant man-agement projects that will accom-plish long-term conservation goals.Essential components of these man-agement projects include the plan-ning and environmental analysisprocess needed to ensure implemen-tation success. The four case studieshighlighted here illustrate how thisprocess typically unfolds on federaland preserve lands in California.

Linnea Hanson, 2837 Mariposa Avenue,Chico, CA 95973, [email protected]; Julie Kierstead Nelson, Shasta-Trin-ity National Forest, 3644 Avtech Park-way, Redding, CA 96002, [email protected]

Close-up of Green’s tuctoria (Tuctoriagreenei) showing annual growth habit.Photograph by Judy Perkins.

In 2010 the pool perimeter wasfenced to exclude cattle. Later theold fencing inside the pool was re-moved, and in 2011 the largewaterhole was filled with local soil.Since then, early-season water hasflooded more of the pool. Happily,almost 500 plants appeared in thesummer of 2011 and 740 plants a

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:44 PM19


FUTURE DIRECTIONS FORTHE CNPS RARE PLANT PROGRAM

by Heath Bartosh and James M. André

efore the Gold Rush, Califor-nia was a bountiful land ofinfinite resources and oppor-tunity. Over the past century,

millions of people have pouredacross our borders, seeking pros-perity within the idealistic dream-scape. And the dream continues, aspopulation stands at 37.6 million,and is expected to reach 52.7 mil-lion by 2060 (California Departmentof Finance 2014).

Nature, too, is on the move to-day in California. The rate at whichour famously scenic and biologicallydiverse ecosystems are being dis-placed and fragmented is intensify-ing amid California’s burgeoningpopulation. Uses of natural areas forrecreation (see photograph above)and the extraction of water, timber,and mineral resources are concur-rently expanding. Looming impactsfrom increased urbanization, climate

change, nitrogen deposition, alteredfire regimes, invasive species, andenergy development pose transfor-mative landscape-level threats tospecies and ecosystems. And muchof the projected increase in Califor-nia’s population is expected to oc-cur in some of our most intact andcherished biodiversity hotspots.

As summarized in this issue ofFremontia, over the past four-and-a-half decades the CNPS Rare Plant

View of the Tesla acquisition of Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area where off-highway-vehicle recreation expansion threatensunique habitat near the Livermore Valley.

B

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:44 PM20


Program (RPP) has raised the barnationally in rare plant conserva-tion, and we celebrate these accom-plishments. Moving forward, how-ever, the RPP will be challenged tofulfill its mission amid the over-whelming pace and scale of threatsto California’s native plants. We dis-cuss some obstacles and opportuni-ties that lie ahead, and outline sev-eral expanding roles and potentialnew directions for the program.

THE INVENTORY OF RAREAND ENDANGEREDPLANTS

The RPP will continue to em-phasize its long-standing core re-sponsibilities, especially the main-tenance of the CNPS Inventory ofRare and Endangered Plants (CNPS2001; 2014), which is the founda-tion of the program. The CNPS In-ventory continues to grow and cur-rently totals 2,327 rare species, com-prising 35% of California’s nativevascular plants. With more than one-third of California’s native flora nowof conservation concern, we areclearly falling behind in our missionto maintain natural and functionalbiodiversity throughout the state.This alarming trend suggests the RPPhas no alternative but to expand itsscope. Ultimately, CNPS will needto work with regulatory agencies,conservation organizations, heritageprograms in neighboring states, andother national and international pro-grams to develop and implementconservation actions before speciesreach an endangerment thresholdrequiring their listing.

In addition to the 2,327 rankedspecies currently in the CNPS Inven-tory, 239 other plant species are cur-rently proposed for new additions,deletions, or status changes. The re-view and processing of this substan-tial and growing backlog will takeconsiderable time and commitment.Why the increasing backlog in list-ing? With a modest revival of field

exploration, reassessment of her-barium collections, and the recentemphasis on molecular phylogeneticstudies facilitated by new moleculartechniques, we are actually seeingan increase in taxonomic discoveryin California.

In the past two decades the na-tive flora of California has expandedby roughly 350 species, and manyof these meet criteria for listing inthe CNPS Inventory. As plant tax-onomy relies more heavily on newmolecular tools, there has been aconcurrent and rapid progression ofthe phylogenetic species concept.And while the increased awarenessof phylogenetic relationships amongspecies is paramount to rare plantconservation in general, it also com-plicates the CNPS rare plant reviewand listing process.

PROTECTION BEYOND THESPECIES UNIT

As concepts of taxonomic unitsundergo rapid change, we are re-minded that rare plant conservationneeds to encompass not only spe-cies, but also protect groups of in-teracting populations (metapopula-tions) and species within and acrossrelated taxonomic groups. For ex-ample, genetic relationships withinand among populations of plantsmay influence regulatory or policydecision outcomes (Ellstrand 2014).The RPP will be exploring ways touse the increasingly abundant phy-logenetic information to help main-tain the integrity of both genetic andecological relationships and pro-cesses for rare plants. Doing thiswill involve collaboration with sci-entists, the CNPS Conservation Pro-gram, as well as agencies overseeingregulatory processes and land man-agement decisions.

Locally rare populations of morecommon California species alsomerit increased conservation recog-nition. The CNPS RPP is currentlyworking to establish specific localrarity criteria that can be used at the

county level. The concept is cer-tainly not new to CNPS. In the early1990s, Dianne Lake (East Bay Chap-ter) referred to locally rare plantspecies as “unusual and significant.”In the 2000s the North Coast Chap-ter’s Gordon Leppig and JeffreyWhite referred to them as “periph-eral populations,” while VenturaCounty’s David Magney used theterm “locally rare plants.”

Research in evolutionary biol-ogy has shown that isolated popula-tions or those on the periphery oftheir range often exhibit higher ratesof speciation. Speciation is the evo-lutionary process by which new bio-logical species arise. Locally rare spe-cies are also important for the pres-ervation of biodiversity and ecologi-cal processes that are critical amidrapid climate change. These popu-lations represent our “canaries inthe coal mine.” Clearly, locally rareplants are significant from severalconservation perspectives. But whatcan we do to protect them?

Along with Benjamin Crane,Jeffrey White developed the L-Rank(L = Local) concept, which assignsrare or uncommon status to specieswithin a local geographical bound-ary that are more common outsidethat boundary. The L-Rank designa-tion is based on species abundancerelative to the size of a given studyarea. For instance, in Napa Countythe level of local rarity is derived bycounting the number of 1km x 1kmgrids in which a species is present.The fewer grids it occurs in, themore locally rare it’s considered.

L-Ranks can be included inNatureserve’s Natural HeritageRanking System and applied to allcorners of the state, as they havesimilar conservation ranks rangingfrom 1 to 5, preceded by a letterreflecting the appropriate geographicscale of the assessment (G = Global,N = National, and S = Subnational/State) (Table 1).

Currently, a list of L-Rank spe-cies has been applied to Napa Countythrough the efforts of Crane and

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:44 PM21


White, with other county programsin various stages of development.CNPS, through the RPP and its vol-unteers, can help identify data gapsnecessary to implement the conceptof L-Ranks statewide by building adatabase of local or county level flo-ras that need updating or complet-ing. This is an excellent way to de-velop locally rare plant programsand bolster chapter-level conserva-tion efforts, since governance anddevelopment scenarios are moresimilar within county boundariesthan across county lines. Given itsproven history of success with theCNPS Inventory of Rare and Endan-gered Plants, CNPS, and especiallythe RPP, is in a strong position toseek funding for these valuable en-deavors.

REGIONAL PLANNINGEFFORTS

Michael Soulé, the grandfather

of conservation biology, proposedfour core principles on which theconcept of biodiversity would bebuilt (Soulé 1985): 1) a high diver-sity of organisms; 2) ecological com-plexity; 3) functioning evolutionaryprocesses; and 4) the intrinsic valueof biodiversity.

Noss and Cooperider (1994)built upon Soulé’s work by develop-ing conservation principles that op-erate at regional and landscapescales. Beginning in 1983, the con-cept of regional conservation plan-ning has been implemented via themechanism of Habitat ConservationPlans (HCPs), and later, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plans(NCCPs), in an effort to attain thecore principles of conservation biol-ogy. Since 1983 when the first HCPwas developed for San Bruno Moun-tain, regional planning efforts havemultiplied. Currently there are 44HCPs/NCCPs statewide that haveeither been implemented or are be-

ing developed, and more are beingconceptualized.

One common failure of regionalconservation planning is that theprocess lacks significant participa-tion by rare plant stakeholders. An-other problem arises when HCPsand other jurisdictional and legisla-tive boundaries do not coincide. Forexample, the Bay Delta Conserva-tion Plan (BDCP) is being devel-oped for species affected by the op-eration of California’s two biggestwater delivery systems. It overlapswith one plan that is already imple-mented, and four other plans pres-ently in their development stages.Delta region species ranges extendbeyond the boundaries of these re-gional planning efforts. The BDCPwill need to be carefully developedin concert with the conservationgoals of the East Contra Costa HCPso that the same rare plant speciesare being covered, habitat modelinguses similar ecological parameters,

Endemic manzanita habitat of San Bruno Mountain, location of the first Habitat Conservation Plan in California. All photographs by HeathBartosh unless otherwise noted.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:44 PM22


and efforts are consistent with ex-isting recovery plans for federallylisted species.

CNPS needs capable volunteersembedded in the planning phases toproduce the most effective regionalplanning efforts that involve rareplants. For example, the East BayChapter collaborated in developingthe East Contra Costa HCP, and theirinput assured that the plan now cov-ers relevant affected rare plant spe-cies. Other collaborators includedenvironmental consultants, agencybiologists, and knowledgeable activ-ists. The East Bay Chapter’s conser-vation analyst was especially helpfulin guiding the development of thisHCP by serving as the watchdog insituations where public commentand botanical expertise were neces-sary. He was able to take data fromthe plant science committees of theChapter and use it to guide wisedecisions for rare plant conservation.CNPS, through the RPP, shouldstrive to develop this framework ofcollaboration in every chapter.

FACILITATING FESA/CESALISTINGS

It has been 41 years since thepassage of the federal EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA). Since then wehave enacted the Native Plant Pro-tection Act (NPPA) and the Cali-fornia Endangered Species Act(CESA), although the NPPA pro-vides little protection for our rareplants. During this time frame, 237plant species received state and/orfederal ESA protection, but the vastmajority of these (226 species) werefirst listed prior to year 2000. Since2000 only 11 species have beenlisted under ESA or CESA, and list-ings have dramatically slowed from8 to 1 per year.

Conversely, since 2000 the num-ber of species added to the CNPSInventory has increased. The 237ESA-listed species collectively rep-resent just 4% of our native flora. Bycontrast, the CNPS Inventory lists1,648 species (25% of our flora) asRank 1B or 2B (plants that may meetcriteria for FESA or CESA listing).Clearly there is a strong disconnectbetween the numbers of qualifyingtaxa and the reality of successfullisting efforts.

Looking closely at rare plant datamaintained by the California Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife’s NaturalDiversity Database (our state’s Natu-ral Heritage Program), it’s stagger-ing how many rare plant species witha CNPS Rank of 1B or 2B are repre-sented by only one or two popula-tions and not listed under either ESA.

A total of 41 Rank 1B species areknown from just one occurrence,and 48 species have only two occur-rences. A total of 69 Rank 2B specieshave just one occurrence in Califor-nia, and 39 are known from onlytwo occurrences. These 197 rarespecies meet criteria for state andfederal ESA status and should be ona fast track for listing.

What does this mean for the RarePlant Program (RPP) in the yearsahead? One potential role for theRPP and Rare Plant Program Com-mittee (RPPC) will be to marshalresources and expertise to help theagencies determine which plantsmerit the highest listing priority. TheRPP will also need to work withCNPS chapters, including their rareplant coordinators, volunteers, andregional experts, to develop petitionsfor ESA listing. Generally if the spe-cies in question is on federal land

View of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan area with Mount Diabloin the background.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:44 PM23


then FESA would be appropriate.Under all other situations, it’s gen-erally better to file under CESA. Toachieve this, CNPS Chapters willneed active and engaged rare plantcommittees and guidance from theRPP and RPPC.

RESEARCH ANDINVENTORY NEEDS

Of the 2,327 rare plants pres-ently listed in the CNPS Inventory,only a very small percentage havecomplete information about theirdistribution, fundamentals of theirbiology and ecology, and complex-ity of their threats. CNPS will con-tinue to make funding the RPP andRare Plant Treasure Hunt programa high priority, along with support-ing other directives to inventory andmap rare plant species. In additionto known rare plant species, the RPPrecognizes that California remainsa floristic frontier where more than10% of the flora remains unde-scribed. Many of the newly-discov-ered species will be rare, and usu-ally not afforded the necessary pro-tections until their taxonomy isconfirmed.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive

statewide inventory will take manydecades to complete. Meanwhile theRPP will continue to partner withCalifornia herbaria by organizing ef-forts such as bioblitzes (intensivesurveys of small areas involving manygroups of scientists, naturalists, andvolunteers) that target poorly docu-mented regions. CNPS volunteerscan also make a tremendous differ-

ence in this effort by offering theirhelp to herbariums that are under-staffed and have a substantial back-log of specimens that await process-ing and database entry.

Rare plant management plans arepoorly developed because they lackbasic information about the biologyand distribution of rare plants. Asoutlined in previous editions ofFremontia (Moore and André, 2014),very few rare plant species in Cali-fornia are protected by establishedconservation management plans orlong-term baseline monitoring andresearch programs. Many rare spe-cies remain on California Rare PlantRank 3 (more information needed)or Rank 4 (a watch list), because thenecessary additional informationthat research and monitoring wouldprovide is unavailable. The RPP iswell positioned to work with agen-cies and academia to help direct spe-cies-specific research needs for rareplants.

Landscape-level and global pro-cesses such as climate change mayhave significant impacts on local rareplant populations. And althoughspecies-specific research and man-agement is also necessary, protec-

Rare plants qualifying for CESA/FESA protection. ABOVE, LEFT TO RIGHT: Livermore tarplant(Deinandra bacigalupii) and Guggolz’s harmonia (Harmonia guggolziorum); and BELOW, LEFT

TO RIGHT: Pungent glossopetalon (Glossopetalon pungens) and green spleenwort (Aspleniumviride). Photograph of pungent glossopetalon by James M. André.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:44 PM24


Catalina Island mountain mahagony (Cercocarpus traskiae), one of the rarest plants in California, was state and federally listed before2000 and is known from only one population containing fewer than 15 individuals.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/25/14, 10:55 AM25


Protecting the habitat in which rare plantsthrive is essential to protecting threatenedspecies. CLOCKWISE FROM ABOVE: The narrowlydistributed fringed false-hellebore (Veratrumfimbriatum) in Salt Point State Park, MendocinoCounty. • Looking south along the crest of theWhite mountains with bristlecone pine (Pinuslongaeva) in the foreground. • Looking east atserpentine chaparral on the east slope of WalkerRidge, a biodiversity hotspot. Bear Valley andthe Sutter Buttes in the distance. • One of themost brilliant orange flowers in the state, flameragwort (Packera greenei), on Walker Ridge,Colusa County.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM26


tion of large contiguous and func-tioning ecosystems that encompassthe critical habitats of rare species isclearly the single most importantobjective of any rare plant conserva-tion program.

Since the birth of our Societynearly 50 years ago, we have foughtfor the native and rare plants ofCalifornia. The RPP has been theflagship endeavor of CNPS and hascontributed to the protection ofmany of our treasured rarities. Inorder to keep up with the impactsof growth in the Golden State wewill need to expand the sources offunding, personnel, and expertiseof the RPP, while increasing thepresence and functionality of rareplant committees at the chapterlevel.

Although the principal role ofthe RPP within CNPS is to serve asthe science-based arm of the organi-zation, we must also actively workwith academic and agency partners,

fundraisers, and the state legisla-ture to continue to facilitate andstrengthen rare plant awareness andconservation at all levels.

REFERENCES

California Department of Finance.2014. New Population Projections:California to Surpass 50 Million in2049. (Press release).

California Native Plant Society. 2001.CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endan-gered Plants of California. 6th ed. RarePlant Scientific Advisory Committee,David P. Tibor, Convening Editor.Sacramento, CA.

_____. 2014. CNPS Inventory of Rareand Endangered Plants (online edi-tion). Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.

Ellstrand, N.C. 2014. Is gene flow themost important evolutionary force inplants? American Journal of Botany101:737–753.

Leppig G., and J. White. 2006. Con-servation of peripheral plant popu-

lations in California. Madroño 53:264–274.

Moore, K.A., and J.M. André. 2014.Rare plant diversity in the Californiadeserts: Priorities for research andconservation. Fremontia 42(1): 9–14.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994.Saving Natures Legacy. Island Press,Washington, DC.

San Bruno Mountain Habitat Con-servation Plan. 1983. http://parks.smcgov.org/documents/san-bruno-mountain-habitat-conservation-plan-hcp.

Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conserva-tion biology? BioScience 35: 727–734.

Heath Bartosh, Nomad Ecology, LLC

832 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 94553,[email protected]; James M.André, University of California Riverside,

Department of Biology, UCNRS, GraniteMountains Desert Research Center, HC1Box 101, Kelso, CA 92309, granites@

telis.org

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM27


BOOK REVIEW

Secrets of the Oak Woodlands: Plantsand Animals Among California’sOaks by Kate Marianchild. 2014.Heyday Books, Berkeley, CA. 192pages. $18.00. ISBN # 978-1-59714-262-5. (Available at http://store.cnps.org.)

A wide range of nature enthusi-asts will enjoy Kate Marianchild’sinformative and well-balanced natu-ral history book. Secrets of the Oak

Woodlands provides insightful eco-logical life histories of prominentplants and animals living and inter-acting in one of our state’s essentialnatural communities.

The organization and layout iswell designed for naturalists whowant to quickly prep for their nextouting. As one reads through thetext it’s easy to connect the ecologi-cal dots because all of the speciesnames described in the book are

highlighted. This format is usefulbecause it invites us to investigatethe oak woodland community mem-bers that might not otherwise ap-peal to us.

Marianchild’s articulate yet easyto understand writing style makesthe book suitable for armchair read-ers to investigative scholars. The sci-ence is clear, research up-to-date,and depth satisfying at the level of acollege textbook. At the same time

A TRIBUTE TO ROXANNE BITTMANby Kristi Lazar

or more than 25 years, RoxanneBittman has been a passionateadvocate for rare plant conser-vation. Roxanne earned her BS

in environmental biology from UCSanta Barbara in 1978, and her MSin botany from Ohio State Univer-sity in 1981. In 1983 Roxanne be-gan her career in botany by volun-teering at the California Natural Di-versity Database (CNDDB), a data-base that tracks the locations of rareplants, animals, and natural com-munities. In 1986 after workingthree years as a conservation plan-ner for The Nature Conservancy,she was hired by the California De-partment of Fish and Game (nowCalifornia Department of Fish andWildlife) as lead botanist for theCNDDB, and remained in that posi-tion for 26 years!

Roxanne was promoted toCNDDB coordinator in 2012, over-seeing both the botany and zoologysides of the program. She retired inearly 2013, but has continued towork part-time with the CNDDBbotany program since then.

Roxanne’s constant support forthe CNDDB helped guide the pro-gram through numerous changes,including the transition of the data-

base to a GIS system and thedevelopment of its RareFindprogram. Roxanne mentorednumerous CNDDB botanistsand temporary staff whoworked in the program overthe years, and many of thesepeople continued on to otherbotanical jobs in governmentand the private sector.

One of the most impor-tant aspects of Roxanne’scareer has been her strongadvocacy for the close work-ing relationship betweenthe CNDDB and CNPS. Sherecognized the increasedefficiency, as well as otherbenefits, that resulted fromthis collaborative effort. Notonly did Roxanne promotethis working relationshipthrough changing adminis-trative climates, she has alsobeen a colleague, friend, and men-tor to all the CNPS rare plant bota-nists from Rick York in the 1980s tothe current CNPS rare plant bota-nist, Aaron Sims.

Roxanne’s steadfast commitmentto the support and maintenance ofessential programs to preserve Cali-fornia’s rare flora over the course of

F

Roxanne Bittman, longtime rare plant advocate andlead botanist of the CNDDB. Photograph by DianaHickson.

her long career is exemplary. Thiswork and commitment was recog-nized by CNPS when she was namedthe CNPS 2013 Agency Person ofthe Year.

Kristi Lazar, 1807 13th Street, Suite 202,Sacramento, CA 95811, [email protected]

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM28


she inserts interesting relevant in-formation and builds the readers’appreciation for intricately rich oakwoodlands.

Topics covered include commonanimals such as the acorn wood-pecker as well as less well knownbut biologically beneficial organismssuch as mycorrhizal fungi. Each sub-ject illustrates individual ecologicalconcepts and how these conceptsare interconnected. The reader iseducated on the big picture, whileenjoying behind-the-scenes stories.

Integrated into the ecosystemecology are aspects of human ecol-ogy as, for example, Native Ameri-can uses for plants such as poisonoak, and aboriginal wisdom regard-

ing human connections to earth andwhat it provides us. Marianchild of-fers explanations for some humannatural hazards found in these eco-

systems, without vilifying the floraand fauna that have evolved effec-tive means for their survival.

I believe an underlying reasonfor our current environmental crisisis our disconnection from the earththat supports us. Marianchild’s bookturns on our natural biophilia. Ithelps readers strengthen that con-nection because of the science con-tained in it, which she makes un-derstandably interesting, and be-cause it helps us see ourselves as apart of nature instead of apart fromnature. Secrets of the Oak is likelyto be enjoyed by naturalists, naturedocents, academicians, and natureenthusiasts of all types.

—Joe Mueller

WHAT SHAPED YOUR LOVE OF NATURE?

M

MARGARETA (GRETI)SÉQUIN

East Bay Chapter

y father’s bountiful vegetableand flower garden at the out-

skirts of the city of Basel, Switzer-land, brings back many happy child-hood memories for me, includingthe tasting of fresh-pulled carrotsand radishes. Though I grew up ina city, my family went hiking in thenearby Jura Mountains and theBlack Forest region almost everyweekend. My mother would pointout wildflowers and medicinalherbs, while my father, armed withbinoculars, identified birds. Duringour yearly summer vacations in the

Alps my sisterand I exploredcreek beds,climbed trees,and scrambledup rocks.

When I latermade my wayto California, Iwas capturedby the naturalbeauty of theSouthwest andgot fascinatedby the very dif-ferent flora. Isoon discoveredthe RegionalParks BotanicGarden (RPBG)in Tilden Park,Berkeley, withits focus onCalifornia na-tive plants, andlater became a park docent. I alsoattended many botanical field tripsin California to learn about theplants. The San Francisco Bay Area

[Editor’s Note: Fremontia readers wereinvited to send in their stories of whatshaped their love of nature. If you aremotivated to send us yours, it can beabout 250 words, and should be emailedto [email protected]. Be sure to include ahigh-quality headshot, or a photographof yourself in a natural place you love,and the name of the photographer whotook it.]

has been my home for almost 40years, and I keep enjoying hikes inthe coastal hills, the Sierras, and thedesert as often as possible.

Carlo Séquin

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM29


V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM30


V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM31


TELOS RARE BULBS

Telos Rare BulbsP.O. Box 1067, Ferndale, CA 95536

www.telosrarebulbs.com

The most complete offering

of bulbs native to the western USA

available anywhere, our stock is

propagated at the nursery,

with seed and plants

from legitimate sources only.

V43_1_book.pmd 11/24/14, 12:45 PM32

F R E M O N T I AV O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

❏ Enclosed is a check made payable to CNPS Membership gift:

❏ Charge my gift to ❏ Mastercard ❏ Visa Added donation of:

Card Number TOTAL ENCLOSED:

Exp. date

Signature

Phone

Email

Join Today!

Please make your check payable to “CNPS” and send to: California Native Plant Society, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sacra-mento, CA 95816-5130. Phone: (916) 447-2677; Fax: (916) 447-2727; Web site: www.cnps.org.; Email: [email protected]

❏ Enclosed is a matching gift form provided by my employer

❏ I would like information on planned giving

CNPS member gifts allow us to promote and protect California’s native plants and their habitats. Giftsare tax-deductible minus the $12 of the total gift which goes toward publication of Fremontia.

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

❏ $1,500 Mariposa Lily ❏ $600 Benefactor ❏ $300 Patron ❏ $100 Plant Lover

❏ $75 Family ❏ $75 International or Library ❏ $45 Individual ❏ $25 Limited Income

CORPORATE /ORGANIZATIONAL

❏ $2,500 10+ Employees ❏ $1,000 7-10 Employees ❏ $500 4-6 Employees ❏ $150 1-3 Employees

SUBMISSIONINSTRUCTIONS

CNPS members and others areinvited to submit articles for pub-lication in Fremontia. If inter-ested, please first send a shortsummary or outline of whatyou’d like to cover in your ar-ticle to Fremontia editor, BobHass, at [email protected]. Instruc-tions for contributors can befound on the CNPS website,www.cnps.org, under Publica-tions/Fremontia.

Fremontia Editorial AdvisoryBoardSusan D’Alcamo, Jim Andre,Ellen Dean, Phyllis M. Faber,Holly Forbes, Dan Gluesenkamp,Brett Hall, David Keil, PamMuick, Bart O’Brien, RogerRaiche, Teresa Sholars, DickTurner, Mike Vasey

Aaron Sims is the Rare Plant Botanist of CNPS and manages the RPP. His mainduties include maintaining and updating the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endan-gered Plants and implementing the rare plant status review process.

Greg Suba is CNPS Conservation Director.

Carol W. Witham is a consulting botanist and a long-time participant in habitatconservation planning on behalf of the Sacramento Valley Chapter of CNPS.

CONTRIBUTORS (continued from back cover)

V43_1_cover.pmd 11/24/14, 1:21 PM3

F R E M O N T I A V O L . 4 3 , N O . 1 , J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5

CONTRIBUTORS

California Native Plant Society2707 K Street, Suite 1Sacramento, CA 95816-5130

Nonprofit Org.

U.S. PostagePAID

MLP

(continued on inside back cover)

James M. André is director of the UC Granite MountainsDesert Research Center, senior advisor to the CNPS Rare PlantProgram (RPP), and chair of the RPP Committee.Katie Barrows works for the Coachella Valley ConservationCommission and has been involved in the Coachella ValleyNCCP/MSHCP since its inception. She is president of theRiverside-San Bernardino Chapter of CNPS.Heath Bartosh is cofounder and senior botanist of NomadEcology, based in Martinez, a research associate at the Uni-versity and Jepson Herbaria at UC Berkeley, and active mem-ber of CNPS.Kevin Bryant was president of the CNPS Santa Clara ValleyChapter from 2006–2010, and chaired the CNPS ChapterCouncil in 2009–2010. He currently serves as chapter liai-son for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.Julie Kierstead Nelson is a botanist with the Shasta-TrinityNational Forest and teaches native plant identification atShasta College in Redding, California.Linnea Hanson is a retired botanist with the Plumas Na-tional Forest, and is currently president of Northern Califor-nia Botanists and a board member of the Friends of the ChicoState Herbarium.Nick Jensen is a past director of the CNPS Rare Plant Pro-gram (RPP), and a member of the RPP Committee. Currentlyhe is a graduate student at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gar-den/Claremont Graduate University.Kristi Lazar works for the California Department of Fishand Wildlife as the lead botanist with the California NaturalDiversity Database.Joe Mueller has been teaching biology at College of Marinfor 25 years and offers courses on marine biology, ornithol-ogy, mammalogy, and other field related studies.Margareta (Greti) Séquin is an organic chemist who hastaught at San Francisco State University for more than 20years and is the author of The Chemistry of Plants: Perfumes,Pigments, and Poisons (Cambridge, 2012).

Printed on sustainably harvested paper containing 50% recycled and10% post-consumer content, processed chlorine-free.

(continued on inside back cover)

V43_1_cover.pmd 11/24/14, 1:21 PM4

Anza-Borrego. Photo: Dan Gluesenkamp

The rare Calochortus plummerae, Plummer’s Mariposa Lily, Photo: Amber Swanson

Cephalanthus occidentalis, Buttonwillow and skipper. Photo: Paul G. Johnson

Carrizo Plain National Monument. Photo: Julie Evens

CNPS members on field trip at Yolo Bypass. Photo: Gary Hundt

Dear Friend, We hope you enjoy this publication. It is full of great articles and beautiful photos, all contributed by dedicated volunteers, and is just one of countless benefits offered by the California Native Plant Society. CNPS is dedicated to understanding, saving, and celebrating California’s wild plants and places. You likely already know and appreciate CNPS. You love our beautiful flowers, and probably glad CNPS is saving them. You may make a field trip once in a while to reconnect with a favorite landscape that replenishes your sense of wonder, and you are happy we have laws to protect these special places. You love seeing native plant gardens springing up in front of homes and businesses, and you point out the butterflies and hummingbirds to friends. You get it; you understand: you are a CNPS-er. With your help, we can do much more. Will you please join us? Here are some of the reasons you should use the enclosed remittance form to join CNPS.

35 chapters across California and in Baja offer hikes, public programs, plant sales, restoration events, garden tours, workshops, and camaraderie. The Conservation Program continues to fight for California’s places. CNPS has been the voice for plant conservation during development of a 30 year plan that will cover 23 million acres of desert. We successfully pushed to map vegetation on 5.5 million acres, and are using these data identify areas that should be avoided by industrial scale energy projects in the region.

The Rare Plant Treasure Hunt (RPTH) teams volunteer Citizen Scientists with trained botanists to discover and map rare plants. RPTH volunteers have mapped more than 2,500 rare plant populations –1/3 of them new discoveries!

Once you join, you will receive a CNPS membership card that entitles you to discounts at dozens of nurseries, stores, and businesses. We’ll also send you the latest flower-filled issues of Fremontia and the CNPS Bulletin. You’ll learn about talks and hikes in your local chapter. Most of all you will help to save rare plants and places, train young scientists, and replace thirsty lawns with wildlife-friendly native plant gardens. Please join CNPS and help us make a real and lasting difference! Thank you for your help, Dan Gluesenkamp

Executive Director

Glu

e S

trip C

lea

ran

ce

(wh

en

fold

ed

)

Date post:	12-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY · 2018-03-30 · the addition of CRPRs 2A and 2B,...

Documents