California Native Grasslands: a Historical Perspective

+ Keeping Landscapes Working

A Newsletter for Managers of Bay Area Rangelands

Volume 3, Issue 1 University of California Cooperative Extension Winter 2006

A newsletter provided by UC Cooperative Extension Natural Resources Sheila Barry Program in the San Francisco Bay Area. This newsletter provides information Natural Resources Advisor to managers of both public and private rangelands. RANGELAND, which is land UCCE Santa Clara County characterized by natural vegetation i.e., grass, forbs and shrubs and managed 1553 Berger Drive, Bldg 1 San Jose CA 95112 as a natural ecosystem, is the predominate source of OPEN SPACE in the San (408) 282-3106 Francisco Bay Area. [email protected] Sheila Barry, UCCE Bay Area Natural Resources/Livestock Advisor Certified Rangeland Manager #63

In This Issue

Ranchers, Environmentalists, Ranchers, Environmentalists, Agencies Agencies Establish Landmark Partnership Page 1 Establish Landmark Partnership

The California Rangeland California Rangeland Resolution sets stage Resolution Page 2 for working landscapes conservation

California Native Grasslands: A Historical Perspective his summer a group of environmentalists, ranchers and resource professionals from A Guide for Developing Realistic Tstate and federal agencies met at a ranch in Alameda County. Together they drafted a Restoration Objectives resolution documenting common ground in regards to the conservation of the rangeland Page 3 encircling the Central Valley and interior coast ranges. The resolution recognized that Where to View a Native the numerous imperiled species that these rangelands support is largely due to grazing Grassland and other land stewardship practices of the ranchers that own and manage them. See the Page 8 full text of the resolution and list of signatories below.

Upcoming Spring Workshops The resolution is signed by 32 agricultural organizations, environmental interest groups, Page 10 as well as state and federal agencies. Together these signatories form the California

Rangeland Conservation Coalition. The signatories have pledged to work together to preserve and enhance California rangeland for protected species and common species, while supporting the long-term viability of the ranching industry. An important part of the group’s effort will focus on educating the public about the benefits of grazing and

ranching on these rangelands.

Keeping Landscapes A summit meeting was held on January 11, 2006, to bring the signatories together to Working prioritize initial action items. Some first steps include acquiring more federal funding for is published through the conservation easements and encouraging landowners to enter into Safe Harbor cooperative efforts of the Agreements, which provide assurances to landowners who proactively protect and University of California Cooperative Extension and enhance endangered species habitat. In addition, these groups will advocate and work Contra Costa and with state and federal agencies to better coordinate processes surrounding endangered Santa Clara Counties. species consultations and other regulatory requirements to encourage habitat improvements. The summit event drew distinguished guests including California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman, California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura, Renne Lohoefener, Assistant Director Endangered Species, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Michael Bean, Chair of the Wildlife Program, Environmental Defense. University of California Cooperative Extension-1

The California Rangeland Resolution

The undersigned recognize the critical importance of California’s privately owned rangelands, particularly that significant portion that encircles the Central Valley and includes the adjacent grasslands and oak woodlands, including the Sierra foothills and the interior coast ranges. These lands support important ecosystems and are the foundation for the ranching industry that owns them.

WHEREAS, these rangelands include a rich and varied landscape of grasslands, oak woodlands, vernal pools, riparian areas and wetlands, which support numerous imperiled species, many native plants once common in the Central Valley, and are home to the highest diversity and density of wintering raptors anywhere in North America;

WHEREAS, these rangelands are often located in California’s fastest-growing counties and are at significant risk of conversion to development and other uses;

WHEREAS, these rangelands, and the species that rely on these habitats, largely persist today due to the positive and experienced grazing and other land stewardship practices of the ranchers that have owned and managed these lands and are committed to a healthy future for their working landscapes;

WHEREAS, these rangelands are a critical foundation of the economic and social fabric of California’s ranching industry and rural communities, and will only continue to provide this important working landscape for California’s plants, fish and wildlife if private rangelands remain in ranching;

THEREFORE, we declare that it is our goal to collaboratively work together to protect and enhance the rangeland landscape that encircles California’s Central Valley and includes adjacent grasslands and oak woodlands by:

Keeping common species common on private working landscapes;

Working to recover imperiled species and enhancing habitat on rangelands while seeking to minimize regulations on private lands and streamline processes;

Supporting the long-term viability of the ranching industry and its culture by providing economic, social and other incentives and by reducing burdens to proactive stewardship on private ranchlands;

Increasing private, state and federal funding, technical expertise and other assistance to continue and expand the ranching community’s beneficial land stewardship practices that benefit sensitive species and are fully compatible with normal ranching practices;

Encouraging voluntary, collaborative and locally-led conservation that has proven to be very effective in maintaining and enhancing working landscapes;

Educating the public about the benefits of grazing and ranching in these rangelands.

SIGNED BY: Alameda County Board of Supervisors California Dept of Fish and Game Cal-Pac Section Society of Range The Nature Conservancy Alameda Co. Resource Conservation California Dept of Food and Agriculture Management Trust for Public Land District California Farm Bureau Federation Central Valley Farmland Trust Council US Fish and Wildlife Service American Land Conservancy California Grazing Lands Coalition Defenders of Wildlife US Forest Service Audubon California Society California Native Grasslands Association Environmental Defense VernalPools.org Bureau of Land Management California Native Plant Society Institute for Ecological Health Wildlife Conservation Board Butte Environmental Council California Oak Foundation Natural Resources Conservation Service WildPlaces California Association of Resource California Rangeland Trust San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center Conservation Districts California Resources Agency San Joaquin Valley Conservancy January 25, 2006 California Cattlemen’s Association California Wildlife Foundation Sierra Foothills Audubon Society University of California Cooperative Extension - 2

Prehistoric Grazers California Native Grasslands: A Historical Perspective A Guide for Developing Realistic Restoration Objectives

SHEILA BARRY1, STEPHANIE LARSON2, AND MELVIN GEORGE3

Reprinted from Grasslands, Winter 2006.

alifornia’s grasslands cover approximately 25% of the state, either in open grassland, oak woodland, or savanna. Although they are largely dominated by C nonnative annual species, they provide essential hydrologic functions (capture, storage, and safe release of water), important wildlife habitats (Giusti et al. 1996), and repositories of native flora diversity. Around 90% of species listed in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Species in California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), inhabit California’s grassland ecosystems. In addition to their important ecological values, elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes), California’s grasslands provide forage for range livestock, a leading agricultural grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), and commodity in the state. Despite its value for native biological diversity and range small mammals, such as California livestock, California grassland habitat is increasingly reduced in acreage and quality not ground squirrel (Spermophilus only because of conversion to cropland and residential and urban development, but also beecheyi), gopher (Thomomys spp.), because of invasion by woody species and continued nonnative species invasion. rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), and Invasion by woody and nonnative species often occurs on conservation lands, which kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.), have been protected from grazing and other disturbances. continued to impact California’s grasslands. Early reports from explorers Conservation land managers are nonnative species and degraded the indicate that vast herds of grazing increasingly aware that acquisition resource as a whole, and today’s use of animals in the Central Valley rivaled alone doesn’t necessarily result in managed grazing as a resource the numbers of bison on the Great conservation. They recognize that, management tool. An understanding of Plains. For example, McCullough without management, California California native grassland history (1971) estimated a population of grassland habitats can be degraded by should also help land managers identify 500,000 tule elk in aboriginal central accumulating mulch and domination of realistic restoration goals. We conclude and western California. The specific undesirable species, such as black with a discussion of considerations to impact of these grazing animals on mustard (Brassica nigra), fennel assist land managers in identifying the grasslands is difficult to discern, (Foeniculum vulgare), medusahead measurable restoration and management because these animals are not (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), coyote objectives. obligate grazers but rather browsers brush (Baccharis pilularis), or Harding and/or grazers, consuming broadleaf grass (Phalaris tuberosa). Although Historical Perspective: Animal and Human plants, woody plants, and grasses these species can be controlled with Impact on California’s Native Grasslands (Wagner 1989). Also, the Central mowing, prescribed fire, herbicides, Valley’s early grassland landscape cultivation, or livestock grazing, For millions of years, California’s included significantly more deciding on realistic management and original grasslands were grazed, wetlands, including riparian restoration goals, followed by an browsed, and trampled by now-extinct woodlands, freshwater marshes, and effective management plan, are megafauna, which included medium to vernal pools. If, for example, tule difficult first steps. large herbivores, such as ground sloth, elk, which prefer marshy areas, Here we review the history of bison, camel, horse, mammoth, consumed large amounts of wetland animal and human impacts that led to mastodon, and ox (Edwards 1996). plants, their impact on mesic native the current composition and condition Undoubtedly, the combined influence of grassland species may have been of California grasslands. We also these large herbivores, the activity of limited (Wagner 1989). include a history of restoration and smaller mammals, and fire played an Whatever the impact of grazing management efforts on California important role in the development of animals on native grasslands grasslands. This history may help land California’s native grassland species. following the extinction of the managers recognize the difference When the megafauna became extinct megafauna, human impact became between past uncontrolled grazing some 10,000 years ago, pronghorn significant when intensive practices, which undoubtedly assisted antelope (Antilocapra americana), black- management of grasslands, or in the invasion of our grasslands with tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), tule “prairies,” began. Native University of California Cooperative Extension-3

Californians burned, dug, tilled, and elk, pronghorn antelope, and deer. become the most abundant plants pruned native vegetation to maintain Although the Spaniards never across California’s grasslands. the biological resources they used for extended their livestock management Although dominance of nonnative food, medicine, and construction into the Central Valley, the Native species and the accompanying decline materials Blackburn and Anderson Americans drove domestic livestock in native grassland species have been 1993). Early expeditions in California into the valley. By 1819 the native attributed to uncontrolled livestock made note of the open grasslands Californians were breeding their own grazing, several other factors, managed by the native Californians: stock and their herds started to grow. including tillage for crop agriculture, Within the forests, at all Many of their cattle and horses fire suppression, elimination of land elevations from sea level to escaped, and became large management by Native Americans, the top of the ridges, there uncontrolled herds of feral animals. climate change, and competition from were small open patches, Reports from the 1830s and 1840s nonnative species have played an known locally as “prairies,” mention the San Joaquin prairies important role in the conversion. Some producing grass, fern, and swarming with wild horses and researchers have concluded that various small plants. Most of Sonoma County abounding with wild nonnative, annual grasses are so these patches if left to cattle and horses (Wagner 1989). competitively superior that they could themselves would doubtless An actual ranch industry in have displaced native grasses solely soon have produced forests, California did not develop until the through competition and greater seed but the Indians were discovery of gold in 1848. Ranchers production (Heady 1977; Bartolome accustomed to burn them began shooting wild horses, rounding and Gemmill 1981; Murphy and annually so as to gather up cattle and elk, and breeding their Ehrlich 1989). Regardless of which various seeds. These prairies own herds. Herds of cattle were driven factors were responsible for the decline were of incalculable value to in from the east to build up numbers to of native-dominated grassland, today the Indians, not alone for their support the growing demand for meat in most regions of the state, native vegetable products, but also after the Gold Rush. From 1850 to species are only a minor component of for the game found upon them. 1880, excessive numbers of livestock the grassland flora, comprising less grazed California’s rangelands, than 1% of the standing grassland including 3 million cattle, and 6 crop. million sheep. These numbers In most regions of the decreased temporarily during a Historical Perspective: Restoration devastating drought from 1862 to Efforts and Management for California’s state, native species 1864, where from 200,000 to Native Grasslands are only a minor 1,000,000 cattle may have starved (Wagner 1989). Although today the Although efforts to restore native component of the number of cattle on California’s grasses to California’s grasslands are grassland flora, rangelands approaches the number of relatively recent, beginning with the cattle in California in the late 1800s conservation movement of 1970s, comprising less than (2.9 million), the number of sheep range scientists and agronomists have 1% of the standing have substantially declined to less than long been interested in improving a half million. California’s grasslands. University of grassland crop. A significant change in vegetation California, Berkeley, agronomist Dr. coincided with the arrival of domestic P. B. Kennedy began testing native livestock and the growth of the and exotic perennial grasses and ranching industry; nonnative grasses legumes in 1912. He was searching for SUMMARY OF AN ENCOUNTER and forbs spread throughout alternative forage species to improve WITH REMNANT “PRAIRIES” IN California’s coastal prairies, foothills, California’s rangelands for livestock HUMBOLDT COUNTY BY R. and valleys (Burcham 1956). Although production (Kay et al. 1981). His MCKEE EXPEDITION OF 1851 nonnative species, such as the annual relative success with establishing (LOUD 1918). forb, filaree (Erodium cicutarium), nonnative perennials over native These open, productive prairies were present in California before perennials led to the introduction of described by early explorers began to settlement in 1769 (Mensing and smilo grass (Oryzopsis miliacea) and change with the arrival of Spanish Bynre 1998), the vast majority of Harding grass (Phalaris tuberosa) in settlers some 200 years ago. Fires were nonnative species invaded and spread California. Sampson and McCarty suppressed; livestock (i.e., cattle, in the late 18th and early 19th (1930) were also interested in horses, and sheep) were introduced, centuries (Hendry 1931). Over the past perennial grasses for rangeland and hunting nearly exterminated the 200 years, the nonnative species have improvement. They studied purple

University of California Cooperative Extension-4

needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) purple needlegrass and nodding barley (Hordeum jubatum), because of its palatability, nutritional needlegrass (Love 1944). He later medusahead (Taeniatherum caput- value when dry, and long green forage devoted special attention to medusae), and yellow starthistle period. They also considered the needlegrass (Nassella) species (Love (Centaurea solstitialis). impact of grazing on perennial grasses 1951, 1954). Love’s research led him Interest in restoration has renewed by conducting clipping studies. Based to select two strains of purple interest in understanding how to on their clipping studies, they needlegrass and nodding needlegrass establish and manage native California concluded that purple needlegrass to be certified by the California Crop grassland species. Research projects plants would fully recover and produce Improvement Association in 1948 focused on restoring native perennial seed under moderate grazing intensity (Love 1948). Lack of interest in the grasses have reaffirmed the challenge in the fall and winter, whereas late public and private sectors kept these of their establishment, especially from spring grazing could injure the plants. certified strains from being widely seed (Dyer et al. 1996; Stromberg and The University of California’s planted in California rangelands. Kephart 1996). Other studies have interest in improving California’s Nonnative perennial grass species, determined that the more abundant and rangelands continued in the 1940s. The such as Harding grass and orchard faster-growing annual grass species University of California, Davis, hired grass, proved to be easier to reseed and can form dense stands, monopolize agronomist, R. M. Love to find more palatable to livestock (Kay et al. resources, and restrict the growth and replacement forage species, and he 1981). survival of perennial grass seedlings spent 15 years testing native perennial Meanwhile, other researchers (Bartolome and Gemmill 1981; Dyer grass species, including Nassella spp., acknowledged the naturalized annual- et al. 1996; Dyer and Rice 1997, Melica spp., Danthonia californica, dominated grassland in California and Hamilton et al. 1999; Brown and Rice Agrostis spp., Bromus spp., Elymus began learning about appropriate 2000). A comprehensive review of spp., and Sporobolus spp. (Kay et al. grazing management practices for this native grassland research conducted 1981). Love also considered the grassland ecosystem (Bentley and throughout California attempted to impact of grazing on these species. He Talbot 1951; Love 1945). They studied quantitatively evaluate the potential for seeded perennial grasses and legumes how to manage annual grasslands for use of grazing and prescribed fire as and studied the effect of spring grazing vegetation composition (Heady 1956) tools to enhance native grass treatments with sheep. He found that and for soil protection and forage populations (D’Antonio et al. 2001). early intensive grazing before the production (Bartolome et al. 1980). Unfortunately, they found only a few annuals headed out reduced the They also began studying grazing studies that examined the impact of competition and resulted in the most strategies to control invasive, less- grazing and fire on native plants, and vigorous perennials, which included desirable exotic species, such as foxtail many of these studies lacked replication of treatment or controls to be included in a quantitative analysis.

Identifying Realistic Restoration Goals

Many conservation efforts on California grasslands have focused on the goal of restoring grasslands to some pre-settlement condition. This goals has proven to be unrealistic because not only is it difficult and costly to establish native perennial grasses, there is also uncertainty about the historical composition and extent of California native grasslands. One popular theory suggests that California’s pristine prairie was dominated by purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) (Clements 1934). Clements came to this conclusion by observing nearly pure stands of purple needlegrass along railroad rights-of- way. Purple Needlegrass Grassland, Vasco Caves, Contra Costa County

University of California Cooperative Extension-5 productivity, and longevity are greatly The theory that many of and constraints. NRCS has offices California’s current grasslands were influenced by the characteristics of the throughout the state that can be found formerly dominated by woody site(s) of interest. Rainfall and soil under the U.S. Government listings in vegetation and not “pristine” prairie moisture-holding capacity must be the telephone directory. (Cooper 1922) has been less popular, sufficient to support the establishment Site characteristics also influence but is receiving growing scientific and maintenance of a native perennial the practices that can be applied to support (Hamilton 1997). Cooper stand. Although we may have manage for native perennials. Native noted numerous examples where incomplete knowledge of the rainfall grass seed producers have proven that repeated burning, often intentionally, requirements of native perennials, we native grasses can be grown using was sufficient to eliminate woody know from rangeland improvement normal farming practices (tillage, vegetation and replace it with weedy research in the 1940s and 1950s (Jones irrigation, fertilization, and weed and annuals. Some annual grassland sites and Love 1945; Bentley et al. 1956) pest control). Dryland farming may have in fact previously been that seedings of native and exotic practices can also be used to grow dominated by coastal scrub perennials and annuals have been more native grass seed. However, many sites (Hopkinson and Huntsinger 2005) or successful when rainfall exceeds 20 suffer from the “toos.” They are too native annuals (Solomeschch and inches and soil depth is at least 24 steep, too rocky, too dry, too salty, or Barbour 2004) and not perennial inches. A shorter dry season (longer too wet for application of normal bunchgrasses. rainy season) may also improve farming practices. On these sites, Given the uncertainty about the perennial grass restoration success seeding practices and weed and brush assemblage of native plants on a given (Jackson and Roy 1986). To increase control practices become more limited. site, restoration project planning must the chances of grassland restoration On some sites, vegetation management be characterized by clear thinking and success, it may be prudent to focus may be limited to manipulation of fire fact-finding that leads to feasible goals restoration effort on coastal and upland and grazing. and measurable objectives. Questions sites, where rainfall and rainy season Site History: Knowledge of historical that might help planners define length are greater, and to avoid sites land uses may be helpful in restoration goals and objectives with shallow soils. Soil surveys, understanding the site’s herbaceous include: published by the USDA Natural composition, including seed bank, and • What do you hope to achieve? Resources Conservation Service determining appropriate management • Is your objective to maintain the (NRCS), contain information about practices. For example, on the native perennial species that soils and ecological sites that can be Hastings Natural History Reservation currently exist on the site or is it to helpful in determining site capabilities near Monterey, the frequency of native increase the vigor and density of perennials depends on whether the site the existing native perennial has been cultivated. Few native species? Examples of Measurable perennials grow on sites that were • Are there native perennials that do cultivated before 1937; on sites that Objectives not currently exist on the site that have not been cultivated, native you would like to add? Reduce medusahead to less than 15% perennials, such as purple needlegrass, • Are there specific exotic or woody comprise up to 37% of the total of the groundcover. This objective will species that should be targeted for aboveground standing crop (White control? be achieved by burning pasture #3 late in 1967). Increasing native grass cover on During fact-finding, project planners May when medusahead is still green and sites that have been cultivated may must determine if the goals and most other annuals are dry. The burn will require reseeding as well as vegetation objectives are feasible based on current management. Because seeds of native be conducted in cooperation with the knowledge: perennials no longer reside in the seed • Are your objectives achievable California Department of Forestry and Fire bank on many annual dominated sites given the capabilities, constraints Protection. (Rice 1989), seeding or plug planting (soil depth, rainfall, etc.), and accompanied by management of history of the site? Maintain coyote brush cover at less invasive annual plants will be required • Are there proven restoration than 5%. This objective will be achieved on most sites, especially inland sites. practices that will allow the project Measurable objectives: Development to successfully reach restoration by maintaining a seasonal grazing of specific objectives will help project objectives? program. Cow–calf pairs will graze the managers determine what practices to • Can these practices be applied to property from November to June. apply in the project; furthermore if the the proposed restoration site? objectives are measurable, not only Site capabilities and constraints: will be it be clear what should be Vegetation stand establishment, monitored but also if progress is being

University of California Cooperative Extension-6

achieved. For example some measurable objectives to make management changes in response to changing might be: conditions. With a restoration planning process that • Reduce medusahead to less than 15% of the includes measurable objectives, implementation of groundcover. effective practices, and monitoring, restoration projects • Eradicate Harding grass. can be successful. • Increase Nassella pulchra cover to at least 20% of the groundcover. • Maintain coyote brush cover at less than 5%. With measurable objectives stated in this manner, project managers can develop a management plan, practices and strategies that have been shown to successfully reach these objectives (see “Examples of Measureable Objectives” sidebar). Past experience and science-based information should be the basis for selecting restoration practices. Measurable objectives also define what a manager needs to monitor to demonstrate practice effectiveness and project progress. Monitoring also helps the manager recognize the need

Literature Cited Bartolome, J.W., and B. Gemmill. 1981. The ecological status of Stipa pulchra (Poaceae) in California. Madroño 28(3):172–184. Bartolome, J.W., M.C. Stroud, and H.F. Heady. 1980. Influence of natural mulch on forage production on differing California annual range sites. J Range Mgmt 33:4–8. Bentley, J.R., and M.W. Talbot. 1951. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in the California foothills. USDA Circular 870. Bentley, J.R., L.J. Berry, D.R. Cornelius, and R.M. Love. 1956. Range species recommended for sowing on cleared brushland in California. Forest Research Note No. 111. Calif. Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, 6 pp. Blackburn, T.C., and K. Anderson, eds. 1993. Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. Brown, C.S., and K.J. Rice. 2000. The mark of Zorro: Effects of the exotic annual grass Vulpia myuros on California native perennial grasses. Restor Ecol 8:10–17. Burcham, L.T. 1956. Historical backgrounds of range land use in California. J Range Mgmt 9:81–86. Clements, F.E. 1934. The relict method of dynamic ecology. J Ecol 22:39–68. Cooper, W.S. 1922. The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California. An ecological study of the chaparral and its related commuities. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publ. No. 319, 124 pp. D’Antonio, C.M., S. Bainbridge, C. Kennedy, J.Bartolome, and S. Reynolds. 2001. Ecology and restoration of California grasslands with special emphasis on the influence of fire and grazing on native grassland species. Unpubl. report to David and Lucille Packard Foundation, 62 pp. Dyer, A.R., and K.J. Rice. 1997. Intraspecific and diffuse competition: The response of Nassella pulchra in a California grassland. Ecol Appl 7:484–492. Dyer, A.R., H.C. Fossum, and J.W. Menke. 1996. Emergence and survival of Nassella pulchra in a California Grassland. Madroño 43(2):316–333. Edwards, S.W. 1996. A rancholabrean-age, latest Pleistocene bestiary for California botany. Four Seasons 10(2):5–34. Giusti, G., T. Scott, B. Garrison, and K. Shaffer. 1996. Pages 34–50 in R.B. Standiford, tech. coord., Guidelines for Managing California’s Hardwood Rangelands. University of California, DANR Pub l. No. 3368. Hall, L.M., M.R. George, D.D. McCreary, and T.E. Adams. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing on blue oak seedling damage and survival. J Range Mgmt 45(5):503–506. Hamilton, J.G. 1997. Changing perceptions of pre-European grasslands in California. Madrono 44(4):311-333. Hamilton, J.G. , C. Holzapfel, and B.E. Mahall. 1999. Coexistence and interference between a native perennial grass and nonnative annual grass in California. Oecologia 121:518–526. Heady, H.F. 1956. Changes in a California annual plant community induced by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37:798–812. —————. 1977. Valley grassland. Pages 491–514 in M.G. Barbour and J. Major, eds., Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Wiley, New York. Heady, H.F., J.W. Bartolome, M.D. Pitt, G.D. Savelle, and M.G. Stroud. 1992. California prairie. Pages 313–335 in R.T. Coupland, ed., Natural Grasslands, Ecosystems of the World, Vol. 8A. Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam. Hendry, G.W. 1931. The adobe brick as a historical source. Agricul Hist 5:110–127. Hopkinson, P. and L. Huntsinger. 2005. Are East Bay hills grasslands a historical artifact? Phytolith evidence and a potential candidate for the true East Bay vegetation type. Grasslands 15(1) 7-9. Jackson, L.E., and J. Roy. 1986. Growth patterns of Mediterranean annual and perennial grasses under simulated rainfall regimes of southern France and California. Ecol Plant 7:191–192. Jones, B.J., and R.M. Love. 1945. Improving California Ranges. Circ. 129, College of Agric., UC Berkeley, 47 pp. Kay, B.L., R.M. Love, and R.D. Slayback. 1981. Revegetation with native grasses: a disappointing history. Fremontia 8:11–15. Loud, L. 1918. Ethnogeography and archeology of the Wiyot territory. Univ Calif Pubs Am Archaeol Ethnol 14(3):221–436. University of California Cooperative Extension-7

Love, R.M. 1944. Preliminary trials on the effect of management on the establishment of perennial grasses and legumes at Davis, California. J Am Soc Agron 36:699–703. —————. 1948. Eight new forage plants developed for California ranges. Calif Agric 2(1):7-14. —————. 1951. Range grass and seeding experiments in California. Calif Agric 5(1):8–10. —————. 1954. Interspecific hybridization in Stipa II. Hybrids of S. cernua, S. lepida, and S. pulchra. Am J Bot 41:107–110. McCullough, D.R. 1971. The Tule Elk: Its History, Behavior, and Ecology. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Mensing, S.A., and R. Byrne. 1998. Pre-mission invasion of Erodium cicutarium in California. J Biogeogr 24(4):757–762. Murphy, D.D., and P.R. Ehrlich. 1989. Conservation biology of California’s remnant native grasslands. Pages 201–211 in L.F. Huenneke and H.A. Mooney, eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. Rice, K.J. 1989. Impacts of seed banks on grassland community structure and population dynamics. Pages 211–230 in M.A. Leck, V.T. Parker, and R.L. Simpson, eds., Ecology of Soil Seedbanks. Academic Press, San Diego. Sampson, A.W., and E.C. McCarty. 1930. The carbohydrate metabolism of Stipa pulchra. Hilgardia 5(4):61–100. Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 5th edn. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Solomeshch, A.I., and M.G. Barbour. 2004. Could California grasslands all have been derived from bunchgrass? Ecology and Management of California Grasslands. April 2004, UC Berkeley. Presentation abstract. Stromberg, M.R., and P. Kephart. 1996. Restoring native grasses in California old fields. Restor Mgmt Notes 14:102–111. Wagner, F.H. 1989. Grazers, past and present. Pages 151–162 in L.F. Huenneke and H. Mooney, eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. White, K.L. 1967. Native bunchgrass (Stipa pulchra) on Hastings Reservation, California. Ecology 48:949–955

Where to view a native grassland…

Coastal Grassland

Tilden and Wildcat Canyon Regional Parks

• Location: • Overview:

Tilden and Wildcat Tilden Park (2,077 acres) Canyon Regional Parks are adjoins Wildcat Canyon in Wildcat Canyon, which Park (2,428 acres) and both is near Berkeley. The are part of the East Bay coastal grassland site is on Regional Park District. Nimitz Way, a paved trail This coastal grassland is on the east side of the noted for its wide variety of parks that is accessible to native grasses. In addition, wheelchairs and bikes. Nimitz Way has another Follow Highway 24 east of coastal grassland site the Caldecott Tunnel and between the Havey Canyon take the Orinda exit to Trail and the Mezue Trail; Camino Pablo Road. Then the area near the cattle take Wildcat Canyon Road loading corral has one of to Inspiration Point, which the most superb, densely is just before the park. packed native bunchgrass From Inspiration Point, stands in the state. This site follow Nimitz Way for has abundant Purple nearly a mile (across from Brush encroachment in a Native Grassland Site (Tilden Park) needlegrass and the only the second park bench) to sizable stand of the native the grassland site. More information is available at wildflower Iris longipetela known in the East Bay. http://www.ebparks.org/parks/tilden.htm or 510-562-7275.

University of California Cooperative Extension-8

• Best Time to Visit: jewel of the system. Tilden Park’s recreational activities include a pony ride, carousel, golf course and Lake Anza. March-May: The best time to see this coastal grassland site The park also has a spectacular 10-acre Botanic Garden is during the spring, when the perennial grasses are green where you can explore the state’s diverse native flora by and flowering and the wildflowers are blooming. walking through areas that represent defined floral regions of the state, including seacoast bluffs, coastal mountains, interior valleys, arid foothills, alpine zones, and two kinds Site Description: of desert. • Geography and Climate: In 1952, EBMUD sold the northern part of Wildcat Canyon to private interests and in 1966 Standard Oil drilled The elevation is about 1,000 feet and the soil is clay with exploratory wells but these did not justify further drilling. bands of gravel and rock. The area is semi-arid, with cool The Park District began buying land in the northern part of winters (40-60 F) and mild summers (50-75 F). the canyon in 1967 and created Wildcat Canyon Regional • Plant Communities: Park in 1976. Since then, Wildcat Canyon Regional Park This coastal grassland has a wide variety native grasses has grown from 2,197 to 2,428 acres. including Big squirreltail, Idaho fescue and Purple Wildcat Canyon Regional Park’s grasslands are grazed needlegrass. Bentgrass and Blue wild rye grow near the by cattle, which control brush by trampling it. In the early Nimitz trail, while California brome dominates further up 1990s, a two-year demonstration grazing project in the park the hill from the trail. showed that managed grazing can be compatible with both The east-facing slopes of the Wildcat Canyon have promoting recreational values and conserving resource large coast live oaks, bay laurels and a scattering of bigleaf values, such as maintaining native perennial cover. maples and madrones. North-facing slopes have some Conducted by the Contra Costa Resource Conservation nearly pure stands of bay laurel with coast live oak on the District and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection edges. High up, the north-facing slopes have moist Agency, the 400-acre demonstration project consisted of chaparral with coyote brush, elderberry, poison oak, installing a well and trough to provide water for the cattle, snowberry, blackberry and bracken fern. fencing to exclude the cattle from wetland areas, and using a rotational grazing system. In contrast, there have been no livestock in Tilden Park since the 1930s. This has led to the encroachment of coyote • Animals: brush in many natural areas of the park. Jim Roof, former Wildcat Canyon has abundant wildlife, including the deer, director of the Botanic Garden in Tilden Park, was fond of ground squirrels and voles that forage during the day, and describing the diverse wildflowers that used to cover the foxes, opossums, raccoons, skunks and great horned Tilden’s slopes before the coyote brush moved in. owls that forage at night. In addition, gopher snakes, king However, without vegetation management, the coastal snakes and western racers live in the fields and meadows; grassland site along Nimitz Way and many other grasslands garter snakes hunt in the ponds and stream verges; and in Tilden Regional Park are likely to change to coastal rubber boas and ringneck snakes live in the forest. The scrub. canyon is also home to a variety of songbirds and raptors, including American kestrels, hawks (Cooper’s, redtail and sharp-shinned) and turkey vultures. • Conservation Status: Encroachment by woody species is among the greatest threats to California’s coastal grasslands. Historically, large • History and Current Management: hooved animals likely controlled brush encroachment on In 1935, the East Bay Regional Park District acquired the grassland in California. Today, cattle can effectively southern part of Wildcat Canyon to create Tilden Regional control this encroachment. Park. Named for Charles Lee Tilden, the first president of For more profiles on California Native Grasslands with photos the Park District Board of Directors, Tilden Park is one of visit: http://www.cnga.org/guide.php the District’s three oldest parks and has been called the

University of California Cooperative Extension-9

Upcoming Spring Workshops Offered by the California Native Grasslands Association See www.cnga.org for registration information

Workshop: Grazing for Effective Grasslands Management Workshop: Using Native Grasses and Graminoids in Restoration and Revegetation April 12, 2006 8 am to 4:30 pm Instructors: Sheila Barry, Kent Reeves, and Joe Morris April 19 & 20, 2006 8 am to 4:30 pm Location: Fatjo Ranch, Pacheco State Park Instructors: This workshop is taught by a team of CNGA members and Fees: $120 for CNGA members and $160 for most probably will include John non-members Anderson, Sheila Barry, David Resource management professionals recognize the role of Kelley, Richard Nichols, Chris grazing livestock in the conservation of remnant native Rosa, and Jeanne Wirka. grasslands and restored grassland sites across California’s Location: Bouverie Preserve, 13935 Hwy 12, annual grasslands. A successful planned grazing program Glen Ellen, CA requires managers to work with clearly defined goals that Fees: $250 for CNGA members and $290 for non- guide their monitoring activities, and their management members decisions. Spring is a great time to monitor grasslands. This two-day workshop provides in-depth training on This workshop will be held at the Fatjo Ranch in Pacheco techniques for the establishment and maintenance of native State Park. The ranch has a diversity of native grasses, grasses and associated native species in ecological including purple needlegrass, pine bluegrass, California restoration and revegetation projects. brome, California oniongrass, and creeping wildrye. The ground around these perennial grasses is carpeted with Workshop topics include: wildflowers, including bluedicks, butter-and-eggs, cowbag • identifying potential uses of native grasses in land clover, goldfields, navarretia, and popcorn flower. management • information on morphological and physiological The workshop will begin in the classroom where characteristics of native grass species participants will learn about developing social, economic, • selection of appropriate species and sources of plant and resource goals for the management of a grassland and material will hear from Joe Morris about his goals for managing the • site evaluation and preparation Fatjo Ranch. • planting techniques In the field, biological monitoring will be discussed and • informed purchase of seeds and plugs demonstrated. Workshop participants will have an • prescribed fire opportunity to work in small groups to conduct biological • prescribed grazing monitoring. Biological monitoring allows you to evaluate • erosion control grassland health as defined by energy flow, water cycle, • weed management mineral cycle, and succession. We will also visit parts of Workshop registrants receive a comprehensive training the ranch where grazing livestock have been excluded for a binder with the full curriculum and supporting materials. number of years. We will conduct biological monitoring on Breakfast, lunch and snack breaks are included. ungrazed sites for comparison. The results of our biological monitoring will allow us to discuss future strategies for Registration is limited and will be confirmed on a first- grazing management to achieve the defined goals. paid, first-registered basis. Waiting lists will be maintained.

Enrollment will be limited to ensure an intimate field experience. Morning coffee, lunch and supplementary Annual Conference Workshops course materials will be provided. Thursday, May 4, 2006 Chico CA. 1. Ecology and Management of California’s Vernal Pool Grasslands Instructors: Jaymee Marty and Dr. Bob Holland 2. Using California Native Grasses in the Urban Landscape Instructors: Steve Nawrath and David Amme.

University of California Cooperative Extension-10 ( Workshops continued)

Workshop: Identifying and Appreciating the Native and Workshop: Using California Native Grasses in the Urban Naturalized Grasses of California – Central Coast CA Landscape

May 24 & 25 (tentative pending facility confirmation) Date and Time: June 2, 2006 8:00 am to 4:00 pm 8 am to 4:30 pm Instructors: Steve Nawrath and David Amme. Instructors: David Amme and John DiGregoria Location: East Bay Regional Park District Trudeau Location: Point Reyes Station and Point Reyes National Center, Oakland, CA Seashore Fees: $120 for CNGA members and $160 for Fees: $220 for CNGA members and $260 for non- non-members members

Concord Tule Elk Are Being Relocated

California State Fish and Game staffers and citizen volunteers began removing tule elk from the Concord

Naval Weapons Station on Monday, February 13. “The weapons station basically has outlived its usefulness as far as tule elk are concerned,” said Terry Palmisano, a senior wildlife biologist with the California Department of Fish and Game.

The elk are captured with “net guns” fired from helicopters.

They are fitted with blindfolds and hobbles and then transported to a staging area where a veterinarian examines them. The elk will be moved to three different reserves around the state: the Cache Creek Natural Area in Lake and www.californiabiota.com

Colusa counties, the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area in Solano

County and the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in

Merced County.

The elk herd at the Naval Station currently includes 39 . individuals. They are fenced in and the population has been limited by inadequate forage and water. The decision to move them to new locations was in part to avoid conflicts with future plans for the Naval Station, which may include housing and commercial development.

The elk were introduced into the weapons station in 1976. At that time, tule elk, which are one of three subspecies of North American elk, were slowly recovering from near extinction. The Concord herd was used as a seed group to Geoimages.berkeley.edu establish other herds around the state.

University of California Cooperative Extension-11

Keeping Landscapes Working NONPROFIT ORG University of California Cooperative Extension US POSTAGE PAID 1553 Berger Drive, Bldg 1 San Jose CA 95112 SAN JOSE CA PERMIT NO 109

The University of California prohibits discrimination against or harassment of any person employed by or seeking employment with the University on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (covered veterans are special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, or any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized).University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607-5200 (510) 987-0096.