A Journal of the California Native Plant Society

Special Issue $10.00

Vol. 29, Nos. 3-4 July/October 2001 FREMONTIA

in this issue: Preface by Susan Britting / 3 • Introduction by David P. Tibor / 4 • Management of Rare Plants under State and Federal Endangered Species Law: A CNPS Perspective by Emily Brin Roberson / 5 • Understanding the Political Realities of Regional Conservation Planning by Allison Rolfe / 13 • The Future of Regional Conservation Planning by Carol W. Witham / 19 • How to Comment on a CEQA Document by Taylor Peterson / 27 • Impact of Timber Harvesting on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Native Plants by Gregory A. Jirak / 38 • Monitoring Rare Plants by Roy A. Woodward / 51 •

VOLUMEThe California 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER Natural Diversity 2001 Database by Roxanne Bittman / 57 • Field SurveyFREMONTIA Form / 63 1 • Botanical Survey Guidelines / 64 • Statement Opposing Transplantation as Mitigation for Impacts to Rare Plants / 66 • Resources for Rare Plant Conservation by David P. Tibor / 67 • Glossary / 69 California Native Plant Society FREMONTIA www.cnps.org MEMBERSHIP VOL. 29, NOS. 3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001, Dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the Bulletin. distributed Sept. 2002 Life ...... $1,000 Supporting ...... $75 Copyright © 2002 Benefactor ...... $500 Family, Group, International . . . $45 California Native Plant Society Patron ...... $250 Individual or Library ...... $35 Linda Ann Vorobik, Editor Plant Lover ...... $100 Student/Retired/Limited Income $20 David P. Tibor, Convening Editor ADDRESSES CHAPTER COUNCIL Bob Hass, Copy Editor Memberships; Address Changes; Of- Alta Peak (Tulare) . . . . Joan Stewart Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer ficers; General Society Inquiries; Bristlecone (Inyo-Mono) ...... CALIFORNIA NATIVE Fremontia Advertising: CNPS, 1722 J Stephen Ingram PLANT SOCIETY Street, Suite 17, Sacramento, CA Channel Islands ...... Lynne Kada 95814. Tel: (916) 447-CNPS (2677); Dorothy King Young (Gualala) . . . . Fax: (916) 447-2727 Dedicated to the Preservation of Lori Hubbart Executive Director: Pamela C. Muick, the California Native Flora East Bay ...... Tony Morosco PhD, [email protected] El Dorado ...... Amy Hoffman The California Native Plant Society Fremontia: L.A. Vorobik, PhD, Edi- Kern County . . . . . Laura Stockton (CNPS) is an organization of laymen tor, c/o University and Jepson Her- and professionals united by an interest baria, 1001 Valley Life Sciences Bldg. Los Angeles/Santa Monica Mountains in the native plants of California, open #2465, UC, Berkeley, CA 94720-2465. Halli Mason to all. Its principal aims are to pre- (510) 642-2465, [email protected] Marin County ...... Bob Soost serve the native flora and to add to the Bulletin: Steve Tyron, Editor, Bulletin Milo Baker (Sonoma County) . . . . . knowledge of members and the public [email protected] or US Mail to Lynn Houser at large by monitoring rare and en- CNPS Office (listed above) Mojave Desert ...... Tim Thomas dangered plants throughout the state; Rare Plant Botanist: David Tibor, Monterey Bay . . . Rosemary Donlon by acting to save endangered areas 1722 J St., Suite 17, Sacramento, CA Mount Lassen ...... Jim Bishop through publicity, persuasion, and on 95814. (916) 324-3816, dtibor@cnps. Napa Valley ...... Marcie Danner occasion, legal action; by providing org North Coast ...... Larry Levine expert testimony to government Vegetation Ecologist: Julie Evens, Orange County . . . Daniel Songster bodies; and by supporting financially CNPS, 1722 J Street, Suite 17, Sacra- Redbud (Grass Valley/Auburn) . . . . and otherwise the establishment of mento, CA 95814. (916) 327-0714, Richard Hanes native plant preserves. Much of this [email protected] Riverside/San Bernardino counties . . work is done by volunteers through Earth Share Liaison: Halli Mason, CNPS Chapters throughout the state. 4728 Rosita Place, Tarzana, CA 91356. Katie Barrows The Society’s educational work in- (818) 345-6749 Sacramento Valley . . Jennifer Hogan cludes: publication of a quarterly jour- Legal Advisor: Sandy McCoy. (510) San Diego ...... Sara Steinhoffer nal, Fremontia, and a quarterly Bulletin 644-2900 x107; wbmccoy@earthlink. net San Gabriel Mountains . Lyn McAfee which gives news and announcements San Luis Obispo . . . . Dirk Walters of Society events and conservation BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sanhedrin (Ukiah) . Chuck Williams issues. Chapters hold meetings, field Officers: Santa Clara Valley . . Mary Simpson trips, and plant and poster sales. Non- President ...... Sue Britting Santa Cruz County . Janell Hillman members are welcome to attend. Vice President . . . . . Sandy McCoy Sequoia (Fresno) . . . . Jeanne Larson Money is provided through member Secretary ...... Lori Hubbart Shasta ...... Dave DuBose dues and funds raised by chapter plant Treasurer ...... Steve Hartman Sierra Foothills (Tuolumne, Cala- and poster sales. Additional donations, Chapter Council Chair ...... veras, Mariposa) . . . . Patrick Stone bequests, and memorial gifts from Lynne Kada South Coast (Palos Verdes) ...... friends of the Society can assist greatly Chapter Council Vice-Chair . . . . . in carrying forward the work of the Lori Hubbart Ellen Brubaker Society. Dues and donations are tax- Directors: Tahoe ...... Michael Hogan deductible. Carol Baird, Charli Danielsen, Greg Willis L. Jepson (Solano) ...... Fremontia logo (by L.A. Vorobik) reprinted Jirak, Lynne Kada, Betsey Landis, Mary Shaw from The Jepson Manual, J. Hickman, David L. Magney, Patt McDaniel, Yerba Buena (San Francisco) . . . . . Ed., 1993, with permission from the Jepson Carol Witham Randy Zebell Herbarium, UC. © Regents of the Univer- MATERIALS FOR PUBLICATION sity of California. Members and others are invited to submit material for publication in Fremontia. Instructions for contributors can be found on the CNPS website, www.cnps.org, THE COVER: Santa Cruz tarplant or can be requested from Fremontia Editor, Linda Ann Vorobik, vorobik@rock (Holocarpha macradenia) is state-listed island.com, or c/o University and Jepson Herbaria, 1001 Valley Life Sciences Bldg. as Endangered and federally-listed as #2465, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2465. Threatened. Photograph by J. Game. Prepress by ScanArt / Printed by Craftsman Trade Press

2 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Preface by Susan Britting

alifornia—a hotspot of into due to its beauty was being presents such information and Cbiodiversity, a rich and di- degraded and lost. more, creating a “toolkit” for con- verse landscape ranging It was through the Society’s serving rare plants. The following from coastal shores to desert washes various programs that I learned articles characterize the challenges to alpine meadows, a plant lover’s what could be done to protect the before us today, and I invite you to paradise. California—the most native plants and habitat around join me in using this issue to sup- populous state in the nation, a land me. Knitting together information port native plant conservation in of opportunity, a place where many provided by the Society on species California. people wish to live. Where these conservation, public policy, and two aspects of California intersect laws, I was able to present a rea- Susan Britting, CNPS, 1722 J Street, Suite lies the threat to the natural fea- soned view in support of plant con- 17, Sacramento, CA 95814. britting@ tures that define this glorious state. servation. This issue of Fremontia innercite.com So then, how do we support human communities while protecting na- Lemon lily (Lilium parryi). Illustration by L.A. Vorobik. tive plants and their habitats? Providing information to inves- tigate this question has been at the heart of the Society’s programs for over 30 years. In 1974, the first edition of the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California assembled all we knew at the time about the distribution, abundance, and threats to rare plant species in the state. Subsequent editions of the Inventory and publication of A Manual of California Vegetation have added to our knowledge about the status of California’s flora. In turn, the Society’s Conservation Program was developed to use this and other information to seek increased protection for native plants based on principles of conservation biology. Ten years ago, when I set my sights on living in the Sierra Ne- vada foothills, I knew little about plant conservation in California. Until that time, I was myopically focused on questions of plant physi- ology and biochemistry. Yet not long after moving to my new habitat in the foothills, I realized that this was a troubled place. A new dam threatened miles of unique canyonlands and chaparral. Hous- ing projects proposed to pave over many acres of rare plant habitat. The very landscape that I moved

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 3 Introduction by David P. Tibor

alifornia’s native plants, and endangered flora when properly a key component in the assembly of Cthose who work to conserve implemented. Emily Roberson pro- this knowledge base. Roy Wood- them, are facing unprec- vides an overview of the state and ward discusses the monitoring pro- edented challenges. CNPS recently federal Endangered Species Acts, cess, including the designing of released the sixth edition of its com- as well as the lesser known Native monitoring projects and marking pendium of information on rare Plant Protection Act. of plant populations. Data accumu- plants, the Inventory of Rare and En- Regional conservation planning lated from monitoring need to be dangered Plants of California. This via Natural Communities Conser- made widely available to support edition documents 2,045 imperiled vation Plans and Habitat Conserva- conservation planning decisions. vascular plants in California, which tion Plans is spreading rapidly across The Department of Fish and constitute nearly a third of an esti- the developing areas of our state. Game’s Natural Diversity Database mated total of 6,300 natives. Of Allison Rolfe provides a cautionary provides this service for data on rare these imperiled taxa, over 1,000 are discussion of the political realities plants, animals, and natural com- placed in our highest endangerment of this type of broad scale planning, munities, and Roxanne Bittman ex- ranking (CNPS List 1B). Clearly, including informative details on plains this valuable program. an alarming percentage of Califor- the San Diego Multiple Species Lastly, CNPS has developed a nia’s flora is at risk. This is the chal- Conservation Plan. Carol Witham number of important policies and lenge that faces us. discusses the future of regional con- guidelines regarding rare plant con- We can rise to this challenge, servation planning and how indi- servation, and two key documents however, and this issue of Fremontia viduals and groups can get involved are included in this issue. The provides the tools and inspiration in this critical process. An overview CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines to do so. Knowledgeable authors of changes to the Natural Commu- outline our standards for appropri- have assembled a number of valu- nities Conservation Planning Act ate botanical surveys. The State- able, informative, and hopefully and guidelines for plan development ment Opposing Transplantation as “user-friendly” articles on many are also included. The California Mitigation for Impacts to Rare Plants aspects of rare plant law, policy, Environmental Quality Act is one is signed by CNPS and the Botani- and management. It is our hope of the most important laws for rare cal Society of America. A list of that this information can help indi- plant conservation, giving the pub- additional resources for rare plant viduals to effectively advocate for lic the opportunity to review the conservation and a detailed glos- native plant conservation in their impacts of development projects sary of terminology and acronyms local areas. that might harm native plants and round out the issue. The laws and policies regarding habitat. Taylor Peterson provides a We hope this issue of Fremontia rare plants can be complex and detailed overview of this environ- will demonstrate that it is easy and sometimes vague, but they can pro- mental review process to empower rewarding to become a successful vide important protection to our citizens to get involved in their lo- conservation advocate. Our envi- cal areas. Timber harvesting in- ronmental laws only work with volves similar environmental review. vigorous public involvement and Featured on the cover, the Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) is extant Gregory Jirak discusses the impacts oversight, and opportunities to par- in Monterey and Santa Cruz of logging on rare plants, and out- ticipate abound. More information counties, where threatened by lines the protections afforded to on the topics in this issue is avail- development, agriculture, them under the law. Jennifer Kalt able at www.cnps.org, from the CNPS non-native plants, and lack of addresses the impacts on rare plants state office, and from your local appropriate ecological disturbance. It previously occurred of widespread herbicide use in the CNPS chapter. California’s out- as far north as Marin County, wake of logging activities. standing flora is at great risk, and but the last native San Fran- The laws, policies, and regula- needs all of our help. Each of us can cisco Bay Area occurrence was tions would be much less effective make a difference, so let’s get started! extirpated by development in if not based on sound scientific 1993. Experimental reintro- David P. Tibor, CNPS, 1722 J Street, ductions in the East Bay have knowledge about the distribution mostly failed. Illustration by and abundance of rare plants Suite 17, Sacramento, CA 95814. dtibor L.A. Vorobik. throughout the state. Monitoring is @cnps.org

4 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Tiburon mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburonensis) is listed by both the state and federal government as Threatened. It is known from only one occurrence in serpentine grasslands on Ring Mountain, Marin County, where it can be quite abundant. This lily was the first state-listed plant to be downgraded from Endangered to Threatened, after The Nature Conservancy established a preserve and banned off-road vehicles from its habitat. Photograph by R. York. Management of Rare Plants under State and Federal Endangered Species Law: A CNPS Perspective by Emily Brin Roberson

alifornia’s rare plants are Planning Act, and the California Listing Cmanaged under a tangled Endangered Species Act (CESA). web of laws, regulations, This article focuses on two laws Plants may be listed as “threat- policies, and agencies. On lands un- that regulate management of some ened” or “endangered” under der federal management or for pro- of our rarest plants: the California CESA, FESA, or both. Endangered jects under federal control, these laws and Federal Endangered Species plants are generally perceived to be include the Federal Clean Water Act, Acts. These laws are complex, some- more imperiled than threatened National Forest Management Act, times unclear, and many portions plants, but both groups receive es- the National Environmental Policy are the subjects of heated ongoing sentially the same treatment under Act, and the Federal Endangered policy debates. Though these laws both CESA and FESA. Under an Species Act (FESA). In other cir- are both flawed, they can provide older California law, the Native cumstances, rare plants are managed important protections for listed Plant Protection Act (NPPA), some under the California Environmen- plants when properly implemented. plants are also listed as “rare” (see tal Quality Act (CEQA), the Cali- This article will present CNPS below for discussion of NPPA). fornia Forest Practices Act, the analysis of these laws and their Plants may be recommended for Natural Communities Conservation proper implementation. listing under either CESA or FESA

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 5 by the responsible wildlife agencies or by members of the public. Acronyms CNPS has led the effort to list rare plants in California. Many CDFG California Department of Fish and Game chapters and individuals have pre- CEQA California Environmental Quality Act pared successful state and federal CESA California Endangered Species Act listing petitions. When the petition FESA Federal Endangered Species Act process has failed, CNPS has used litigation to protect imperiled FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service plants. Altogether CNPS has helped HCP Habitat Conservation Plan list more than 150 plants under NPPA Native Plant Protection Act FESA and many under CESA as well. Despite CNPS efforts, appall- ingly few of California’s rare plants CNPS List Definitions (CNPS 2001) are listed under the federal or state acts. The CNPS Inventory of Rare List 1A Plants presumed extinct in California and Endangered Plants of California List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and (CNPS 2001) places 1,467 plants on elsewhere CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, and 2, the “at- List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere List 3 Plants about which we need more information— a “review” list List 4 Plants of limited distribution—a “watch” list

risk” categories for the state. Of gally destroyed in a wide variety of these, only 217 are listed under state circumstances. Note that because law and only 184 California plants both state and federal law use the are federally listed. The unfortunate term “taking” to mean killing a listed consequence is that most of our rar- species, this article will also use the est plants must rely on other laws, term “take” to mean to kill a listed primarily CEQA, for protection. species. (See “How to Comment on a CEQA Document” on page 27 of this issue for a discussion of plant conserva- The Federal tion under that law.) Endangered Species Under state and federal law it is Act generally illegal to destroy or “take” a species once it is listed. However, Federally-listed plants are un- both laws include numerous excep- der the jurisdiction of the US Fish tions and loopholes that allow listed and Wildlife Service (FWS) under species and their habitats to be le- several sections of the FESA, most

Baker’s larkspur (Delphinium bakeri), top, is known from fewer than 100 plants along Salmon Creek, Marin County. A 1999 lawsuit by CNPS and the Center for Biological Diversity compelled the FWS to list the plant as Endangered. The Marin Department of Public Works accidentally cut the plants back to the ground (prior to seed-set) during roadside maintenance in 2002. Photograph by D. Smith. • Sodaville milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. sesquimetralis), bottom, is known in California only from Big Sand Springs, Inyo County, and from two occurrences on private lands in Nevada. This plant is state-listed as Endangered and listed by Nevada as Critically Endangered, but was inexplicably withdrawn from the federal listing process after FWS determined it was not sufficiently threatened. Photograph by M. Williams.

6 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 importantly Sections 4, 7, and 10. 7(a)(2) of FESA requires that all mine if logging would put the exist- Section 7 addresses consultation be- actions “authorized, funded, or car- ence of the species at risk or would tween the FWS and other agencies ried out” by a federal agency be destroy or adversely affect any des- regarding federal projects that may reviewed by the FWS to ensure that ignated critical habitat. If FWS finds jeopardize the continued existence the actions are not likely to 1) jeop- this likely, it must propose “reason- of listed plant species, or adversely ardize the survival and recovery of able and prudent alternatives” to affect critical habitat designated for any listed plant species, or 2) de- the proposed project which would listed species. Section 4 deals with stroy or adversely modify any criti- eliminate the risk to the species. recovery planning and critical habi- cal habitat that has been designated But even if a project is determined tat designation, and Section 10 for the species (see section on Criti- to be unlikely to jeopardize the spe- allows issuance of “incidental take cal Habitat below). For example, cies as a whole, the FWS must still permits” to destroy or harm listed suppose a National Forest wishes propose “reasonable and prudent animals and their habitat via habi- to log an area that is habitat to a measures” which would mitigate, tat conservation planning. listed species. Before proceeding, it avoid, or minimize adverse impacts Jeopardy Consultation Section must consult with FWS to deter- of any taking of the species.

Santa Cruz wallflower (Erysimum teretifolium) is state- and federally-listed as Endangered, and known only from Santa Cruz County. A recovery plan was prepared in 1999 by FWS, but the plant remains threatened by sand mining and development. Photograph by R. York.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 7 Recovery Planning tat. However, in 1982, FESA was project which will impact a listed amended to allow FWS to issue “in- species or its critical habitat. Thus Section 4 of FESA directs the cidental take permits” for projects many federally-listed plants are not FWS to develop recovery plans for that destroy listed animals or their protected by either the Section 10 all listed species. Recovery plans habitat, such as housing develop- HCP or Section 7 consultation pro- often provide excellent investiga- ments, mines, dams, golf courses, grams, and so essentially are not tions of the biology and ecology of and so on. These permits contain protected by FESA at all. listed species and useful insights into terms and conditions that are meant These problems are due to an their conservation needs. A major to mitigate any damage done by a enormous flaw in Section 9 (a)(2)(B) drawback, however, is that there is project, and promote overall con- of FESA, which only prohibits the no legal requirement that the plans servation of affected species and destruction of federally-listed plant be implemented. Indeed, there is their habitats. The mitigation mea- species in “areas under federal ju- rarely funding or staffing to imple- sures are set forth in so-called “habi- risdiction.” Consequently, the law ment them. This is particularly true tat conservation plans” (HCPs) that allows destruction of most listed plants for plants, which tend to fall to the are reviewed and approved by FWS outside of federal lands, where more bottom of conservation priority lists. and are part of the incidental take than 70% of federally-listed plants Section 7 of FESA also includes permit process. live (and more than 80% in Cali- an important recovery mandate, HCPs have been the subject of fornia). Thus, in areas not under though it is little known and rarely furious controversy since they came federal control, or for projects not used. FESA Section 7(a)(1) obli- into wide use under the Clinton funded, authorized, or permitted by gates every federal agency to “carry Administration. Several studies a federal agency, federally-listed out programs for the conservation” (Harding et al. 2001, Noss et al. plants can be knowingly extirpated of listed species. FESA defines 1997, American Institute of Bio- without penalty. “conservation” as recovery of a spe- logical Sciences 1999) have found Another stipulation of the law is cies so that it no longer warrants that although the HCP program that state-listed plants cannot be federal listing. This means that all has great potential as a conserva- killed in knowing violation of state federal agencies (the Forest Ser- tion tool, the scientific information law or regulation, including CESA. vice, Park Service, Bureau of Land used to develop HCPs has often Thus, federally-listed plants that do Management, Army, Navy, Air been inadequate, resulting in flaws not occur on federal land, and are Force, Bureau of Reclamation, En- in the HCPs. (See “The Future of not also state listed, are forced to vironmental Protection Agency, Regional Conservation Planning” rely on state laws such as CEQA for Army Corps of Engineers, and all on p. 19 of this issue for more in- protection. Because these laws are others) have a mandatory duty to formation on HCPs.) relatively weak, a great many of take active measures to promote the recovery—and not merely the Despite its listing status as Endangered survival—of listed species affected Plants As Second- under FESA, Braunton’s milk-vetch by their actions. Regrettably, po- Class Citizens (Astragalus brauntonii) has been sub- jected to deliberate bulldozing, herbi- litical and budgetary constraints cide application, and other methods of tend to prevent full compliance with Astonishingly, although killing removal from a development site on this far-reaching mandate and op- listed animals is prohibited every- private land near Los Angeles. Photo- portunity to promote recovery. In- where, FESA does not prohibit graph by J. Dice. stead, agencies are generally only destruction of federally-listed plants provided with minimal resources on lands outside federal manage- to prevent the extinction of spe- ment. So HCPs do not directly cies, so recovery plans often gather affect listed plants unless they hap- dust. pen to be located in the same area as a listed animal for which an incidental take permit is being is- Habitat sued, or unless the permit appli- FIGURE 5 Conservation cant voluntarily includes listed Planning plants in the HCP. Furthermore, Section 7 consul- In general, under Section 9 of tation occurs only when the federal FESA, it is illegal to kill federally- government is carrying out, per- listed animals or destroy their habi- mitting, authorizing, or funding a

8 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 permit, or implement. Therefore, critical habitat designation only benefits taxa if they live on federal land or on land which is impacted by projects that are funded or permitted by the federal government, such as highway construction, wetlands management, or incidental take permit issuance. Even with these limitations, critical habitat can be a useful conservation tool. For example, critical habitat designation requires thorough scientific investigation of the habitat requirements of the species, and provides valuable information for recovery efforts. An- other benefit is that critical habitat designation is intended to promote within resource management agen- recovery of listed species, not cies such as the FWS and the For- merely to prevent their extinction. est Service. Our open letter calling So suitable habitat outside of areas for equal treatment of plants under currently occupied by the species Section 9 of FESA has already been may be designated as critical and signed by over 35 local, regional, protected to allow future range ex- and national groups, including the pansion and promote recovery. Botanical Society of America, the Critical habitat may also be desig- Society for Conservation Biology, nated to protect the integrity of the California Botanical Society, the geologic or hydrologic processes Peirson’s milk-vetch (Astragalus mag- Sierra Club, the Center for Bio- that species require for survival, delenae var. peirsonii) is a state-listed En- logical Diversity, and the Natural such as periodic flooding of vernal dangered and federally-listed Threatened Resources Defense Council. See the pools or washes. plant. It occurs in the Algodones Dunes CNPS website (www.cnps.org) for Regrettably, only approximately in Imperial County, and is seriously threatened by off-road vehicle recreation. more on the Equal Protection for 4% of California’s more than 180 This milk-vetch is the subject of a federal Plants Campaign. federally-listed plants have desig- delisting petition submitted by off-road nated critical habitat. There is enthusiasts, and a lawsuit by the Center tremendous political pressure on for Biological Diversity and CNPS Critical Habitat FWS and on Congress to weaken regarding critical habitat determination. A management plan for the area is under or remove FESA’s critical habitat development by the Bureau of Land Critical habitat is one of the most requirements. Several bills to Management. Photographs by J. Dice. biologically important sections of change or eliminate these rules FESA, but it is also one of the most have been proposed in Congress in California’s rarest plants are de- underused. Most people instinctively recent years, and policies for criti- stroyed each year, despite being fed- understand that wild plants and ani- cal habitat implementation change erally listed. mals depend for their survival on frequently. Because this aspect of the law is specific habitats for shelter, nutri- So far the scientific and envi- obviously inconsistent with effec- tion, water, and reproduction. This ronmental communities have been tive biological diversity conserva- principle is captured in Sections 4 successful in preventing Congress tion, CNPS has launched the Equal and 7 of FESA, which requires FWS from eliminating this important fea- Protection For Plants Campaign. to designate and protect critical ture of FESA. Furthermore, recent Our goal is to change federal law so habitat for listed species. successful litigation by CNPS and that plants and animals receive equal Unfortunately, as noted above, affiliated groups may lead to criti- protection under FESA. We are also FESA only requires federal agen- cal habitat designation for as many seeking equal funding and staffing cies to protect critical habitat from as 25 plants in the San Bernardino for plant and animal management actions that they themselves fund, Mountains, in the vernal pools of

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 9 cesa Standards for incidental take permit issuance

Applicants must meet the follow- 2. No exceptions are permitted scientific and other informa- ing standards before CDFG can to the full mitigation require- tion that is reasonably avail- issue an incidental take permit: ment. Overriding considerable” regarding “1) known ations are not allowed. population trends; 2) known threats to the species; and 1. Impacts from taking listed CESA does not allow CDFG 3) reasonably foreseeable im- species must be “mini- or any other public agency to pacts on the species from mized and fully mitigated.” permit “unavoidable” or unmiti- other related projects and Full mitigation means that no gated impacts to listed species. activities.” This section sets net impacts to listed species This is a critical benefit con- a high standard for the sci- may occur under CESA. This ferred by state listing. For un- entific analysis that must standard (CESA § 2081(b)) listed rare species covered only underlie a finding of “no is significantly stronger than by CEQA, any lead agency may jeopardy” and forces CDFG the species conservation stan- allow significant impacts to the to consider cumulative im- dards for unlisted species un- species if it finds that socio- pacts when issuing permits. der the California Environ- economic and other “benefits” mental Quality Act (CEQA). of a project outweigh its adverse 5. A California Environmen- CEQA merely requires agen- environmental impacts (CEQA tal Quality Act (CEQA) cies to “avoid or minimize Guidelines § 15093). review is required. environmental damage where 3. The applicant must fund both All incidental take permits feasible” (CEQA Guidelines the implementation and must undergo a public re- § 15021 (a), emphasis added). monitoring of mitigation. view process under CEQA CESA defines “impacts” that prior to approval. This usu- CESA § 2081(b)(4) requires that must be minimized and fully ally occurs as part of a larger the project sponsor fund both mitigated as “all impacts on CEQA review process un- the implementation of required the species that result from dertaken on the project as a mitigation measures and com- any act that would cause the whole by a lead agency other pliance and effectiveness moni- proposed taking” (CESA § than CDFG. Occasionally it toring for the mitigation. The 2081(b)(2)). This broad defi- takes place though a process effectiveness monitoring re- nition can be read to include “functionally equivalent” to quirement allows CDFG—and indirect and cumulative im- the CEQA process, if the the public—to ensure that miti- pacts, as well as impacts to incidental take permit is the gation is functioning properly habitat. However, some state only permit at issue and and that CESA’s full mitigation policies imply that impacts CDFG is acting as the lead requirement is met. to listed habitat of species are agency. Either way, inter- not covered under CESA and 4. The jeopardy standard must ested parties can use the that only “direct” destruction be based on science and cu- CEQA process to ensure that of listed species requires a mulative impacts. applicants, lead agencies, and permit. It is the desire of Section 2081(c) requires CDFG CDFG meet the new CESA CNPS that this significant to find that permitted projects standards, including full miti- issue be clarified in the near will not jeopardize the continued gation, scientifically-based future by the Legislature or existence of listed species. This jeopardy findings, adequate CDFG. finding must be based on “best monitoring, and funding.

the northern Central Valley, and THE California does. Unlike FESA, take of listed elsewhere. Political opposition con- endangered Species plants is prohibited under CESA. tinues, however. CNPS and other Act Additionally, in 1997, CESA was conservation organizations must substantially amended to provide maintain vigilance to prevent this The California Endangered stronger conservation standards and and other key features of FESA from Species Act (CESA) provides greater greater scientific and public input being eliminated. protection for plants than FESA into listed species management.

10 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Many people are still not aware of the strict protections CESA now requires for California-listed species. CESA prohibits the take of Cali- fornia-listed animals and plants in most circumstances. Like the FWS, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) may issue “incidental take permits,” similar to federal HCPs, which allow destruction of listed species under limited conditions and which require full mitigation for impacts to species and their habitat. (See sidebar on p. 10.)

The Native Plant Protection Act

Unfortunately, powerful political forces and misinterpretation of the law are threatening to keep the conservation benefits of CESA from many state-listed plants. The so- Baker’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes bakeri) in a field north of Willits, Mendocino County. called “regulated community” (de- It is state-listed Rare under NPPA, and threatened by development, grazing, and road velopers, timber companies, and construction. Photograph by J. Guggolz. others who destroy listed species during commercial activities) claims limited protection for plants, pri- plants from destruction during de- that California’s state-listed plants marily requiring that landowners velopment, mining, and logging. can be destroyed without a permit, who have been notified of state- The publication of the Lungren without mitigation, and without listed plants on their property—and opinion stimulated the regulated limit. This claim is based on an who wish to destroy those plants community to step up efforts to use outdated and little-known law called and their habitats—must provide NPPA to exempt projects affecting the Native Plant Protection Act. CDFG ten days notice to salvage listed plants from CESA. A widely The Native Plant Protection Act (remove for transplant) the plants circulated 1999 article in the Cali- (NPPA) of 1977 was one of the first before the destruction occurs. fornia Land Use Law and Policy Re- plant conservation laws in the In June 1998, then-Attorney porter (Thornton et al. 1999) added United States. Although historic, it General Dan Lungren issued an fuel to the fire, essentially repeat- was quite weak. It provided only opinion asserting that take of listed ing and amplifying the Lungren plants is governed primarily by opinion. A CNPS rebuttal was NPPA instead of CESA. The opin- published several months later ion reached the illogical conclusion (Roberson and Mueller 1999), and that state law protects listed ani- the policy debate continues at the mals—but not listed plants—from state and local level. destruction during a wide range of The Lungren opinion has not land use and land clearing activi- yet been tested in court. If it is for- ties. Though not binding on a court, mally adopted by the courts or by the Lungren opinion’s interpreta- CDFG, destruction of California’s tion of the law could virtually elimi- listed plants and their habitats could nate protection for state-listed increase dramatically. Fortunately,

Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum) is listed by FWS as Endangered, and is threatened by mining activities. CNPS is currently in litigation against FWS regarding critical habitat designation for this plant and four other carbonate endemics in the San Bernardino Mountains. Photograph by J. Dice.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 11 both law and science are on our mitigation, consultation, jeopardy, subscribers with conservation news side. The California Legislature has recovery planning, public input, and and up-to-the-minute information repeatedly made it clear that state- other requirements of CESA and on opportunities for public input listed threatened and endangered FESA. Then review the project into plant conservation law, bud- plants are to be managed and pro- plans and environmental documents geting, policy, and planning. tected under CESA just as animals for consistency with endangered are. This only makes sense. The species law and provide comments broad allowances for killing endan- to the agencies. You can contact References gered and threatened plants with the CNPS State Office for legal impunity under the Lungren inter- analyses, scientific information, American Institute of Biological Sci- pretation would be contrary to many white papers, brochures, and other ences. 1999. Using Science in Habi- laws and policies of the state of Cali- technical assistance. The CNPS tat Conservation Plans. Washington, fornia, as well as popular opinion, Conservation Program has infor- DC: American Institute of Biologi- which provide a strong and consis- mation packets on federal critical cal Sciences. 97 pp. CNPS. 2001. Inventory of Rare and tent mandate for conservation of habitat policies, habitat conserva- Endangered Plants of California. 6th rare species. CNPS is working hard tion planning, and key conserva- ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory with CDFG, the courts, and the tion provisions of CESA, NPPA, Committee, David P. Tibor, Con- State Legislature to make sure that and other aspects of endangered vening Editor. California Native the Lungren opinion does not be- species law. Many of these are Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. come California law. posted on the CNPS website (www. 388 pp. cnps.org) as well. Harding, E.K., E.E. Crone, B.D. We also need help with our pro- Elderd, J.M. Hoekstra, A.J. What you can do grams to increase public under- McKerrow, J.D. Perrine, J. Regetz, standing of the values of and threats L.J. Rissler, A.G. Stanley, E.L. Both FESA and CESA can be to rare plants and biological diver- Walters, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis powerful tools for conservation of sity in general. We are working to Working Group. 2001. The scien- rare species and their habitats. But educate the public, policymakers, tific foundation of habitat conserva- these laws, and the agencies that and the media about these issues tion plans: a quantitative assessment. implement them, are constantly through projects such as the Equal Conservation Biology 15(2): 488–500. under attack and cannot remain ef- Protection for Plants Campaign. Lungren, D.E. and A.M. Summers. fective without active support from We have prepared informational 1998. Opinion No. 98-105. June 23, the scientific community and the brochures and other materials on 1998. Office of the Attorney Gen- public. There are many ways to be- plant conservation and the values eral. Sacramento, CA. 5 pp. come involved in implementation of native plants that are available Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D.D. of endangered species laws in your for use with local Planning Depart- Murphy. 1997. The Science of Con- area or at the state or federal level. ments, City Councils, Boards of servation Planning. Habitat Conserva- tion under the Endangered Species Act. The public can submit petitions Supervisors, land use planning agen- Island Press. Washington, DC. 246 for listing and protecting imperiled cies, and others. Contact CNPS for pp. species under the state and federal copies of informational materials Roberson, E.B. and T.L. Mueller. acts. The CNPS Rare Plant Sci- and to find out how to get involved. 1999. California listed threatened ence Program provides assistance Because inadequate staffing and and endangered plants are protected with preparation of state and fed- funding are among the primary fac- under the California Endangered eral listing petitions. Information tors preventing full implementation Species Act. California Land Use Law on how to list species can also be of endangered species laws, CNPS and Policy Reporter 9:7–10. found on the CNPS web site. The devotes considerable effort to in- Thornton, R., J. S. Bridges, and D. G. Rare Plant Science Program also creasing funding and staffing for Sweigert. 1999. Does Fish and maintains information on rarity and FWS and CDFG through our leg- Game have the authority to require a permit or MOU for the take of distribution of listed species, pub- islation and conservation programs. listed plant species in the develop- lished periodically as the CNPS Contact CNPS to become involved ment of private property? Califor- Inventory of Rare and Endangered in these efforts. nia Land Use Law and Policy Reporter Plants of California (CNPS 2001). Finally, keep up-to-date and get 8:169–173. If a project impacts listed spe- involved by subscribing to the cies in your area, call your local CNPS Action Alerts electronic Emily Brin Roberson, 1722 J Street, Suite CDFG or FWS office and ask them listserver (sign up at www.cnps.org/ 17, Sacramento, CA 95814. emilyr@ how they plan to implement the alerts/alerts.htm). The alerts provide cnps.org

12 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Understanding the Political Realities of Regional Conservation Planning by Allison Rolfe

n the last decade there has been Ian increasing emphasis placed on habitat conservation planning as provided for in the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, small-scale Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) prepared by individual landowners seeking endangered species permits were the most common type of conservation plan. In the last few years, however, the habitat planning concept has been elevated to a new level. Region-wide, multi-landowner, multi-jurisdictional habitat plans are becoming the standard. The increase in scope, complexity, and duration of HCPs has been met with increased controversy surrounding their conception, development, and implementation. As this article will discuss, regional habitat conservation planning—while a promising and intriguing concept—is also a potentially problematic political process with significant implications Coastal sage scrub habitat was the original focus of NCCP planning in San Diego County, for our nation’s most imperiled and is home to the coastal California gnatcatcher and a wide array of other plant and animal plants and wildlife. species. Photograph by FWS, used with permission of J. Fairbanks.

What the Law Says Acronyms about Take CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Habitat conservation planning CESA California Endangered Species Act was first authorized under FESA in FESA Federal Endangered Species Act 1982, nearly ten years after the law FWS US Fish and Wildlife Service was initially enacted. The authori- zation was granted through a Con- HCP Habitat Conservation Plan gressional amendment that allows ITP Incidental Take Permit the United States Fish and Wildlife MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program (in San Diego) Service (FWS) and/or the National NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to permit private persons and local NCCPs Natural Community Conservation Plans and state government entities to NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service “take” threatened or endangered fish and wildlife species. Previously,

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 13 the law required such entities to strictly avoid any take. FESA Requirements for Issuance Those unfamiliar with the legal of an Incidental Take Permit meaning of “take” may find the term under an HCP somewhat misleading, since its common usage implies obtaining pos- 1) The impacts of the take must be minimized and mitigated “to the session of something. Legally, how- maximum extent practicable.” ever, take is defined as “to harass, 2) The permit applicant must ensure that adequate funding for the harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, plan will be provided. kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 3) The amount of authorized take must not appreciably reduce the attempt to engage in any such con- likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. duct.” (FESA § 3(19)). Take also includes significant habitat modifi- 4) The ITP must not jeopardize the continued existence of any cation or destruction that actually federally-listed species (including listed plant species). kills or injures threatened or en- 5) The ITP must not destroy or adversely modify designated critical dangered species by significantly habitat areas for listed plants or animals. interfering with their essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. • creating new habitat or Natural Take of federally-listed plants establishing buffer zones and animals is regulated under around existing habitat; Community separate provisions of FESA (Sec- • managing habitat for the Conservation tions 9(a)(1) and 9(a)(2)). These protection and restoration of Planning offer much less protection for listed species; or federally-listed plants than is given • modifying land-use practices Working closely with the to federally-listed animals. (For or restrictions on public Clinton administration, former more information, see “Manage- access and recreational California Governor Pete Wilson ment of Rare Plants under State activities. signed the state Natural Com- and Federal Endangered Species Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA de- munity Conservation Planning Law—A CNPS Perspective” on scribes the requirements an HCP (NCCP) Act into law in 1991 (Cali- page 5 of this issue.) must meet in order for the FWS or fornia Department of Fish and NMFS to issue a permit authoriz- Game 1995). Meant to promote re- ing take (referred to as an “Inci- gional habitat conservation planning Habitat dental Take Permit” or ITP). In throughout the state, the law was Conservation addition, Section 7 of FESA re- crafted to provide even broader and Plans quires the FWS and NMFS to make more flexible landowner and local certain findings regarding the ITP, government participation than its In order to obtain federal au- including the requirements as listed federal counterpart, Section 10 thorization to take listed fish and in the sidebar above. (Pollak 2001). wildlife, the landowner or local land- When the Clinton administra- The NCCP Act encouraged vol- use authority must prepare an HCP. tion came into office, HCPs under untary participation in the develop- The plan must discuss the impacts Section 10 of FESA began to be ment of plans meant to be larger of the proposed take and set forth applied more widely. A series of than seen previously and to con- mitigation measures designed to off- policy reforms meant to provide serve any species, including unlisted set the impacts of the take. broader “regulatory assurances” to species, that might become listed. Mitigation measures in an HCP landowners instigated the creation And yet, the NCCP Act contained may include one or more of the of more private HCPs, as well as no standards for the development following: larger multi-party HCPs covering or approval of a natural community • preserving species habitat via entire regions, multiple governmen- conservation plan. acquisition such as preserv- tal jurisdictions, and dozens of spe- In theory, planning under this ing the land via purchasing it cies (Pollak 2001). This was par- act was intended to create a process or purchasing a conservation ticularly true in California, where that resulted in a “win-win” situa- easement; the expanded HCP program was tion for developers and environ- • enhancing or restoring showcased as a model for this new mentalists. The idea was to achieve degraded or former habitat; approach. this outcome through the promo-

14 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 tion of “local control” and collaborative multi-species planning. In theory, planning under the NCCP Act was intended to: 1) improve upon the existing project-by-project regulatory system by creating a regional preserve network of large, intact blocks of viable habitat connected by wildlife corridors to other such habitat areas; 2) allow for more local control of land use planning, including conservation planning; 3) streamline land-use permitting related to endangered species; and 4) reduce the need to list he coastal California gnat- species in the future. Tcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a small songbird of Despite the NCCP program’s coastal sage scrub in southern apparent benefits, it is important to California. It is listed as Threat- understand the political flipside of ened by FWS, and is declining regional habitat plans prepared pur- due to the conversion of its hab- suant to the NCCP program. Many itat to urban and agricultural environmentalists and scientists uses. Photographs by FWS, used working on HCPs and NCCPs have with permission of J. Fairbanks. been concerned with how the NCCP program has actually been implemented to date. Although relatively simple in concept, these pro- fore, the NCCP/HCP program can the Federal Endangered Species Act grams are extremely complex, with be viewed as a “hammer” that forces (FESA) as the driving force behind far-reaching environmental, eco- policymakers to do this. The pro- habitat and species preservation nomic, and political implications. gram wields this power because through NCCP/HCPs has a very Understanding the political reali- without an NCCP/HCP in areas significant downside. CESA and ties of regional habitat planning can with numerous state- or federally- FESA are each designed to be a aid in understanding its inherent listed species, individual landown- safety net for species on the brink of problems and limitations. ers would be required to apply to extinction. An “endangered” species Because NCCPs generally cover the FWS for take permits under is defined as “any species which is at least some federally-listed spe- Section 10 of FESA or under Sec- in danger of extinction throughout cies, most require a take permit (i.e., tion 2081 of the California En- all or a significant portion of its range HCP) under Section 10 of FESA. dangered Species Act (CESA). . . . ” (FESA § 3(6)). Thus CESA and For that reason, this article will re- Project-by-project permitting can FESA place less emphasis on pro- fer to the plans as NCCP/HCPs. be expensive and time-consuming viding for long-term management for landowners and often leads to of rare species than on responding multiple, small, and isolated patches to species in jeopardy of extinction. The Practical of protected habitat. The NCCP/ Regional plans, on the other hand, Problems HCP program gives local govern- are designed to prevent the decline ments control over streamlined of species in the first place. There is Unfortunately, it is often nearly endangered species permitting in an inherent incongruity between the impossible to persuade local policy- exchange for developing a long- reactive safety net of CESA and makers to conduct long-term re- term habitat preserve system. FESA and the proactive mission of source conservation planning as a Reliance on the California En- the NCCP program. matter of good governance. There- dangered Species Act (CESA) and The voluntary and collabora-

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 15 tive emphasis of the NCCP pro- habitat elsewhere. However, to the issuance. It is not uncommon for gram tends to produce plans that surprise and dismay of many MSCP plans to lack species-specific per- are vague and discretionary. In de- stakeholders, the opposite occurred. mitting standards and species- velopment of NCCP/HCPs, dis- The City Council allowed one of specific management actions that parate interests or “stakeholders”— the developers to destroy impor- will be required after land is pre- such as large corporate developers, tant habitat on Carmel Mountain, served. Another common pitfall is small property owners, environ- and to offset these impacts by pur- funding. Some plans fail to specify mentalists, farmers, regulatory chasing habitat as far away as 20 the ways in which adequate funding agency representatives, and local miles south. will be ensured, making it difficult policymakers—are brought to the Other significant problems have to know whether the conservation table to develop the program for arisen from vague and discretion- goals will actually be implemented their region. Stakeholders with such ary MSCP policies that were de- over the life of the plan. varying needs and expectations are veloped in the collaborative pro- To remedy these problems, unlikely to reach consensus on the cess. Perhaps the best example is NCCP/HCPs should meet all legal important details of habitat and spe- the MSCP’s statement that “vernal requirements to specify funding cies protection. As a result, there is pools will be avoided to the maxi- sources, probable impacts to spe- a tendency for the group process to mum extent practicable” (Final cies and habitats, and under what produce consensus-based policy MSCP Plan § 3(27)). This policy circumstances endangered species that is vague and general. These language can be interpreted as a take will be authorized. If these key policies give local governments an very positive statement of inten- aspects of the plan are not defined excessive amount of discretion in tion. However, the phrase “to the or are poorly defined, local policy- implementation. Many local activ- maximum extent practicable” is not makers may use their discretion to ists have observed that vague and defined in the plan, and nowhere approve projects based on econom- general policies typically work does the plan supply any descrip- ics or politics rather than biology against effective habitat and spe- tion of the specific circumstances (Molotch 1987). The vague nature cies conservation. under which vernal pools may be of many large-scale plans can work destroyed. against the environment. Politics, Because the plan is essentially a rather than science, often sets both The Case of take permit, it should clearly specify the floor and ceiling of what these San Diego the conditions under which take plans can achieve. may be authorized, as well as con- A case in point is the City of San ditions under which it will be pro- Diego’s NCCP/HCP, called the hibited. Without this information, Compatibility with Multiple Species Conservation Pro- it is reasonable to assume that Other Land-Use gram (MSCP). The first test of the implementation will vary from Laws conservation effectiveness of the project to project. A document City’s MSCP came in the form of a filled with statements of good in- Another category of concern project called Carmel Mountain. tentions is largely meaningless if it relates to the overall scope of these The MSCP habitat evaluation maps does not provide the details to en- large-scale plans. NCCPs were approved by the City of San Diego sure consistent and predictable originally intended as a planning identified Carmel Mountain as an implementation. tool to supplement the requirements environmental hot spot with im- The vague standards in the San of other environmental laws includ- portant wildlife connections and Diego MSCP mean that the legal ing CESA and FESA, the Coastal high biological diversity. Given the requirements of FESA to provide Act, the Clean Water Act, the Cali- environmental significance of the species-specific details are not al- fornia Environmental Quality Act area, the environmental represen- ways met. This has particularly sig- (CEQA), and local land use regula- tatives believed that every effort nificant implications for the most tions (California Department of would be made to preserve this imperiled species. As noted above, Fish and Game 1995). HCPs and property. They were told that, in Section 10(a)(2)(A)(i) of FESA re- NCCPs have a limited scope be- keeping with the intentions of the quires that all HCPs must specify cause they focus only on species MSCP, the city’s policymakers the impacts that will result from and habitats. For example, the would require and direct the pur- permitted taking of listed species. NCCP/HCP does not provide for chase of high-quality habitat on Also, Section 10(a)(2)(b) requires other permits that may be required, Carmel Mountain to offset devel- that adequate funding to implement such as those to fill wetlands. In opment impacts to less important the HCP must be ensured at permit addition, they don’t address a whole

16 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Carmel Mountain in San Diego County was identified by the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan as an area of high biological diversity. In spite of this, the San Diego City Council allowed some developers to build on Carmel Mountain and locate their project mitigation elsewhere, destroying important habitat for plants and animals. Photograph by B. Archer. host of basic planning issues that California’s coastal areas, water Administration’s “no surprises” local governments need to address, quality, or wetlands. In doing so, policy (now codified as a federal such as open space, floodplain pro- they have been accused of breaking regulation and applied by the Bush tection, coastal access, and the like. the deal or hitting the developers Administration), HCP permit ap- However, some landowners and twice. plicants—including landowners and developers are touting the NCCP local governments—are assured that program as a cure-all to satisfy once an HCP is approved, “a deal is many, if not all, of the region’s land- The Controversy a deal.” Specifically, the federal gov- use planning issues. Contrary to of Regulatory ernment may not, under any cir- some political perceptions, these Assurances cumstances, require the permittee plans are not a “one-stop shop” for to provide additional land, water, meeting all applicable regulatory re- A source of great controversy or money, or to implement further quirements. Regardless, land-use surrounding the HCP and NCCP restrictions on the use of any land authorities have attempted to im- programs has been the broad regu- or water resources (other than those pose additional regulations to pro- latory assurances associated with already covered under the HCP) tect other public resources, such as these plans. Under the Clinton without the permittee’s consent.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 17 HCP/NCCP may be in effect. In page 19 of this issue for more in- fact, HCPs and NCCPs approved formation.) in California to date will be in ef- We can and should use the law fect for 30–75 years, and thus the and our scientific knowledge to unforeseen costs to the public could make sure that these plans effec- be very significant. tively provide for the survival and recovery of all covered species. Be- cause environmental laws are often Summary complex, the first step toward becoming an effective advocate for Despite significant problems, species and habitat is to familiarize the HCP/NCCP concept is a step oneself with these laws. Then, by in the right direction in the sense working together with others that it acknowledges the need to equally concerned about habitat protect large, intact, and connected conservation, each of us can make a habitats. On the positive side, these difference. programs help to publicize the idea of protecting ecosystems rather than Special thanks to Emily Roberson and individual species, and also promote Carol Witham for their generous help much needed long-term conserva- in writing this article. tion planning. At their most basic level, however, NCCP/HCPs are simply en- References dangered species permitting programs. They are not long-term California Department of Fish and plans that can address the complex Game. 1995. Innovation in Multi- Species Protection in the Coastal Sage and difficult issues we face today, Scrub Habitat of Southern California. such as water quality, transporta- Report to the Legislature. Sacra- tion, or affordable housing. mento, CA. What, then, must be done to City of San Diego. 1998. Multiple Spe- Willowy monardella (Monardella linoides get all stakeholders to take a long- cies Conservation Program (MSCP): ssp. viminea) is a covered species under term view toward environmental Final MSCP Plan. City of San Di- San Diego County’s MSCP program. Shortly after the HCP was adopted, protection? First, we must advocate ego. San Diego, CA. however, it was learned a critical popu- that these plans be strengthened. US Department of the Interior. US lation of the monardella at Carroll Second, we must simultaneously be Fish and Wildlife Service. Endan- Canyon was not within preserve lands honest about their limitations. Only gered Species Act of 1973 Amended. despite official analysis that suggested it then can we move past the question 1988. Public Law 100-478, 100th was. The population is within the foot- Congress (amended, October 7, of “How much habitat is enough?” print of a development project, and is 1988). Washington, DC. 5 pp. likely to be destroyed. Photograph by J. to the more critical questions of Molotch, H. 1987. The city as a Dice. “How much development is too growth machine: towards a politi- much?” and ”Where do we draw cal economy of place. American Jour- An analogous policy has been the line?” nal of Sociology 75:309–30. applied to NCCPs at the state level. In the meantime, it is impor- Pollak, D. 2001. The Future of Habitat Thus, under the “no surprises” tant for local activists to remember Conservation? The NCCP Experience approach, if species populations that many laws—including the state in Southern California. Part 2 of a continue to decline in the future, and federal Endangered Species series. California Research Bureau, the federal and state governments Acts, the Clean Water Act, the California State Library. Sacra- (i.e., the taxpayer) must pick up the California Environmental Quality mento, CA. 99 pp. Rolfe, A. 2000. Mapping the MSCP tab for any needed adjustments to Act, and the National Environmen- process: Habitat Conservation Planning the plan. The implications of this tal Policy Act—set strong standards in the San Diego Area. Master’s the- policy for long-term successes of for public involvement, scientific sis, San Diego State University. San these plans in conserving species analysis, and conservation achieve- Diego, CA. 210 pp. are all the more significant when ments that are required in NCCPs/ one considers that there is currently HCPs. (See “The Future of Re- Allison Rolfe, 2321-C Morena Blvd., San no statutory limit on how long an gional Conservation Planning” on Diego, CA 92110. [email protected]

18 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Flying M Ranch in eastern Merced County. Vernal pool grassland will be one of the habitats considered in the Eastern Merced NCCP/HCP planning process. CNPS members are currently participating in numerous regional planning processes that will determine the long-term fate of this and other unique areas of California. Photograph by J. Game. The Future of Regional Conservation Planning by Carol W. Witham

atural Community Con- Nservation Plans (NCCPs) Acronyms and Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are rapidly becom- AB Assembly Bill ing the preferred regulatory re- BMPs Best Management Practices placement for the more traditional CDFG California Department of Fish and Game project-by-project environmental review and permitting process. CESA California Endangered Species Act These programs are essentially FESA Federal Endangered Species Act streamlined endangered species FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service take permitting processes, but they HCP Habitat Conservation Plan do allow for a landscape-scale, ecosystem perspective to conserva- NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning or tion planning. Unfortunately, the Natural Community Conservation Plan permits are very long-term (often SB Senate Bill in excess of 50 years) and grant

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 19 Evolution of the NCCP Act

1991 Natural Community Key provisions (amended to the 1991 cies, monitoring plan, adaptive Conservation Planning Act NCCP Act): management, changed circum- (AB 2172 Kelley) stances, and unforeseen cir- • Added findings to better out- cumstances. Key provisions: line the intent of the legislature regarding NCCPs, including • Requires a planning agreement • Defined a natural community the intent to sustain and restore between the participants and conservation plan as identify- species and habitats impacted by CDFG which establishes the ing and providing for regional growth and development. geographic scope of the plan, a or areawide protection and preliminary list of species and perpetuation of natural wild- • Refined the planning agreement habitats to be considered, pre- life diversity, while allowing requirement to include a pro- liminary conservation strategies compatible and appropriate cess for collection of data, incor- and preserve design principles, development and growth. poration of scientific analysis, and identifies data gaps so that and designation of independent risk factors can be evaluated. • Required a planning agree- scientists to propose conserva- ment between the parties and tion criteria and guidelines. • Requires the planning agreement CDFG outlining the planning to establish an interim process process. • Added a provision requiring during plan development by CDFG to establish a process for which projects can be reviewed • Required that the plan be con- public participation throughout for potential conflict with the sistent with the planning plan development and review to conservation goals of the plan. agreement in order for CDFG ensure that interested parties • Reestablishes the requirement to approve it. have an adequate opportunity that CDFG establish a process to provide input. • Allowed CDFG to prepare for public participation through- nonregulatory guidelines for While SB 1679 addressed the out plan development and re- the development and imple- view to ensure that interested mentation of plans. concerns of the scientific and environmental communities regarding parties have an adequate oppor- • Authorized the take of any scientific input and public partici- tunity to provide input. identified species whose con- pation, the criteria for species and • Outlines minimum standards for servation and management habitat coverage were still deter- an NCCP plan to include: spe- was provided for in the plan. mined by nonregulatory guidelines cific measures for protection of developed by CDFG. Additionally, habitat and species on a landscape The nonregulatory guide- regional planning processes with scale including connectivity of lines could have included de- planning agreements signed before habitat, use of best available sci- fining regional scope; deter- July 2000 are not subject to these ence, incorporation of a moni- mining conservation standards; amendments. toring plan and adaptive manage- appointing of advisory comment program, an estimated mittees; incorporating public 2002 Natural Community timeframe for establishing pre- input; implementing, monitor- Conservation Planning Act serves and other conservation ing, and reporting provisions; (SB 107 Sher) measures, provisions to ensure and amending the plan. How- adequate funding, and an imple- ever, because the guidelines Key provisions (repeals previous mentation agreement. were nonregulatory, standards NCCP Act and enacts the following): for species and habitat coverage • Requires CDFG to make specific were not enforceable. • Establishes conservation (recov- findings regarding the content of ery) as the standard for an the plan and implementation 2000 Natural Community NCCP. agreement before approving the plan and issuing permits. Conservation Planning Act • Defines numerous terms includ- (SB 1679 Sher) ing conservation, covered spe- • Sets standards for species and

20 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 habitat coverage and requires CDFG to make specific findings to support whether a species is covered under the plan before issuing a take permit. • Allows CDFG to issue regulatory assurances (“no surprises”) commensurate with long-term conservation assurances and associated implementation measures of the approved plan. • Requires CDFG to suspend or revoke the permit, in whole or in part, if continued take of a species would result in jeopardy or if take exceeds conservation according to a rough proportionality schedule established in the implementation agreement. olano grass (Tuctoria mucronata) is listed Because SB 107 contains spe- Sas Endangered under both the state and cific standards that CDFG must federal Endangered Species Acts. It is known adhere to, citizens can now chal- from only three occurrences in Solano and lenge approval of inadequate Yolo counties and occupies large, highly tur- plans or the failure to suspend bid, playa-like vernal pools on the Pescadero or revoke a permit for cause. soil series. Solano grass is one of the species While SB 107 addresses many being considered in two separate regional of the concerns about the NCCP conservation planning efforts currently un- process that have been raised by derway—the Yolo County HCP and the the scientific and environmen- Solano County Water Agency NCCP/HCP. tal communities, it also contains The Yolo County HCP has had several draft problematic provisions which iterations—all of which have failed to pass may eventually require addi- public review—and is now being considered tional legislation to correct or for rewrite as a joint NCCP/HCP. The litigation to resolve. For ex- Solano County Water Agency HCP/NCCP ample, SB 107 authorizes “other is still in the early planning phase. measures that provide equivalent conservation” in lieu of land Habit of Solano grass (Tuctoria mucronata), preserves protected in perpetu- above, Yolo County Grasslands Park. • Infloresence of Solano grass (Tuctoria ity, but provides no standards mucronata), right, Yolo County Grasslands Park. Photographs by J. Game. for those measures other than that they must provide for conservation. And finally, regional regulatory assurances to the plan will not have to contribute more planning processes with a plan- participants that preclude additional money or mitigation once the plan ning agreement signed before fees or mitigation once the plan is has been approved, the only assur- January 2002 are not subject to approved. ances available to the environmen- all of the provisions of SB 107. While the plan participants and tal community and protection to developers get assurances that they the resources is the use of the best

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 21 available science. To that extent, it The NCCP Program as a voluntary alternative to an ex- is imperative that scientists and en- is In Flux isting regulatory framework. Many vironmental advocates become in- hoped that it would provide species volved in the planning process in The original NCCP Act (AB conservation through incentives, as order to negotiate on behalf of the 2172 Kelley 1991) was simple and opposed to the more traditional environmental resources and lobby flexible and contained very few sub- regulatory approach. The statute’s for use of the best available science. stantive provisions. It was conceived flexibility allowed the NCCP process to evolve, but lack of substantive provisions allowed critical conservation issues to be neglected or deferred (Jasny 1997). In response to criticisms of the NCCP program by the scientific community, environmentalists, developers, and policymakers have sponsored a host of bills to shape or change the NCCP program (Pollak 2001a). Between 1992 and 2000, 13 bills were introduced but only two have become law. The most significant was SB 1679 (Sher 2000) which added sections to the statute that require early independent scientific input into the plan and a process for public participation. More recently, SB 107 (Sher 2001) was introduced as a complete rewrite of the NCCP Act. While still a voluntary program, the bill makes several important changes to the NCCP development and approval process. Possibly the most acramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia important of these is the establish- Sviscida) is endemic to old, high-terrace ment of conservation/recovery as formation vernal pools in Sacramento the basic objective of a Natural County. It is known from only seven oc- Community Conservation Plan or currences and is listed as Endangered NCCP. The bill requires the Cali- under both the state and federal Endan- fornia Department of Fish and gered Species Acts. Urban expansion in Game (CDFG) to make certain the greater metropolitan area of Sacra- findings regarding the adequacy of mento poses a serious threat to this spe- the plan before issuing permits. It cies. Sacramento Orcutt grass is one of also requires that NCCP permits 51 threatened, endangered, and special- be revoked or suspended in cases status species being considered under the where a species is in jeopardy, or South Sacramento County HCP, a large- where the applicant fails to main- scale regional conservation planning pro- tain a schedule of agreed upon “process intended to provide conservation of portionality” between impacts to all covered species and habitats. Sacra- and conservation of species and mento Orcutt grass was also the subject of habitats. The bill also sets standards a recently approved HCP for expansion of the Sacramento County Landfill. for all NCCP plans, and includes monitoring and adaptive manage- Habit of Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida), top, Phoenix Field near ment plans as part of the overall Sacramento. • Infloresence of Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida), bottom, conservation strategy. Phoenix Field near Sacramento. Photographs by J. Game. On the flip side, SB 107 codifies the “no surprises” or regulatory

22 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 assurances that protect plan participants from having to provide addi- olusa grass (Neostapfia colusana) is endemic tional money or mitigation after the Cto large, alkaline, playa-like vernal pools plan is approved even if species or in Merced, Solano, Stanislaus, and Yolo coun- habitats decline due to unforeseen ties. Probably once more common in Califor- circumstances. SB 107 exempts sev- nia before large-scale land reclamation and eral plans currently under develop- agricultural conversion, it has been extirpated ment from many of the new require- from its type locality in Colusa County. Colusa ments. It also contains problematic grass is state-listed as Endangered and feder- language that may give local agen- ally-listed as Threatened. This species is being cies and developers substantial considered under three separate, large-scale “wiggle room” to undermine or regional conservation planning processes oc- avoid the conservation goals of the curring in Merced, Solano, and Yolo counties. law. For example, SB 107 allows for other “measures that provide equiva- Infloresence of Colusa grass (Neostapfia colu- lent conservation” in lieu of habitat sana), right, Yolo County Grasslands Park. • preserves. This could conceivably Habit of Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), result in plan participants propos- below, Yolo County Grasslands Park. Photo- graphs by J. Game. ing to do “best management practices” (BMPs) instead of preserving habitat in perpetuity if they can show that the BMPs provide equivalent species and habitat conservation. SB 107 was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in early 2002. This new NCCP Act will become law in January 2003, but how it will be interpreted and implemented is still largely unknown. While SB 107 gives CDFG the option of adopting regulations to clarify how the law should be implemented, there is no requirement that they must do so. Addi- tional work in policy development, case law, and new legislation will likely be necessary to assure that implementation meets the legisla- tive intent of the NCCP Act. (See the sidebar “Evolution of the NCCP Act” on pp. 20-21 for more information.) Regardless of what happens, the NCCP program that began as an experiment in southern California is about to expand into other areas of the state. The CALFED Bay-Delta pus and the planned community ad- Lower Colorado River Project, Yolo Program contains a “Multi-Species jacent to it. The “Placer Legacy” County, the Solano County Water Conservation Strategy” that CDFG open space plan is now being con- Agency, and the Mendocino Red- has approved as an NCCP Plan. The verted into an NCCP/HCP. wood Company. Local governments County of Merced has entered into Other areas considering an are being encouraged to enter into a planning agreement with CDFG NCCP, or conversion of an HCP in the NCCP planning process by both and FWS to prepare an NCCP/ progress into an NCCP/HCP, in- the state and federal wildlife agen- HCP concurrent with development clude Eastern Contra Costa County, cies, and as a result NCCPs will of the proposed UC Merced cam- South Sacramento County, the only become more common. (See

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 23 Guidelines for Developing aN NCCP

elow is a summary of the is- for the adaptive management pro- maintain ecological integrity and Bsues that have been repeat- gram. The level of uncertainty in ecosystem function. It is impor- edly raised by the scientific and our knowledge about species and tant that the preserve design in- environmental community re- habitat must be considered by the corporate multiple corridors for garding planning and implemen- wildlife agencies in determining species movement, and take into tation of NCCPs or other re- the duration of the plan and the account how climate change may gional conservation plans (Jasny level of regulatory assurances. affect species movement. Issues 1997, Pollak 2001b). Many of pertaining to adjacent land use, • The plan must be based on the these issues have been addressed such as agricultural spraying, will best science available. by SB 107, but ensuring that become important considerations they are incorporated into the This is also required under cur- as NCCP/HCP planning moves planning process may still require rent California and Federal En- into more rural areas. lobbying by participating environ- dangered Species laws (Califor- • Interim projects approved dur- mental activists and scientists. nia Fish and Game Code § ing plan development must not 2081(c), FESA § 7(a)(2)) and • The plan must contribute to conflict with the preliminary con- should be rigorously imple- the conservation and recov- servation goals of the plan. mented in NCCP/HCP plans. In ery of all covered species, both addition to the Independent Sci- Individual projects proposed dur- listed and unlisted. ence Advisors providing an ing the development of the plan Recovery is already the goal overarching framework for spe- need to be scrutinized to deter- of both the California and cies conservation, preserve design, mine whether or not they impact Federal Endangered Species and adaptive management, it is habitats or species to be con- Acts (California Fish and appropriate to solicit information served under the plan. Through- Game Code § 2052, FESA from local experts to supplement out CEQA review and any appli- §§ 2(b), (c), 7(a)(1)). Advo- that information. In some re- cable state or federal endangered cates can use these laws to gional planning processes, CNPS species take permitting processes, push for explicit inclusion of members have gone to great ef- the project proponents, lead recovery goals in NCCP/ forts to obtain additional biologi- agency, and wildlife agencies HCPs. Preserve design and cal information from regional or should be encouraged to consider management must balance species experts and occurrence products and objectives devel- the needs of the individual data from local consulting firms oped by the Independent Science covered species within the or universities. Advisors. overall ecosystem approach to • The plan must provide for pro- • The plan must include a thor- habitat conservation. tection of habitat, natural com- ough monitoring program. • Data gaps must be identified munities, and species diversity on The ability to identify when things and considered on a species- a landscape or ecosystem level. are going wrong and why they are by-species basis to determine The preserve design must incor- going wrong is a critical compo- the risks associated with over- porate a range of environmental nent of NCCP/HCP plan imple- all lack of knowledge. gradients, provide connectivity mentation. A strong monitoring This risk analysis should help between habitat patches, and program is required to 1) deter- identify some strategic issues minimize edge effect in order to mine if the plan is being imple-

“Understanding the Political Reali- NCCPs Are a in the NCCP Act, the state and fed- ties of Regional Conservation Plan- Planning Process eral Endangered Species Acts, and ning” on page 13 of this issue for a other laws, they are primarily pro- discussion of the differences between Although NCCPs must meet active planning processes. This sets an HCP and an NCCP.) numerous requirements contained them apart from the more tradi-

24 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 bers and other environmental groups must be prepared to use law, science, and strategic thinking to mented as written, 2) determine the regulatory authorities and negotiate on behalf of the species and habitats to be conserved under if impacts and conservation are the plan participants. While it a proposed NCCP plan. Special in- roughly proportional during plan is difficult for nonsignatories terest groups will be well repre- implementation, 3) detect trends to have direct input into the sented in such negotiations, and will in populations in order to deter- implementation agreement, it actively lobby for provisions that is possible to affect the con- mine if the plan is effectively con- maximize their own benefits under serving species, and 4) assess over- tents of the agreement through the plan. Those who seek to protect all ecosystem function. detail and specificity of actions species and their habitats have no in the plan. Timelines and • The plan must include an adap- choice but to participate in this nec- schedules should be developed tive management plan. essary and often arduous process. as part of the overall planning Planners and project proponents An adaptive management pro- process and may help to pro- may want to include only general gram that can respond to species vide clarity to the implemen- conservation provisions with little and habitat needs over time re- tation agreement. detail in NCCPs, because this gives quires a thorough analysis of fore- them maximum latitude in how they • The plan must contain pro- seeable changes in circumstances. interpret and implement projects. visions to ensure adequate Foreseeable circumstances that As we experienced in the southern funding to carry out the con- should be considered include but California experiment (see “Under- servation, monitoring, and are not limited to the following: standing the Political Realities of adaptive management actions likelihood of invasion by exotic Regional Conservation Planning” identified in it. pest plants, animals, or disease; on page 13 of this issue), conserva- catastrophic fire or floods; climate This is also a requirement for tion platitudes may sound nice and change; changes in hydrologic permit issuance under the make the NCCP look good. But if patterns, air pollution, and fore- state (California Fish and the implementation lacks specifics, seeable fragmentation or destruc- Game Code § 2081) and fed- the implied positive actions may tion of habitat outside the plan- eral (FESA § 10(a)(1)(B)) never actually occur. A good regional conservation ning area. Adaptive management Endangered Species Acts. Ide- plan needs to be very specific about plans should specify what actions ally, local governments should all aspects of the plan and its imple- will be triggered if foreseeable be encouraged to “front-load” mentation. In particular, it needs to circumstances such as these re- conservation to the maximum be clear about when and where im- extent possible through early sult in adverse impacts to covered pacts will be permitted, and where species and habitats. acquisition of key preserve and how they will be restricted or areas. No take should occur • Implementation plans must de- prohibited. The greater the speci- until after conservation and/ lineate roles and responsibilities, ficity that can be built into the plan, or mitigation have been im- specify measurable biological the lesser the chance for errors that plemented, so as to offset im- goals and objectives, and set might lead to unforeseen circum- pacts to habitat and species. thresholds of rough proportion- stances and species or habitat de- Funding mechanisms and al- ality between impact and conser- cline. An important part of partici- ternatives should be identified pating in the planning process is to vation. early on so that conservation negotiate for very detailed strate- The implementation plan is an always proceeds in rough pro- gies, with clear timelines attached, agreement or contract between portion with impacts. so that the conservation measures specified in the plan are actually implemented. tional and reactive regulatory pro- multiple stakeholders—including grams. The planning behind an the state and federal wildlife agen- What CNPS NCCP is a long process that at- cies, local governments and juris- Is Doing tempts to reach consensus among dictions, developers, landowners, the often contradictory goals of and environmentalists. CNPS mem- The CNPS state organization

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 25 is actively committed to partici- sure that the other local scientific the NCCP Act by working with pating in the NCCP program and and environmental organizations CDFG and others on interpreta- pushing for improved implemen- are also involved and partner with tion and implementation. tation and legislation. We are seek- them to the maximum extent pos- At the same time, we would not ing opportunities to aid CDFG in sible. be nearly as effective were it not developing guidelines with respect As soon as you hear that your for the dedicated efforts of many to 1) Independent Science Advi- local government is considering a individual CNPS members who are sors, 2) the role of scientists and regional conservation plan, request actively participating on the environmentalists on various plan- additional information and ask to NCCP/HCP planning processes ning committees, and 3) general be placed on the mailing list. Re- currently under way. For only implementation of the NCCP pro- view and comment upon the Plan- through active member participa- gram. During the next year, a con- ning Agreement, which is the first tion will we be able to ensure that servation task force will be revising step in the planning process and the scientific framework and the CNPS Manual on the HCP- sets the stage for scientific input, overarching biological goals of spe- NCCP Process (Chipping 1999) to interim permitting, and public par- cies and habitat conservation are better reflect recent changes in the ticipation. Early on, take time to consistently considered during the law and our collective experiences become familiar with the NCCP planning and negotiation of re- with regional conservation plan- Act and Guidelines. If listed species gional conservation plans. ning to date. The several members are likely to be covered by the plan, and chapters that have been ac- also familiarize yourself with the tively involved in HCP or NCCP California Endangered Species Act References planning will serve as resource per- (CESA) and the Federal Endan- sons to others just beginning the gered Species Act (FESA). Chipping, D.H. 1999. CNPS Manual process. And finally, a special page Throughout the planning pro- on the HCP-NCCP Process. Califor- nia Native Plant Society. Sacra- has been developed for the CNPS cess, try to stay up-to-date on the mento, CA. 91 pp. website (www.cnps.org) that contains literature being published about Jasny, M. 1997. Leap of Faith: South- links to the laws, pertinent back- NCCPs, HCPs, regional conserva- ern California’s Experiment in Natu- ground documents, literature, and tion planning, umbrella species, ral Community Conservation Plan- contacts. monitoring, adaptive management, ning. Natural Resources Defense and the species and habitats pro- Council. New York, NY. 41 pp. posed to be conserved under the Pollak, D. 2001a. Natural Community What You NCCP. CNPS conservation staff Conservation Planning (NCCP): The Can Do and volunteers will help you find Origins of an Ambitious Experiment the resources and experts you need to Protect Ecosystems. Part 1 of a se- Participating in regional habi- to learn the process and participate ries. California Research Bureau, tat planning is an ongoing learning effectively. (For a summary of the California State Library. Sacra- process. First and foremost, get in- essential features of any NCCP, see mento, CA. 57 pp. volved early and remain involved the sidebar “Guidelines for Devel- _____. 2001b. The Future of Habitat throughout the process. Because oping an NCCP” on pp. 24-25.) Conservation? The NCCP Experience this is a long and often time-inten- NCCP planning is a tool that in Southern California. Part 2 of a sive process, it is best to “team up” can be used to provide balance be- series. California Research Bureau, with another person. Someone from tween habitat conservation and lo- California State Library. Sacra- your team must attend every meet- cal land use planning. It is also a mento, CA. 99 pp. Sher, B.D. 2000. Senate Bill No. 1679 ing, and you both will need to stay tool that has been misused in the chaptered 07/05/2000. www.leginfo. informed on the issues. Push your past. Hopefully, the new statutory ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1651- local government and CDFG to set requirements provided in SB 107, 1700/sb_1679_bill_20000705_ up an open public participation pro- along with increased public par- chaptered.pdf (in PDF format). cess that includes a steering com- ticipation, will ultimately result in Sher, B.D. 2001. Senate Bill No. 107 mittee, as well as stakeholder groups better NCCPs. CNPS remains amended in Assembly 09/14/2001. and special focus groups. Request committed to working on the envi- www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_ that the environmental community ronmental issues surrounding the 0101-0150/sb_107_bill_20010914_ be well represented on the steer- planning process and on the devel- amended_asm.pdf (in PDF format). ing committee, since two or three opment of individual plans. CNPS people can negotiate more effec- members can rest assured that we Carol W. Witham, P.O. Box 2022, Davis, tively than a single individual. Make will continue our efforts to improve CA 95616. [email protected]

26 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) is state-listed as Threatened and federally-listed as Endangered, and is known from heavy clay soils in western Riverside County. The type locality was known to harbor a population of about 1,000 plants for years. However, consultants for a development project on site only identified about 200 or 300 individuals (CNDDB and local herbaria were not consulted for further information on the population). Thus it was incorrectly assumed only 75 plants would be lost and this became the basis of translocation plans. In 2001 at least 1,500 plants were observed in only a portion of the site. However the translocation requirements were only doubled and the parent site is anticipated to be eliminated soon. Photograph by R. Bittman. How to Comment on a CEQA Document by Taylor Peterson

he California Environmen- of development projects on plants sional planners have expertise in Ttal Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. and plant communities. Public in- their fields, they do not always have Resources Code, § 21000 et put is a critical component of the familiarity with local ecological seq.) gives interested citizens an CEQA environmental review pro- issues that members of the com- opportunity to address the impacts cess. While consultants and profes- munity have.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 27 CEQA applies only to these types Acronyms of discretionary actions. Ministerial actions, which generally include is- CDFG California Department of Fish and Game suing building permits and grading CEQA California Environmental Quality Act permits, are not subject to CEQA. DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Note that some grading permits are considered discretionary, and not EIR Environmental Impact Report ministerial, by some jurisdictions. FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report The local planning department IS Initial Study usually starts the CEQA review, Neg Dec Negative Declaration although sometimes the public works or transportation department NOD Notice of Determination or a utility district may perform this NOP Notice of Preparation function. The first step is to deter- OPR Office of Planning and Research (Governor’s) mine if an action is a project as defined by CEQA (see figure on p. 29). If it qualifies as a project, the Information provided by citizens view process empowers us to par- agency then determines whether it who are knowledgeable about the ticipate not only as CNPS mem- is exempt from CEQA. natural resources of a proposed bers, but also as informed citizens. The definition of project in project area can improve the qual- CEQA is broad: ity of the CEQA review, simplify “Project means an activity the job of the public decision-mak- The CEQA Process which may cause either a di- ers, and make an important differ- rect physical change in the en- ence in the quality of protection It is critically important to be vironment, or a reasonably that natural resources receive. Citi- involved throughout the CEQA foreseeable indirect physical zens need to understand the CEQA process in order to retain the right change in the environment, process in order to make effective to challenge an EIR in court if it and which is any of the fol- use of this important—but hardly becomes necessary. Members of the lowing: a) An activity directly fail-safe—tool. public cannot challenge the ad- undertaken by any public This article depends upon fre- equacy of a document without hav- agency; b) An activity under- quently used terminology (refer ing “exhausted their administrative taken by a person which is to the Glossary on pp. 69-71 for remedies,” that is, if they have not supported, in whole or in part, definitions) and describes the basic commented when comments were through contracts, grants, process followed for two CEQA requested. Sometimes exhausting subsidies, loans, or other documents: the Negative Declara- the administrative remedies requires forms of assistance from one tion (Neg Dec), which is filed for more than just providing comments or more public agencies; c) projects not expected to cause when they are requested. It is a good An activity that involves the significant and unavoidable envi- idea to review all of the documents issuance to a person of a lease, ronmental impacts, and the Envi- which are part of the legal adminis- permit, license, certificate, or ronmental Impact Report (EIR), trative record of an EIR; requesting other entitlement for use by which is required where such im- access to these documents may be one or more public agencies.” pacts are expected. A discussion of an important step in exhausting the (CEQA Guidelines, § 21065) exempt projects (i.e., projects not administrative remedies. subject to environmental impact Every non-federal public agency If it is not exempt, the next step analysis) is also provided. in California that undertakes, sup- is to complete an Initial Study (IS) Also offered are specific sug- ports, or approves a project by issu- of potential environmental effect. gestions for effective public par- ing a permit for land development If, after completing an IS, it is de- ticipation in the review process. The is required by CEQA to review the termined that the project either will California Native Plant Society has potential environmental impacts of not result in significant environ- often taken official positions on the proposed development. Such mental impacts or can be modified controversial projects and provided actions commonly include con- to prevent such impacts, a Neg Dec expert testimony at hearings. Fa- ditional use permits, variances, or Mitigated Negative Declaration miliarity with the laws and some planned development permits, sub- (Mitigated Neg Dec) can be pre- acquaintance with the public re- division maps, and rezonings. pared. If potentially significant

28 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 environmental impacts are antici- or by a consultant to the applicant. jurisdictions the developer is re- pated and the project cannot be de- Some lead agencies accept docu- quired to pay all preparation and signed to avoid those impacts, the ments prepared by the applicant or legal costs of defending the docu- agency should require an EIR. consultants, while some prefer to ment. If this is the case, the juris- The agency overseeing these prepare them in-house. More often diction has little vested interest in documents is called the lead agency. than not, however, the agencies de- assuring that the document is com- It is important to note that there pend on outside preparers because plete, and this may also warrant are numerous circumstances in of staff shortages or lack of techni- more diligent scrutiny in reviewing which the lead agency is also the cal ability. the Neg Dec or EIR. project proponent. These projects Regardless of who prepares the may require particularly diligent document, once the agency has scrutiny due to the potential for a adopted the Neg Dec or certified Exemptions From conflict of interest. the EIR, it is the lead agency that the CEQA Process The EIR, IS, Neg Deg, Miti- must defend the document if it is gated Neg Dec, and any other challenged in court. This hopefully A project under CEQA may fall CEQA documents can be prepared prompts the lead agency to ensure into one of four categories of ex- by the lead agency, by a consultant that the document is accurate, com- emption under the law: statutory, to the lead agency, by the applicant, plete, and legally adequate. In some categorical, general rule, and disapproved project. Basically, exemptions “Three Phases of the CEQA Process” from the CEQA Deskbook (Bass et al. 1999). apply to types of projects that have been determined by the legislature to have little or no environmental impact. Statutory exemptions include ministerial projects; emergency projects; setting of tolls, fares, rates, or charges; and feasibility or planning studies for possible future action. Categorical exemptions are classes of projects that the Secretary of Resources has determined will generally not have a significant effect on the environment. The Secretary has established 32 classes of categorical exemptions to date (see the CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15301 to 15332). Examples are replacement, repair, maintenance, minor alteration, etc. of an existing structure (Class 1), certain small facilities or structures (Class 3), and minor alterations to land (such as for land- scaping) (Class 4). A categorical exemption does not apply if a reasonable possibility exists that a significant environmental effect may occur as a result of the project, including cumulative impacts (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2). General rule exemptions are for projects where it is certain that there is no chance the activity could affect the environment. A disapproved project is one where the agency has reviewed the

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 29 project’s merits but finds that it war- tive plant or wildlife species or After a Neg Dec is adopted, the rants a quick disapproval, and thus streams, are to be impacted. agency must file a Notice of Deter- need not proceed with a CEQA CEQA Guidelines § 15063(g) mination (NOD) with the county analysis. states, “As soon as a lead agency has clerk (when a local agency is the Exemptions do not apply if the determined that an initial study will lead agency) or with the Governor’s project is shown to have significant be required for the project, the lead Office of Planning and Research environmental impact, involves a agency shall consult informally with (when a state agency is the lead listed hazardous waste site, affects all responsible agencies and all agency). The NOD must also be scenic resources within a state sce- trustee agencies responsible for re- sent to anyone who has previously nic highway, or causes significant sources affected by the project to requested in writing to be notified. adverse changes in the significance obtain the recommendations of Once the NOD is filed, there is a of an historical resource. If an those agencies as to whether an EIR 30-day period in which the Neg agency files a Notice of Exemption or a Negative Declaration should Dec can be legally challenged. If it (NOE), there is a 35-day statute of be prepared.” For example, in Fall is not challenged during that pe- limitations period on legal chal- River Wild Trout Foundation v. riod, the CEQA process is then lenges to the agency’s decision that County of Shasta (1999) 70 Cal. complete for that project. the project is exempt from CEQA App. 4th 482, the court found that (CEQA Guidelines, § 15062(d)). Shasta County’s failure to notify the Trustee Agency of a Neg Dec vio- Significant lated CEQA (Bass et al. 1999). Environmental The Negative Comments on the Neg Dec can Impacts Declaration be submitted any time during the review period. The comments are Comments on the adequacy of A Negative Declaration must be addressed to the lead agency, which a Neg Dec should focus on whether posted for public review for no less is usually the local planning depart- the project would result in signifi- than 20 days. At a minimum, it ment; the contact person is indi- cant environmental impacts not should be posted at the lead agency’s cated in the notice. anticipated in the Initial Study. It offices, most often the city or county Prior to adopting a Neg Dec at is essential that the substantive planning department. It is best to the end of the review period, the comments be submitted in writing call the lead agency and ask where lead agency must consider the com- during the public comment period such notices are posted. Notices also ments received. A response to the in order to become part of the may be published in a newspaper of comments is not required. The ad- administrative record upon which wide circulation. Any organization ministrative body that adopts the land-use decisions are made. Again, or individual that specifically re- Neg Dec varies; it may not always general public dissatisfaction is in- quests notification is entitled to be be an elected body such as the city sufficient to document significant notified. Negative Declarations rely council or county board of supervi- impacts. upon the information provided in sors. In each case, it is best to ask How do you know what is sig- an IS. Thus, if you will be inter- the contact person named on the nificant? CEQA does not describe ested in commenting on the IS and posted Neg Dec for clarification of specific thresholds of significance, Neg Dec, request in advance that the process. but § 15065 and Appendix G of the the lead agency notify you when If factual evidence of significant CEQA Guidelines (the Initial Study the IS is completed. environmental impacts is presented Checklist), provide some guidance, If the Neg Dec is circulated to in comments on the Neg Dec, then as shown in the sidebar on p. 31. state agencies through the State either the project has to be modi- The CEQA Guidelines state, “The Clearinghouse for comment, the fied to avoid the impacts or an EIR decision as to whether a project may review period is no less than 30 must be prepared. Public contro- have one or more significant effects days. State involvement is triggered versy alone cannot trigger the re- shall be based on substantial evidence if the project comes under the juris- quirement for an EIR; the require- in the record of the lead agency.” diction of a state agency. Most ment must be substantiated with (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (f)). often this is the California Depart- factual evidence of potential signifi- In addition, an agency can adopt ment of Fish and Game (CDFG), cant impact. If there is conflicting quantitative or qualitative thresh- which serves as trustee for Cali- evidence from experts, the agency olds that are appropriate to the en- fornia’s natural biological resources. is still required to prepare an EIR. vironmental setting of its commu- CDFG must be consulted when- This is known as the “fair argument nity. The Governor’s Office of ever those resources, such as sensi- standard.” Planning and Research (OPR) has a

30 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 publication called Thresholds of Sig- nificance: Criteria for Defining Envi- Findings of Significance ronmental Significance (OPR 1994) A finding of significance is mandatory where a project would . . . to help agencies with this task. It is also included as an appendix in the • substantially degrade the environmental quality of or reduce fish or CEQA Deskbook (Bass et al. 1999). wildlife habitat. • cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below a self-sustaining level. Strategies • threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. for Reviewing • reduce the numbers or range of a rare, threatened, or endangered a Neg Dec species. • eliminate important examples of the major periods of California When reviewing a Neg Dec, history or prehistory. first determine if the project de- • achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. scription seems to include a clear • have environmental effects that are individually limited—but description of all project features cumulatively substantial—when viewed in the context of past, and activities that could result in a current, and reasonably anticipated future projects. physical change to the environment. Some of the less obvious project activities that may be overlooked required to support the project, such necessary to build and operate the in the project description for a Neg as access roads, septic systems, sewer project, and check the project de- Dec are related to project phasing, lines, and power lines. These could scription to see that it includes all relationship to other projects or result in impacts outside the build- of the pieces. If necessary, ask the facilities, and infrastructure systems ing area. Try to picture what will be lead agency for clarification.

Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. trealesei) is state- and federally-listed as Endangered, and known only from Kern County. Once abundant on the bluffs and low hills around Bakersfield, many occurrences have been extirpated by agriculture and development. Photograph by J. Carnal.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 31 Previously included in the genus Hemizonia, the Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), left, is a CNPS List 1B plant from mesic areas in southern California. Its habitat has been heavily fragmented by urbanization and many populations have been extirpated. Photograph by A. Brinkman-Busi. • Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia), right, is state-listed as Endangered, and is known in California from only one occurrence on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. Despite its listing status, the population was transplanted in 1997 as mitigation for a development project. Photograph by CNPS.

The analysis of impacts in a Neg County Board of Supervisors (1990) to know of these comments in or- Dec is based on the Initial Study 222 Cal.App.3d 1337). With regard der to be fully informed. If you have (IS). A Neg Dec does not have to be to natural resources, and rare spe- any doubts whether or not this has as exhaustive in its analysis of im- cies in particular, the documenta- been done, either contact your pacts as an EIR, but it should be tion should include the results of a council members or supervisors per- well documented. If the IS includes biological assessment. sonally, or get your comments into only a checklist without additional The commenter should review the public record by speaking at a text explaining the responses (in- this documentation to verify that council or supervisor meeting. cluding the “No” responses), or at all of the potential impacts have least referencing other documents been considered. If they have not, or maps, then it is not complete. then a written comment should be The EIR: Notice of The IS in support of the Neg made to the lead agency indicating Preparation Dec should demonstrate that each what impact has not been addressed. potential impact, including cumu- The commenter should request a After a lead agency determines lative impacts, has been carefully response from the lead agency if he that an EIR is required, the first considered before determining that or she wants to know the lead step is a Notice of Preparation the effects would not be significant. agency’s specific response to the (NOP). The NOP is intended to Strong documentation is encour- comment. elicit early comments on the poten- aged by the CEQA Guidelines and The comments on a Neg Dec tial impacts of a project so that those the outcome of CEQA case law are usually included verbatim or in impacts will be addressed in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d); summary in the packets provided to The NOP is directed primarily to Sundstrom v. Mendocino (1988) 202 the council or board of supervisors. state and local agencies that may be Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey The decision-making body needs affected by the project or that serve

32 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 as trustee agencies for natural re- If the lead agency legally follows vote is taken on the project. If com- sources, but it can be provided to the CEQA Guidelines schedule, the ments on the EIR are requested, it individuals or organizations on re- argument that there was not enough is to the commenter’s advantage to quest. time to review a document will be focus those comments on factual The NOP must provide enough weakened and generally will not re- content as it relates to the adequacy information for agencies to prepare sult in additional time for review. of the EIR. While it is certainly a meaningful response. It usually permissible to make comments on includes a brief description of the the merits of the project during the project, its location, and a list of Public Hearings EIR hearing, they may have no rel- environmental impacts expected to on EIRs evance to the factual content of the be analyzed. The agencies have 30 EIR, and may not be considered days to respond to the NOP, and Although it is common practice later at the project hearing. the EIR cannot be released as a for the lead agency to hold a hear- The best time to comment on public document until after the end ing on the EIR, a public hearing is the merits of the project is at the of the NOP response period. While not mandatory, and public com- project hearing, when the city coun- it may be important for CNPS to ments can be restricted to written cil, board of supervisors, or other respond to NOPs, the comments comments only. Hearings held on group is deciding whether or not to should be relatively general in na- projects in which the lead agency is approve the project. Since this de- ture. Citing the CNPS Botanical a city or county are usually held cision is made on the project as it is Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001) and before the planning commission. described in the EIR, it is appropri- referencing pertinent literature The lead agency will provide public ate to refer to this document when should be sufficient. notice (according to CEQA Guide- commenting on the merits or prob- lines § 15087) about the time and lems of the proposed project. While place of the public hearing. an emotional appeal is out of place The Draft EIR It is important to provide the at the EIR hearing, it may be ap- comments on an EIR in writing, propriate and effective at the project When a Draft EIR (DEIR) has although they can also be presented hearing. If you are unclear about been completed, the lead agency verbally at a hearing. Written com- the process when you are at a hear- must notify the public that the ments are generally more complete ing, do not be afraid to ask. The DEIR is available for review. The and articulate, and have a better purpose of the hearings, after all, is notice must include general infor- chance of eliciting a complete re- to receive public input. mation about the project; the com- sponse in the final EIR (FEIR). ment period; the date, time, and However, it is wise to also pre- location of public hearings on the sent your comments verbally at a The Final EIR project; and the location where the public hearing, because sometimes DEIR and all of the supplemental the decision makers have not had At the end of the DEIR com- information referenced in the DEIR enough time themselves to fully ment period, the lead agency must is available for review. The lead review all of the documents, and respond in writing to comments re- agency must also solicit comments their decisions may be swayed by ceived. The responses are provided from other agencies during this re- the type and amount of comments in a final EIR which indicates who view period. that are received at the public hear- commented, what the comments The shortest review period for ing (which may or may not reflect are, what the responses are, and any an EIR is 30 days, when no state both sides of the story). changes required in the text of the agency is involved, or by special Be aware that the lead agency DEIR to fill omissions or correct request to the OPR. A 45-day re- holds two hearings: one on the ad- errors of fact. Sometimes the FEIR view period is most common, while equacy of the EIR, and one on the is published as an addendum to the periods of up to 60 days are accept- merits of the project. The fact that DEIR, and sometimes the entire able for more complex projects. these hearings are sometimes held DEIR and the response to com- When a state agency is involved, a at the same meeting or are even ments are published together. 45-day review period is required. combined can be confusing. Before There is no comment period on the The review period should not ex- a project can be approved, how- FEIR. tend beyond 90 days, according to ever, the agency must certify the When the lead agency is a local the CEQA Guidelines. EIR, so even if the two hearings are jurisdiction, the EIR (Draft and Fi- It is important for commenters held at the same meeting, action on nal) is often presented to the county to be aware of the CEQA schedule. the EIR must be taken before a planning commission. The planning

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 33 Once an EIR is certified, there is a 30-day period during which the EIR can be challenged in court. This period is the statute of limitations. CEQA also provides for statutes of limitations in other situations. For instance, if an agency does not perform a CEQA review when it should have, aggrieved parties have 180 days from the date of project approval to file a legal challenge.

Strategies for Providing CEQA Input

Each local CNPS chapter can comment with its collective voice by appointing a representative to remain involved with the CEQA process on a regular or case-by-case basis. A recognized organization may have more influence with decision makers than private individuals. In making comments, individuals should consider whether their input would be most effective in supporting a unified group statement, or whether it should be used to make an independent contribu- tion as a private citizen. A variety of comments from individuals on the factual content of an EIR should not be a cause for confusion, but contradictory statements from individuals and groups on the merits of a project may work at cross purposes. The CEQA Guidelines (see the San Diego mesa mint (Pogogyne abramsii) is restricted to vernal pool areas in northern San Diego County. It is state- and federally-listed as Endangered, and is seriously sidebar on p. 35) are an important threatened by urbanization, trash dumping, and off-road vehicles on San Diego mesas. resource to use when commenting Photograph by C. Martz. on an EIR, but it is important to remember that the Guidelines are, commission will forward a recom- body of knowledge used in decid- in fact, just that. The Courts, how- mendation as to whether or not to ing whether or not to approve a ever, have often deferred to them certify the EIR to the board of su- project. If there are significant un- in determining compliance with pervisors or the city council. The avoidable impacts expected from the the law. They are updated by the supervisors or the council certify project—that is, impacts that can- legislature every two years in order the EIR at another public hearing. not be mitigated to a less than sig- to reflect the outcomes of case law. By certifying the EIR, the lead nificant level—a “statement of over- Court cases involving CEQA are agency is acknowledging that it is riding considerations” must also be also reported on the California aware of all of the reasonably fore- adopted. This statement explains Environmental Resources Evalua- seeable environmental impacts of a the justification for allowing these tion System (CERES) website at project. This contributes to the impacts to occur. ceres.ca.gov.

34 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 there is an obvious omission, then Insights from CEQA Guidelines the physical impacts may not have (§ 15204) for commenting on a CEQA been addressed in the chapter on document environmental impacts. If the project description is not complete, “In reviewing draft EIRs, people should focus on the sufficiency then the EIR probably is not thor- of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on ough enough to be legally adequate. the environment and ways which the significant effects of the project The EIR must disclose all of the might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when reasonably foreseeable impacts and they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures provide an impartial factual assess- that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant ment of whether they would be environmental effects.” (§ 15204(a)). significant. Also review the mitigation measures and determine if they require “In reviewing Negative Declarations, persons and public agen- changes in the project design that cies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not would result in additional environ- have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public mental impacts, and whether those agencies believe that the project would have a significant effect, they impacts have been addressed. For should: instance, if the fire department re- 1) Identify the specific effect, quires a secondary access road as mitigation for impacts to public 2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and safety, have the impacts of that road 3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.” been addressed? (§ 15204(b)). Review the mitigation measures for obvious infeasibility or a lack of “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and specificity. CEQA requires miti- whenever possible should submit data or references offering facts, gation measures in an EIR for all reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported potentially significant impacts. A by facts in support of the comments.” (§ 15204(c)). project may gain approval because it appears that all of the potentially “Reviewing agencies or organizations should include with their significant impacts can be reduced comments the name of a contact person who would be available for to nonsignificance via appropriate later consultation if necessary.” (§ 15204(d)). mitigation. Of course the impacts will be reduced only if the mitiga- It is helpful to have a copy of the CEQA Guidelines when determining Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multi- if an EIR is adequate. The Guidelines can be obtained from the State caulis) is a List 1B plant from southern Department of General Services, Publication Section, P.O. Box California. Though it is relatively wide- 1015, North Highlands, CA 95660, or online at ceres.ca.gov/ceqa. spread, it is clustered in distribution and seriously threatened by development and large transportation projects. Photograph by R. Bittman. There are also two excellent ref- thorough, clear, and provide an up- erences to CEQA: Guide to the Cali- date of changes to CEQA and the fornia Environmental Quality Act outcome of case law. (Solano Press (Remy et al. 1999, $70) and CEQA Books contact information: (800) Deskbook (Bass et al. 1999 with 2001 931-9373, www.solano. com, or P.O. update, $60). These references are Box 773, Point Arena, CA 95468.) updated and published annually by Solano Press Books. The Deskbook is described as a “handy, illustrated Reviewing EIRs: approach to CEQA” whereas the The Basics Guide is more in-depth. Both include a copy of the CEQA Guide- When reviewing an EIR, first lines. These references are highly read the project description and recommended because they are determine if it seems complete. If

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 35 tal setting that would change how Points to Consider When impacts are viewed? Has the project Commenting on a CEQA Document adequately addressed all indirect impacts, such as the impacts of pro- • Be aware of the lead agency, its process, and the deadline dates. Do viding water to the project? not hesitate to call the contact person at the lead agency and ask Are any essential disciplines left questions. out of the discussion altogether? An EIR usually addresses impacts to • Gain some familiarity with the CEQA Guidelines. land use, public safety, noise, air • Visit the project site. If it is inaccessible, contact the lead agency quality, traffic, vegetation and wild- to arrange for a site visit. life, public services, visual factors, • Check the project description for completeness. Does it include geology and soils, hydrology and everything that might cause a physical impact? water quality, and archaeological, historic, or cultural resources. If no • Have all of the required CEQA components been addressed? An impacts are found, the discipline EIR should include: Summary, Project Description, Environmen- may be discussed under “Impacts tal Setting, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alterna- Found Not to be Significant” rather tives, Cumulative Impacts, Growth-Inducing Impacts, and Organi- than in the impacts section. zations and Persons Consulted. The weakest parts of an EIR of- • Do any of the mitigation measures require a change in the project ten are found at the end of the docu- design that would cause an impact, and has the impact been ad- ment in the analysis of alternatives, dressed? cumulative impacts, and growth- • Do the mitigation measures seem feasible and likely to be effective? inducing impacts. Read these sections carefully and comment spe- • Provide comments in writing. cifically on any ways in which these • Support your comments with facts whenever possible. This helps to sections are not complete. Is there make the comments specific and will garner a more complete another environmentally superior al- response in the final EIR. Broad statements usually receive short ternative that should be addressed? responses. Focus comments on the adequacy of the EIR as opposed Is there a neighboring project that is to the merits of the project. missing from the cumulative impacts • Use a professional tone. Constructive criticism is important. Adopt analysis? Is this project causing a the attitude that the lead agency needs your information and that particular habitat to be divided into your input will help in making the best decision. pieces that, from a regional point of view, results in significant biological impacts? Is there a discussion of the potential for growth-inducing im- tion is feasible, measurable, and and when. Depending on the mea- pacts, and are those impacts ad- specific. sure, there should also be perfor- equately considered? Mitigation measures that rely mance standards (i.e., what needs It is important to present com- on further study have been found to be accomplished in order for the ments in writing, and with a profes- not to be adequate in case law. Look mitigation measure to be consid- sional tone. The more facts sup- for terms such as “consult with,” ered completed) and contingent plied, the less likely a comment will “study further,” “strive to,” and measures or remediation in the simply be dismissed as “comment “facilitate” in the mitigation mea- event the mitigation fails. noted” in the Final EIR. Above all, sure and consider whether the miti- Read the chapter on environ- don’t be daunted by an EIR. An gation measure will be effective mental impacts, particularly the dis- EIR is supposed to be informative when couched in this way, or if a ciplines of which you have knowl- and understandable. If it isn’t, ask more definitive measure is needed. edge. Does the EIR seem to pro- for more explanation. Terms such as “shall” and “must” vide enough information on which better indicate that a mitigation to base the conclusion of whether measure is mandatory. an impact is significant or not? Next How to Monitor Mitigation measures should in- check the reference section. Does it Mitigation clude an objective and describe what seem that appropriate experts were the specific measure(s) is, who will consulted? Are there any omissions After the CEQA process is implement it, where it will happen, in consideration of the environmen- completed, how can interested in-

36 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 dividuals remain involved through The monitoring program does not to call the appropriate agencies when project development to insure that have to be described in the EIR, enforcement of the approved miti- mitigation is adequate? The an- although information should be gation seems necessary. swer is easily the subject of another available from the lead agency. If article, but a short reply is war- you know that an EIR is under prepa- ranted here. ration and you want the lead agency Summary In 1989 CEQA was amended to to incorporate the mitigation moni- include a requirement for mitiga- toring program in the EIR, make This article provides an overview tion monitoring. A program to over- such a request to the lead agency in of the usual CEQA process. Be aware see and evaluate required mitigation writing. The best follow-through is that more complex situations some- activities must be adopted by the difficult, which is to monitor the times arise that can alter the way the lead agency prior to project approval. mitigation monitoring program, and law is implemented. Do not be daunted by the complexities, and do Pine Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickii) is endemic to gabbroic soils in the Pine Hill not be afraid to ask questions. Re- area of El Dorado County. It is state-listed as Rare and federally-listed as Endangered, member, two of the main purposes and is threatened by rapidly growing residential development and alteration of fire of this law are to encourage public regimes. Photograph by J. Vale. input and to foster fully-informed land use decisions. Your comments are an essential component of the environmental review process.

References

Bass, R., A. Herson, and K. Bogdan. 1999. CEQA Deskbook. 2nd ed. with 2001 supplement. Solano Press Books. Point Arena, CA. 431 pp. CNPS. 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 3 pp. Available at www.cnps.org/rareplants/ inventory/guidelines.htm. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California. 1994. Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance. CEQA Technical Advice Series. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, CA. 4 pp. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California. 2001. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementa- tion of the California Environmental Quality Act. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, CA. Available at www. ceres.gov (cited as “CEQA Guidelines”). Remy, M., T. Thomas, J. Moose, and J.W. Yeates. 1999. Guide to the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act. 10th ed. Solano Press Books. Point Arena, CA. 1023 pp.

Taylor Peterson, Thomas Reid Associates, P.O. Box 880, Palo Alto, CA 94302. [email protected]

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 37 Multiple clear-cuts on private forestlands in western Humboldt County. Photograph by J. Kalt. Impact of Timber Harvesting on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Native Plants by Gregory A. Jirak

ree-sitting protesters in old- our state’s forests—which comprise While humans have managed Tgrowth redwood trees have roughly 40% of the state’s 100 mil- California’s forests for centuries, made many Californians lion acres—are in trouble, and this landscape-scale alteration of these more aware of the need to protect trouble comes from many sources. forests through timber harvesting the state’s remaining old-growth For example, less than 5% of the dramatically accelerated some 150 stands. The issue, of course, is much forests of coastal redwood (Sequoia years ago when large numbers of broader than simply protecting old sempervirens) remain in old growth non-indigenous peoples began to trees. For whenever large forested (Noss 2000). According to a Na- arrive in the state. Since that time, areas are destroyed, all of the other tional Research Council study, “re- almost all of California’s forestland native plants and animals that de- duction of old growth over the past has been exposed to some form of pend on them for their existence are century is a more abrupt change than timber operation. Early timber op- also destroyed. the forests have undergone since the erations in California paid little or The evidence is widespread that last ice age” (Christensen 2000). no attention to their impacts on

38 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 (Picea englemannii) and Monterey Acronyms pine (Pinus radiata). Englemann spruce is known in California from CDFG California Department of Fish and Game only a few occurrences, and is a CDF California Department of Forestry CNPS List 2 plant and a Group B CEQA California Environmental Quality Act commercial species in the North- ern Forest District. Monterey pine CESA California Endangered Species Act is known in California from only CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database three native stands located near Año FPA Forest Practice Act Nuevo, Cambria, and on the Mon- FPR Forest Practice Rules terey Peninsula. It is a CNPS List 1B plant and a Group A commer- NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning cial species for the Coast Forest Dis- NFMA National Forest Management Act trict. The native stands of Monterey NPPA Native Plant Protection Act pine are primarily endangered by RPSP Rare Plant Science Program of CNPS development activities and disease, but the taxon is widely naturalized SOD Sudden Oak Death syndrome in California and widely cultivated THP Timber Harvest Plan around the world. USGS United States Geological Survey However, many other CNPS listed plants may be directly impacted by timber operations due to forest ecosystems. It has only been PLANTS IMPACTED BY physical damage caused by activi- within the past 50 years that un- TIMBER OPERATIONS ties associated with the timber op- regulated timber operations have eration. These plants may also be been recognized as having the po- With only two exceptions, none indirectly impacted, due to elimi- tential to significantly damage the of the plants listed in the California nation or impairment of the habitat forests, possibly beyond recovery. Native Plant Society’s Inventory of upon which the plants depend. As a result, policymakers have es- Rare and Endangered Plants of Cali- Some of the sensitive plants af- tablished federal and state laws gov- fornia (CNPS 2001b) are consid- fected by timber operations are deli- erning timber operations in order ered commercial timber species in cate and easy to overlook when not to increase protection of forests. their native stands. Those two ex- in bloom, such as swamp harebell However, scientific experts still ceptions are Englemann spruce (Campanula californica). Others hide question whether the current regulations can adequately protect Cali- fornia’s forest ecosystems (Thorn- Summary of forestland and burgh et al. 2000). timberland data Unfortunately, the commercial tree species that are the object of • Forestlands are at least 10% stocked by trees of any size, or formerly had timber operations are not the only such tree cover. organisms affected by logging. All • Productive forestlands are capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre organisms that live in the forest are per year of industrial wood products (saw logs and fiber) and are manage- affected when a timber operation is able for continuous production of timber. conducted, including sensitive na- • Timberlands are productive forestlands that are available for commercial tive plant taxa. (Hereafter, the term production of wood products and are not reserved for other purposes. sensitive will be used to loosely en- • Productive forest reserves are timberlands that have been removed from compass the terms rare and locally commercial production due to statute, ordinance, or administrative order, significant, as well as state- and or which have been so designated, but not dedicated (Bolsinger 1980). federally-listed Threatened and En- • Of California’s total 100 million acres, about 40% (or 40 million acres) are dangered.) This article will briefly forestlands, of which about 45% are productive forestlands. discuss the affected plants and their • Of the productive forestlands, over 16 million acres are commercial tim- habitats, how logging is impacting berlands, with only 9% in reserves. them, and legal protections offered • Thus only slightly more than 1.5% of California’s total area is in produc- by the regulatory structure of tim- tive forest reserves. ber operations in California.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 39 Some plants affected by timber The CNPS Inventory contains US operations are not currently sen- Geological Survey (USGS) quad- sitive, but may soon become so. rangle location data for CNPS In- Oaks (Quercus spp.) and tan oaks ventory List 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 plants (Lithocarpus densiflorus) are rapidly (see the sidebar on p. 41). (A “quad” succumbing to sudden oak death is approximately 36,000 acres.) The syndrome (SOD) in large numbers. data can be used to find reported If SOD is not controlled, it is con- occurrences of sensitive species near ceivable that oaks and tan oaks could timber operations. become sensitive species in the near However, the broad location future. However, oaks and tan oaks, information provided in the CNPS along with other hardwoods, are Inventory is difficult to apply to the often treated as “weed” species in scale of a timber harvest plan. Lati- timberlands, and are thus often me- tude, elevation zone, vegetation chanically removed or killed with type, and microhabitats all combine herbicides. to make it difficult to predict potential plant occurrence directly from the CNPS Inventory. Further- Tracking Sensitive Plant more, in northwestern California Locations there are large tracts of land that Identifying the plants poten- have been in private timber owner- tially subject to impact by timber ship for a very long time. These operations is an important but com- tracts can encompass all or most of plex task. The CNPS Rare Plant a quad, and in some instances may Science Program (RPSP) maintains encompass more than one quad. a database that tracks rare plants in Since these private landowners sel- California (which is periodically dom allow independent botanical published as the CNPS Inventory) surveys of their lands, occurrence that provides some of the informa- information for such quadrangles is tion needed to identify these plants. typically nonexistent. One useful ap-

A cone from an Engelman spruce (Picea Swamp harebell (Campanula californica) at Jughandle Reserve, Mendocino County. It engelmannii), top, a CNPS List 2 plant. also occurs in mesic coastal areas of Marin and Sonoma counties. The swamp harebell It is known in California from only a is on CNPS List 1B, and is threatened by grazing, development, and logging. Photograph few occurrences in Shasta, Siskiyou, and by R. York. Trinity counties, though more widespread into Oregon, Washington, and elsewhere. Photograph by J. Game. • Cones on a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), bottom, a CNPS List 1B plant. Native stands of Monterey pine occur in Cali- fornia only near Año Nuevo, Cambria, and on the Monterey Peninsula; however it is widely naturalized in coastal areas of the state. The native stands are seriously threatened by development, genetic con- tamination, and pine pitch canker disease. Photograph by R. York. in the dark forest and are readily apparent for only a brief period each year, such as Indian pipe (Monotropa uniflora). Certain sensitive forest plants may be disturbance follow- ers, such as the Humboldt milk- vetch (Astragalus agnicidus) and maple-leafed checkerbloom (Sidal- cea malachroides).

40 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 skills and experience, and using CNPS Inventory List Categories cookbook methods while missing (CNPS 2001b) important problems” (Standiford and Arcill 2001). List 1A Plants presumed extinct in California Even with perfect reporting, List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and however, positive sighting occur- elsewhere rence databases cannot include in- List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, formation on plant populations that but more common elsewhere have yet to be discovered. Instead, however, they can be used to iden- List 3 Plants about which we need more information— tify locations in which there is rea- a “review” list son to suspect that individuals or List 4 Plants of limited distribution—a “watch” list populations might be found. From this perspective, both the CNPS Inventory and CNDDB databases proach is to use occurrence data for The CNDDB typically issues are useful tools because they con- the surrounding quads to infer pos- updates on roughly a six-month tain habitat information that can be sible species location information cycle, but due to lack of funding, a used to infer such locations, and for quads lacking this data. significant backlog of data has ac- because they contain information Another obvious concern with cumulated that does not appear in showing the general geographic area occurrence databases, such as the the released products. This means in which a taxon occurs. By com- CNPS Inventory and the State of that the CNDDB has had a multi- bining information on the geo- California’s Natural Diversity Da- year delay between occurrence data graphic range of a rare plant and its tabase (CNDDB), is that they are being submitted and occurrence specific habitat requirements with positive sighting databases, and thus, data being made available to the information on the location of, and by definition, contain only reported end user. Increased funding of the habitat types within, an area pro- observations. Lack of observations CNDDB is crucial so that this de- posed for timber harvest, it is pos- in such databases does not neces- lay can be eliminated and current sible to make well supported pre- sarily imply that individuals or data made available to its customers dictions regarding the likelihood populations do not exist in a given on an ongoing basis. that a rare plant may be impacted area. Furthermore, all databases Complicating the situation fur- by that harvest plan. have a lag time between data sub- ther, not all occurrences are re- For example, within the red- mission and data availability. Raw ported to CNPS or CNDDB. Pri- wood forest itself, 57 rare and en- data must be validated to verify au- vate consultants are not obligated dangered vascular plant species oc- thenticity and credibility, and then to report finding rare, threatened, cur in Mendocino, Humboldt, and must be entered into a database. or endangered plants that are lo- Del Norte counties, including Typically the database is then con- cated during field surveys. On non- swamp harebell (Campanula califor- verted into a more user-friendly federal lands, subject to the Cali- nica), coast lily (Lilium maritimum), product suitable for general use. fornia Forest Practice Act, such and Hoover’s or North Coast sema- Historically the CNPS Inventory plants are supposed to be reported phore grass (Pleuropogon hooveri- has gone through a cycle of approxi- in the timber harvest plan (THP), anus). Elsewhere in the redwood mately five or six years duration, in but are not necessarily reported to region, an additional 134 rare spe- which data are accumulated, vali- CNPS or CNDDB. cies occur (Sawyer et al. 2000b). dated, processed, and finally pub- The uneven training and exper- However, expert local informa- lished. This means that there is as tise of the Registered Professional tion about rare plant occurrences much as a six-year delay between an Foresters who prepare THPs exac- remains a crucial resource when occurrence being reported, and that erbate this problem. Some are evaluating the impact of timber op- occurrence being made available in highly skilled in botany, but unfor- erations on rare plants. Recent dis- printed form. The situation is some- tunately this is not always the case. cussions with CDFG personnel in what better for the CNPS Electronic According to a recent report from Humboldt County indicate that Inventory and the Online Inventory the University of California’s Wild- they are primarily concerned with (accessible from www.cnps.org),which land Resources Center, “We com- roughly 20 taxa in the county’s provide access to the data underly- monly see individuals with limited coastal forests. Local experts who ing the CNPS Inventory and are up- training in some specialty conduct- know these plants, such as CNPS dated more frequently. ing field observations outside their members, know the types of habitat

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 41 be noted that even though most tree replaced with dirt or gravel roads, species in these habitats are not sen- but still often located in the ripar- sitive species, the mix of species and ian corridors. the genetic state is being altered over Other botanically important time by timber operations. Thus, habitats, such as marshes, swamps, timber operations impact all plant bogs, meadows, and scrub were also species and the relative proportion impacted by historic logging prac- of species—not just the special sta- tices. From an economic point of tus species. view these areas were considered Located adjacent to, or within, “wasted” space, and so were used the primary forest habitats are other for roads, landings, and other dis- habitats that can be, and often are, ruptive uses that were convenient impacted by timber operations. In to the operation, but damaged the Coast lily (Lilium maritimum) is a List the RPSP database these include: native ecosystems. Other “unpro- 1B plant from coastal areas in Marin, • Bogs and fens ductive” habitats that are often dam- Mendocino, and Sonoma counties. It is threatened by roadside maintenance, • Closed-cone coniferous aged by timber operations, such as urbanization, and horticultural collecting. forest unusual soils or rock outcroppings, Photograph by G. Snyder. • Cismontane woodland sometimes support rare species. For • Pinyon and juniper wood- example, serpentine outcrops and in which they are likely to occur land barrens are well-known for hosting and know historic populations. • Meadows and seeps rare taxa, yet may conveniently be Therefore, they can contribute ma- • Marshes and swamps used for roads or landings due to terially to preservation of these taxa • Vernal pools the paucity of trees. by providing this knowledge dur- • Riparian forest Modern timber harvesting regu- ing the timber planning process. • Riparian woodland lations have improved the situation • Riparian scrub somewhat. In California, riparian • Subalpine coniferous forest corridors now receive better pro- HABITATS IMPACTED These habitats contain a wider tection than in the past, though pro- BY TIMBER range of species, and sensitive spe- tection remains inadequate in the OPERATIONS cies in particular, than the primary opinion of many observers and sci- forest habitats. Before the advent of entific experts (Thornburgh et al. Habitat classification is an ac- modern timber regulations, some of 2000). However, other important tive area of research, with many dif- these habitats were routinely devas- rare plant habitats, such as serpen- ferent systems of classification in tated as a side-effect of timber op- tine outcrops, do not receive spe- use and under development (Grif- erations. For example, prior to the cial protection at all. fin and Critchfield 1972, Holland advent of steam power, riparian cor- 1986, Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf ridors were used extensively to trans- 1995). For the purposes of this dis- port logs out of the forest. Seasonal IMPACTS OF LOGGING cussion, the habitat types described or dry creek beds were lined with by Holland (1986) will be used, since small logs, and oxen or horses were In any discussion of logging im- the CNPS Rare Plant Science Pro- used to pull saw logs down slope to pacts, it is important to recognize gram database uses this habitat flowing water. Larger watercourses that California’s forests are signifi- classification scheme. were temporarily dammed to pro- cantly different than they were prior The primary forest habitats con- duce floating saw log storage. When to the European incursion. This dif- tained in the RPSP database are: the dam was tripped, the logs were ference is due not only to extensive • North Coast coniferous flushed to the rivers where they were logging, but also to fire suppression. forest aggregated into large log rafts for • Broadleaved upland forest transport downstream to the mills. The Role of Fire • Lower montane coniferous With the arrival of steam in the forest forest, railroad tracks were laid up In forests that had short fire- • Upper montane coniferous the canyons in the riparian corri- return intervals in the past—and forest dors, and often immediately adja- particularly among the drier inland These habitats represent the pri- cent to the stream course. When forests—fire suppression has dras- mary focus for timber harvesting modern logging equipment was de- tically changed the habitat. In these operations in California. It should veloped, the railroad tracks were places, fires created openings in the

42 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 forest canopy, encouraging taxa that overall forest structure. Fires do not that were previously living in the require more light and bare soil. burn with equal intensity in all ar- affected areas. Plants growing in However, fire suppression has elimi- eas of the forest, and are attenuated skid trails may be killed or damaged nated the opportunity for these taxa in locally wet or damp areas. Some due to crushing by heavy equip- to flourish. Consequently, today experts feel that forests with struc- ment or by logs being skidded over most forest habitats we manage and tural complexity encourage bio- the ground. attempt to conserve are somewhat diversity and are more resilient to Soil Compaction: Soil compac- artificial, because the historic pro- natural impacts such as disease and tion reduces the loft of the soil, cesses that led to succession of spe- pests (Christensen 2000). In con- eliminating gases and impairing cies following fire have been greatly trast, timber operations tend to have drainage. Roots, rootlets, fungi, and altered or eliminated. a uniform level of impact. Indeed, macro invertebrates can all be killed This situation is further com- uniform impact is the goal of even- during, or as a consequence of, soil plicated by the fact that the indig- aged silvicultural techniques. compaction. Soil compaction is enous peoples sometimes created caused primarily by the operation their own fire regimes, which were of heavy logging equipment. In Other Natural Disturbances different than those which preceded many cases, the first pass of a piece human occupation of California. Fire is not the only natural im- of heavy equipment causes the Native Americans set fires to clear pact to forested areas. Landslides greatest percentage of soil compac- the understory, to promote habitat and falling trees both contribute tion. Thus, even one pass with a for deer, and to otherwise promote natural disturbance to the forest and tractor can cause significant soil vegetation of benefit to them. Be- create openings in the canopy. compaction, particularly during the cause of these practices, the natural Natural landslides are not infre- rainy season when soil is wet and fire regime has not been present quent in the northwest portion of more subject to compaction. since before the last ice age. California, and range from minor Other studies have shown that From this perspective, forest dis- shallow landslides to major deep- skid trails lose over 90% of their turbance, such as logging, has been seated landslides that can radically permeability, and that 80% of the cited (often anecdotally) as having a change local topography. However, permeability is lost with just four beneficial effect on some taxa. Spe- the natural landslide process can be passes over dry soil by a logging cies that require canopy openings accelerated and increased in scope tractor. When wet, the same type to flourish and can tolerate the me- by timber operations because “col- of soil experienced a similar amount chanical disruption caused by log- lapse of soil as landslides and debris of compaction after only one pass ging, may actually increase follow- flows commonly results from some (Steinbrenner and Gessel 1955). ing logging operations. However, combination of removal of vegeta- Unless an equipment exclusion or logging impacts are not identical to tion canopies and root reinforce- limitation zone is put in place, or those of natural fire. Consequently, ment from soil, and reshaping of seasonal or slope restrictions are one cannot simply assume that the the land through cutting and filling imposed, operation of heavy equip- net effect of logging operations will along roads.” (Standifold and Arcill ment in logging areas is usually un- be equivalent to the historic fire 2001) Tree fall can also produce restricted. (Slope restrictions pro- regime. significant canopy openings since a hibit the use of heavy equipment on For example, a natural fire does large, mature tree will often take slopes that exceed a prescribed gra- not compact and mechanically dis- out additional trees as it falls. The dient.) As a result, most of the rupt the soil, as happens during a root balls of fallen trees also pro- ground in a timber harvest opera- logging operation. Fire changes soil vide habitat for early colonization tion may experience some form of chemistry in ways that logging does by light-tolerant species. soil compaction. not (Christensen 2000). Some plant Herbicides: Herbicide applica- species require heat or even specific tion is another direct negative im- Direct Impacts of Logging chemicals in smoke or ash to ger- pact from timber operations (see minate (Christensen 2000). Thus, Physical Damage: Most direct the sidebar on pp. 46-47). Aerial or not all species that depend upon impacts of timber operations are broadcast spraying of herbicides fre- fire to return to the forest will nec- fairly clear. Individual plants may quently follows logging operations, essarily benefit from the impacts of be killed or damaged due to direct particularly after an area has been timber operations. physical damage from logging clear-cut. The targets of these ap- Furthermore, natural fires of- equipment, falling timber, or tim- plications are often native species ten create a patchwork through the ber in transit. Road and landing con- (such as Ceanothus) that forest man- forest, leading to a more complex struction can directly destroy plants agers often consider to be in com-

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 43 high moisture will be adversely impacted when canopy cover is reduced or eliminated due to timber operations. Under these circumstances, soil moisture is reduced and soil temperature is increased. Spe- cies that cannot tolerate these environmental changes will perish. Even if seeps, springs, and other wetlands are protected from direct impacts, they may still experience adverse impact if no, or insufficient, buffer zones are left around them to protect them from the drying and heating effects of being exposed to increased solar irradiation and circulating air. Reduction of Fog-Drip: For sensitive plants that depend on a cool, humid environment, even- aged forest management techniques (e.g., clear-cutting, shelter-wood, seed-tree treatments) can be dam- aging because they eliminate fog drip. Some studies estimate that fog drip from each redwood tree can generate as much as 100 mm of water per day during the summer (when most needed), and that fog drip contributes 25–50% of total water input each year (Sawyer et al. 2000a). When most of the trees are removed, this substantial water source is removed as well. Increase in Windthrow: The windthrow that results from even- aged management can also cause significant problems for rare plants. Trees left standing on, or near the A clear-cut on private forestlands in western Humboldt County. Trees on or near the edge of, clear-cut areas may be edge of clear-cuts are particularly susceptible to windthrow. Photograph by J. Kalt. blown down by windstorms because they are no longer protected from petition with the timber species logging operations. Spray drift may wind impact by the trees that were being harvested. (See the sidebar also contribute to mortality among removed. If the buffer of trees left “Impacts of Forestry Herbicides on plants not located within the treat- around a rare plant population is Rare Plants of Northwestern Cali- ment area. not large enough, the buffer can be fornia” on pp. 46-47.) reduced in size by windthrow, po- However, other native species tentially impacting the population Indirect Impacts of Logging that do not compete directly with of the forest-dependent rare plant. economic species may also be killed The indirect impacts on native Habitat Fragmentation: It has by the non-selective application of species are due to modification or also been shown that plant-eating herbicides. Improperly trained her- elimination of their preferred or insects are minimally affected by bicide applicators have been known required habitats. the degree to which a plant popula- to inadvertently spray properly Removal of Canopy Cover: tion is isolated. However, the num- flagged rare plant areas following Species that depend upon shade or ber of predators and parasites that

44 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 feed on these herbivorous insects the non-linear increased risk of ex- complicated by the fact that private appears to be significantly reduced tinction as the proportion of dis- landowners do not typically allow by habitat fragmentation. This turbed or eliminated habitat in- third parties to perform botanical means that sensitive taxa remaining creases. An increase in destroyed or in isolated buffers may experience impaired habitat will lead to more Maple-leaved checkerbloom (Sidalcea significant damage from herbivo- extinctions when the habitat is al- malachroides), top, is a List 1B plant from rous insect populations that can ready cumulatively degraded, than northern California, and is often found in disturbed forest areas. Photograph no longer be controlled by dimin- when the habitat is in relatively good by G. Snyder. • Humboldt milk-vetch ished populations of their preda- shape (Christensen 2000). This (Astragalus agnicidus), bottom, is known tors and parasites (Christensen means that repeated forest logging from Humboldt and Mendocino counties, 2000). Furthermore, rodent popu- activities, on short rotation peri- and is state-listed Endangered. It was lations also increase after clear- ods, over watershed and landscape thought extinct until rediscovered in 1987, and is often found in disturbed cutting. Since rodents are often seed scales are likely to lead to increased forest areas. Photograph by D. Imper. predators, their increase can have a extinctions in those watersheds and detrimental effect on seed availabil- landscapes, particularly for those ity. One study showed that the im- species that are susceptible to such pact of increased rodent populations disturbance. following clear-cutting drastically reduced the number of western tril- Beneficial Impacts of Logging lium (Trillium ovatum), so that almost none escaped predation (Jules As usual, when examining natu- 1998, Jules and Ratcke 1999). ral systems, the consequences of forest disturbance can be quite complex, and in some cases can be bene- Cumulative Impacts of Logging ficial. Openings created in a dense Cumulative effects, including forest may provide opportunities for habitat fragmentation due to exten- certain species to flourish that were sive timber operations on a land- unable to live under the prior canopy scape scale, can also have a negative cover. Unfortunately, invasive ex- impact on rare taxa (Christensen otic plants are often the first to colo- 2000). Habitat fragmentation can nize these new openings. However, lead to isolation of populations and some sensitive species may respond reduce the size of remaining popu- positively to the disturbance caused lations. Isolating populations can re- by timber operations. In such in- duce crossbreeding and gene flow, stances, this is due to reduced com- producing successively inbred popu- petition, requirements for mineral lations that may exhibit reduced soil for germination, or dispersal by vigor. Small populations are more animals, such as deer, that frequent susceptible to extinction than are openings in the forest. large populations (Christensen Because many timber regions 2000). experienced severe disturbance due As the cumulative effect of re- to logging operations for well over duced habitat increases, and as habi- 100 years, some disturbance-follow- tat fragmentation progresses, the ing species may have been elimi- impacts on pollinators and seed dis- nated before we even knew of their persers also increase (Christensen existence or their location. There- 2000). A sensitive taxon which is fore, it is possible that some sensi- insect-pollinated may experience a tive taxa that persist in heavily non-obvious, but significant, nega- logged lands may be at least toler- tive impact over time due to the ant of timber operations. reduction or elimination of its pol- However, most of the informa- linator population. This process can tion regarding beneficial effects of adversely affect rare species far out- timber operations on sensitive side of the timber harvest zone. plants is anecdotal, and is not based Another cumulative impact is on solid science. The situation is

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 45 Impacts of Forestry Herbicides on Rare Plants of Northwestern California by Jennifer Kalt

alifornia’s pesticide use, timber industry is the primary user invasive exotics, but native vegeta- Cnotification, and reporting of herbicides. In 1999 and 2000, tion is the focus of timber com- system is often touted as the Humboldt County’s four largest panies’ spray plans. Many of the most stringent in the nation. The timber companies sprayed 20,463 targeted species are ecologically actual implementation of this acres with forestry herbicides. important pioneer plants such as system, however, is far less ef- These chemicals are used after tan oak, madrone, manzanita, al- fective than a glance at the laws clear-cutting to kill broadleafed der, and ceanothus, which stabi- would suggest. Most pesticide trees and shrubs. Clear-cutting, lize and replenish disturbed and applications do not require per- one of several silvicultural prac- depleted soils. mits, public notice, or public tices referred to as “even-aged The vast majority of forestry review. Adherence to label re- management,” involves the re- herbicide applications do not requirements as approved by the moval of all or most trees, often quire permits under California law. US Environmental Protection followed by burning of the debris According to the Department of Agency is regarded as equiva- and spraying with herbicides to kill Pesticide Regulation, adherence to lent to permits. plants that compete with conifer label instruction substitutes for In the redwood region of seedlings. Herbicides are some- permits, because the pesticide reg- northwestern California, the times used to reduce the spread of istration process by definition meets

Dead tan oaks (Lithocarpus densiflorus) in a clear-cut on private industrial timberlands in Humboldt County. Tan oaks are capable of resprouting from stumps after clear-cut logging, but are often the target of herbicide spray plans since their wood is not commercially valuable. However, tan oaks are ecologically important to a wide array of birds and mammals, and yield the acorns preferred by Native Americans of the region. Their long-term survival is also of concern due to the spread of Sudden Oak Death. Photographs by J. Kalt.

46 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 vest plans, since it is not a “reasonably foreseeable” part of logging operations. This is difficult to understand, because, for example, nearly every clear-cut is treated with at least one or more herbicide applications. CDF’s reluctance to include herbicide impacts in timber harvest plan analyses means that known rare plant occurrences are not addressed in timber-related Private industrial timberland, Humboldt County. Dead blueblossom (Ceanothus herbicide application planning thyrsiflorus) above a logging road is the result of herbicide spray plans that target processes, even when protections “pioneer” species. Blueblossum is a nitrogen-fixing plant that is a valuable source of are required during logging op- food and cover for wildlife, including deer, birds, and pollinators. Plants that compete erations. with conifer seedlings are targeted for spraying following clear-cut logging, resulting in a landscape-level decimation of native vegetation, including rare taxa. To the right In recent years, implemen- is a thriving patch of the noxious invasive jubata grass (Cortaderia jubata), which is tation of CEQA disclosure and resistant to some herbicides. mitigation measures that protect sensitive plants on private environmental review standards. For a regulatory program to be timberlands have improved Although permits are required for CEQA-certified, certain require- substantially, resulting in pre- restricted materials such as 2,4-D, ments must be met, including pub- disturbance field surveys. When the use of non-restricted herbicides lic notification, public review, and sensitive species are found, miti- such as Garlon (triclopyr), Roundup response to public comment. Noti- gation measures typically call for (glyphosate), and Oust (sulfo- fication and review, as required buffer zones intended to protect meturon) is governed only by pes- under normal CEQA procedures, the plants during logging opera- ticide use reporting laws. These do not currently cover pesticide use tions. But after the logging is laws only require applicators to file on private timberlands. This is completed, the slash is scraped reports of amounts used and acres unfortunate, because these are im- into piles and burned, commer- sprayed with county agricultural portant CEQA requirements that cial tree seedlings are planted, departments after spraying is allow concerned individuals to sub- and herbicides are sprayed to completed. mit comments on herbicide impacts eliminate plants that compete Projects that may have signifi- to sensitive plant and animal spe- with the conifer seedlings. cant impacts to the environment cies, drinking water sources, and It is unfortunate that the typically require potential impacts other resources. buffer zones erected to protect to be addressed in an Environmen- CNPS has been unable to find a rare plants during logging opera- tal Impact Report (EIR). However, regulatory agency that is willing to tions are not also enforced dur- public input procedures are com- take responsibility for addressing the ing herbicide applications. Until plicated by the fact that the pesti- impacts of herbicides on rare, threat- processes for public notification, cide regulation system is certified ened, and endangered plants on and public review, response to public as a functional equivalent under the adjacent to private industrial tim- comments, and consultation with California Environmental Quality berlands in California. The Depart- appropriate regulatory agencies Act (CEQA), with the County Ag- ment of Pesticide Regulation, which regarding impacts of herbicides ricultural Commissioners as lead oversees pesticide use in California, are incorporated into timber har- agencies. (Under CEQA § 21080.5, has told local conservationists that vest planning, rare plants on mil- certain state regulatory programs the California Department of For- lions of acres of private timber- are exempted from the requirement estry (CDF) is responsible for ad- lands will remain unprotected to prepare an EIR because they have dressing cumulative effects of for- from herbicide impacts. been certified as meeting certain estry herbicide use. However, CDF criteria designed to ensure they claims that herbicide use does not Jennifer Kalt, P.O. Box 1496, Willow meet the basic goals of CEQA.) have to be addressed in timber har- Creek, CA 95573. [email protected]

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 47 surveys or participate in manage- tion Act of 1977 (NPPA), the Cali- nids, such as the Coho salmon ment of sensitive species on their fornia Endangered Species Act of (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead land. Voucher specimens are often 1984 (CESA), and the Natural (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Almost all lacking, CNDDB forms are not sub- Community Conservation Planning coastal streams and rivers in the mitted uniformly, and occurrence Act (NCCP) of 1991. northwest portion of California are information may be reported by Collectively, for timber opera- now classified as impaired. Indeed, those lacking sufficient botanical tions, these pieces of legislation are the Scientific Review Panel cre- knowledge to make positive identi- interpreted and administered by the ated pursuant to the memorandum fication of sensitive species. Much California Department of Forestry of understanding between the Na- more work needs to be done in the (CDF) through the Forest Prac- tional Marine Fisheries Service and field, under carefully controlled tice Rules (FPR) (CDF 2001), the Resources Agency of the State conditions, to understand the im- which are established by the Cali- of California concluded, “ . . . the pact of timber operations on sensi- fornia Board of Forestry. Most tim- Forest Practice Rules, including tive plants. ber operations are governed by their implementation (the “THP Timber Harvest Plans (THPs). process”) do not ensure protection The THP program is a Certified [emphasis added] of anadromous LEGAL PROTECTIONS Regulatory Program under CEQA. salmonid populations” (Ligon et Thus, each THP serves as a func- al. 1999). In its critique of the tim- Federal timber management is tional equivalent of an Environ- ber harvest planning process, the controlled primarily through the mental Impact Report. CDF acts State of California’s Little Hoover National Forest Management Act as the lead agency for THPs along Commission stated, “Despite the (NFMA), in combination with other with the California Department of hoops that timber operators must federal environmental laws. In re- Fish and Game (CDFG), Regional jump through and the barriers cent years, there have been signifi- Water Quality Control Boards, erected by the planning process, cant changes in the NFMA, and in and other state agencies acting as the environment is not being National Forest management trustee agencies. effectively protected . . . ” (Little policy, in general. The Clinton ad- Some timber operations are Hoover Commission 1994). Since ministration completely rewrote the exempted from the THP process. current law and regulation provide regulations implementing the These include: Christmas tree har- significantly less protection for the NFMA. However, the Bush admin- vest; harvest of dead, dying, or dis- native flora than for anadromous istration has created new uncer- eased trees; harvesting to create fuel salmonids, it is reasonable to con- tainty regarding federal timber breaks; and harvesting on parcels clude that the THP process likely management policy, as important less than three acres in size for con- does a poor job of protecting sen- Clinton-era policy changes, such as version to non-timber uses such as sitive native plants. new NFMA regulations and new dwellings. The three-acre exemp- Because of the way the current protections for roadless areas, are tion has created controversy as the FPR are written, timber harvesting reviewed or repealed. value of redwood timber has gone on non-federal land in California up. Operators have profitably har- almost always denotes harvesting of vested trees from small parcels, ap- coniferous species. For each of its The Law and Non-Federal parently in violation of the require- three geographical districts (coastal, Land ments for bona fide conversion. northern, and southern) the FPR In California, timber operations defines a set of exclusively conifer- on non-federal land are governed ous species as “Group A Commer- Shortcomings of Legal by the California Forest Practice cial Species.” A second set of spe- Protections Act of 1973 (FPA), which attempts cies, the “Group B Commercial to protect timber productivity and Despite the laudable goals of Species,” is defined as such only public resources. The Timberland this system of regulation, many when they occur within the current Productivity Act of 1982 added pro- qualified observers and experts feel or historic range of the Group A visions for sustainable timber har- that it is too weak to effectively Commercial Species. Several non- vesting. Additional protection of protect public resources. Federal coniferous species, such as Califor- public resources motivated enact- listing of the spotted owl (Strix nia black oak (Quercus kelloggi) and ment of the Porter Cologne Water occidentalis caurina) and the marbled Oregon oak (Quercus garryana) are Quality Act of 1969, the California murrelet (Brachyramphus marmora- included within the Group B Com- Environmental Quality Act of 1970 tus marmoratus) has been followed mercial Species classification. (CEQA), the Native Plant Protec- by listing of anadromous salmo- Since each THP is a CEQA

48 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 document, consideration of sensi- problem is to provide CDFG with tive species under a THP must con- significantly increased funding to form to Section 15380 of the CEQA employ additional botanists. Guidelines. Section 15380 mandates When a sensitive taxon is de- that CEQA documents analyze and termined to be present within the propose mitigation for impacts to boundaries of a THP, mitigation all taxa formally listed by the measures must be specified to mini- Federal Endangered Species Act mize the impact where feasible. (FESA) and the California Endan- Unfortunately, there are few stan- gered Species Act (CESA), as well dard management plans for such as to taxa that are otherwise consid- taxa, and little data is available upon ered rare, threatened, or endan- which to base such plans. Typi- gered. In practice, this means that cally plans recommend creating a CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, or List 2 plants small buffer area to avoid direct (CNPS 2001b) must be considered impacts. when developing a THP. Further, Public review and comment on although List 3 and 4 plants may THPs is critical. Since CDFG of- not meet the requirements for list- ten suffers from botanical under- ing, such plant species may be sig- staffing, qualified public review is Oregon oak (Quercus garryana) is one of several non-coniferous species classified nificant locally, and should be evalu- crucial if botanical resources are to as “Group B Commercial Species” under ated in THPs in order to comply receive the protection due them current Forest Practice Rules. Photo- with CEQA. under CEQA. Unfortunately, the graph by CNPS. To properly determine which public has only 30 days from the taxa may be impacted, each THP date of THP filing in which to sub- databases, but can be critical when should have a botanical survey permit written comments to CDF. evaluating THP sites for occurrence formed by a qualified expert in While this period is often extended of sensitive taxa. Chapters should accordance with accepted guide- for various reasons, its shortness se- continually refresh their knowledge lines, such as those published by verely handicaps the public’s ability of sensitive taxa occurrence in the the California Native Plant Society to provide competent comment. By local area, and should participate (CNPS 2001a). Unfortunately, not the time a member of the public in timber harvest review to make all THPs have proper surveys per- receives notice of a THP, orders a sure that their knowledge is incor- formed by experts. Thus, botanical copy, and then receives it, most of porated in the review process. Con- information in THPs may be of the 30-day period has expired. tact your local CDF and CDFG poor quality, and some THPs may offices to learn how to get involved contain no botanical analysis what- in reviewing and improving THPs Opportunities to Protect soever. This problem is exacerbated in your area. Our Forests by the fact that CDFG does not CNPS should consider devel- have the resources to complete a Cumulatively, past logging op- oping general management plans detailed review of the biological erations have had a significant nega- for the sensitive taxa that may be information in all of the THPs sub- tive impact on biodiversity. Unfor- found during timber operation plan- mitted. tunately, future impact is likely to ning. When timber operators ask The result is that many THPs be even greater. If one-half of the for help with management, the with substandard botanical analy- remaining old-growth and late-suc- Society could then respond with ses—including those which may sig- cessional forests are logged, experts plans based on the best current sci- nificantly impact rare plants—are predict that the number of species ence. A focused program of research simply approved by CDF without expected to become extinct will qua- and development of such manage- adequate biological review. In fact, druple (Christensen 2000). ment plans would be required be- for some of the most intensely Individual CNPS members can fore CNPS can adequately respond logged areas, CDFG can only thor- assist in protecting sensitive plants to such requests. oughly review, at most, 25% of the from the impacts of timber opera- It is also important to remem- plans submitted. Although far from tions. Chapter members often have ber that impacts on sensitive plants ideal, this level of review is still special localized knowledge about are not the only important impacts. better than that of just a few years sensitive taxa in their area. This Due both to fire suppression and ago when the figure was less than location-specific knowledge is typi- to timber operations, the suites of 2%. The only way to rectify this cally missing from the large general plants that occur within the differ-

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 49 References Timber Harvest Plans: A Flawed Ef- fort to Balance Economic & Environ- Bolsinger, C. L. 1980. California For- mental Needs. Milton Marks Com- ests: Trends, Problems, and Opportu- mission on California State Govern- nities. Portland, OR: USDA Forest ment Organization and Economy. Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Sacramento, CA. 84 pp. and Range Experimental Station, Ligon, F., A. Rich, G. Rynearson, D. Resource Bulletin PNW-89. 138 Thornburgh, and W. Thrush. 1999. pp. Report of the Scientific Review Panel California Department of Forestry. on California Forest Practice Rules and 2001. California Forest Practice Rules Salmonid Habitat. The Resources 2001. Title 14, California Code of Agency of California and the Na- Regulations Chapters 4, 4.5, and 10. tional Marine Fisheries Service. 256 pp. Sacramento, CA. 84 pp. CNPS. 2001a. CNPS Botanical Survey Noss, R.F. 2000. More than big trees. Guidelines. California Native Plant Pages 1-6 in: R.F. Noss, ed. The Red- Society. Sacramento, CA. 3 pp. wood Forest. Island Press. Covelo, Bride’s bonnet (Clintonia uniflora) is a Available at www.cnps.org/rareplants/ CA. lily of the forest understory that is often inventory/guidelines.htm. Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. absent in young and recovering forests CNPS. 2001b. Inventory of Rare and 1995. A Manual of California Vegeta- after logging. Photograph by J. Game. Endangered Plants of California. 6th tion. California Native Plant Soci- ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory ety. Sacramento, CA. 471 pp. ent forest habitats have often Committee, David P. Tibor, Con- Sawyer, J.O. , S.C. Sillett, W.J. Libby, changed over time. For example, vening Editor. California Native T.E. Dawson, J.H. Popenoe, D.L. members of the lily family seem to Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 388 Largent, R. Van Pelt, S.D. Veirs, Jr., be relatively intolerant of timber pp. (Cited as “CNPS Inventory.”) R.F. Noss, D.A. Thornburgh, and operations. In northwest California Christensen, N.L. 2000. Environmen- P.D. Tredici. 2000. Redwood trees, it appears that Clintonia, Disporum, tal Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest communities, and ecosystems: A Erythronium, Smilacina, and other Management. Committee on Envi- closer look. Pages 81-118 in: R.F. Noss, ed. The Redwood Forest. Island lilies are much reduced in abun- ronmental Issues in Pacific North- Press. Covelo, CA. dance, or lacking completely, in west Forest Management. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. Sawyer, J.O., S.C. Sillet, J.H. Popenoe, young, recovering forests. Mainte- 259 pp. A. LaBanca, T. Sholars, D.L. nance of the remaining intact, func- Griffin, J.R. and W.B. Critchfield. Largent, F. Euphrat, R.F. Noss, and tional, and original assemblages of 1976. The Distribution of Forest Trees R. Van Pelt. 2000. Characteristics plants should also be a priority. in California. USDA Forest Service of redwood forests. Pages 39-79 in: Properly conducted timber opera- Research Paper PSW-82. Pacific R.F. Noss, ed. The Redwood Forest. tions might be able to assist in Southwest Forest and Range Ex- Island Press. Covelo, CA. achieving this goal in certain cases. perimental Station. Standiford, R.B. and R. Arcill. 2001. One of the exciting develop- Hickman, J.E., ed. 1993. The Jepson A Scientific Basis for the Prediction of Cumulative Watershed Effects. The ments in the CNPS new strategic Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Commit- direction and chapter focus is the University of California Press. Ber- keley and Los Angeles, CA. 1400 pp. tee on Cumulative Watershed Ef- recent formation of an active group Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary De- fects. University of California. Ber- to coordinate forestry issues scriptions of the Terrestrial Natural keley, CA. 103 pp. throughout the state. Part of the Communities of California. Non- Steinbrenner, E.C. and S.P. Gessel. group’s charge is to provide indi- game-Heritage Program. California 1955. The effect of tractor logging viduals, chapters, and other conser- Department of Fish and Game. Sac- on physical properties of some for- vationists with additional support ramento, CA. 156 pp. est soils in southwestern Washing- for forestry issues. This group is Jules, E.S. 1998. Habitat fragmenta- ton. Soil Science Society of America now hard at work preparing re- tion and demographic change for a Proceedings 19(1955):372–376. Thornburgh, D.A., R.F. Noss, D.P. source materials for use by forest common plant: Trillium in old- Angelides, C.M. Olson, F. Euphrat, advocates, and is also pursing an growth forest. Ecology 79:1645– 1656. and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2000. Manag- active outreach program to regula- Jules, E.S. and B.J. Ratcke. 1999. ing redwoods. Pages 229-261 in: tory agencies throughout the state. Mechanisms of reduced trillium re- R.F. Noss, ed. The Redwood Forest. For more information on state cruitment along edges of old- Island Press. Covelo, CA. CNPS forestry activities, please growth forest fragments. Conserva- send email to [email protected] and tion Biology 13:784–793. Gregory A. Jirak, P.O. Box 985, Point consult www.cnps.org/forestry. Little Hoover Commission. 1994. Arena, CA 95468. [email protected]

50 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Robert Boyd counting rare annual legenere (Legenere limosa) plants in a vernal pool in Solano County. Photograph by R. Woodward. Monitoring Rare Plants by Roy A. Woodward

he term monitoring may their habitats so that future genera- ated with surveys of rare species in- Tsound a bit off-putting to tions will also get to enjoy them. clude inventory, evaluation, and as- those who have never taken Monitoring forms the basis for sessment. An inventory can be thought part in a field trip to survey native any science-based rare plant pro- of as the initial monitoring visit, plants. But in practice, it offers par- gram, and provides the data that is when the baseline condition of the ticipants a number of rewards. The essential to our conservation efforts population—the number of plants, first is the opportunity to visit some at CNPS. Monitoring is the pro- condition of the plants, threats to beautiful spots in nature that are cess by which we can answer our the plants, etc.—is established at a frequently off the beaten track. The most critical rare plant questions, point in time. At subsequent visits to second is the chance to closely such as “How many individuals and the site, or monitoring events, the con- observe plants that many people populations of the species are there dition of the population is again sur- never get to see. And the third is at this time?”; “What is the condi- veyed. The monitoring data can then the satisfaction that comes from tion of the plants?”; and “What is be used to evaluate or assess the trend having contributed to something the trend in numbers and condition and condition of the population. larger than oneself, in this case the of the species over time?” Monitoring involves the formal- effort to preserve native plants and Several terms commonly associ- ized collection and handling of data,

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 51 moving beyond casual observations. Thus, it is impossible to deduce any- have been initiated by CNPS mem- Systematic monitoring, whereby thing about the long-term trend of bers and chapters. Chapter Periodic rare plant populations are visited the species throughout its range. Plant Watch committees, Rare Plant on a regular basis, has never been Most land management agencies Coordinators, and others have or- formalized for the state. There is (notably the California Department ganized and conducted hundreds of much monitoring of individual of State Parks, National Park Ser- projects, often serving as the only species, particularly by university vice, Bureau of Land Management, source of information for some rare scientists conducting research pro- and US Forest Service)—using ei- species in their area. One example jects, and by private consultants as- ther their own botanists or consult- of a notable monitoring project be- sessing impacts and mitigations of ants—conduct inventories of the gan in 1988 when the Sacramento land-disturbing projects. Most lands they manage for rare plants. Valley Chapter, working with do- project monitoring occurs for only However, there are only a few cases cents, started annual monitoring of a few years after a rare plant popu- of regular long-term monitoring for the Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana) lation is impacted by a project or, any species. population at Jepson Prairie Pre- more commonly, after a rare spe- On the other hand, CNPS is serve in Solano County. cies is planted or transplanted as well-known for its tireless work in The main place where rare plant mitigation for some disturbance to long-term monitoring of rare plant occurrence data has been stored is the population. species, thanks in large part to the in the California Natural Diversity While these sorts of monitor- dedicated contributions of its mem- Database (CNDDB). (See “The ing projects have their place, typi- bers throughout California. In fact, California Natural Diversity Data- cally they only assess the condition one could point to numerous ex- base: A Natural Heritage Program of a single population of a species. amples of monitoring projects that for Rare Species and Vegetation”

Transects can be used to monitor occurrence and cover of plant species and vegetation types. A tape measure, generally 20-100 meters long, is stretched out and all plants, or just plants that occur at selected points (e.g. every one meter), are recorded. This method is particularly useful for detecting changes in shrub stands. Photograph by R. Woodward.

52 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Advice on Marking Rare Plant Populations

arking rare plant popula- a permanent felt marker also lasts Another consideration to keep M tions in the field with about one year, although metal tags in mind is that private landown- stakes or ribbons so they can be on wooden stakes may last for de- ers may not allow their rare plant relocated for future monitoring cades. However, there is always the populations to be permanently visits requires careful consider- danger of wooden stakes and plastic marked. Also, clearly marking ation. The author’s program at ribbon burning in wildfires. Some rare plant populations may en- State Parks often uses 18-inch surveyors use GPS coordinates or courage horticultural collection angled aluminum stakes. The metal detectors to find metal stakes or vandalism, especially for sen- tops of the stakes are painted such as rebar or large iron nails that sitive species such as orchids, orange so they are easy to relo- have previously been pounded into lilies, or cacti. cate, and they are engraved with the ground. This is very time con- site-specific information such as suming work, however, and is not plot number. successful in many habitats. Hid- Other materials are often den stakes can often be found more used, but each has its drawbacks. quickly using records of nearby fixed Plastic surveyor’s ribbon lasts features— prominent trees or rocks, about one year in the field, de- compass points, and pacing dis- pending upon local wind and sun. tances—rather than solely by GPS Writing on wooden stakes with coordinates.

Sometimes it is necessary to mark individual plants for measurement over several years. Stakes and colored flagging allow Carol Witham to assess a population of purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) at Jepson Prairie in Solano County. Photograph by R. Woodward.

on p. 57 of this issue.) The CNPS tured well by the CNDDB. In ad- cies. This program will help priori- Rare Plant Science Program works dition, submissions of data to the tize what species and areas to moni- cooperatively with CNDDB to clas- CNDDB are voluntary, making it tor first, and will include standard sify rare plant taxa, periodically pub- difficult to know if a data set is minimum monitoring data stan- lishing its Inventory of Rare and En- relatively complete or not. The dards, and forms and descriptions dangered Plants of California (CNPS CNDDB is working with CNPS to of sampling methods. Such a pro- 2001). The CNDDB tracks occur- make improvements to this system. gram does not yet exist, but efforts rence data over time by noting it in are underway in the Rare Plant Sci- a comments field in their occur- ence Committee to develop one. In rence records. Where a trend re- Designing a the meantime, individual members veals itself, this is noted in the trend Monitoring and chapters monitoring even a field of each record. Project single population or locale on a The CNDDB tracks all sources regular basis can play an important that have contributed to an occur- CNPS is well aware of the short- role in providing quantitative data rence record. Each entry includes a comings in the existing system for for conservation efforts. source name, date of visit, and type collecting rare plant occurrence data of data document submitted. This for California. What has been lack- information is available in a sepa- ing is a systematic program for Voucher Specimens rate source database, available prioritizing which species to moni- through their personal computer tor, and standardizing monitoring Meticulous collecting of data application Rarefind. However, methods and data management. will do little good if, in the end, it is other monitoring metadata such as Members will likely be pleased unclear what has been counted. The survey methodology, area searched, to learn, however, that the Society author’s team at the State Parks de- negative data (data from areas sur- is currently taking the lead in department recently learned this les- veyed where target species were not veloping a statewide, systematic son when it discovered what were found), and the like are not cap- monitoring program for rare spe- thought to be pure stands of the

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 53 Minimal components of initial inventory and subsequent monitoring of rare plant populations

nitial inventory and subsequent Thus most species, and par- population size. If numbers of Imonitoring surveys for rare ticularly annuals, likely won’t be plants are estimated rather than plants should, at a minimum, monitored at exactly the same counted, the method used should consist of the following: time every year. It is best to sched- be explained in a written account. ule monitoring based on the yearly One potential pitfall to avoid • Area: Select the populations to condition of the species. For ex- is having a statistician describe an monitor or habitats that will be ample, May 15 in a La Niña year onerous sampling design that is searched (inventoried) to estab- may not be the same as May 15 in costly and time consuming to lish a baseline. Information from an El Niño year. This makes implement. If subsampling of a the CNDDB, CNPS Inventory, monitoring more difficult to large population is necessary, con- USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle schedule and necessitates visiting sult with a professional ecologist maps and soils maps, and discus- sites prior to conducting the ac- to select a sampling method, such sions with knowledgeable local tual monitoring visit. as plots or transects, and design persons can help to determine • Mapping: Map both the locations a sampling scheme that provides what areas and species to begin of rare plant populations, and in- reliable results. A useful reference to monitor. Air photos, at a scale dividual patches at each location. for devising a rare plant moni- of at least 1:12,000, can be help- The minimum area (mapping unit) toring program is Measuring and ful to identify potential habitats. around which a polygon can be Monitoring Plant Populations The survey method used most realistically drawn on a USGS 7.5- (Elzinga et al. 1998), which is also often involves walking and visu- minute quadrangle map is one acre. available in a version expanded to ally searching for rare plants, and Occurrences smaller than an acre cover animal populations. While then counting numbers of plants should be shown with a point, and there are myriad sampling schemes and assessing their condition. It may also be recorded with global and statistical considerations in- is always necessary to get land- positioning system (GPS) units. volved in designing a monitoring owner permission before enter- The GPS coordinates can be used program, these need not thwart ing private property. to record a boundary or center- the enthusiasm or efforts of CNPS • Timing: The appropriate time point for a population polygon. Re- volunteers and chapters to begin to look for and identify rare gardless of GPS use, the point or monitoring efforts. plants varies from year to year polygon should be noted on a pa- • Plant and Habitat Condition: in California, based largely on per map with a description of the Accurately describe the condition weather. Many species, particu- monitoring method and the moni- of the plants observed. Include larly annuals, can be absent from toring data. Also, having a written information on flowering, fruit- an area for many years and then description of how the surveyors ing, the presence of various sizes explode to thousands of plants got to the sampling location is es- and ages of plants, if reproduc- within a single favorable season. sential so it can be located again tion is occurring, and the condi- Monitoring should be designed for future monitoring surveys. tion of the habitat. Additional around the best time of year for • Counting: Ideally every individual observations may include notes identifying the species. Typically plant should be counted. How- about pollinators and measure- this is when it is flowering (some ever, this is often impractical for ments of the size of plants. perennials can be exceptions to large populations, and is unlikely • Threats: Provide an accurate ac- this rule), and around the time to produce results with a high count of any direct or indirect when most plants will be present, enough level of confidence to be threats to the occurrence. Threats which is generally after seed ger- useful. In such cases, it is best to may include off-road vehicles or mination. (Seed germination subsample the site, counting only other recreational activities, non- may occur in any month of the a portion of the population, and native plants, livestock and exotic year, depending upon the spe- then conduct a statistical analysis animals, insects and disease, log- cies and location.) of the data to arrive at a projected ging, mining, and development.

54 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 • Associated Vegetation: Note the associated vegetation types and plant species occurring in the area, using the CNPS Vegetation Rapid Assessment Protocol (available at www.cnps. org) if possible. Fig. 4 • Authorship: Include who performed the survey, when it occurred, and contact information for the surveyor(s). • Method of Monitoring: De- scribe how the monitoring was conducted. Monitoring field- work can simply consist of walking areas of suspected habitat and counting the num- Locating and monitoring rare plant populations usually requires detailed, on-the- bers of plants encountered, but ground field work, such as here in vernal pools at Ione, Amador County. Photograph it is always important to indi- by R. Woodward. cate what area was surveyed on a map or by narrative. Nega- federally-listed Ben Lomond spine- specimens may actually impact the tive data (i.e., areas where no flower (Chorizanthe pungens var. numbers of the target species. The hartwegiana) near Santa Cruz. The alternative is to have reliable iden- plants were found) can be just spineflowers were actually mixed tifications performed in the field as important as reporting posi- with an unlisted species of Chori- by qualified botanists who include tively on existing populations. zanthe (although this species may detailed descriptions and photo- The method description be as rare as var. hartwegiana). For- graphic documentation of the spe- should be detailed if quantita- tunately our sampling occurred dur- cies monitored. However, vouch- tive data was collected and ing the flowering period so the two ers of newly discovered populations subsampling was used. species could be distinguished by are essential. • Photographs: Photographs flower color. The earlier assump- should be taken of plant popu- tion had been that surveys later in lations showing the general set- the season could be performed by Will botanists be ting of the area. Photographs counting dried individuals of this replaced by remote taken at each sampling point annual species, but this would have sensing? to the north, east, south, and led to spurious results. west can help to establish a A high degree of confidence in Images taken by aircraft or visual frame of reference for the identity of what is monitored is spacecraft are useful for locating the site. Close-ups of individual vital. The best way to achieve this potential rare plant habitats, and plants are also useful to con- is to collect voucher specimens and provide a context for the settings firm their condition and tax- key them in a herbarium at a col- where rare plants occur. However, onomy. lege or natural history museum when it comes to counting numbers • Reporting: Report findings to where the plants can be compared or assessing the condition of rare the CNDDB using their stan- to confirmed mounted specimens plants and their habitats, remotely dard report form (see p. 63). and experts can concur with the sensed images are typically worth- CNPS will cooperate with state determinations. Obviously, this ap- less. We are a long way from having and federal agencies and other proach is not necessary for every the resolution (clarity or sharpness) species, since experienced amateur in aerial photos necessary to count non-governmental organiza- or professional botanists can key individual plants of most species on tions towards development of most species in the field. Nor is the ground. Besides, the images must better methods to compile and this approach all that practical, be- be taken at the right time of season analyze monitoring data. cause collection permits are fre- to identify most species, as well as quently required, and collecting taken at the right time of day so that

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 55 Rediscovered Plants

Eight plants thought to be extinct have been rediscovered in California since 1994: • Ventura marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus) • San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina) • diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala) • Mojave tarplant (Hemizonia mohavensis) • water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) • Howell’s montia (Montia howellii) • northern adder’s-tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum) • Shasta orthocarpus (Orthocarpus pachystachyus)

Ventura marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus) was thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered in 1997 near Oxnard, Ventura County. It had been last seen in the wild in 1967, and is now seriously threatened by development. Photograph by M. Meyer. lighting is controlled. Other draw- may be no net change in overall Science Committee has set itself backs to remote sensing are clouds, numbers of plants, still, this situa- three goals for the foreseeable fu- fog, and overstory canopy, all of tion should be a cause for concern. ture. They are: 1) to organize sys- which can make images useless. For With respect to numbers of tematic monitoring of rare plants the foreseeable future, nothing will plants, there is no absolute rule re- by CNPS chapters; 2) to encourage replace on-the-ground field surveys garding when a species should be government agencies to implement performed by capable observers to listed as state or federally protected, CNPS’s priority list of monitoring locate and monitor rare plants. when a species should be consid- projects; and 3) to provide timely, ered recovered and removed from accurate data for the Society’s con- government lists, or how a species is servation efforts. What does it all classified in the CNPS Inventory. mean? However, having long-term monitoring data that show trends in popu- References Assessment is the final phase lation numbers is invaluable in help- in a comprehensive monitoring ing to make these determinations. CNPS. 2001. Inventory of Rare and program. During assessment, nu- Several CNPS members have Endangered Plants of California. 6th merical trends are analyzed, and advocated a systematic search for ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory distribution, threats, and habitat CNPS Inventory List 1A species Committee, David P. Tibor, Con- vening Editor. California Native condition are considered to ascer- (plants presumed extinct in Cali- Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 388 tain the status or health of the fornia). In recent years, eight spe- pp. species. With this information, cies that were previously placed on Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. CNPS and its partners can better List 1A have been rediscovered (see Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and determine what needs to be done to the above sidebar). Finding and Monitoring Plant Populations. BLM protect it. Obviously, year-to-year monitoring more of these species, Technical Reference 1730-1. BLM/ changes in annual species are inter- if they exist, and preventing their RS/ST-98/005+1730. Bureau of preted differently than trends in pe- extinction is one of the most critical Land Management. Denver, CO. rennial species. Also, the total num- conservation goals of the Society. 477 pp. ber of plants found must be weighed CNPS, working with land man- against the number of occurrences. agement and regulatory agencies Roy A. Woodward, California Department For instance, suppose the number and other non-governmental orga- of Parks and Recreation—Inventory, Moni- of plants increases at a few occur- nizations, can play a leading role in toring, and Assessment Program, 1416 rences while entire occurrences else- monitoring California’s plant popu- Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. where become extinct. While there lations. The CNPS Rare Plant [email protected]

56 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 The California Natural Diversity Database: A Natural Heritage Program for Rare Species and Vegetation by Roxanne Bittman

he California Natural Di- Tversity Database (CNDDB), now over 20 years old, is a highly valuable repository of rare plant information maintained by the Habitat Conservation Division of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The primary function of CNDDB is to gather and disseminate data on the status and locations of rare and endangered plants, animals, and vegetation types. The goal of the program is to help conserve California’s biological diversity by providing government agencies, the private sector, and conservation groups with information to promote better-informed land-use decisions and improved resource management. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), through its many chapters and members—which conduct surveys of native rare plant populations throughout the year— is a substantial contributor to the database. CNPS’s collaboration with CDFG helps to keep the database current so its data can be used to inform policy decisions that may impact native plant habitat.

Part of a Conservation Network

CNDDB is a rich source of highly accurate, quality-checked data on the locations and status of rare and endangered plants, animals, and natural communities (collectively known as “elements”) in California. CNDDB was origi- Ishi Wilderness, northern Sierra Nevada. CNDDB updated all of the sensitive taxa in nally conceived and developed by the entire Sierra bioregion in support of the Sierra Framework planning effort. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Photograph by M. Hoshovsky.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 57 For example, if we receive a label Acronyms from an herbarium specimen with imprecise location data, we map it CDFG California Department of Fish and Game as a larger, non-specific circle (of CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database varying sizes). If we receive a field GIS Geographic Information System survey form (see p. 63) with a map precisely locating the extent of a TNC The Nature Conservancy population, we map the population WCB Wildlife Conservation Board precisely. Plant populations within one-quarter mile of each other are considered part of one occurrence. science staff in 1979. The science provides regional data sets (that Each occurrence is input by one branch of TNC is now part of a cross state lines) to federal agen- biologist and quality controlled by new organization called Nature- cies, and promotes the mission of another to maximize accuracy. This Serve. CNDDB is part of a nation- conservation nationwide through methodology, with minor variations, wide network of natural heritage products, services, decision support is consistent throughout the network. programs across the United States, tools, publications, and the web- The nationwide data compatibility Canada, and Latin America which site NatureServe Explorer (www. makes it possible for NatureServe to collaborate with NatureServe. natureserve.org/explorer). Nature- do cross-state analyses and to pro- The function of NatureServe is Serve recently published the book duce multistate products, such as to manage and distribute informa- Precious Heritage (Stein et al. 2000), Precious Heritage. tion critical to the conservation of which discussed the status and the world’s biological diversity. It trends of the biological diversity of the United States. This volume rep- Uses Latest North Coast semaphore grass (Pleuro- resented a successful test as to Technology pogon hooverianus) is a rare plant from whether heritage data from across Marin, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties. all 50 states could be compiled and As part of the nationwide CNDDB recently worked with the local CNPS chapters and the DFG Habitat analyzed to offer a broad scale pic- network of heritage programs, Conservation Planning Branch to update ture for the entire nation. CNDDB enjoys a special position. all known records of this plant in support The California program is not only of a petition to uplist the species from well-established, with over 40,000 Rare to Endangered under CESA. Photo- Nationwide Data location records in its database, but graph by P. But. Compatability it was the first in the country to integrate its program with the use One of the strengths of the natu- of a Geographic Information Sys- ral heritage network and of the in- tem (GIS). GIS makes it possible to dividual programs that comprise it, map, store, retrieve, and analyze such as CNDDB, is that all pro- geographic data on a computer. grams use similar tools and virtu- This migration to new tech- ally the same methodology to enter nology initially cost the program and analyze the data on rare species valuable data entry time, since the and vegetation types. They use the conversion to a digital mapping same element codes, element rank- system was time-consuming and ing system, and mapping conven- contributed to the accumulation of tions, as well as very similar data an unprocessed data backlog. How- entry forms. (Element ranking in- ever, the use of GIS allows this and cludes the use of Global (G) and other heritage programs to do State (S) ranks to reflect an analyses that would never be pos- element’s relative rarity and endan- sible with paper maps or more tra- germent status.) ditional databases alone. In addi- For consistency, all scientific tion, the California program takes names are fully cross-referenced in great care to fully reference each a central database. Data are mapped occurrence in its database. Every as precisely as they are received by mapped location has a full bibliog- all participating heritage programs. raphy associated with it and the

58 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 CNDDB digitizes each occurrence into a GIS layer, with some mapped as non-specific circles and others as very precise polygon features. This example shows a portion of the USGS La Jolla 7.5' quadrangle in San Diego County. The multiple polygons on the right represent a mixture of several very rare vernal pool plants, while the long polygon to the left represents southern riparian scrub, a rare vegetation community. Map by CNDDB. references are logically filed within the species was known previously simply, a lack of records in CNDDB the CNDDB office. Thus, the to be present on that site. This does not mean that no rare plants documentation for each location is means that no inference can be or animals occur in a given area. readily accessible. made regarding lands that have never been surveyed. It is never appropriate to state that an area con- Database Uses and A Positive Sighting tains no rare taxa simply because a Formats Database search of CNDDB was made and nothing resulted from the query. Clients of CNDDB include fed- It is very important to under- Large tracts of land in the state eral and state agencies, county and stand that CNDDB only records have never been surveyed for rare local governments, private consult- actual sightings of rare species and plants and animals and retain the ing firms, environmental groups, natural communities. If an area is potential to support rare elements; land protection entities, and aca- surveyed for a species and it is not this fact needs to be clearly stated in demic researchers. We provide data found, this is not recorded, unless all environmental documents. Put to thousands of clients each year

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 59 and this user base is growing. Their of accuracy for mapped informa- health and the associated habitat at activities and needs vary greatly, in- tion, while others require exact de- a particular site.) Without this level cluding environmental document tail at a precise scale. Some users of detail, conservation groups such preparation or review, land protec- primarily need location information, as The Nature Conservancy, the tion and management activities, with minimal text information, state Wildlife Conservation Board state and federal listing processes, whereas many must have more de- (WCB), various land trust agencies, plant status review, and research. tailed information to support diffi- and others would have inadequate CNDDB provides the data in a cult conservation decisions. information with which to make variety of formats to accommodate It is therefore critical that critical land protection decisions. user needs, including our personal CNDDB attempt to collect the computer application Rarefind, GIS highest possible quality data on both layers, hardcopy maps and over- population location and distribu- Recent Changes lays, and reports and descriptive tion, population and habitat condi- and Improvements information from our extensive tion, threats, land use, and other element files. information related to occurrence What are areas for improvement To support clients’ diverse needs rank. (Occurrence ranks range from at CNDDB? Concerns expressed CNDDB provides a variety of lev- Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Un- in the past include the charge that els of detail. Some may only need known, or None—the latter for CNDDB is too expensive, that data the US Geological Survey 7.5- extirpated occurrences—and reflect entry is too slow, that there is a minute topographic quadrangle level the quality of both the population’s large backlog of unprocessed infor-

Jepson Prairie, Solano County. Recently, largely through efforts of the Solano Land Trust, several hundred acres were purchased by WCB as an addition to the larger Jepson Prairie protected area. Documentation by CNDDB of the diversity of rare species on site helped justify the permanent protection of this important natural area. Photograph by O. Pollak.

60 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 mation, that the data are too inaccessible, and that there is not an online field survey form which can be submitted via the internet. CNDDB costs approximately $500,000 per year to run. This pays for 10 permanent and temporary staff, three of which work on plants, along with hardware and software maintenance and materials. This level of staffing is far lower than the per-species staffing levels common in the heritage network. The enabling legislation (California Fish and Game Code § 1932) for CNDDB required that some cost recovery system be in place to offset program costs. For many years, CNDDB charged private industry clients $2500 per year for a data subscrip- tion (and $1250 per year for not- for-profit clients). Although this fee system provided needed income that helped run the program, it was also a disincentive for small companies, Adobe lily (Fritillaria pluriflora). WCB succeeded in negotiating a conservation easement local agencies, many county plan- for the wildflower-rich Bear Valley in Colusa County, a popular spring botanizing ning agencies, and others unable or spot. This area has one of the largest known populations of adobe lily, a rare plant from unwilling to afford the cost. Addi- the North Coast Ranges tracked for many years by CNDDB. Photograph by J. Game. tionally, the legitimate complaint was made that users were expected CNPS. University researchers of- require more processing time than to contribute data to the system and ten qualify for this type of arrange- paper field survey forms, but we yet were expected to pay to retrieve ment as well. expect this to change. A Windows their own data as an end product. Improvements in technology version of Rarefind is due for re- Although there is some validity to have recently made possible some lease in fall 2002, and will replace this criticism, it is also true that exciting changes to CNDDB. the existing DOS version. CNDDB makes the data substan- CNDDB now has full digital topo- As always, data currently housed tially more useful and usable, and is graphic coverage for the state as well in CNDDB files that have not yet not just a simple compendium of as other useful background cover- been entered into the computerized observations. ages. (GIS background coverages are database are available for review by Recent changes have allowed geographic data sets or overlays con- interested parties. This includes up- CNDDB to greatly reduce its taining features such as roads, towns, dates to existing occurrences, as well charge for subscriptions to $300 soil types, watersheds, or rivers that as files on wholly unprocessed plants, per year for new subscribers and can be can be used for reference which are mostly comprised of $200 per year for renewals. This during data entry.) The resulting CNPS List 3 and 4 species. There new pricing structure is the same increase in speed of data entry and are also some as yet unprocessed for both for-profit and not-for- quality control has led to a steady List 1B and 2 taxa which were newly profit users and should make the decline of our backlog of unproc- added to the latest edition of the products available to just about any- essed data over the last year. CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endan- one. Some groups maintain memo- We are also beginning to accept gered Plants of California (CNPS randa of understanding with digital data sets with companion 2001). CNDDB that provide for data ex- tabular data, and we are developing In addition to improvements change arrangements allowing for expedited ways of handling this in- outlined above, CNDDB antici- free subscriptions. Two examples creased data flow in an automated pates the development of an online are the US Forest Service and fashion. Currently, digital datasets field survey form with point and

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 61 polygon mapping capability. Cur- certain classes of sensitive plants to CNDDB data is also planned for rently, data contributors can fill out such as bulbs, orchids, insectivo- the future via online, password-pro- an online field form from our rous plants, and succulents. This tected methods. website. However, they cannot save list has grown to include plants used or submit it over the Internet since in commercial ventures to make online digital mapping is not yet craft products containing wood, li- How to Contact perfected. Contributors should pro- chen, branches, leaves, fruit, and CNDDB vide precise location information the like. These plant materials come with their survey forms. from a variety of species, both com- To learn more about our pro- mon and rare. gram, visit our website (www.dfg.ca. There is a large amount of in- gov/whdab). Lists of rare, threatened, Appropriate Use of formation on the basic ecology and and endangered plants are found Sensitive Data aesthetic value of rare plants that here, as well as the online field sur- could be displayed on the Internet. vey form, information on the ap- The question as to how much We also either currently provide propriate way to survey for plants, sensitive locational data should be or intend to provide online lists of and more. There is also equivalent freely available to the public has rare plants with their status and information for rare animal taxa and been debated since heritage pro- location to the county or 7.5- natural community types. A section grams first began compiling such minute quadrangle level. CNPS titled Data Products contains an data. All heritage programs con- currently makes this information online order form and product sup- tacted in a recent survey indicated available on their website (www. port information, along with com- that their policy on data security cnps.org). However, we do not ad- monly used links. To contact was either parallel to that of vocate putting up the most precise CNDDB directly, use the email CNDDB or was stricter. CNDDB location information for sensitive addresses listed on the CNDDB screens each client to ascertain what species (which includes all species website under Staff. they need the data for in order to on CNPS Lists 1-4). tailor the product to their needs. Notwithstanding the approach CNDDB and other heritage described above, CNDDB is com- References programs retain the right to refuse mitted to providing widespread release of the most detailed infor- access to the data it collects and California Department of Fish and mation under certain circumstances. analyzes. As stated, more general Game. 2000. Guidelines for Assessing This stems from the concern that information will be provided on the the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, there is still not widespread under- CNDDB website, through publica- Threatened, and Endangered Plants standing of the importance of rare tions such as the upcoming Atlas of and Natural Communities. The Re- species among the general public. the Biodiversity of California (in prep sources Agency, State of California. Sacramento, CA. 2 pp. Population loss or degradation by 2002), and through links to other California Department of Fish and deliberate destruction of habitat is sites such as Calflora (www.calflora. Game. 2002 (in prep). Atlas of the a problem, as is over-collection of org) and the CNPS website. Access Biodiversity of California. Sacra- mento, CA. CNPS. 2001. Inventory of Rare and En- Highlights of CNDDB dangered Plants of California. 6th ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Com- mittee, David P. Tibor, Convening • Contains over 40,000 records on rare plants, animals, and natural Editor. California Native Plant So- communities, including nearly 20,000 records on rare plants alone, ciety. Sacramento, CA. 388 pp. covering over 1000 taxa. Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. • Subscriptions cost $300 per year, and $200 to renew, with free six- Adams, eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: month updates. The Status of Biodiversity in the United • Our website (www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab) contains an online field survey States. The Nature Conservancy form for submitting new data, with a link to an online mapping tool and the Association for Biodiversity for use with coordinate information such as UTM and latitude/ Information. Oxford University longitude. Press. Oxford, NY. 399 pp. • For more information, contact CNDDB using the email addresses Roxanne Bittman, Department of Fish and listed on the website under Staff. Game, 1807 13th Street, Suite 202, Sac- ramento, CA 95814. [email protected]

62 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 California Native Species Field Survey Form

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 63 Botanical Survey Guidelines of the California Native Plant Society December 9, 1983 / Revised June 2, 2001

he following recommenda- of highly limited distribution. e. Experience with analyzing im- Ttions are intended to help These communities may or may not pacts of a project on native plants those who prepare and review contain special status plants. The and communities. environmental documents determine most current version of the Califor- 4. Botanical surveys should be con- when a botanical survey is needed, nia Natural Diversity Database’s ducted in a manner that will locate who should be considered qualified to List of California Terrestrial Natural 2 any special status or locally signifi- conduct such surveys, how surveys Communities should be used as a cant plants or plant communities should be conducted, and what infor- guide to the names and status of that may be present. Specifically, mation should be contained in the sur- communities. botanical surveys should be: vey report. The California Native Consistent with the California Plant Society recommends that lead Native Plant Society’s goal of pre- a. Conducted in the field at the agencies not accept the results of sur- serving plant biodiversity on a re- proper times of year when spe- veys unless they are conducted and regional and local scale, and with Cali- cial status and locally significant ported according to these guidelines. fornia Environmental Quality Act plants are both evident and iden- environmental impact assessment tifiable. When special status 1. Botanical surveys are conducted in criteria,3 surveys should also assess plants are known to occur in the order to determine the environmen- impacts to locally significant plants. type(s) of habitat present in the tal effects of proposed projects on Both plants and plant communities project area, nearby accessible oc- all botanical resources, including can be considered significant if their currences of the plants (reference special status plants (rare, threat- local occurrence is on the outer lim- sites) should be observed to de- ened, and endangered plants) and its of known distribution, a range termine that the plants are iden- plant (vegetation) communities. extension, a rediscovery, or rare or tifiable at the time of survey. Special status plants are not limited uncommon in a local context (such b. Floristic in nature. A floristic sur- to those that have been listed by as within a county or region). Lead vey requires that every plant ob- state and federal agencies but in- agencies should address impacts to served be identified to species, clude any plants that, based on all these locally unique botanical re- subspecies, or variety as appli- available data, can be shown to be sources regardless of their status cable. In order to properly char- rare, threatened, or endangered elsewhere in the state. acterize the site, a complete list under the following definitions: of plants observed on the site shall 2. Botanical surveys must be con- A species, subspecies, or be included in every botanical ducted to determine if, or to the survey report. In addition, a suf- variety of plant is endangered extent that, special status or locally when the prospects of its sur- ficient number of visits spaced significant plants and plant commu- throughout the growing season is vival and reproduction are in nities will be affected by a proposed immediate jeopardy from one necessary to prepare an accurate project when any natural vegetation inventory of all plants that exist or more causes, including loss occurs on the site and the project on the site. The number of visits of habitat, change in habitat, has the potential for direct or indi- and the timing between visits over-exploitation, predation, rect effects on vegetation. must be determined by geo- competition, or disease. A graphic location, the plant com- plant is threatened when it is 3. Those conducting botanical surveys munities present, and the weather likely to become endangered must possess the following qualifi- patterns of the year(s) in which in the foreseeable future in cations: the surveys are conducted. the absence of protection a. Experience conducting floristic c. Conducted in a manner that is measures. A plant is rare field surveys; consistent with conservation eth- when, although not presently b. Knowledge of plant taxonomy ics and accepted plant collection threatened with extinction, and plant community ecology and and documentation techniques.4,5 the species, subspecies, or va- classification; Collections (voucher specimens) riety is found in such small c. Familiarity with the plants of the of special status and locally sig- numbers throughout its range area, including special status and nificant plants should be made, that it may be endangered if locally significant plants; unless such actions would jeop- its environment worsens.1 d. Familiarity with the appropriate ardize the continued existence of Rare plant (vegetation) communi- state and federal statutes related the population. A single sheet ties are those communities that are to plants and plant collecting; and, should be collected and deposited

64 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 at a recognized public herbarium 3) A description of the general d. Discussion, including: for future reference. All collec- biological setting of the project 1) Any factors that may have af- tions shall be made in accordance area. fected the results of the surveys with applicable state and federal (e.g., drought, human distur- b. Methods, including: permit requirements. Photogra- bance, recent fire). 1) Survey methods for each of the phy may be used to document 2) Discussion of any special local habitats present, and rationale plant identification only when the or range-wide significance of for the methods used. population cannot withstand col- any plant population or com- 2) Description of reference site(s) lection of voucher specimens. munity on the site. visited and phenological devel- d. Conducted using systematic field 3) An assessment of potential im- opment of the target special techniques in all habitats of the site pacts. This shall include a map status plants, with an assess- to ensure a thorough coverage of showing the distribution of ment of any conditions differ- potential impact areas. All habitats special status and locally sig- ing from the project site that within the project site must be sur- nificant plants and communi- may affect their identification. veyed thoroughly in order to ties on the site in relation to the 3) Dates of surveys and rationale properly inventory and document proposed activities. Direct, infor timing and intervals; names the plants present. The level of direct, and cumulative impacts of personnel conducting the effort required per given area and to the plants and communities surveys; and total hours spent habitat is dependent upon the veg- shall be discussed. in the field for each surveyor etation and its overall diversity and 4) Recommended measures to on each date. structural complexity. avoid and/or minimize direct, 4) Location of deposited voucher e. Well documented. When a special indirect, and cumulative im- specimens and herbaria visited. status plant (or rare plant commu- pacts. nity) is located, a California Na- c. Results, including: e. References cited and persons con- tive Species (or Community) Field 1) A description and map of the tacted. Survey Form or equivalent writ- vegetation communities on the ten form, accompanied by a copy project site. The current stan- f. Qualifications of field personnel of the appropriate portion of a 7.5- dard for vegetation classifica- including any special experience minute topographic map with the tion, A Manual of California with the habitats and special sta- occurrence mapped, shall be com- Vegetation,6 should be used as a tus plants present on the site. pleted, included within the survey basis for the habitat descrip- report, and separately submitted tions and the vegetation map. to the California Natural Diver- If another vegetation classifi- Footnotes sity Database. Population bound- cation system is used, the re- aries should be mapped as accu- port must reference the system 1 California Environmental Quality rately as possible. The number of and provide the reason for its Act Guidelines, § 15065 and § 15380. individuals in each population use. should be counted or estimated, 2) A description of the phenology 2 List of California Terrestrial Natural as appropriate. of each of the plant communi- Communities. California Department ties at the time of each survey of Fish and Game Natural Diversity 5. Complete reports of botanical sur- date. Database. Sacramento, CA. veys shall be included with all envi- 3) A list of all plants observed on 3 ronmental assessment documents, California Environmental Quality Act the project site using accepted including Negative Declarations Guidelines, Appendix G (Initial Study scientific nomenclature, along and Mitigated Negative Declara- Environmental Checklist). with any special status desig- tions, Timber Harvesting Plans, nation. The reference(s) used 4 Collecting Guidelines and Documen- Environmental Impact Reports, and for scientific nomenclature tation Techniques. California Native Environmental Impact Statements. shall be cited. Plant Society Policy (adopted March Survey reports shall contain the fol- 4) Written description and de- 4, 1995). lowing information: tailed map(s) showing the lo- 5 Ferren, W.R., Jr., D.L. Magney, and a. Project location and description, cation of each special status or T.A. Sholars. 1995. The future of including: locally significant plant found, California floristics and systematics: 1) A detailed map of the location the size of each population, and Collecting guidelines and documen- and footprint of the proposed method used to estimate or tation techniques. Madroño 42(2): project. census the population. 197-210. 2) A detailed description of the 5) Copies of all California Native proposed project, including Species Field Survey Forms or 6 Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. one-time activities and ongo- Natural Community Field Sur- 1995. A Manual of California Vegeta- ing activities that may affect vey Forms and accompanying tion. California Native Plant Society. botanical resources. maps. Sacramento, CA. 471 pp.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 65 Statement Opposing Transplantation as Mitigation for Impacts to Rare Plants Signed July 9, 1998

he California State Legisla- transplantation to conserve state-listed that landowners can require the Tture enacted the Native Plant plant species is not only unlikely to Department to salvage plants at any Protection Act (NPPA) in succeed, but is likely to contribute to time of the year, including times that 1977. The NPPA identifies wide- further declines of these taxa, possi- are inappropriate for physical dis- ranging and broad categories of activi- bly to widespread extinctions. ruption of the plant. Annual species ties on private lands that could result Transplantation is rarely successful may not even be visible at some in the take (killing) of state-listed in establishing rare plants at new lo- times of the year. plants. These activities include: cations. A study by the Department itself (Fiedler 1991) found that, even Transplantation can also cause prob- 1)agricultural operations or manage- under optimum conditions with ample lems at the target site. Genetic con- ment practices including clearing of time for planning, transplantation was tamination can occur if the plant be- land, effective in only 15% of cases studied. ing transplanted can exchange genetic 2)land clearing for fire control, Other reviews (e.g. Allen 1994; material with local taxa. Disturbance 3)timber operations in accordance Howald 1996) have found similar at the target site may facilitate inva- with a legal timber harvesting plan, problems. There are many reasons for sion by non-native invasive species. this poor success rate: For all of these reasons, the Cali- 4)mining assessment work, fornia Native Plant Society (CNPS) 5)performance by a public agency or 1)We often know very little about the does not recognize off-site compen- public utility of its obligation to pro- biology of rare plants. We may not sation as appropriate mitigation for vide service to the public, be aware of all the intricate habitat project impacts and opposes the use 6)removal of listed plants from a) a requirements of each listed species. of salvage and transplantation as miti- canal, b) lateral ditch, c) building Rare plants are often specialists that gation for impacts to rare and listed site, d) road, or e) other right of way exploit a particular and unusual plants (Rare Plant Scientific Advisory by the owner of the land. combination of habitat attributes. Committee, California Native Plant They may require a particular soil Society 1991). Few land use or management activi- type, set of pollinators, mycorhizal The undersigned individuals, bo- ties fall outside of these categories. fungi or other associate species, as- tanical societies and organizations op- Under one interpretation of Section pect, hydrological regime, microcli- pose the use of transplantation as the 1913 of the NPPA, landowners who mate or some combination of these primary means of conservation of rare wish to engage in any of the aforemen- or other factors for survival. plant species. tioned activities, and who have been 2)Suitable transplantation or propa- Signed, informed by the California Depart- gation sites may not be available, ment of Fish and Game (Department) particularly with only 10-days no- Lori Hubbart, President, of the presence of state-listed plants tice. California Native Plant Society on their property, need only provide 3)Digging up, transporting, and re- Barbara Ertter, PhD, Chair, 10-day notice and give the Depart- planting plants, bulbs, rhizomes or CNPS Rare Plant ment the opportunity to salvage the seeds imposes a tremendous stress Scientific Advisory Committee plants before proceeding. This would on a plant. They can easily die in be the sole mitigation required for de- the process. Ann Dennis, PhD, CNPS struction of listed plants or their habi- 4)Scientifically-tested, reliable meth- Vice President for Rare Plants tat in these cases. ods for salvage, propagation, trans- Carol C. Baskin, PhD, President, Recent regulatory proposals by the location or transplantation are not Botanical Society of America Department, statements by the Cali- available for many rare species. fornia Attorney General, and activi- 5)Areas where the impacted taxon is ties in the courts and the state legis- already present are often at the car- References lature, signal that NPPA’s provisions rying capacity of the habitat, and the on transplantation may soon become introduction of transplanted indi- Allen, W.H. 1994. Reintroduction of the major, possibly the only, form of viduals into the existing population endangered plants: Biologists worry “protection” from unlimited take for will disrupt the equilibrium of that that mitigation may be considered all state-listed plant taxa. For these population and will not increase the an easy option in the political and reasons, it has become necessary to viability of the taxon. legal frameworks of conservation. review the reasons why reliance on 6)The 10-day notice provision means Bioscience 44(2): 65–68.

66 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 Fiedler, P. 1991. Mitigation Related Howald, A.M. 1996. Translocation as Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Com- Transplantation, Translocation and a mitigation strategy: Lessons from mittee, California Native Plant So- Reintroduction Projects Involving En- California. Pages 293-329 in: D.A. ciety. 1991. Mitigation Guidelines dangered and Threatened and Rare Falk, C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threat- Plant Species in California. Califor- eds. Restoring Diversity: Strategies for ened, and Endangered Plants. Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game. Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. nia Native Plant Society. Sacra- Sacramento, CA. 82 pp. Island Press. Washington, DC. mento, CA. 17 pp.

Resources for Rare Plant Conservation by David P. Tibor

he following print and online Jepson Online Interchange: ucjeps. network.org/BIODIVERSITY/home. Tresources are intended to give herb.berkeley.edu/interchange.html html information on rare plant con- (resource for California floristics) CNPS “Action Alerts”: www.cnps.org/ servation via science, law and regula- Specimen Management System for alerts/alerts.htm tion, management, and monitoring. California Herbaria (SMASCH): This compilation is not intended to www.mip.berkeley.edu/www_apps/ be exhaustive, but instead a “jumping- smasch (over 340,000 specimens Law and Policy— off point” for interested readers. from California herbaria) General

Rare Plants— Conservation— Reid, T.S. and T. Peterson. 1994. Laws General for rare plant conservation. Fremon- General tia 22(1):20-26. CNPS. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Elias, T.S. ed. 1987. Conservation and Snape, W. 1996. Biodiversity and the Endangered Plants of California. 6th Management of Rare and Endangered Law. Defenders of Wildlife and Is- ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Plants. California Native Plant So- land Press. Washington, DC. 259 pp. Committee, David P. Tibor, Con- ciety. Sacramento, CA. 630 pp. vening Editor. California Native CERES Law, Regulation, and Policy Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 388 Given, D. 1994. Principles and Practice web site: www.ceres.ca.gov/elaw/ pp. of Plant Conservation. Timber Press. Portland, OR. 292 pp. Fiedler, P.L. 1995. Rarity in the Cali- CESA, FESA, and NPPA fornia flora: new thoughts on old Jensen, D.B., M.S. Torn, and J. Harte. 1993. In Our Own Hands: A Strategy ideas. Madroño 42(2):127-141. Doremus, H. and J.E. Pagel. 2001. for Conserving California’s Biological Why listing may be forever: Per- Diversity. University of California spectives on delisting under the US Rare Plants— Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Endangered Species Act. Conserva- Data Resources London. 302 pp. tion Biology 15(5):1258-1268. Rolston, H. 1994. Conserving Natural Calflora: www.calflora.org (information Stanford Environmental Law Society. Value. Columbia University Press. 2001. The Endangered Species Act. on California plants for conserva- New York, NY. 259 pp. tion, research, and education) Stanford University Press. Stanford, Schemske, D.W., B.C. Husband, CA. 296 pp. CalPhotos: elib.cs.berkeley.edu/photos/ M.H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, flora (images of California plants) I.M. Parker, and J.G. Bishop. 1994. Overview of listing under CESA: CERES—California Environmental Evaluating approaches to the con- www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/ Resources Evaluation System: ceres. servation of rare and endangered list_proced.shtml ca.gov plants. Ecology 75(3):584-606. CESA listing petition format and in- CNPS Rare Plant Science Program: structions: www.cnps.org/archives/ www.cnps.org/rareplants/rppindex. Action Alerts (via forms/state_petition.doc (in Word for- htm email) mat) CNPS Inventory Online: www.cnps.org/ CESA listed plants: www.dfg.ca.gov/ inventory (queriable version of the Center for Biological Diversity’s whdab/assets/docs/teplants.pdf (in PDF CNPS Inventory) “Biodiversity Activist”: action format)

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 67 CESA in California Fish and Game Institute of Biological Sciences. Sacramento, CA. 29 pp. Code: ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cesa/ Washington, DC. 97 pp. Available School of Natural Resources and En- stat in PDF format at www.nceas.ucsb. vironment at the University of edu/nceas-web/projects/97KAREI2/ Michigan. 1997. Endangered Species hcp-1999-01-14.pdf Introduction to FESA: endangered.fws. Update—Habitat Conservation Plan- gov/pubs/esa_basics.pdf (in PDF for- California Department of Fish and ning. Vol. 14, No. 7-8 (July-August). mat) Game and California Resources Agency. 1993. Southern California Overview of listing under FESA: CNPS HCP / NCCP Handbook: Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Commu- endangered.fws.gov/listing/listing.pdf www.cnps.org/archives/handbooks/hcp- nities Conservation Plan: Scientific (in PDF format) nccp.pdf (in PDF format) Review Panel Guidelines and Docu- FESA text: endangered.fws.gov/esa.html mentation. State Printing Office. CNPS HCP / NCCP resources: www. cnps.org/conservation/NCCP-HCPs. FESA listed plants and animals: Sacramento, CA. htm endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html Harding, E.K., E.E. Crone, B.D. Federal Register notices: www.epa.gov/ Elderd, J.M. Hoekstra, A.J. Mc- US Fish and Wildlife Service HCP fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/index.html Kerrow, J.D. Perrine, J. Regetz, L.J. Rissler, A.G. Stanley, E.L. Walters, Program: endangered.fws.gov/hcp/ (queriable site for FESA listings, index.html proposed listings, and critical habi- and the National Center for Eco- tat notices) logical Analysis and Synthesis Department of Fish and Game NCCP Working Group. 2001. The scien- information: www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp tific foundation of habitat conser- CEQA vation plans: a quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology 15(2): Monitoring 488–500. Bass, R., A. Herson, and K. Bogdan. 1999. CEQA Deskbook. 2nd ed. with Jasny, M. 1997. Leap of Faith: Southern Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. 2001 supplement. Solano Press California’s Experiment in Natural Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Books. Point Arena, CA. 431 pp. Community Conservation Planning. Monitoring Plant Populations. BLM Natural Resources Defense Coun- Technical Reference 1730-1. BLM/ Dennis, N.B. 1994. Does CEQA pro- cil. New York, NY. 41 pp. RS/ST-98/005+1730. Bureau of tect rare plants? Fremontia 22(1):3- Land Management. Sacramento, Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D.D. 13. CA. 477 pp. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conser- Remy, M., T. Thomas, J. Moose, and vation Planning: Habitat Conservation Menges, E.S., and D.R. Gordon. 1996. J.W. Yeates. 1999. Guide to the Cali- under the Endangered Species Act. Is- Three levels of monitoring inten- fornia Environmental Quality Act. land Press. Washington, DC. 246 pp. sity for rare plant species. Natural 10th ed. Solano Press Books. Point Areas Journal 16: 227-237. Arena, CA. 1023 pp. Pollak, D. 2001a. Natural Community Conservation Planning: The Origins of Sayre R., E. Roca, G. Sedaghatkish, Yeates, J.W. 2002. Community Guide an Ambitious Experiment to Protect B.Young, S. Keel, R. Roca, and S. to the California Environmental Qual- Ecosystems. Part 1 in a series. Cali- Sheppard. 2000. Nature in Focus: ity Act. Planning and Conservation fornia Research Bureau, California Rapid Ecological Assessment. Island League. Sacramento, CA. 36 pp. State Library. Sacramento, CA. 57 Press. Covelo, CA. 182 pp. (The pp. Available in PDF format at: Nature Conservancy has developed a process for rapid ecological assess- CEQA process flowchart: ceres.ca.gov/ www.library.ca.gov/crb/01/02/01- ment, with an emphasis on vegeta- ceqa/flowchart/ 002.pdf tion mapping.) LUPIN—The California Land Use Pollak, D. 2001b. The Future of Habi- Planning Information Network: tat Conservation: The NCCP Experi- British Columbia, Canada. An exten- ceres.ca.gov/planning/ (contains many ence in Southern California. Part 2 in sive natural resources inventory and County General Plans and other in- a series. California Research Bureau, monitoring program is found at formation useful in assessing im- California State Library. Sacra- srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/index.htm pacts and regulatory compliance) mento, CA. 99 pp. Available in PDF format at: www.library.ca.gov/crb/01/ US Environmental Protection Agency 09/01-009.pdf EMAP—Environmental Monitor- HCP and NCCP State of California, California Re- ing and Assessment Program: sources Agency, and California De- www.epa.gov/emap/index.html (useful information about study designs and American Institute of Biological Sci- partment of Fish and Game. 1995. data management) ences. 1999. Using Science in Habi- Natural Communities Conservation tat Conservation Plans. American Program. Report to the Legislature. USDI National Park Service’s natural

68 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 resources monitoring programs: Academy Press. Washington, DC. Library. Sacramento, CA. 40 pp. www. nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ and 259 pp. Available in PDF format at: www. their vegetation monitoring proce- library.ca.gov/crb/02/05/02-005.pdf Little Hoover Commission. 1994. dure for burned sites (either wild- Timber Harvest Plans: A Flawed Ef- fire or prescribed fires): www.fire. CNPS Forestry Program: www.cnps. nps.gov/fmh/default.asp fort to Balance Economic & Environ- mental Needs. Milton Marks Com- org/forestry mission on California State Govern- CNPS forestry issues links: www.cnps. Timber Harvest ment Organization and Economy. org/forestry/misc/ForestryLinks. htm Sacramento, CA. 84 pp. (large number of links to relevant Christensen, N.L. 2000. Environmen- Pollak, D. 2002. Are Certified Regula- web resources) tal Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest tory Programs Functionally Equivalent Management. Committee on Envi- to CEQA? A Comparison of their David P. Tibor, CNPS, 1722 J Street, ronmental Issues in Pacific North- Statutes and Regulations. California Suite 17, Sacramento, CA 95814. dtibor west Forest Management. National Research Bureau, California State @cnps.org

GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ACRONYMS RELATED TO RARE PLANT PROTECTION

AB. Assembly Bill. that a lead agency takes on an EIR. An discretionary action. The exercise of EIR cannot be challenged in court until judgment or deliberation when the ADEIR. Administrative Draft Environ- it is certified. public agency decides to approve or mental Impact Report; the version that disapprove a particular activity, as dis- undergoes internal review prior to be- CESA. California Endangered Species Act tinguished from situations where the ing released to the public as a DEIR. (Fish and Game Code §§ 2050-2116). public agency merely has to determine adaptive management. A systematic pro- changed circumstances. Reasonably fore- whether there has been conformity with cess for continually improving manage- seeable circumstances that could affect applicable statutes, ordinances, or regu- ment policies and practices by learning a covered species, habitat, or the geo- lations (CEQA Guidelines § 15357). from the outcomes of operational pro- graphic area covered by a regional con- DPR. California Department of Pesticide grams. servation plan. Regulation. administrative remedies. The procedure clear-cutting. A method of harvesting tim- edge effect. The effect on habitat condi- for allowing a person to assert a right to ber in which all trees within a given area, tions (e.g., degree of humidity, light, a relief from an administrative agency. regardless of size or age, are cut down at wind exposure) found at or near the Persons wishing to challenge an EIR in one time. boundary between different ecosystems court must show they have exhausted all CNDDB. California Natural Diversity or land uses. their administrative remedies for the Database (within CDFG). particular issues in the lawsuit, that is, EIR. Environmental Impact Report; re- they have made all possible efforts to CNPS. California Native Plant Society. quired when a project may pose a sig- ensure an adequate document by com- nificant environmental effect. menting on factual errors and omissions corridor. A connection that links separate element. concerning the issues during the com- patches of habitat. A plant, animal, or natural comment periods. The legal case can only munity. An “element” of natural diver- covered species. Species, both listed and sity, typically used by natural heritage address the adequacy of the EIR in nonlisted, that are conserved and man- addressing those issues discussed in programs to avoid this longer explana- aged under an approved NCCP and that tion. the comments. may be authorized for take. adopted. Term applied to the final action element ranking. Plants, animals, and critical habitat. Specific geographic areas, natural communities can be ranked as that a lead agency takes on a Neg Dec. whether occupied by listed species or to their rarity and threat. Heritage pro- not, that are determined to be essential applicant. Individual or company submit- grams across the network utilize the sys- for the conservation and management ting an application to undertake a tem devised by NatureServe (the science of federally listed species, and that have project. branch of The Nature Conservancy) of been formally described in the Federal Global (G) and State (S) ranks. The G BOF. California Board of Forestry. Register. rank reflects the status of the element CDF. California Department of Forestry. cumulative impacts. Two or more indi- across its entire distribution. The S rank vidual impacts which, when considered reflects just the situation in a particular CDFG. California Department of Fish and together, are considerable, or which state. There can also be a N (National) Game. compound or increase other environ- rank reflecting the situation in a given CEQA. California Environmental Qual- mental impacts. country. ity Act (California Public Resources DEIR. Draft Environmental Impact Re- endangered. A formal designation under Code §§ 21000-21117). port (EIR); the version that is provided CESA and FESA. Under CESA, a taxon certified. Term applied to the final action for public review. which is “in serious danger of becoming

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 69 extinct throughout all, or a significant listed wildlife during otherwise lawful ment by the public official as to the wis- portion of its range due to one or more activity. (FESA § 10(a)) dom or manner of carrying out the causes . . .” (Fish and Game Code § project. The public official merely ap- Independent Science Advisors. A panel 2062). Under FESA, a taxon which is plies the law to the facts as presented of scientists convened to make general “in danger of extinction throughout all but uses no special discretion or judg- recommendations on the conservation or a significant portion of its range” ment in reaching a decision (CEQA goals and strategies for an NCCP/HCP; (FESA § 3 (6)). Guidelines § 15369). they are independent of the actual plan- environmental gradient. The range of ning process. Mitigated Neg Dec. A Neg Dec that is any environmental factor, such as slope, prepared when an IS has identified po- IS. Initial Study; the first examination of a aspect, elevation, soil type, topography, tentially significant environmental ef- CEQA project for potentially significant depth, inundation, or temperature. fects, but the project has been revised to physical environmental effects. avoid or reduce to insignificance those even-aged management. Timber man- ITP. Incidental Take Permit; a permit is- effects and there is no evidence that the agement that results in the creation of sued under FESA to private parties un- revised project will have a significant stands of trees in which relatively small dertaking otherwise lawful projects that effect on the environment. age differences exist between individual might result in the take of an endangered trees. Clear-cutting is an example of this mitigation. The act of making an impact or threatened species. Application for an type of management. less severe. Under CEQA, mitigation incidental take permit is subject to cer- may include: avoiding the impact alto- FEIR. Final Environmental Impact Re- tain requirements, including preparation gether; minimizing impacts by limiting port. Includes the response to comments by the permit applicant of a conserva- the degree or magnitude of the action; on the DEIR, any changes in text re- tion plan, generally known as an HCP reducing or eliminating the impact by quired in the DEIR, and the DEIR it- (FESA § 10(a)). repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the self. The response to comments and impacted environment; or compensat- changes in text may be published as a landscape level. The scale at which an area ing for the impact by replacing or pro- separate document that supplements the includes a full range of environmental DEIR, or the two documents may be gradients and that considers ecological viding substitute resources or environ- published together. The DEIR plus the integrity and ecosystem function. ments. response to comments and revisions to lead agency. The agency that oversees MSCP. Multiple Species Conservation text constitute the FEIR. preparation of the CEQA documenta- Program (in San Diego), a plan under FESA. Federal Endangered Species Act tion and adopts or certifies the docu- NCCP. ment. It is also the agency that must le- (16 USC §§ 1531-1544). NatureServe. The science branch of gally defend a document. fog drip. Water that drips to the ground TNC; now an independent organization from objects, such as leaves and branches, legally adequate. A CEQA document that based in Arlington, VA. meets the intent of the law, including a on which the water has collected during NCCP. Natural Community Conservation discussion of all reasonably foreseeable a fog. Planning (Fish and Game Code §§ physical impacts of the project, cumula- 2800-2840). FPA. California Forest Practice Act (Cali- tive and growth-inducing impacts, and fornia Public Resources Code §§ 4511- alternatives. NCCPs. Natural Community Conserva- 4628). tion Plans. list (a plant). To place on the list of plants FPR. Forest Practice Rules (CCR §§ 895- protected under CESA or FESA. Neg Dec. Negative Declaration; the 1115). CEQA documentation indicating that a List 1A. A CNPS ranking applied to plants project will not have a significant physi- functional equivalent. An environmen- presumed extinct in California. tal document prepared under certain cal impact on the environment. A Neg state regulatory programs that are ex- List 1B. A CNPS ranking applied to plants Dec incorporates the findings of an IS. rare, threatened, or endangered in Cali- empted from the requirement to prepare negative data. The absence of plant oc- fornia and elsewhere. an EIR because they have been certified currences are reported as negative data. as meeting certain criteria designed to List 2. A CNPS ranking applied to plants In botanical surveys, this means areas ensure they meet the basic goals of rare, threatened, or endangered in Cali- where specific plants are not found. CEQA (as per Public Resources Code § fornia, but more common elsewhere. 21080.5). NFMA. National Forest Management Act List 3. A CNPS ranking applied to plants (16 U.S.C. § 1601-et seq). FWS. United States Fish and Wildlife about which we need more informa- NMFS. National Marine Fisheries Service. Service (also abbreviated USFWS). tion—a “review” list. NOD. Notice of Determination; a notice GIS. Geographic information system, a List 4. A CNPS ranking applied to plants filed by the lead agency after approving system of hardware and software used of limited distribution—a “watch” list. to store, retrieve, map, and analyze spa- a project for which an EIR, Neg Dec, or tial data on a computer. locally significant plants. Plants which are Mitigated Neg Dec was prepared. The not rare from a statewide perspective, NOD starts the 30-day statute of limi- GPS. Global positioning system, an elec- but are significant from a more local per- tations for legal challenges. tronic device that uses satellites to allow spective. Examples might include an oc- a user to determine the location of any NOE. Notice of Exemption; a notice that currence on the outer limits of known site, often accurate to a few meters. may be filed by a lead agency after ap- distribution, a range extension, a redis- proval of a project that it has determined Group A and B Commercial Species. covery, or a plant that is rare or uncom- is exempt from CEQA. The filing starts Lists of commercial timber trees from a mon in a local context (such as within a a 35-day statute of limitations on legal forest district as designated in FPR. county or region). challenges to the decision that the pro- HCP. Habitat Conservation Plan. A plan ministerial action. A governmental deci- ject is exempt. If the agency chooses not developed under FESA to allow take of sion involving little or no personal judg- to file an NOE, the statute of limitations

70 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 is 180 days from the project approval Rarefind. A computer application that al- skid trail. An unimproved trail over which date. lows querying and reporting capability logs are dragged from the forest to land- on CNDDB data. The application is up- ings where they are loaded onto trucks. nonsignatories. Individuals or groups that dated monthly, and subscribers receive are not part of (have not signed) a con- data updates every six months. SOD. Sudden Oak Death syndrome. tract such as the implementation plan State Clearinghouse. State agency that of an NCCP. recovery. The state in which the circumstances of a listed species have been im- distributes CEQA documents to other NOP. Notice of Preparation; a notice of proved to the point that it no longer state agencies for comment as appropri- intent to prepare an EIR and solicit early needs the protection of CESA or FESA. ate. An EIR should have a State Clear- comment from concerned agencies and inghouse number on the cover or title the public on issues to be addressed in recovery plan. Under FESA, an advisory page. the EIR. document developed by FWS which outlines actions that can be taken by public statute of limitations. The length of time NPPA. Native Plant Protection Act, a 1977 after a NOD has been filed during which and private agencies and individuals to law which gave the California Fish and a legal challenge can be brought. It is gen- help recover federally-listed taxa. Such Game Commission the authority to des- erally 30 days. The statute of limitations actions typically include habitat protec- ignate native plants as endangered or on a NOE is 35 days (CEQA Guidelines tion and management, threat reduction, rare, and to require permits for collect- § 15062(d)), and if an agency performs trend monitoring, and research. (Under ing, transporting, or selling such plants no CEQA review when it should have, CESA, there is a recovery strategy pilot (Fish and Game Code §§ 1900-1913). parties have 180 days from the date of program that requires a recovery strat- project approval to file a legal challenge. occurrence. A location where an element egy for the greater sandhill crane and up (plant, animal, or natural community) is to four other species designated by the subsample. To sample only a portion of a found. The occurrence can consist of a Fish and Game Commission. CESA does population. Subsampling is often done single population or several colonies in not currently require recovery strategies for large populations, when attempting the nearby vicinity. The separation dis- for all state listed species.) to count individuals is impractical. tance between discrete occurrences as per Registered Professional Forester. An in- take. To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, CNDDB is 0.25 miles in California and dividual certified by the BOF as quali- wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or Oregon, or 1 km in some other states. fied to prepare THPs. to attempt to engage in any such con- occurrence data. Information about when duct. Take also includes significant RPSP. Rare Plant Science Program of and where a species occurs, including de- habitat modification or destruction that CNPS. tails such as size, area, viability, and actually kills or injures threatened or threats. SB. Senate Bill. endangered species by significantly interfering with their essential behavioral occurrence ranking. Individual occur- SCH. State Clearinghouse. patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and rences are ranked by CNDDB (if enough Section 4. The section of FESA that deals sheltering (FESA § 3(18)). information is available) to evaluate site with listing and recovery of species, and condition, quality, land use, disturbances, threatened. A formal designation under designation of critical habitat. size of population, viability over time, and CESA and FESA. Under CESA, a taxon the like. Occurrence ranks are either Ex- Section 7. The section of FESA that which “although not currently threat- cellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Unknown, or requires all federal agencies, in consul- ened with extinction, is likely to become None (the last used for extirpated occur- tation with FWS, to insure that their an endangered species in the foreseeable rences) and reflect the quality of both the actions are not likely to jeopardize the future in the absence of the special pro- population’s health and the associated continued existence of listed species or tection and management efforts . . .” habitat at the site. result in destruction or adverse modifi- (Fish and Game Code § 2067). Under cation of critical habitat. FESA, a taxon which is “likely to become OPR. Governor’s Office of Planning and an endangered species within the fore- Research. Section 9. The section of FESA that deals seeable future throughout all or a sig- with prohibited actions, including the pesticide spray adjuvant. A substance, nificant portion of its range” (FESA § import and export, take, possession of with or without toxic properties of its 3(19)). illegally taken species, transport, or sale own, which is intended to be used with of endangered or threatened species. THP. Timber Harvest Plan; a plan outlin- another pesticide as an aid to the appli- ing timber removal from an area, which cation or effect of the other pesticide. Section 10. The section of FESA that lays serves as the functional equivalent of an out the guidelines under which a permit positive sighting database. A database EIR. may be issued to authorize activities pro- containing records of positive sightings hibited by Section 9, such as take of en- TNC. The Nature Conservancy. of rare species (e.g., where a plant was dangered or threatened species. seen), and not containing negative sur- WCB. Wildlife Conservation Board (State). vey data (e.g., where a plant wasn’t seen). seed-tree technique. An even-aged tim- windthrow. The uprooting and overthrow CNDDB is an example of this type of ber harvest technique in which the first of trees by the wind. database. harvest removes all but a few trees (seed trees), followed by a subsequent harvest USFWS. See FWS. preserve. Land set aside and managed for which removes only the seed trees. the conservation of species and habitats. USGS. United States Geological Survey. shelter-wood technique. Similar to seed- rare. A formal designation under NPPA unforeseen circumstances. Changes af- tree technique, but more trees are ini- for a taxon which “although not pres- fecting one or more covered species, tially left to shelter young trees from ently threatened with extinction . . . is habitat, natural community, or the geo- windthrow. in such small numbers throughout its graphic area that could not reasonably range that it may become endangered if silviculture. The theory and practice of have been anticipated at the time the its present environment worsens” (Fish controlling the establishment, compo- regional conservation plan was devel- and Game Code § 1901). sition, and growth of forests. oped.

VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001 FREMONTIA 71 Editorial

ne of the most critical ele- fornia. This issue also offers invaluable alternate with mixed issues for the next Oments of the California Na- resources and guidelines to those par- few years, and will not only educate tive Plant Society’s mission is ticipating in the legal processes of rare members about some fascinating na- education about and advocacy for rare, plant protection. Special thanks go to tive plant topics, but coupled with threatened, and endangered native David Tibor, Carol Witham, authors, bimonthly publication, will help Fre- plants of our state. This is no small and photographers for their contribu- montia return to its normal quarterly task: almost one third of California’s tions to what we hope will not only en- publication schedule by the January plant species, subspecies, and varieties lighten members about rare plants and 2004 issue. I hope that you will enjoy are in need of advocacy, and the threats their protection, but will provide use- the following theme issues: modern to native habitats increase with each ful tools for those doing the hard work systematics and changes to plant clas- and every day. David Tibor, CNPS of rare plant advocacy. sification and nomenclature; bryo- Rare Plant Botanist, has served as Con- This is the second of a series of phytes; plants and insects; seaweeds; vening Editor for this special issue of Fremontia issues that has a focal con- and stewardship. (For further informa- Fremontia, which includes articles and cept (the first, Vol. 29 #1, presented tion on the publication schedule, see other documents that explain the ins articles about use of native plants in www.cnps.org under Fremontia.) and outs of rare plant advocacy in Cali- horticulture). These theme issues will Linda Ann Vorobik, Editor

CONTRIBUTORS

Roxanne Bittman is lead botanist for the California Natural Diversity Database in the Department of Fish and Game,

Sacramento.

Address Service Requested Service Address

Sacramento, CA 95814 CA Sacramento, 1722 J St., Suite 17 Suite St., J 1722 Susan Britting is CNPS president. Society Plant Native California Gregory A. Jirak is coordinator of the CNPS State For- estry Program and executive director of Timber Watch, a non-profit organization that reviews timber harvest activities in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Jennifer Kalt is resource protection associate for the Cali- fornia Indian Basketweavers Association’s Northwestern Field Office in Humboldt County, and conservation chair for the North Coast Chapter of CNPS. Taylor Peterson is an environmental consultant with Tho- mas Reid Associates, where she has worked for 21 years. Emily Brin Roberson is senior policy analyst for CNPS. Allison Rolfe is executive director of the San Diego Audubon Society, and serves on the Sierra Club’s State Endangered Species Task Force. David P. Tibor is rare plant botanist for CNPS. Carol W. Witham is a consulting botanist and a long-time participant in habitat conservation planning on behalf of the Sacramento Valley Chapter of CNPS. Roy A. Woodward is manager of the Natural Resource Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Program of the California Department of State Parks, and chair of the

CNPS Plant Sciences Committee. Postage U.S.

Nonprofit Org. Nonprofit

Permit # 3729 # Permit

Oakland, CA Oakland, PAID

Fremontia Editorial Advisory Board Ann Bradley; Travis Columbus; Susan D’Alcamo-Potter; Ellen Dean; Kathleen Dickey; Phyllis M. Faber; Bart O’Brien; John Sawyer; Jim Shevock; Teresa Sholars; Nevin Smith; Dieter Wilken; John Willoughby; Darrell Wright 72 FREMONTIA VOLUME 29:3-4, JULY/OCTOBER 2001