vol. 33, no. 3 july 2005 fremontia

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

A JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

FREMONTIA

$5.00 (Free to Members)

Vol. 33, No. 3 July 2005

IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:

40TH ANNIVERSARY OF CNPS

CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY: INSTALLMENT III 33333

THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM by David Chipping 1010101010

CNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM:

A FRESH LOOK BACK AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD

by Todd Keeler-Wolf and Julie M. Evens 1818181818

THE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA COUNTY MANZANITAS

by Greg Wahlert and Phil Van Soelen 2424242424

IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954-2004 by Aaron Liston 3131313131


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

CNPS carries out its missionthrough science, conservation advo-cacy, education, and horticulture atthe local, state, and federal levels. Itmonitors rare and endangered plantsand habitats; acts to save endangeredareas through publicity, persuasion,and on occasion, legal action; pro-vides expert testimony to governmentbodies; supports the establishment ofnative plant preserves; sponsors work-days to remove invasive plants; andoffers a range of educational activitiesincluding speaker programs, field trips,native plant sales, horticultural work-shops, and demonstration gardens.

Since its founding in 1965, the tra-ditional strength of CNPS has beenits dedicated volunteers. CNPS ac-tivities are organized at the local chap-ter level where members’ varied in-terests influence what is done. Volun-teers from the 32 CNPS chapters an-nually contribute in excess of 87,000hours (equivalent to 42 full-time em-ployees).

CNPS membership is open to all.Members receive the quarterly jour-nal, Fremontia, the quarterly statewideBulletin, and newsletters from theirlocal CNPS chapter.

Fremontia logo (by L.A. Vorobik) re-printed from The Jepson Manual, J.Hickman, Ed., 1993, with permissionfrom the Jepson Herbarium, UC. © Re-gents of the University of California.

CALIFORNIA NCALIFORNIA NCALIFORNIA NCALIFORNIA NCALIFORNIA NAAAAATIVETIVETIVETIVETIVE

PLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETY

Dedicated to the Preservation ofthe California Native Flora

VOL. 33, NO. 3, JULY 2005

FREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIA

Copyright © 2005California Native Plant Society

STAFFSacramento Office:Executive Director . . . . . Pamela C.

Muick, PhDDevelopment Director . . Cari PorterMembership Assistant . . . Christina

NeiferFinance Manager . . . . . . . . . . Lois

CunninghamBookkeeper . . . . Suzanne DaVirro

At Large:Fremontia Editor . . . . . . . Linda Ann

Vorobik, PhDSenior Conservation Botanist . . . . . .

Ileene AndersonRare Plant Botanist . . . . Misa WardSenior Vegetation Ecologist . . Julie

EvensVegetation Ecologist . . . Anne KleinEast Bay Conservation Analyst . . . . .

Jessica Jean OlsenLegislative Advocate . . . . . . . . . . .

Vern GoehringLegal Advisor . . . . . . Sandy McCoyWebsite Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . .

John DonaghueBulletin Editor . . . . . . . . . . . vacant

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

David Diaz, Vern Goehring, SteveHartman (Treasurer), Diana Hickson,Lynn Houser, Lynne Kada, David L.Magney, Sandy McCoy (Vice Pres-ident), J. Spence McIntyre, CarolWitham (President)

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

MEMBERSHIPMembership form located on inside back cover;

dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the Bulletin

Mariposa Lily . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000Benefactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500Patron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250Plant Lover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100

Supporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75Family, Group, International . . . $45Individual or Library . . . . . . . . . $35Student/Retired/Limited Income . $20

CHAPTER COUNCILAlta Peak (Tulare) . . . . Joan StewartBristlecone (Inyo-Mono) . . . . . . . . .

Sherryl TaylorChannel Islands . . . . . . Lynne KadaDorothy King Young (Mendocino/

Sonoma Coast) . . . Jon ThompsonEast Bay . . . . . . . . Joe WillinghamEl Dorado . . . . . . . . Amy HoffmanKern County . . . . . Laura StocktonLos Angeles/Santa Monica Mtns . . .

Betsey LandisMarin County . . . . . . . . Bob SoostMilo Baker (Sonoma County) . . . . .

Reny ParkerMojave Desert . . . . . . Tim ThomasMonterey Bay . . . . . . Robert HaleMount Lassen . . . . . . . . Jim BishopNapa Valley . . . . . . Marcie DannerNorth Coast . . . . . . . Larry LevineNorth San Joaquin . . . . Gail ClarkOrange County . . . . . . Sarah JayneRedbud (Grass Valley/Auburn) . . . .

Marie BainRiverside/San Bernardino counties . .

Katie BarrowsSacramento Valley . . Diana HicksonSan Diego . . . . . . . . Dave FlietnerSan Gabriel Mtns . . . . Lyn McAfeeSan Luis Obispo . . . . Charles BlairSanhedrin (Ukiah) . Chuck WilliamsSanta Clara Valley . . . Judy FenertySanta Cruz County . Casey StewmanSequoia (Fresno) . . . . Warren ShawShasta . . . . . . . . . . . Dave DuBoseSierra Foothills (Tuolumne, Cala-veras, Mariposa) . . . . Patrick StoneSouth Coast (Palos Verdes) . . . . . .

Barbara SattlerTahoe . . . . . . . . . . Michael HoganWillis L. Jepson (Solano) . . . . . . . .

Allison FleckYerba Buena (San Francisco) . . . . .

Mark Heath

MATERIALS FORPUBLICATION

CNPS members and others are wel-come to contribute materials for pub-lication in Fremontia. See the insideback cover for manuscript submissioninstructions.

Printed by Business Point Impressions, Concord, CA

Linda Ann Vorobik, EditorBob Hass, Copy Editor

Beth Hansen-Winter, DesignerVivian Parker, Jake Sigg &David Tibor, Proofreaders

CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5113(916) 447-CNPS (2677) Fax: (916) 447-2727

[email protected]

PROGRAM DIRECTORS

CNPS Press . . . . . . . . Holly Forbesand Gail Milliken

Conservation . . . . . David ChippingHorticulture . . . . . . . . Peigi DuvallPosters . . . . . . . . Bertha McKinley

and Wilma FolletteRare Plants . . . . . . . . Ann HowaldVegetation . . . . Todd Keeler-Wolf

F R E M O N T I A


THE COVER: High elevation region in the Mineral King area of Sequoia National Park. The white rock in the backgroundis rich in marble and carbonate-loving endemic species. One of the jobs of the California Native Plant Society ConservationProgram is monitoring management actions of federal agencies so that special places like these and the endemic speciesthey harbor enjoy continued protection. Photograph by D. Chipping.

CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:

INSTALLMENT IIIINSTALLMENT IIIINSTALLMENT IIIINSTALLMENT IIIINSTALLMENT III .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33333

This third in a series of four articles celebrates members and local chapters which make upour Society, and includes those from the central part of the state: the Tahoe, El Dorado,Marin, Willis Linn Jepson, Yerba Buena, East Bay, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara Valleychapters. Summaries of the remaining CNPS chapters will appear in the next issue ofFremontia.

THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM by David Chipping.... 1010101010

David Chipping (Professor of Geology at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo) has headed theconservation program since 1997. At the close of his tenure, the author reflects upon theConservation Program of the Society, including an overview, how it relates to other CNPSprograms, and some current challenges.

CNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM: A FRESH LOOK BACKCNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM: A FRESH LOOK BACKCNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM: A FRESH LOOK BACKCNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM: A FRESH LOOK BACKCNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM: A FRESH LOOK BACK

AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD by Todd Keeler-Wolf andJulie M. Evens ................................................................................................1818181818

This article highlights the history of the CNPS Vegetation Program from its inception, witha positive look at the present and towards the future. The program has benefited tremen-dously from the work of its committee members and chapter volunteers, and now advances tonew projects with paid staff on board.

THE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA COUNTYTHE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA COUNTYTHE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA COUNTYTHE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA COUNTYTHE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA COUNTY

MANZANITAS MANZANITAS MANZANITAS MANZANITAS MANZANITAS by Greg Wahlert and Phil Van Soelen ........................... 2424242424

Sonoma County is a hot spot of plant endemism in California, with 18 plant taxa knownonly from the county, including four species of manzanita. The authors tell the story of twosuch endemics: Vine Hill manzanita (Arctostaphylos densiflora) and Rincon manzanita(Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens), and speak to both the challenges to theirsurvival and conservation successes.

IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954-2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 by Aaron Liston ......................... 3131313131

BOOK RBOOK RBOOK RBOOK RBOOK REEEEEVVVVVIIIIIEEEEEWWWWW ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3232323232

CONTENTS

GUEST EDITORIAL: GUEST EDITORIAL: GUEST EDITORIAL: GUEST EDITORIAL: GUEST EDITORIAL: TRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATION ETHICTRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATION ETHICTRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATION ETHICTRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATION ETHICTRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATION ETHIC ........................................................................... 22222

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

USEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITES

AND CONTACTAND CONTACTAND CONTACTAND CONTACTAND CONTACT

INFORMATIONINFORMATIONINFORMATIONINFORMATIONINFORMATION

California Native PlantSociety (CNPS):www.cnps.org, with links toconservation issues, chapters,publications, policy, etc.

For updates on conservationissues:Audubon Society www.audubon.org

Center for Biological Diversitywww.sw-center.org

Native Plant ConservationCampaign www.plantsocieties.org

Natural Resources DefenseCouncilwww.nrdc.org

Sierra Clubwww.sierraclub.org

Wilderness Societywww.wilderness.org

For voting information:League of Women Voterswww.lwv.org, includes online voterguide with state-specific nonparti-san election and candidateinformation.

US Senatewww.senate.gov

US House of Representativeswww.house.gov

California State Senatewww.sen.ca.gov

California State Assemblywww.assembly.ca.gov

To write letters:President George W. BushThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20500

Senator Barbara Boxeror Senator Dianne FeinsteinUS SenateWashington, DC 20510

Your CA RepresentativeUS House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515

GUEST EDITORIAL: TRIAGE AND

THE CONSERVATION ETHIC

ot enough money, not enough human resources, and not enough

time! This lament is heard from anyone working in conservation.

As I draw to the end of my tenure as conservation director, I will try to

define an ethical basis for making choices about which conservation battles

we should join or run from, one that reflects the ethical choices made in the

battlefield triage of the wounded.

It is no easy thing to agree on the value of an at-risk plant or habitat. If

a plant is long-lived (such as a redwood tree), is it more valuable in some way

than a tree that lives a century, a shrub that lives a few years, or an annual

plant? Is a plant of great beauty of greater value than a plant of nondescript

appearance? Is the last little patch of native vegetation in the center of town

where it is seen by hundreds of people on a daily basis more valuable than a

thousand acres of native plant habitat in the distant corner of Modoc

County on private ranchland? Is a plant community that contains a CNPS

List 1B plant of greater value than one that does not, and how would the

richness and health of the other species play a role in the decision? If we

work hard because we value and respect all of life, why do we pull weeds?

Like so many, I fall back on the quote from Aldo Leopold: “If the biota,

in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who

but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the

first precaution of intelligent tinkering.” But can we keep every cog when the

Cali-fornia population grows by 560,000 per year? Clearly not, if current

development in southern California continues apace. But the cogs and

wheels are connected in the machinery of the ecosystem, and in my judg-

ment, triage must reflect the degree to which a portion of the machine will

cease to function. When we take out the cog, what dies with it?

As plants are the foundation of entire ecosystems, our value system must

extend beyond the plants. We have butterflies, sparrows, and coyotes to

consider. Under triage, is it worth a fight to the death over habitat for a

plant species defined by one authority, but by another lumped taxonomi-

cally with a common species? If we have the resources we should fight for

each and every subspecies and variety of plant, but if not, we must fight first

for the “cogs and wheels” of greatest ecological importance.

David Chipping

CNPS Conservation Director

N


TAHOE CHAPTERTAHOE CHAPTERTAHOE CHAPTERTAHOE CHAPTERTAHOE CHAPTER

Size of chapter: Approximately87 membersWebsite address: none

In 1982 a brief article in Tahoe areanewspapers reported that a localchapter of CNPS was forming: “Thegroup will be non-pedantic, non-orga-nizationally oriented, and will searchout beautiful wildflower areas and en-joy readings of John Muir, alpine peaks,and the harmony of being with others

CHAPTERS OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE

PLANT SOCIETY: INSTALLMENT III

This is the third installment of summaries of several of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) chapters, andcovers those from the middle part of the state. Each chapter summary has been authored by one or more representativesfrom that chapter. The first installment, covering chapters in the south, appeared in Fremontia Volume 33, No. 1(January 2005); the next, covering chapters one step to the north, appeared in Fremontia Volume 33, No. 2, ( July2005). Summaries of the remaining CNPS chapters, those in northern California, will appear in Fremontia Volume33, No. 4 (October 2005). What a joy it is to read about chapter activities all over our beautiful state. If you are not amember and are inspired to join us, a membership form appears on the inside back cover.

Map of the local chapters of the California Native Plant Society. The chapterssummarized in the text include the Tahoe (10), El Dorado (11), Marin (12), Willis LinnJepson (13), Yerba Buena (14), East Bay (15), Santa Cruz County (16), and the SantaClara Valley Chapter (17).

who love Sierra wildflowers.” At anevening meeting on Friday, Decem-ber 3rd, 16 founding members as-sembled, elected officers includingJulie Carville as president, and se-lected the columbine as thechapter’s flower.

While the Donner Party didn’tmake it over the Sierra that night,Julie arrived in Berkeley the verynext day and presented the requiredpetition to the State Board. On De-cember 4th, Tahoe became the 21stCNPS chapter. Dormancy over the

winter was followed by cabin feverin early 1983, and the chapterquickly developed a full suite of ac-tivities including field trips, plansfor recruiting additional members,and conservation issues it wantedto tackle including National Forestmanagement, development propos-als, and public education.

While the chapter’s major focusover the last decade has been onour field trips, we have also workedwith The Tahoe Regional PlanningAgency and the Lake Tahoe BasinManagement Unit of the US For-est Service to measure and monitor

Top: Tahoe Chapter mem-bers working on a plant sur-vey using CNPS releve pro-tocol at Pope Marsh, nearSouth Lake Tahoe. • Right:Tahoe Chapter member won-dering “what the heck is this?”while checking out the aquaticplant Callitriche on a survey ofTaylor Marsh. Photographs byS. Matson.


rare plants and plant communitiesin the Tahoe Basin.

The minutes of the chapter’sfirst meeting notes included the fol-lowing goal: “The founding membersagreed the chapter would accent funexperiences in getting to know wild-flowers and other native plants.” Trueto our founders’ wishes, we havebeen having a lot of fun for overtwo decades. The Tahoe Chapter isproud to be associated with the Cali-fornia Native Plant Society andwishes our fellow plant lovers a won-derful 40th anniversary.

EL DORADOEL DORADOEL DORADOEL DORADOEL DORADO

CHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTER

Size of chapter: Approximately130 membersWebsite address:www.eldoradocnps.org

Formed in 1994 as an affiliate work-ing group of the Sacramento ValleyChapter, and chartered a year later,the El Dorado Chapter of CNPSmarks its tenth year in 2005. Thechapter is active year-round with

ten general meetings, two plantsales, and 20 field trips.

Although the El Dorado Chap-ter covers a small region, it con-tains a number of uniquely inter-esting botanical areas, includingPine Hill Preserve, Traverse Creek,and dozens of local lava caps. ThePine Hill Preserve consists of sev-eral units within 30,000 acres ofgabbro soils, and is home to eightrare plant species that mainly growin this area. Traverse Creek, a ser-pentine special interest area, hasbeen largely cleared of Scotchbroom (Cytisus scoparius) by mem-bers our chapter and the US ForestService. The local lava caps, withtheir unique soils, also support un-usual plants such as our chapterflower, the rare Calochortus clavatusvar. avius.

Our plant sales accomplish threegoals: providing the communitywith a source of hard-to-find nativeplants, educating the public aboutthe importance of natives, and fund-ing chapter projects such as theClark Youth Fund. Named afterGeorge Clark, former president ofCNPS and El Dorado Chapter

mentor, the fund provides grants toseveral local schools each year tosupport projects in which the stu-dents plant native plant gardens. Inthe last five years we’ve tripled theYouth Fund grants.

Field trips are a hallmark of theEl Dorado Chapter. In recent yearswe’ve traveled from the ocean tothe eastern Sierra, and from LassenPeak in the north to Death Valleyin the south. On our trips we edu-cate the public, learn taxonomy, andsearch for plants we’ve never seen.Come join us!

MARIN CHAPTERMARIN CHAPTERMARIN CHAPTERMARIN CHAPTERMARIN CHAPTER

Size of chapter: Approximately410 membersWebsite address:www.marin.cc.ca.us/cnps

On the north shore of the GoldenGate, the Marin Headlands risegrandly from the ocean, green inthe spring, golden in summer, pre-senting a spectacular welcome toMarin County. Almost 48% ofthe county is open space managedby government agencies or non-profits: part of the Golden GateNational Recreation Area; MuirWoods National Monument; PointReyes National Seashore; sevenState parks; over 15,000 acres ofcounty open space; Marin Munici-pal Water District (MMWD) lands;city park lands; and Audubon Soci-ety and Nature Conservancy pre-serves. In this grand setting, in thespring of 1973, 23 charter mem-bers founded the CNPS MarinChapter.

Over the years the chapter hasprovided testimony, data, and fundsin opposition to real estate develop-ments on fragile habitat. We havetaken positions against proposed ac-tions by various public agencies inMarin that we considered detrimen-tal to native plants and their habi-tats: herbicide use by Caltrans; sow-ing grass seed after burns; creating

Below: El Dorado Chapter field trip to Grass Lake, Luther Pass, July 2001. •Inset: The El Dorado Chapter flower: Calochortus clavatus var. avius. Photographsby S. Perry.


“fire breaks” by clearing wide swathsalong trails and roads in MMWDand State Parks. We have also sup-ported public acquisitions of threat-ened native habitat. We were amongthe original signatories and currentlyparticipate in the Marin/SonomaWeed Management Area.

We have had regular weekendfield trips in Marin and nearbycounties, and extended campingtrips farther afield. Since 1975 thechapter has sponsored weekday fieldtrips from March through Maythroughout the county to educateour members and the public aboutour glorious native flora. Chaptermembers have also monitored rareplant populations and developed

plant lists for our public lands onalternate weeks.

Monitoring rare species is a con-tinuing focus for the chapter. Since1996, a group of members meets onFridays from March through Au-gust to monitor known rare plantlocations and search for otherswithin Point Reyes National Sea-shore. Two species have been redis-covered, and three species new toMarin were found on these outings.

The chapter has assisted in thepreparation of several native plantpublications, including McHoul’sWildflowers of Marin (1978); Shufordand Tomassi’s Plant Communities ofMarin (1989); and Point Reyes Na-tional Seashore Association’s Wild-flowers of Point Reyes National Sea-shore (1996). Since 1995 severalmembers have been working withthe California Academy of SciencesBotany Department on the updat-ing of J.T. Howell’s Marin Florawhich may be published later thisyear.

The CNPS poster project hashad input from several Marin Chap-ter members. Wilma Follette initi-ated the project in 1979 and pro-duced beautiful posters such asSpring Wildflowers and Wildflowersof the Desert (Gompers Saijo, artist);Shrubs of the Coast Ranges and Wild-flowers of the Coast (Svetlana Buchli,artist); and Wildflowers of the Red-

wood Forest (Rosemary Bauman, art-ist). Kristin Jakob, our Public Pro-grams Chair, was the artist for Si-erra Wildflowers and the new NativeGrasses posters.

Annual spring plant sales at thebeautiful Tiburon Audubon Cen-ter have been a major source ofincome since 1975. Eight monthsof the year we publish the chapternewsletter and hold our generalmeetings. Our logo is the image ofthe rare Calochortus tiburonensis.

WILLIS LINN JEPSONWILLIS LINN JEPSONWILLIS LINN JEPSONWILLIS LINN JEPSONWILLIS LINN JEPSON

CHAPTER/ SOLANOCHAPTER/ SOLANOCHAPTER/ SOLANOCHAPTER/ SOLANOCHAPTER/ SOLANO

COUNTYCOUNTYCOUNTYCOUNTYCOUNTY

Size of chapter: Approximately78 membersWebsite address:www.cnpsjepsonchapter.org

Solano County is mostly rural. It islikely there are more sheep andcows here than people. Still, likemany other chapters, we are deal-ing with increasing development insensitive areas. We are located eastof the coastal mountains and westof the Central Valley. From theBay to the Delta, we have a varietyof soils, wildlife (including severalunique invertebrates), plants, andecosystems. Our county is full ofecological wonders from vernalpools to salt marshes. There is

Top: Marin County Chapter membersbotanizing the drying strand of LakeNicasio, September 2004. • Bottom:Marin County Chapter members in 1992enjoying a merry potluck after a series ofwalks. Photographs by K. Howard.

A Willis Linn Jepson Chapter memberat the King Ranch in Solano County,where the chapter is doing restorationwork for the Solano Land Trust. Photo-graph by M. Shaw.


something here for every naturelover.

We organize several activitiesand events throughout the county,including a semi-annual plant sale.Our propagation committee workson inventory for these plant sales aswell as growing plants for restora-tion projects. We have two grow-ing areas, one at Benicia State Rec-reational Area, and the other at theVallejo Sanitation District wherewe irrigate the plants with recycledwater. All of our efforts have beensuccessful (and some have been toosuccessful: marsh plants, given amillimeter will take an acre, andwhen we repotted one, it took twoof us and a crowbar to extricate theroots!).

Our environmental educationprogram covers curricula fromgrades 2 through 5. Mary Shaworiginated this program, got itfunded, and has been running itsuccessfully for several years now.The grade appropriate programsexplore how the environment af-fects our lives: past, present, andfuture.

Last, but certainly not least, wasa goal originally envisioned by chap-ter founder Forrest Deaner to cre-ate a botanical garden somewherein the town of Benicia. After many

attempts and proposals, his widowNorma pushed the dream forward.With a grant from the Coastal Con-servancy, the garden is now open tothe public.

YERBA BUENAYERBA BUENAYERBA BUENAYERBA BUENAYERBA BUENA


Size of chapter: Approximately595 membersWebsite address: www.cnps-yerbabuena.org

The Yerba Buena Chapter now in-cludes San Francisco County andthe northern half of San MateoCounty, but it was formerly a partof the larger, four-county San Fran-

cisco Bay Chapter. In 1986 thechapter board (of what is now theEast Bay Chapter), recognized thatmembers on the west side of theBay rarely participated in chapteractivities and encouraged us to formour own chapter, which we did.Choosing a name and logo was easy:until the United States invaded in1846, San Francisco was known asYerba Buena, in tribute to the “goodherb” of the mint family, Saturejadouglasii. The formative group wasunanimous in choosing the sameplant as its chapter name and logo.

Social, transportation, and plan-ning issues dominate public atten-tion in our densely-settled area, andbiological awareness is not common.Therefore we made education a

Willis Linn Jepson Chapter members atthe Botanic Garden in Benicia. Photo-graph by S. Dean.

Yerba Buena Chapter members on San Bruno Mountain for a winter hike led by JakeSigg (to the left, with walking stick). This mountain is a richly diverse area and hasbeen at the center of development battles for many years. In the distance is SanFrancisco. Photograph by M. Bors.


chapter priority, and take pride inour heavily-attended member pro-grams, well-edited newsletter, andour networking with a number ofdiverse groups. Our chapter pho-tography group exhibits in manyvenues, and the annual plant sale isvery popular. Recognizing that thefuture of plant protection lies withtoday’s young people, involvingthem is uppermost in our minds,which is why we are currently at-tempting to revitalize our educa-tion committee.

The main impetus for starting aplant sale ten years ago was to makeavailable plants propagated from thelocal genetic stock, and that is ex-clusively what we sell. While it isdifficult for many chapters to dothis because they cover such largeand diverse areas, we are lucky inthat respect, as our chapter coversonly about 100 square miles.

Listening to other chapters atstate CNPS meetings report ontheir struggles with unsympatheticcommissions and boards, we feellucky to be spared that kind of pain.However, we have our own set ofproblems. We are an urban areaand our wildlands are highly frag-mented, tiny parcels that are heavilyimpacted, subject to multiple andcompeting uses, and infested withweeds. As functioning ecosystemsthey need assistance. Neverthelessthey are cherished as refuges forwildflowers and other native plants,as wildlife habitat, living museums,outdoor classrooms, and openspaces, and their protection and res-toration has been a high chapterpriority from its inception.

For instance, we persuaded theSan Francisco Recreation and ParkDepartment to acquire natural ar-eas remaining in private hands andto manage them and its other par-cels for their natural values. Thedepartment created a Natural Ar-eas Program, currently staffed byeight, and our volunteers workalongside paid staff. In addition toconducting our own weekly work

parties, we have encouraged othercommunity groups to care for localareas. Our newsletter currently hascontact numbers for 39 differentprojects that are caring for the landin our area, many of which wereeither spawned or assisted byCNPS. San Bruno Mountain, in-cluded by E.O. Wilson as one of his18 world biodiversity hotspots, is ade facto island completely encircledby cities in our chapter area. It isthe site of the first Habitat Conser-vation Plan and its health is declin-ing; as a consequence, attemptingarrest of that decline will consumemuch of our energy.

We think biological diversity isimportant to people’s lives, but rec-ognize that this component is fre-quently overlooked by those work-ing toward healthy surroundings.Therefore we help organizations toenhance their agenda or mission byincluding biodiversity, we keep en-vironmental justice on our radarscreen, and we try to attract andencourage environmentally-caringlocal residents to join CNPS, sup-port CNPS causes, and share in thework of preserving our remnant lo-cal biotic communities for futuregenerations.

EAST BAY CHAPTEREAST BAY CHAPTEREAST BAY CHAPTEREAST BAY CHAPTEREAST BAY CHAPTER

Size of chapter: Approximately1215 membersWebsite address: www.ebcnps.org

The CNPS East Bay Chapter wasso named in 1986, but its roots goback to the beginning of the Soci-ety, which was formed 40 years agoin the Bay Area by a handful ofdedicated native plant enthusiasts.One of the first endeavors of theSociety was to try and save the na-tive plant garden in the East Bay atTilden. The campaign was success-ful: it thrives today as the East BayRegional Parks Botanic Garden,and is one of the few public gar-dens to be totally dedicated to na-

tive flora. It wasn’t until severalother chapters had been formedthat the San Francisco Bay Chap-ter began in 1973 with 200 mem-bers, and covered Alameda, ContraCosta, San Francisco, and SanMateo counties. In 1986 the chap-ter split, with San Francisco andSan Mateo counties forming thenew Yerba Buena Chapter andAlameda and Contra Costa coun-ties forming the East Bay Chapter.Since then the East Bay Chapterhas grown in number to over 1,200,and we are able to support manyactivities to help educate the publicabout rare plants and aid in theirprotection.

For example, our VegetationCommittee trains volunteers on theCNPS protocol for data collection.This information is used in vegeta-tion classification and mapping ef-forts in the East Bay. Our Rare andUnusual Plants Committee now hasa table display of our A1-rankedrare and unusual plants that includesinformation on their location, habi-tat, and last date seen at each site. Ateam of volunteers monitors thesesites and provides timely feedbackto the committee chair. The resultsof the data gathered by these twocommittees make it possible for our

East Bay Chapter member standing in asea of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) atthe site of a recently removed dam. Pho-tograph by B. Case.


newly hired part-time conservationanalyst to provide public commenton vital conservation issues.

Among other chapter activities,we hold plant sales and field trips,and cooperate with other groups tohelp remove problem invasive plantsfrom the East Bay. Recently we wereinvited to have a seat on the BayArea Open Space Council, and havealso been investigating a conserva-tion easement in Oakland. Our up-dated website now lists all A1 andA2 plants in our area, contains cop-ies of chapter newsletters and up-dates on committee work, and alsofeatures information on our fieldtrips and special events.

One of the East Bay’s most trea-sured botanical spots is the Spring-town Alkali Sink area. This areacontains one of the last seven popu-lations of palmate-bracted bird’sbeak (Cordylanthus palmatus) and hasthe most genetically diverse popu-lation known in the world. It is be-ing threatened by development(again). We are recruiting local vol-unteers/members to help increasepublic awareness of the botanicaldevastation this development wouldcause.

We also support the non-profitgroup, Save Mt. Diablo. One oftheir newest acquisition projects isthe 207-acre Mangini Ranch. Pro-tection of the Ranch is critical inthe long campaign to keep urbandevelopment from engulfing theborders of Mount Diablo StatePark. The Ranch is the location ofthe 1936 collection of the rareMount Diablo buckwheat (Eriogo-num truncatum) by Mary Bowermanas well as a number of other rarespecies.

We operate two native plantnurseries, one which sells year-round and has a restoration focus,the other which grows year-roundand houses our plant sale. Both havededicated volunteers who diligentlywork to ensure a wide variety ofnative plants are available to ourlocal communities.

SANTA CRUZSANTA CRUZSANTA CRUZSANTA CRUZSANTA CRUZ


Size of chapter: Approximately324 membersWebsite address:www.cruzcnps.org

Located on California’s centralcoast south of San Francisco andperched on the northern (sunny!)side of the Monterey Bay, SantaCruz County is home to a diverseassemblage of vegetation commu-nities, geologic features, and dedi-cated CNPS volunteers. Our Medi-terranean coastal climate, coupledwith diverse soil types and topogra-phy, has resulted in a complex andvaried array of habitats from chap-arral to coastal prairie grasslands,redwood and mixed evergreen for-ests to coastal scrub, and freshwaterand salt marshes. Perhaps the rarestvegetation communities in thecounty are the inland sand hills ofBen Lomond and Bonny Doon, andthe wet alkaline grassland of SodaLake, both of which contain nu-merous endemic plants.

In the sand hills, the combina-tion of a relatively humid coastalclimate coupled with a coarse, nu-trient-poor soil composed of an-cient, uplifted marine sand depos-its has resulted in a unique assem-blage of rare and endangered plants,many of which are endemic, such

as the silverleaf manzanita (Arcto-staphylos silvicola) or Ben Lomondspineflower (Chorizanthe pungensvar. hartwegiana); other species hereoccur as disjunct from the immedi-ate coast, for example sea thrift(Armeria maritima) and beach sage-wort (Artemisia pycnocephala). Stillothers are usually found in mon-tane habitats far inland, for exampleponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)and pussy paws (Calyptridium um-bellatum).

At Soda Lake occurs the onlyalkaline grassland community in theentire Santa Cruz Mountains biore-gion. At least seven to eight generaand 13 species occur there whichare found nowhere else in SantaCruz County, including the raresaline clover (Trifolium depaupera-tum var. hydrophilum) that was pre-viously presumed extinct.

Our chapter volunteers arehighly dedicated, passionate folkswith a love of nature and a sense ofstewardship. Our ConservationCommittee worksto save the above-mentioned natu-ral communitiesfrom destructionby quarry expan-sion. Our habitatrestoration pro-gram takes volun-teers from ages 8to 80 on biweekly

Above right: Sand hills, Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve, Santa Cruz County. Photo-graph by J. Hillman. Below: CNPS Habitat Restoration Program and the Girl ScoutsTroup of Monterey Bay, pulling invasive beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) at SunsetState Beach. Photograph by D. Susoy.


work parties to remove invasive spe-cies from our State parks. Our chap-ter Flora Committee has been work-ing since 1998 to create a flora ofSanta Cruz County which will bepublished in fall of 2005. In addi-tion, our plant propagation folksdiligently grow a vast array of na-tive plants for our twice yearly plantsale. As you can see from these vari-ous activities, we love this land andare dedicated to its preservation andcontinued ecological integrity.

SANTA CLARASANTA CLARASANTA CLARASANTA CLARASANTA CLARA

VALLEY CHAPTERVALLEY CHAPTERVALLEY CHAPTERVALLEY CHAPTERVALLEY CHAPTER

Size of Chapter: Approximately844 membersWebsite Address: www.cnps-scv.org

The Santa Clara Valley Chapter wasformed in 1972, and covers all ofSanta Clara County and most ofSan Mateo County. It includes milesof San Francisco Bay and Pacificcoastline, redwood and mixed ever-green forests in the Santa CruzMountains, chaparral, serpentinegrasslands and oak woodlands in thefoothills, and the wilderness of theMt. Hamilton Range. The area con-tains 140 rare or endangered plantspecies, including several narrowlydistributed endemics.

The members of the chapterhave fought long and hard to pre-serve open space and vital nativehabitats in an area that is rapidlybecoming urbanized. The serpen-tine grasslands and foothill habitatremnants that make up EdgewoodCounty Natural Preserve in SanMateo County were saved from be-coming a golf course thanks tochapter members recognizing theirreplaceable value of this 467-acrepark, which contains nearly 500plant species. Significant habitatrestoration efforts have continuedsince the park was preserved in1993. Although a large part of thepark had been invaded by pests suchas yellow star-thistle (Centaurea

solstitialis) and teasel(Dipsacus sativus), thesespecies are on retreat,thanks to the long-termdedication of volunteerweed warriors.

Our chapter has manyactive subgroups, includ-ing Gardening with Na-tives, devoted to increas-ing public awareness ofCalifornia’s amazing floraby bringing plants into thehome garden. The GoingNative Garden Tour, anannual event supported inpart by CNPS, featuresprivate and public gardensdesigned and planted withnative plants, and has beentremendously popular inits first three years.

Every spring the chap-ter holds a two-day wild-flower show featuringplants from throughoutcentral California. Thechapter also maintains anursery and holds twoplant sales a year to bringnative plants to local land-scapers and homeowners.We also bring people tothe plants, with numer-ous day hikes and camp-ing trips throughout theyear to all areas of thestate.

Other chapter activi-ties include six programmeetings per year, parti-cipation in two countyweed management areas,photography and keyinggroups, publication of ournewsletter The BlazingStar six times per year,graduate student scholarships, andnumerous invasive removal pro-jects. We maintain an office in PaloAlto to further our numerous con-servation activities, including ourinvolvement in the Santa ClaraCounty HCP/NCCP and our ef-forts to protect the Coyote Ridge

serpentine area. The recent comple-tion of the multi-year vegetationassessment project for Coyote Ridgewas a major accomplishment for ourchapter.

Each chapter summary was authored by oneor more representatives from that chapter.

Top: Display of native grasses at the bi-annual SantaClara Valley Chapter plant sale. By the end of theday, all the grasses were sold out. Middle: Nativeplant sale, Santa Clara Valley Chapter. Bottom: SantaClara Valley Chapter wildflower show. All photo-graphs by A. Kumar.

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

THE CNPS CONSERVATION PROGRAM

by David Chipping

he California Native PlantSociety (CNPS) is “Dedi-cated to the Preservation of

the California Flora.” The goal ofthe CNPS Conservation Programis to achieve that preservationthrough as many tools as we canbring to bear. This is not an easytask in view of the recent drift awayfrom a conservation ethic by boththe federal and state government,powerful economic forces focusedon development and wildland con-

version (not conservation), and rec-reational interests that favor uses ofour public lands that result in habi-tat destruction.

Our conservation goals are firstto inform decision makers, to ei-ther completely protect plant re-sources or else forge palatable com-promises with development inter-ests, to have meaningful conserva-tion laws in place and implemented,and to be able to mount a legaldefense of threatened resources

when needed. Where possible wework with like-minded fellow con-servation organizations.

Incidentally, not the least of ourproblems lies within the definitionof “conservation” which means dif-ferent things to different organiza-tions and government agencies.Funk and Wagnall’s dictionary de-fines conservation as, “the act ofkeeping or protecting from loss orinjury,” which is the CNPS goal forour flora, but then continues with a

T

CNPS continues to fight to limit the impact of invasive plants on native ecosystems. CNPS Chapters and individuals have fundedresearch on the biological control of Cape ivy (Delairea odorata), seen here invading a riparian corridor in Cambria, San Luis ObispoCounty. All photographs by the author unless otherwise noted.

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

troubling second definition: “Thepreservation of natural resourcessuch as forests . . . for economic orrecreational use.” For CNPS, rec-reational and economic uses can bebig headaches, and have put us inconflict with some other conserva-tion organizations.

THE CURRENTTHE CURRENTTHE CURRENTTHE CURRENTTHE CURRENT

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

PROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAM

STRUCTURESTRUCTURESTRUCTURESTRUCTURESTRUCTURE

While just about everything thatCNPS does could be called conser-vation, the program as defined with-in our administrative structure hasbeen limited to an unpaid conserva-tion director and two staff. As we goto press we have a director and onestaff person, but when you considerthat most chapters have at leastone conservation position on theirboards, this adds up to a lot of peoplethroughout the organization whowork directly on conservation issues.

The role of the director and staffat the state level has been to facili-tate conservation actions that can-not be handled solely by an indi-

Top: Agricultural conversion of landsknown to contain San FernandoValley spineflower, soon after thespecies was rediscovered after beingthought extinct. Photograph by D.Magney. • Right: Los Angeles-SantaMonica Mountains Chapter hasworked very hard to save Astragalusbrauntonii habitat from develop-ment. The plant is found in a nar-row range of soils in Ventura, LosAngeles, and Orange counties. Of 28populations, 12 have been extirpatedand most of the others are at risk.

rroyo de la Cruz is a wellknown center of ende-

mism. CNPS was concerned thatthe original conservation ease-ment would allow constructionof three homes within this im-portant drainage. After CNPStestimony at public hearingsraised this issue, botanistsMalcolm McLeod and JohnChesnut met with Hearst repre-sentatives and the proposed ease-ment holder, Rangeland Trust,to provide them with vital spe-cies distribution information,and the home sites were movedaway from the Arroyo.

SUCCESS ON HEARST RANCHSUCCESS ON HEARST RANCHSUCCESS ON HEARST RANCHSUCCESS ON HEARST RANCHSUCCESS ON HEARST RANCH

View eastward along Arroyo de la Cruz. Photographs by D. Walters. • Inset:Arroyo de la Cruz mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. recurvifolius).

A


vidual chapter, and to provide ser-vices such as advice on handlingspecific issues, such as a city’s gen-eral plan revision. In many casesthe state program will handle re-gional concerns such as the routingof a high-speed rail link throughthe Central Valley and by organiz-ing committees to follow and re-spond to the issue. Committees havebeen formed to track changes inforestry regulation, management ofdesert lands, invasive plant control,wetland regulation, specific habitatconservation plans along with thegeneral regulation surrounding suchplans, and many similar issues.

Conservation also encompassesour Legislation Program, which re-sponds mainly to state issues and toregulation changes coming fromSacramento in partnership with ourlegislative consultant.

THE RELATIONSHIPTHE RELATIONSHIPTHE RELATIONSHIPTHE RELATIONSHIPTHE RELATIONSHIP

TO OTHERTO OTHERTO OTHERTO OTHERTO OTHER

PROGRAMS WITHINPROGRAMS WITHINPROGRAMS WITHINPROGRAMS WITHINPROGRAMS WITHIN

CNPSCNPSCNPSCNPSCNPS

The CNPS Rare Plant Programhas maintained a well-deservedreputation as a scientific authority

on the rarity status of Californiaplant species. More recently theCNPS Vegetation Program hasbeen setting the standard in Cali-fornia for the classification of veg-etation types. Both programs wereborn of conservation needs and arededicated to increasing knowledgeof plant species and vegetation typeswithout advocacy.

This was a sensible position,adopted when CNPS was formed,to ensure that a scientific fact com-ing from CNPS was not coloredby bias. By creating the Inventory ofRare and Endangered Plants of Cali-fornia and the Manual of CaliforniaVegetation, CNPS can point withpride to products of intense scien-tific peer review that have thepower of scientific authority. Thesecan then be used by the Conserva-tion Program as critical referencesin arguments regarding the impactsof proposed political actions or de-velopment projects. Most recentlywe have been involved in the defi-nition of areas of critical habitatfor plants listed under the FederalEndangered Species Act, an actionthat requires both scientific pro-gram inputs on species needs, andconservation program inputs on the

means by which these needs can bemet.

The CNPS Education and Hor-ticulture programs also relate toconservation, by educating the pub-lic about the state of natural re-sources and generating an interestin native flora. Sometimes theyblend with our Conservation Pro-gram goals, as in our efforts to getCaltrans to reject invasive speciesin their roadside plantings, or re-cent efforts to produce fire-safe butecologically valuable wildfire buff-ers in southern California. Our In-vasive Plants Committee and itschapter equivalents are frequently“gardening” in natural habitat byremoving pest species.

The relationships between stateprograms vary depending upon theissue at hand. Currently all pro-grams meet periodically to explorecooperative endeavors in a series of“cross-pollination” meetings. Suchissues as the best plant science re-sponse to county-wide HabitatConservation Plans—which are in-creasingly becoming a dominant defacto land-use planning tool for en-tire counties and cities—are highon the CNPS agenda list as theyuse generalized vegetation types as

NPS chapter members inSan Luis Obispo County

joined others in forming an in-dependent non-profit organiza-tion to bring local, state, andfederal agencies together. Theycooperated to make land pur-chases that protected rare LosOsos coastal dune habitat. Theconsortium of agencies, “Part-ners for the Conservation of theLos Osos Coastal Dunes,” re-ceived a commendation from theNational Atmospheric and Oce-anic Administration and fromVice President Gore.

WORKING WITH OTHERSWORKING WITH OTHERSWORKING WITH OTHERSWORKING WITH OTHERSWORKING WITH OTHERS

C

Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis) habitat protected as part of the LosOsos Greenbelt. • Inset: Morro manzanita.


the typical mapping unit, and this isnot always the best strategy for theprotection of plants.

Interestingly enough, it was aconservation need that resulted inthe Vegetation Program being cre-ated. During the late 1980s the firstregional federal Habitat Conserva-tion Plan (HCP) and state NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan(NCCP) were being developed inSan Diego County. However, theywere being designed around veg-etation types (such as coastal sagescrub standing in as habitat for Cali-fornia gnatcatcher) and not indi-vidual plant species. When we real-ized that there were no good scien-tific standards for describing veg-etation types, CNPS rushed to cre-ate some good science under a com-mittee chaired by Dr. MichaelBarbour (for more about the Veg-etation Program, see pages 18-23).

HOW THE PROGRAMHOW THE PROGRAMHOW THE PROGRAMHOW THE PROGRAMHOW THE PROGRAM

EVOLVEDEVOLVEDEVOLVEDEVOLVEDEVOLVED

From its inception, CNPS hasbeen a conservation organization.CNPS started when the currentEast Bay chapter organized to fight

a threat to botanical resources inthe East Bay Hills. My own chapterin San Luis Obispo was formedshortly afterwards, in part to com-bat a proposed massive fuel breakthrough a rare stand of Sargent cy-press. Both situations requiring tak-ing strong public stands againstpowerful interests.

A scientific evaluation of therarity of elements of our flora wasstarted by G. Ledyard Stebbins as acard index file, and was developingat a time when the first legislationto protect plants was being formu-lated. The CNPS ConservationProgram was active in getting leg-islation passed to protect plants with

Above left: The management of mountain meadows by the Forest Service, particularlyregarding summer season grazing, is deficient throughout most California NationalForests. CNPS has been active in pressuring for better monitoring of meadow conditions.Grazed meadows seldom look as healthy as this beauty in Lassen National Park. •Above right: What was once a desert wash with desert willow (Chilopsis linearis) is nowreduced to sticks and cow pies. While CNPS believes that grazing may be an appropriatemanagement tool in less arid environments, experience shows that grazing in the hotdeserts can seriously damage native plant populations.

Sheep grazing in the area now included in Carrizo Plain National Monument. The timing and amount of grazing, the choice ofanimal, and other issues are of concern to CNPS regarding the impacts to native flora, particularly to those native species growingin association with aggressive Eurasian range grasses.


the California Native Plant Pro-tection Act (1977) and the far supe-rior California Endangered SpeciesAct (1984), along with the federalEndangered Species Act of 1973,the latter addressing plants for thefirst time.

The first conservation staff po-sition within CNPS was created inresponse to a mass revision of fed-eral forest plans that took place inthe late 1980s. Jim Jokerst was hiredto review mountains of documentsand to provide some scientific in-sight and guidance from CNPS tothe Forest Service. After Jim’s un-timely death, our concern over themanagement of federal forest landscontinued with Mary Meyer, andthen with Dr. Emily Roberson. Dr.Roberson provided capable guid-ance to CNPS chapters, worked withmany different conservation com-mittees, forged a strong associationwith the Endangered Species Coa-lition, and concentrated on issuessuch as grazing impacts on forestlands and the need for staff bota-nists in Forest Service district of-fices. She also started the NativePlant Protection Campaign, a na-

tional network of organizations thatadvocates for native plant speciesand community conservation, andleft us in 2004 to build the Cam-paign as an independent entity. Inthe late 1990s CNPS hired IleeneAnderson as Southern CaliforniaRegional Botanist. She addressed aseries of Mojave Desert land-use is-sues that were overwhelming theDesert Committee, and has takenover coordinating actions in the foursouthern national forests. Ileene hasbeen successful in stemming the im-pacts of limestone mining on car-bonate endemic flora in the San Ber-nardino National Forests. She alsoworks with the conservation com-mittees of several southern Califor-nia CNPS chapters, and has repre-sented CNPS on such diverse issuesas the planned Newhall Ranch inVentura County, and the develop-ment of giant habitat conservationplans in the Inland Empire. She alsoplayed a strong role in buildingchapter strength in the region.

As you might guess, CNPS hasnever had enough staff to take careof all the threats to California’s flo-ral heritage that arise on a dailybasis. However, our paid staff hasalways been of exceptional qualityand extremely hardworking. Theorganization also intends to profes-

sionalize the Conservation Direc-tor position as soon as sufficientfunds can be found. We are cur-rently conducting a series of con-servation meetings throughout thestate aimed at envisioning what wewant the program to be, but it isalready clear that many chapterswant the program to provide moreconsultative help with their localconservation activities.

WHERE ARE THEWHERE ARE THEWHERE ARE THEWHERE ARE THEWHERE ARE THE

BATTLE LINESBATTLE LINESBATTLE LINESBATTLE LINESBATTLE LINES

TODAY?TODAY?TODAY?TODAY?TODAY?

The extended debate that pre-ceded enactment of the environ-mental protection legislation of the“green” 1970s took place during atime when the prevailing public at-titude was to protect the “com-mons” of air and water quality andbiological richness. Today, how-ever, we are in a period where theconcept of a “commons” seems tobe vanishing, and many behave as ifnothing exists but private property.

Consequently, despite the pres-ence of various protection acts,CNPS is still forced to fight as ac-tively as ever to protect native habi-tat due to an unprecedented level ofattacks on government regulation

The protection of rare desert plant associations such as those found with Californiapalms (Washingtonia filifera) (left) and elephant tree (Bursera microphylla) (middle) orplants found in rare soil types such as the Ione buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum var.apricum) (right) require special vigilance.


by politicians and development in-terests. Thus a very large amountof our time is spent fighting directassaults on the protection of indi-vidual species, and on the otherwholesale exemptions regarding theapplication of the Acts to certainagencies and activities.

THE WAR IN THETHE WAR IN THETHE WAR IN THETHE WAR IN THETHE WAR IN THE

WOODSWOODSWOODSWOODSWOODS

We have continued to activelyengage the US Forest Service on anational and local level, althoughthe work of many decades is rapidlybeing undone by an administrationthat seems to be more concernedwith resource extraction than con-servation. CNPS is working withseveral national conservation orga-nizations on issues such as reducedopportunities for public review offorest plans and failure to monitorthe impacts of grazing on forest re-sources. A current hot issue is theadoption of illegal off-highway ve-hicle trails into the trails system.We are also trying to get moreCNPS volunteers to monitor andcomment on the planning processeswithin their local National Forestor Ranger District as part of localchapter activities.

Regarding issues of forests onstate and private lands, Greg Jirakrecently tried to build an inter-chapter network to review timberharvesting plans and forestry regu-lations, but was unable to find suffi-cient volunteers or funding. Part ofthis work is being carried on by JenKalt and Vivian Parker, but muchmore help is needed. CNPS findsfault with the current process, par-ticularly the lack of meaningful re-view by trustee agencies and the

blanket approval of harvesting pro-grams that fail to identify the lo-cations of rare plant populationsthrough field surveys or sufficientlymitigate damage. This minimal over-sight is partly due to funding reduc-tions in state agency budgets, andthus is an issue for our Legislative

Above right: CNPS continues to monitor and comment on changes in Forest Servicemanagement policy, including the misuse of the so-called Healthy Forests Initiative tolog more commercial lumber rather than increase fire safety around communities.Such policies are also being instituted within Sequoia National Monument and havebeen protested by the California Attorney General. • Right: The beautiful harlequinlupine (Lupinus stiversii) is one of many species threatened by massive developmentpressures in the Sierra Nevada foothills.


Program. CNPS has also been work-ing with the California Oak Foun-dation on several issues, includingproposed massive removals of oaksin the Sierra foothills and proposedmassive herbicide applications toeliminate native flora in favor of tim-ber plantations.

DESERTSDESERTSDESERTSDESERTSDESERTS

Our greatest problem seems tobe the growing sympathy shown toextractive industries and to activerecreation users of the desert at theexpense of desert habitat. An ongo-ing battle continues in the protec-tion of plants from off-highway ve-hicles in the Algodones Dunes. SteveHartman is maintaining a watch oninvasive plants, particularly somenasty mustards that are invadingJoshua Tree National Park. CindyBurrascano and the San DiegoChapter continue to monitor ac-tivities in Anza-Borrego State Park.

URBAN PLANNINGURBAN PLANNINGURBAN PLANNINGURBAN PLANNINGURBAN PLANNING

AND THEAND THEAND THEAND THEAND THE

CALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACTQUALITY ACTQUALITY ACTQUALITY ACTQUALITY ACT

Soon after CNPS was formed,the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) of 1970 be-came the legislation that has af-fected plant conservation on pri-vate and state lands like no other. Itwas supported strongly early on bythe CNPS Legislative Committee,and remains an area of great con-cern. Every year the conservationcommunity and the anti-regulationforces clash on minor and majorchanges to language, both in the

Act itself and in the all-importantCEQA Guidelines by which the Actis implemented.

CNPS maintains a LegislativeConsultant, Vern Goehring, who isbacked by a Legislative Committeethat waxes and wanes in size. Weare trying to beef up our letter writ-ing output throughout our mem-bership concerning legislation, andwelcome people who could write aletter or two each month as theneed arises in support of CNPS po-sitions. Go to the CNPS web site tojoin our “alert list,” or contact yourchapter’s conservation chair.

“Working” the legislature can belike stepping on eggshells, and some-times puts CNPS—with its species-centered philosophy—at odds withother green organizations that favorrecreation, high-speed rail lines, andgeneric multi-use open space.

While the legislation end ofthings is taken care of by the stateCNPS Conservation Program, mostof the battles are fought by chapterson individual projects. This is anongoing, never-ending activity thatrequires amazing dedication on thepart of volunteers in reading volu-minous environmental impact re-ports, writing letters, testifying atlong and often boring meetings, andsometimes asking help from otherchapters and the state. Some peoplesuch as Corky Matthews of theMonterey Bay Chapter have beendoing this great service for decades.

It is in the realm of abuses ofCEQA and poor mitigation of im-pacts to native flora that CNPS mostoften finds itself in court, wheremost issues are resolved in settle-ment. I regret to report that a num-ber of California’s counties and cit-ies attempt to circumvent the spiritof CEQA at every turn. As these

Top: A fenced exclosure on the Algodones Dunes shows what might have been therein the absence of the off-highway vehicles that are present on all sides of the exclosure.CNPS has been protesting the degree to which agencies fail to protect floral resourcesin the dunes. • Middle: A highway delineates protected and unprotected habitat in theAlgodones Dunes. CNPS is working to maximize protection of the dune flora from off-highway vehicles. • Bottom: After much pressure on agencies, the off-highway vehicledestruction above Afton Canyon in the Mojave Desert has been halted.


often coincide with an unsympa-thetic local judiciary and small chap-ters with no volunteers to face up tothe developers, there are still lots ofholes in our program.

Tangled with CEQA is the con-stantly evolving framework of Gen-eral Plans, Specific Plans, and Land-Use Ordinances that govern futureland use. In the coming years,CNPS will be working on produc-ing more tools for chapter mem-bers to help them better understandand influence this process.

THE HABITATTHE HABITATTHE HABITATTHE HABITATTHE HABITAT

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

PLAN PROCESSPLAN PROCESSPLAN PROCESSPLAN PROCESSPLAN PROCESS

Perhaps the greatest concern ofCNPS is the regional conservationplans that are often countywide orlarger. These frequently disregardscience, contain insufficient researchon the distribution of species, andare unresponsive to changes in fu-ture conditions. Above all, mitiga-tion in these plans is frequently poorand based on flawed feasibility esti-mates. It is critical that CNPS fol-

low each of these plans, especiallysince they sometimes encompass anentire county, are used to decidewhich areas will be developed orconserved, and generally replaceland-use review under CEQA oncethey are in place. In many cases plantconservation is given only passingconsideration in plans driven by theprotection of animal species.

One such issue is the conserva-tion of vernal pools within the en-tire Central Valley. Carol Withamhas taken a leadership role on thesewetland issues, but the current USFish and Wildlife Service adminis-tration appears to place economicinterests far higher than those ofthe species it is meant to protect.We would welcome more legal ex-perts on wetland protection, endan-gered species protection, and thelegal implications of flawed regionalplanning efforts.

ECOSYSTEMECOSYSTEMECOSYSTEMECOSYSTEMECOSYSTEM

INTEGRITYINTEGRITYINTEGRITYINTEGRITYINTEGRITY

Another statewide issue con-cerns the control of invasive plants.

A small but determined committeegenerates cooperative action withthe California Invasive Plant Coun-cil and with the state’s network ofWeed Management Areas. Mostweed control programs operate atthe chapter level, but state and fed-eral policy issues are addressed bythe state Conservation Committee.A current “hot button” issue re-garding invasive plants is the role ofherbicides in weed control.

A FINAL WORDA FINAL WORDA FINAL WORDA FINAL WORDA FINAL WORD

I will be stepping down shortlyas conservation director, although Iwill remain active in the program.Having been in the position since1997, it is now time to step aside. Ithas been a great experience, and Iwill never cease to be amazed at thededication shown and the thousandsof hours given by our volunteers.They work for the most noble ofcauses.

David Chipping, 1530 Bayview HeightsDrive, Los Osos, CA 93405. [email protected]

Martis Valley, adjacent to Truckee, has wetlands and sagebrush steppe that are threatened by changes in the Placer County GeneralPlan. Such large scale developments can overwhelm the conservation resources of our smaller chapters.


CNPS VEGETATION PROGRAM: A FRESH LOOK

BACK AND A NEW LOOK FORWARD

by Todd Keeler-Wolf and Julie M. Evens

he inception of the CNPSVegetation Program oc-curred 15 years ago when a

select team of CNPS visionaries gottogether to advance a new modelfor conserving the state’s nativeplants through plant communities.Unlike the 11th hour species-by-species approach that was the stan-dard, but was frustrating to all thoseinvolved in conservation work, thisnew approach advocated for con-serving the larger habitat in whichrare and endangered species werefound. This community-based ap-proach allows biologists to recog-nize and document plant occur-

rences at a much broader scale thanthe individual species, taking intoaccount the set of plant species thatoccur together in an area along withwildlife that goes with the plants. Inaddition, this new approach allowsbiologists to identify the most im-portant sites for conserving ournation’s biodiversity, includingthose that contain rare species oc-currences as well as those that rep-resent the many ecological regionsin the state.

Thus, the CNPS Long-TermPlanning Committee identified“plant communities” as the biggestneglected opportunity in the orga-

nization at that time. They wrote awhite paper in which they spelledout the following tenets of plantconservation:

• We realize that in order to con-serve species it is most effectiveto conserve the habitat aroundthem.

• The most realistic way to con-serve habitat is to translate itinto discrete plant communitiesthat can be clearly identified andthus quantified.

• Beyond the individual plantswithin these communities, thereare also other values that will be

T

Plant communities such as Engelmann oak woodlands are being documented and defined by CNPS staff and other biologists forscientific and conservation purposes. Photograph by J. Evens.


conserved when these entitiesare protected, including thecommunities themselves and thewildlife that depends on them.

• Some plant communities are,in and of themselves, rare orthreatened and should be pro-tected as a means of preservinga portion of our natural floristicheritage.

• Common as well as rare com-munities need to be protectedand properly managed, with anunderstanding that the commontypes precede legal protectionfor the rare.

• Laws should be enacted to con-serve the communities them-selves.

• The most effective way to con-serve communities is to developa means to decisively identifythem and catalog their distribu-tions, such as through classifi-cations of their existence andmaps of their extent.

Out of those basic ideas sprangthe CNPS Plant CommunitiesCommittee in 1991. The team re-quested that Dr. Michael Barbour,one of the foremost plant ecolo-gists in the nation and a long-termadvocate of native plants and veg-etation conservation, serve as thefirst chair of the new committee.

Dr. Barbour developed a veri-table who’s who of plant ecologists,vegetation experts, and chaptermembers to volunteer as membersof the committee. These includedmembers of academia, scientistsfrom state and federal agencies, ex-perienced members of the ecologi-cal consulting community, and thevisionary CNPS members whostarted the whole process (Keeler-Wolf 1993; Hillyard 1999).

Initially, the committee decidedto focus on two main goals: 1) de-veloping a data collection proce-dure for inventorying and protect-ing rare and threatened plant com-munities, and 2) developing an ef-fective system to classify plant com-

munities into vegetation types thatcan be recognized easily by differ-ent biologists and that could beidentified systematically for conser-vation purposes.

DATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTION

PROCEDUREPROCEDUREPROCEDUREPROCEDUREPROCEDURE

By the spring of 1992, the com-mittee set forth a standard sam-pling protocol that was effectiveyet simple enough to be used byany interested professional or ama-teur who knew how to identifyplants. The protocol, the CNPSPoint Intercept Sampling Tech-nique (see Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf

1995), involves the collection ofvaluable data on a plant commu-nity in order to define and inven-tory it quantitatively. The data col-lected include floristic, environ-mental, and site information. Thedata records are then analyzedquantitatively by ecologists usingmultivariate statistics to developclear definitions of the vegetationassemblages comprising these com-munities and how they differ fromsimilar communities.

This procedure was first used toquantify the definitions and extentof several of the rarest and mostthreatened vegetation types in thestate, as identified by the CaliforniaNatural Diversity Database’s Natu-

North and Central Coast Ranges 82 712 766(including serpentine)

Mojave Desert 5 1,510 3,767

Colorado Desert (including 4 1,318 30Anza-Borrego, Northern & EasternColorado, and Joshua Tree)

Great Basin Desert 7 548 0

Desert Transition (including 181 250 0alluvial fan scrub and Tehachapiscrublands)

Sierra Nevada (including foothills 21 4,206 3,296and montane)

Valley habitats (including sink scrub, 127 150 0valley oak, and sycamore)

South Coast and Ranges (including 126 203 6,211coastal sage scrub and chaparral)

Salt Marshes (including coastal 135 199 220marshes and Suisun Marsh)

Grasslands (including vernal pools 220 1,791 0and coastal terrace prairie)

Subtotal per Method 908 10,887 14,290

Table 1. Partial list of surveys done per region or habitat over the past15 years using the point intercept, relevé, or rapid assessment methodsfor purposes of plant community identification.

TransectLocation Point Relevé Rapid

Intercept Assessment


ral Communities Program. Theseincluded Sycamore Alluvial Wood-land (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1994),Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub(Barbour and Wirka 1997), andSouthern Maritime Chaparral(Hogan et al. 1996). More than 900data transects were collected overthe course of five years, especiallyby chapter members in various eco-logical regions. These have fur-thered our understanding of manyplant communities in the state (seeTable 1 on page 19).

These definitions were imme-diately used in certain cases involv-ing regulatory measures to defendthe validity of these plant commu-nities, and to support solutions ofeither strict mitigation or avoid-ance of any disturbance to thesenatural areas. A case in point is theSycamore Alluvial Woodland, a

rare riparian woodland that mainlyencompasses the intermittentcreeks surrounding the southernhalf of the Central Valley. The defi-nition and mapping of the indi-vidual sites where this plant com-munity is located, along with theconservation priority ranking ofthese sites, has led to the protec-tion of the highest quality locationsof these woodlands at Los BañosCreek and Orestimba Creek. Fur-ther, this work has alleviated theimminent threat of inundation byproposed off-site storage or floodcontrol dams.

VEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATION

CLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATION

AND MAPPINGAND MAPPINGAND MAPPINGAND MAPPINGAND MAPPING

While these projects on rareplant community sampling and de-fining were going on, other mem-bers of the Plant CommunitiesCommittee were developing a newcompendium of all known vegeta-tion and plant communities in thestate—one based on surveys of thequantitative literature, quantitativedata, and expert opinion. Thisproject started with the best exist-ing classification of natural com-munities in the state (Holland 1986)and attempted to translate thesecommunities into more floristic andstandard terms. This new basis forinventory was being done in a sys-tematic and scientific classification,so that the existence of the plantcommunities could be defended insite-specific conservation or man-agement plans and within laws suchas the California EnvironmentalQuality Act.

In the fall of 1994, the commit-tee completed the first draft of thisclassification system, which in-cluded detailed descriptions of theknown plant communities. It wasextensively reviewed by membersof the committee and outside ex-perts, and CNPS agreed to publishit. In the fall of 1995, the first edi-

tion of A Manual of California Veg-etation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf1995) was released, and ToddKeeler-Wolf took the chair posi-tion of the Plant CommunitiesCommittee.

The development of the classi-fication system was vetted and re-viewed, in part, by means of a seriesof symposia held through the Ameri-can Academy for the Advancementof Science (AAAS). The first of theseoccurred in 1993 on the campus ofthe University of California, SantaBarbara, where speakers discussedthe methods of quantitative analysisto be used in the classification andthe broader over-arching rationalefor developing a conservation-basedclassification of plant communities(Barbour 1995).

A second symposium was heldin early 1996, immediately follow-ing the release of the book. In thissymposium, participants discussedthe successes and shortcomingsof the contents of the book andthe classification, along with thesystem’s future development anduse (Keeler-Wolf and Barbour1997).

A Manual of California Vegeta-tion (MCV) quickly became re-garded as the new state standardfor vegetation classification. How-ever, experts also recognized that itwas far from complete. Almost assoon as it was published, informa-tion began pouring in from the aca-demic, agency, and consulting com-munities about new vegetationtypes that had yet to be defined.This was actually a positive devel-opment, for it contributed to thecollection of valuable quantitativedata and expert information neededbefore new plant communitiescould be defined in the MCV. Thepublication is regarded as a work-in-progress that will need to be con-tinually refined and updated as newinformation becomes available onplant communities.

In 1996, only a few months fol-lowing its publication, new agency

Sycamore alluvial woodlands have beensampled systematically across Californiato better describe the variation anddistribution of these rare riparian wood-lands. Photograph by T. Keeler-Wolf.


projects began in California, whichevolved into a combined effort ofsampling, classification, and map-ping the vegetation. These com-bined, comprehensive efforts havebeen implemented for purposes ofresource management in many ofthe largest federal and state naturalareas in the state. Further, theseprojects used the MCV system asthe primary basis for vegetation clas-sification and mapping. Specific lo-cations of many vegetation typeshave been codified in associatedsampling and mapping projects atfine-scale alliance and associationlevels (see Figure 1).

In these and other projects thathave occurred since then, we haverealized the great value of combin-ing baseline sampling, classification,and mapping to accurately defineand adequately depict vegetation.We also have refined the samplingmethods over a period of severalyears, and the Vegetation Programhas now adopted two additionalstandard protocols: the relevé and

the rapid assessment methods.These methods have been testedand refined during various samplingprojects in the state, including theNorthern and Eastern ColoradoDesert and Point Reyes NationalSeashore projects. Additional pro-jects are using the relevé method tocatalog the diversity of plant asso-ciations in uniquely native habitatsof California, such as vernal poolsfrom San Diego County to Modocand Mendocino counties (RobertHolland, pers. comm.).

These types of projects also havebeen occurring simultaneouslythroughout much of the nation. Theresult has been a renewed nationalfocus on vegetation classification(Grossman et al. 1998), culminatingin the ratification of the NationalVegetation Classification System(NVCS) by the Federal GeographicData Center. In many ways, thesenational efforts have mirrored whatCNPS and other organizations havebeen doing in California.

In 1998, the CNPS VegetationCommittee initiated plans to de-velop a second edition of MCV toincorporate all new information

gathered on vegetation since thefirst edition. The original authors,John Sawyer and Todd Keeler-Wolf, have envisioned a more de-tailed discussion of the distributionof vegetation, and the relationshipsbetween the vegetation alliances andthe ecological situations that leadto their existence. This has includeddisturbance information with sup-port from the Federal Joint FireSciences Council in a series of fivestate-wide workshops held between2000 and 2002. The workshopsbrought together experts in vegeta-tion and fire ecology to assist inrevising the descriptions for the sec-ond edition.

The final manuscript of the sec-ond edition is slated to be publishedin late 2006. It will treat twice asmany vegetation alliances (previ-ously called “series”) as the first edi-tion. It also will incorporate newecological information on fire andother disturbance ecology, distri-bution maps, introductory informa-tion on the uses of vegetation forconservation, and an extensive pho-tographic catalog of the vegetationtypes in the state.

Figure 1. In the past ten years, fine-scalemapping projects have codified specificlocations of many vegetation types at thealliance and association levels. Mapproduced by the California Departmentof Fish & Game. A color version of thismap can be seen at www.cnps.org/images/figure3.jpg.

Vernal pools are being sampled across the state to identify the unique floristicassemblages that occur in these habitats, such as this location in Sacramento County.Photograph by J. Cox.


VEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATION

PROGRAM STAFFPROGRAM STAFFPROGRAM STAFFPROGRAM STAFFPROGRAM STAFF

During the first eight years ofits existence, the Plant Communi-ties Committee operated as a sepa-rate committee within CNPS thatwas independent of any particularprogram. However, in 1999 CNPSofficially created a Vegetation Pro-gram with the hiring of staff. Thefirst task was to hire a part-timevegetation assistant to help integrateinformation from the MCV work-shops and develop formal descrip-tions for new vegetation types.

This task first fell to the able

hands of Jeanne Wirka, a recentgraduate of the UC Davis mastersprogram in the Graduate Group inEcology. In her year with the pro-gram, Jeanne developed a series oftables relating vegetation and spe-cies composition to specific plantlife history, fire, and disturbancetraits.

In 2000, two part-time staff tookJeanne’s place. Sau San was hiredto continue refining the MCV in-formation tables, and to help coor-dinate and organize three of theworkshops for the integration ofnew MCV information. She alsoworked diligently on developing de-

scriptions for many newplant associations thatarose from the classifi-cation work in several ofthe California nationalparks, including PointReyes, Golden GateRecreation Area, JoshuaTree, and Yosemite.Mehrey Vaghti also washired in 2000 by CNPSto act as its first tempo-rary field vegetationecologist. She workedspecifically on complet-ing the Suisun MarshVegetation project, a de-tailed classification andmapping project at theassociation level.

By the end of 2000,the Vegetation Programhad attained a high de-gree of credibility, andthe Chapter Councilmade the decision at itsDecember state boardmeeting to hire a perma-nent full-time vegetationecologist for an initialterm of two years. JulieEvens was hired in 2001,a recent graduate of theHumboldt State Univer-sity masters program.Primary roles were to co-ordinate efforts in thestate classification sys-

tem and to coordinate vegetationworkshops and projects for chap-ters and the public.

Since the spring of 2001 andcontinuing to the present, Julie hasconducted chapter workshops onvegetation sampling methods. Mostworkshops were first offered tochapters located in areas that con-tained habitats lacking detailed veg-etation descriptions. For example,we began sampling in poorly-de-scribed serpentine habitats, such asCoyote Ridge with the Santa ClaraValley Chapter.

By the fall of 2001, the programalso spearheaded training sessionsfor the public, in which the firstparticipants were taught the newrapid assessment method in the Si-erra Nevada amongst the aspen,conifer, and meadow stands. Forthe past three years, the programhas facilitated efforts to have ourstandard sampling and classificationsystem used by hundreds of chaptermembers, agency personnel, con-sulting biologists, and the like.

The program has also initiatedpilot projects in ecological regionsor counties to establish a vegeta-tion type model of categorizinghabitats floristically and catalogu-ing existing vegetation in maps.CNPS has begun model projectsin western Riverside County, cen-tral San Diego County, western SanBenito County, and now in theSierra Nevada foothills to test theseapproaches. We have hired addi-tional full-time and part-time veg-etation staff through grants orcontracts for these pilot projects,including Anne Klein and JeanneTaylor.

THE VEGETATIONTHE VEGETATIONTHE VEGETATIONTHE VEGETATIONTHE VEGETATION

TYPE MODELTYPE MODELTYPE MODELTYPE MODELTYPE MODEL

In practice, how does this newvegetation model work? In each re-gion, we collect surveys of plantpatterns that recur at multiple loca-tions. We identify the plant species

Public training sessions are being taught jointly bythe California Native Plant Society and Departmentof Fish and Game. Participants of the first vegetationworkshop in the Sierra Nevada in 2001 learn the insand outs of sampling vegetation for classification andmapping purposes. Photograph by J. Evens.


and their abundance values in thesurveys along with site environmen-tal factors, and the information isentered into computer databases.Then we analyze relationships ofspecies occurrences to identify anddescribe repeated plant associationsacross the landscape. This informa-tion provides the scientific rigor tosupport delineation of vegetationin detailed maps. The comprehen-sive vegetation data also supportmodeling efforts at various scales,including modeling for wildlife andplant species, habitat monitoring,fire effects, land conservation andeasements, mitigation, restoration,and many other purposes.

Our goal is to continue estab-lishing the vegetation type modelas the standard practice for habitatassessment, monitoring, and con-servation purposes. By accuratelydepicting plant communities in adetailed scientific approach, we canprovide synergism in conservationefforts to represent and conservebiodiversity at both the species andecosystem levels. Thus, we con-tinue to seek new opportunities andsupport for detailed mapping ofvegetation across the state, includ-ing a comprehensive map at thealliance and association levels. Weexpect to complete future editionsof A Manual of California Vegeta-tion based on this new vegetationmodel, with sampling and classifi-cation progressing concurrentlywith mapping.

We also think further supple-ments and guidebooks will be use-ful to identify local vegetation typesand rare plant assemblages, and vari-ous CNPS chapters are taking onprojects to identify regional varia-tion. In these efforts, we want tofacilitate volunteer and public par-ticipation in training and implemen-tation of relevé and rapid assess-ment sampling. These plans willsupport better statewide recogni-tion of the plant communities thatoccur in California’s diverse eco-logical regions, and they will im-

prove conservation decisions as allplant communities are becomingidentified and represented.

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

Barbour, M. 1995. The story behindthe Manual of California Vegetation.Fremontia 23:19–22.

Barbour, M.G. and J. Wirka. 1997.Alluvial scrub vegetation in South-ern California: A case study usingthe vegetation classification of theCalifornia Native Plant Society.Contract #FG5638-R-5, US Fishand Wildlife Service Section 6 Pro-gram. Unpublished report on fileat the California Department ofFish and Game. California NaturalDiversity Database, Sacramento,CA.

Evens, J.M. 2000. Vegetation in wa-tercourses of the eastern MojaveDesert. Fremontia 29:26–35.

Grossman, D.H. et al. 1998. Interna-tional classification of ecologicalcommunities: Terrestrial vegetation ofthe United States. Volume I. The Na-tional Vegetation Classification Sys-tem: Development, Status, and Appli-cations. The Nature Conservancy,Arlington, VA. Available at: http://

www.natureserve.org/publications/library.jsp.

Hillyard, D. 1999. A short history ofCNPS Vegetation Committee andplans for the future. Fremontia 27:7–11.

Hogan, D., J. Sawyer, and C. Saunders.1996. Southern maritime chaparral.Fremontia 24:3–7.

Keeler-Wolf, T. 1993. ConservingCalifornia’s rare plant communities.Fremontia 22:14–22.

Keeler-Wolf, T., C. Roye, and K.Lewis. 1994. The definition and dis-tribution of Central California sy-camore alluvial woodland. Unpub-lished report on file at the Califor-nia Department of Fish and Game.California Natural Diversity Data-base, Sacramento, CA.

Keeler-Wolf, T. and M.G. Barbour.1997. Conservation and classifica-tion of vegetation in California: Asymposium. Fremontia 25:17–27.

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf.1995. A Manual of California Vegeta-tion. California Native Plant Soci-ety, Sacramento, CA.

Todd Keeler-Wolf, 1416 9th St., 12th Floor,Sacramento, CA 95814. [email protected]; Julie M. Evens, 2707 K St., Suite 1,Sacramento, CA 95816. [email protected]

The California Native Plant Society supports many efforts in sampling and mappingvegetation with staff and volunteers involved, such as in the Sierra Nevada foothills.Photograph by J. Taylor.


THE CONSERVATION OF TWO SONOMA

COUNTY MANZANITAS

by Greg Wahlert and Phil Van Soelen

Editor’s Note: Portions of this articleabout the Vine Hill manzanita werepreviously published in an article byVan Soelen in Pacific Horticulture(2004) and are used with permissionby the publisher.

rom the era of collaborationbetween Milo S. Baker andAlice Eastwood, Sonoma

County has been established as acenter of endemism for Arctosta-phylos” (Wells 2000). Indeed, thediversity, endemism, and beauty of

the 18 species and varieties of Arc-tostaphylos found in Sonoma Countyhas long attracted the attention ofbotanists.

Four species of manzanitas areendemic to Sonoma County: VineHill manzanita (Arctostaphylos den-siflora), Rincon manzanita (Arcto-staphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens),Baker’s manzanita (Arctostaphylosbakeri ssp. bakeri), and The Cedarsmanzanita (Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp.sublaevis). All four manzanitas arelisted by the California Native Plant

Vine Hill manzanita (Arctostaphylos densiflora). Photograph by D. Graber.

The Vine Hill Preserve in Sonoma County. Photograph by D. Graber.

F‘‘


Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened,or endangered. Baker’s manzanitaand Vine Hill manzanita are listedby the California Department ofFish and Game as Rare and Endan-gered, respectively.

For over 20 years, CNPS MiloBaker Chapter volunteers and pre-serve stewards have worked hardto conserve the Vine Hill manza-nita and the Rincon manzanita.Each has its own small preserve thatthe chapter actively manages. TheVine Hill Preserve, located nearForestville, is owned outright byCNPS. At the Southridge Preserveon Rincon Ridge in Santa Rosa, thechapter was granted a conservationeasement “for the protection andconservation of certain rare and en-dangered plant species.” Over theyears, chapter volunteers have mon-itored these preserves, removedinvasive plants, propagated andplanted out the rare manzanitas,developed management strategies,and educated local homeowners.Continued vigilance by Milo BakerChapter preserve stewards and vol-unteers will be required to ensurethe survival of these beautiful plantsand the habitats they grow in.

THE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILL

MANZANITAMANZANITAMANZANITAMANZANITAMANZANITA

When Santa Rosa Junior Col-lege botanist Milo Baker first de-scribed the Vine Hill manzanita in1932, he stated that it was “prob-ably a relict in a region where natu-ral vegetation is fast disappearingthrough an intensive system of ag-riculture” (Baker 1932). By thattime, according to Baker, the VineHill manzanita had been reduced inpopulation to about 100 individualsalong a narrow strip of Vine HillSchool Road, and about six plantson nearby Vine Hill Road. Theremay have been a single individual,or a very small population, in theFreestone area eight miles to thesouthwest (the locality of the ‘James

West’ manzanita; see Van Soelen(2004) for an interesting account ofthis cultivar). However, no one hasfound those plants, or any otherVine Hill manzanitas growing out-side of the immediate vicinity ofthe preserve in recent decades.

James Roof, former director ofthe East Bay Regional Parks BotanicGarden in Berkeley, was much takenby the beauty of Arctostaphylos den-siflora and writes in flowery proseof his first visit to the location ofthis taxon’s first collection (type lo-cality):

“My first view was on a winterday in 1940. The manzanitas werein rose-colored bloom, and comple-menting this were the sky-blue flow-ers of Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus.Most of the Ceanothus though, wasin bud, the red flower-bracts blend-ing enchantingly with the blue flow-ers. Low shrubs both, in places thetwo species sprawled into one an-other, making a mix of colors in thesunlight that was too gorgeous totake. The warm air hummed withlegions of bees at bumble. The road-side strip was then about fifteen feetwide and several hundred feet long.

The road’s north-facing flank was along sand slope, and the plantstumbled down it in blooming pro-fusion, ending only at the cultivatedmargin of a vineyard a hundred feetbelow. The last remnant of theSonoma Barren was a very lustyremnant indeed.” (Roof 1972a).

This reference to what is re-ferred to by locals as the “SonomaBarren” reflects Roof’s observationthat the habitat of the Vine Hillmanzanita shares many similaritieswith that of the pygmy forest bar-rens of coastal Sonoma and Men-docino counties. The sandy claysoils of Vine Hill are pale yellow tonearly white and are distinctly acid.The Vine Hill manzanita oftengrows widely spaced with moss andlichens growing on the ground be-tween plants, much as Arctostaphy-los nummularia grows in the Men-docino Pygmy Barrens. At least twoother species growing in associa-tion with A. densiflora link it withthe Pygmy Barrens: bear grass (Xe-rophyllum tenax) and salal (Gault-heria shallon).

In James Roof’s subsequent vis-its to the Vine Hill School Road he

The lower portion of the Vine Hill Preserve showing plantings of propagated VineHill manzanita (Arctostaphylos densiflora). All photographs by G. Wahlert unless other-wise noted.


witnessed numerous assaults to theroadside flora. He writes of a visitin 1947: “Though the manzanitaswere in full bloom, there were nobees working the shrubs for honey.The strip had overnight become anecological disaster area. SonomaCounty road crews had dripped usedcrankcase oil over the road marginin an experimental program de-signed to employ used oil as a ‘con-trol for roadside weeds and brush’.The oiling had been done the daybefore; the black sludge still oozedfrom some of the rose and blue flow-ers. No savages would have been soheedless of beauty; it was an act ofmorons” (1972a).

Work crews of the WPA at onepoint completely denuded this sameroadside of vegetation and after

World War II it was bladed by bull-dozer at least once. A protest fromthe Santa Rosa Junior College andgrowing neighborhood awareness ofthe rare manzanita slowed the de-struction somewhat. Subsequently,the driveways of two newly con-structed country homes wiped outanother portion of the colony, andin 1957 the farmer owning the landremoved a wide swath. All of this sonegatively affected the populationof Vine Hill manzanita that by 1963,Roof notes that there were only“two shrubs left and one not a goodone.” Returning in 1967 Roof was“agreeably astonished to discover 14two- and three-year-old shrubs onthe slope that, a long time back, hadbeen so much disturbed” (1972a).This regeneration occurred on thebare soil exposed by the 1957 inci-dent, ten years earlier.

It appears that, to a point, Arc-tostaphylos densiflora thrived on thedenuded roadside and hill. Scrap-ing by heavy machinery probablyscarified dormant seeds lying in thesoil seed bank. This response has

also been observed for Rincon man-zanita on Rincon Ridge in SantaRosa. Neither manzanita sproutsfrom a burl or lignotuber, but in-stead relies on seeds cached in thesoil seed bank to germinate afterfire or disturbance.

On his first visit to Vine Hill,Roof observed, “The sand betweenthe plants was open, clean, andnearly weed-free,” indicating plantsthat had germinated in cleared soil.In his species description, Bakerwrote: “Since these road banks areapparently not very old, one won-ders where this species maintaineditself before the present banks weregraded” (1932). Perhaps burning byNative Americans or the lack of firesuppression maintained the neces-sary ecological and physiologicalconditions for the Vine Hill man-zanita to regenerate.

THE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILLTHE VINE HILL

PRESERVEPRESERVEPRESERVEPRESERVEPRESERVE

After visiting the Vine HillSchool Road site in 1971 and not-ing a modest recovery of Arctosta-phylos densiflora (45 plants), Jim Roofdevoted the May 1972 issue of TheFour Seasons to the history, evolu-tion, and biology of the Vine Hillmanzanita. In that issue, he made aneloquent plea for the permanentpreservation of the Vine Hill man-

Above: A chaparral “barrens” on RinconRidge. • Left: Rincon manzanita (Arcto-staphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens) andRincon ceanothus (Ceanothus confusus)are usually found growing together.

Yard waste smothering Rincon ceanothus(Ceanothus confusus).


zanita through the creation of a pre-serve. It was this act that led to thepurchase of the property by TheNature Conservancy and the deed-ing of the property to CNPS for thecreation of the Vine Hill Preserve,home to the last remaining popula-tion of Arctostaphylos densiflora.

Roof made several suggestionsfor its management, including theintroduction of the very rare localendemic annual Clarkia imbricata, afederally listed species. Followinghis suggestion, members of the MiloBaker Chapter introduced the rareclarkia to the preserve. This wasdone in the lower portion, an areaat the time dominated by weedynon-native grasses and old grape-vines, where it has persisted andthrived despite competition withexotics. Also occurring on the pre-serve is the Vine Hill ceanothus,Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus.CNPS lists the Vine Hill ceano-thus as rare, but it is not yet listedby state or federal agencies. Untilvery recently, it was thought thatthe range of the Vine Hill ceano-thus was entirely within the boundsof the preserve. However, in Janu-ary of 2004, Van Soelen discov-ered a new population nearby inSebastopol.

In 1982, acting as preserve stew-ard, Van Soelen took cuttings frommany individuals of A. densiflora onthe preserve, rooted them at Cali-fornia Flora Nursery where he isco-owner, and planted them outfrom gallon containers the follow-ing winter. Mounds remaining fromgrape cultivation were used to planton and plantings were typicallymade in November or Decemberafter soaking rains. The new plant-ings sometimes received a little wa-tering at planting time, but neveragain. Since the lower portion ofthe preserve has good sun expo-sure and has been free of manza-nita pathogens, the plantings havethrived. Currently some of thoseearly plantings, now 20 years old,are 15 feet across with a lovely bell-

shaped center and a broad skirt ofprostrate growth.

Since the early 1990s, MiloBaker Chapter member JayPedersen has been preserve stew-ard at Vine Hill. He has organizedchapter volunteers in the ongoingremoval of coast live oak (Quercusagrifolia) and Douglas-fir (Pseudo-tsuga menziesii) to maintain the bar-rens and to prevent the conversionof the site into a mixed-evergreenforest. Total eradication of Spanishbroom (Spartium junceum) has al-most been achieved. The propaga-tion and planting of cutting-grownyoung Vine Hill manzanitas is anongoing effort.

In the early 1990s Bart O’Brien,Director of Horticulture at RanchoSanta Ana Botanic Garden, deliv-ered to Van Soelen several plants ofArctostaphylos densiflora propagatedfrom the Rancho Santa Ana BotanicGarden living collection. The par-ent plants were the result of cut-tings taken at Vine Hill decadesearlier when the species was con-

siderably more threatened, and theymay represent the reintroductionof genetic material previously lostat the preserve. They were sub-sequently planted at the preservewhere they have thrived. This isone of the few times that rare plantsfrom a living botanical collectionhave been successfully repatriated.

It is somewhat ironic that oneof the most endangered species ofArctostaphylos, the Vine Hill man-zanita, has given rise to so manyuseful and adaptable progeny. ThatArctostaphylos densiflora is an adapt-able plant is not fully true: it isthe hybrids that are unusually dis-ease resistant, garden tolerant, andwidely adaptable. Plants of A.densiflora are healthiest when grow-ing in their native sandy soils ofthe Sebastopol-Forestville area andoften “sulk” elsewhere. Popularclones and hybrid cultivars derivedfrom Arctostaphylos densiflora in-clude A. densiflora ‘James West’,A. ‘Howard McMinn’, A. ‘Senti-nel’ and A. ‘Harmony’ (a detailed

Propagated plants of Rincon manzanita (Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens)and Rincon ceanothus (Ceanothus confusus) with deer cages at the Southridge Preserve.


account of the various cultivars isgiven by Van Soelen 2004).

THE RINCONTHE RINCONTHE RINCONTHE RINCONTHE RINCON

MANZANITAMANZANITAMANZANITAMANZANITAMANZANITA

The Rincon manzanita (Arcto-staphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens)is another Sonoma County endemicthat the Milo Baker Chapter active-ly manages for conservation. Thefirst mention of this subspecies ofA. stanfordiana was in 1939 whenMcMinn writes, “In Sonoma Countyin the Rincon Ridge and Vine Hilldistricts this species often becomesmuch reduced in size and often has asprawling habit” (McMinn 1939).One year later, in his treatment ofthe genus, Adams writes, “In the

Vine Hill and Rincon Ridge areasnear Santa Rosa, Sonoma Co., thisspecies becomes a much depressedshrub, often cascading over roadbanks” (Adams 1940).

Apparently, both botanists failedto differentiate the yet-to-be-de-scribed Rincon manzanita from theVine Hill manzanita. In 1980, Roofstates, “. . . there is still an odd, erectform of A. stanfordiana near the VineHill School, despite early-day re-ports that the species never occurredthere.” However, substantial popu-lations of the upright A. stanfordianassp. stanfordiana and the sprawlingA. stanfordiana ssp. decumbens do notpresently occur in the immediatearea of the Vine Hill Preserve.

Roof originally described Rin-con manzanita as a variety of thenominate species A. stanfordiana var.repens (Roof 1972b). In 1988, Wellsdemoted it to A. stanfordiana formadecumbens, a name which was re-jected by the editors of The JepsonManual (Wells 1988). A few yearslater, Wells again changed the sta-

tus of Rincon manzanita to the namethat is now generally accepted: A.stanfordiana ssp. decumbens (1992).Regardless in which infraspecificrank this manzanita is recognized,it is a unique entity with a verylimited distribution.

Other populations of this man-zanita have been reported fromthe Bradford Mountain area,above Dry Creek Valley west ofHealdsburg. However, these plantsare best described as aberrant, semi-spreading individuals of the erectA. stanfordiana ssp. stanfordiana(Wahlert, personal observation;Roof 1972b). In other locationswhere A. stanfordiana ssp. stanford-iana occurs, it is common to seelow-growing, stunted individuals onroad cuts, firebreaks, and extremerocky soils mixed in with erectshrubs. Such mixed populations canalso be found in Lake County nearLake Pillsbury and French Ridgejust north of Upper Lake in theMendocino National Forest. At anold quarry at Buzzard Peak, SonomaCounty, A. stanfordiana ssp. stan-fordiana has been observed in thesame stunted condition, rooting atthe nodes where branches come intocontact with the rocky substrate.However, it is on Rincon Ridge innortheast Santa Rosa that the Rin-con manzanita reaches its best de-velopment.

On the red rhyolite soils on topof the ridge, Rincon manzanita isfound in an open, dwarfed chapar-ral also reminiscent of a barrens.This low-growing chaparral is domi-nated by Rincon manzanita, Rinconceanothus (Ceanothus confusus), andwavy-leaved ceanothus (C. foliosus).Other associates found on the mar-gins of these “chaparral barrens”include Cushing’s manzanita (A.glandulosa forma cushingiana), com-mon manzanita (A. manzanita), coy-ote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cha-mise (Adenostoma fasciculata), andinterior live oak (Quercus wislizeniivar. frutescens).

Rincon Ridge has long been

Left: The median strip of Fountain-grove Parkway landscaped with Rinconmanzanita (Arctostaphylos stanfordianassp. decumbens) and Rincon ceanothus(Ceanothus confusus). • Below: Nativevegetation, including Rincon ceanothus,was scraped away to bare soil at theSouthridge Preserve.


known for its unique flora. It is thetype locality for Rincon manzanita,Rincon ceanothus, and Sonomamanzanita. Sadly though, most ofthe natural vegetation, rare plants,and wildlife of Rincon Ridge hasbeen eradicated to make room foroffice parks and hundreds of newhouses.

THE SOUTHRIDGETHE SOUTHRIDGETHE SOUTHRIDGETHE SOUTHRIDGETHE SOUTHRIDGE

PRESERVEPRESERVEPRESERVEPRESERVEPRESERVE

In the early 1970s, developmentplans for Rincon Ridge (known lo-cally as the Fountaingrove Ranch)were being drawn up. This promptedBetty Guggolz, CNPS Fellow andthe chapter’s former Rare Plant Co-ordinator, to secure a preserve thatwould protect both the Rincon man-zanita and Rincon ceanothus. Afterwrangling with developers for manyyears, a small 4.2-acre conservationeasement was granted to the MiloBaker chapter in 1988. Initially therewere only three individuals of Rinconmanzanita at the site (along withperhaps 200–300 Rincon ceanothusindividuals).

Unfortunately, the SouthridgePreserve is shaped like a donut andhas a very high perimeter-to-arearatio. This type of preserve designdoes not allow for a buffer area be-tween disturbance and rare plants.Furthermore, only about a third ofthe preserve is suitable habitat forthe Rincon manzanita and Rinconceanothus.

Over the years, effective man-agement of this tiny urban preservehas been a challenge for the chap-ter’s preserve steward and volun-teers. Disturbances from adjacenthomeowners continually impact,and sometimes kill, rare plants onthe preserve. It is common to seeyard waste dumped on top of therare plants, smothering and killingthem. Deer take refuge in the pre-serve and heavily browse the veg-etation. Invasive exotic plants suchas French broom and aggressive

natives like Douglas-fir and coyotebrush continue to threaten the rareplants at Southridge Preserve.

Chapter volunteers have soughtto mitigate these disturbancesthrough yearly work parties andregular monitoring by the chapterpreserve steward. Numerous at-tempts have been made to educatelocal homeowners about the uniqueland around their homes and to fos-ter a sense of stewardship. Cages toprevent browsing by deer are con-stantly being installed and main-tained over the rare plants. In 1989a work party removed all of theDouglas-fir on the preserve, therebypreventing the conversion of thechaparral and black oak woodlandto Douglas-fir forest.

Even though this preserve ismonitored closely, it continues tobe degraded and impacted throughoutside disturbance. During thesummer of 2004, a contractor killedabout half of the Rincon ceanothusplants on the preserve by construct-ing a firebreak in response to thedevastating wildfires in southernCalifornia in the summer of 2003.While the Rincon manzanitas were

spared, a large portion of the pre-serve was scraped to bare soil withheavy machinery, leaving it vul-nerable to erosion and invasion byexotics. The management of theSouthridge Preserve has alwaysbeen accompanied by a sense offrustration in the face of disturbanceby contractors and indifference oflocal homeowners.

Since the preserve’s creation,volunteers have established about50 new Rincon manzanita plants onthe preserve (as well as about 40Rincon ceanothus). Many of thesewere propagated from parent ma-terial that has since been extirpated.Some Rincon manzanitas propa-gated by California Flora Nurseryhave also been planted on the pre-serve. Despite its delicate beauty,the Rincon manzanita has yet toenter the horticulture trade.

Several years ago, the medianstrip of Fountaingrove Parkway onRincon Ridge was landscaped witha few hundred Rincon manzanitasgrown from cuttings. These plantsrepresent a starting point for selec-tion and trial of potentially valuablecultivars as some mature plants are

A firebreak was cut through the center of the sensitive plant area at Rincon Ridge Parkin 2004.


decidedly more decumbent thanothers. In the last couple of yearsCalifornia Flora Nursery has madeRincon manzanita available for saleto the public.

The best hope for the conserva-tion of the Rincon manzanita is anew City of Santa Rosa Park. ThisCity park, situated less than a milefrom the Chapter’s Southridge Pre-serve, is unique in that it contains aone-acre sensitive plant area that isone of the few remaining patches ofRincon manzanita and Rincon cea-nothus. About a quarter of a mileaway is another undisturbed rem-nant of chaparral barrens, but it isnot yet protected.

Given Milo Baker Chapter’s ex-perience at its small preserve atSouthridge, chapter volunteers arein the unique position to influenceCity of Santa Rosa officials to en-sure that this remnant will be pro-perly managed. In the absence ofecological processes that maintainedthe Rincon manzanita in the past, anintensive management program willbe required indefinitely. The MiloBaker Chapter has entered into the“Adopt-A-Greenspace” programwith the city. This will involve de-veloping management plans with the

city, monitoring the site, and offer-ing occasional tours for the public,led by chapter volunteers.

Because the city does not haveexperience with ecological manage-ment, the Milo Baker Chapter isworking closely with city officialsto ensure the proper steps are takento conserve not only the Rinconmanzanita, but also the chaparralhabitat. Acting on advice from theChapter, the city has already re-moved about 100 Douglas-fir treesthat were encroaching on the chap-arral and threatening to dominatethe entire area. The other mainthreat to the preserve is browsingby deer and trampling by humans.After many years of planning, thecity has recently installed a six-foothigh fence around the sensitive plantarea that will create a physical bar-rier to disturbance.

INTO THE FUTUREINTO THE FUTUREINTO THE FUTUREINTO THE FUTUREINTO THE FUTURE

The long-term survival of theVine Hill manzanita and the Rinconmanzanita will depend greatly uponthe efforts of Milo Baker Chapterpreserve stewards and volunteers.While the Vine Hill Preserve is freefrom intense impacts found in anurban setting, a catastrophic eventsuch as a fire or pathogen couldseriously reduce or even extirpatethe only remaining population ofVine Hill manzanita.

On Rincon Ridge, where thefinal stages of development arenow occurring, the chapter is stilladvocating for the conservation ofRincon manzanita. In addition tothe ceanothus killed at the South-ridge Preserve, a firebreak was con-structed at Rincon Ridge Park.This firebreak cut a 30-foot swaththrough the heart of the sensitiveplant area, wiping out about 50-100plants each of Rincon manzanitaand Rincon ceanothus. The parkwas meant to serve as the major siteof protected rare plant habitat asmitigation for development on

Rincon Ridge, yet this small rem-nant continues to be greatly im-pacted. There are enormous chal-lenges to ecologically managing aninherently flammable habitat in anurbanized setting.

Clearly, the Milo Baker Chapterhas to intensify its cooperation withCity officials and contractors to pre-vent such destructive practices in thefuture. While there are hundreds ofRincon manzanitas growing in boththe Chapter’s Southridge Preserveand adopted green space at RinconRidge Park, volunteers must remainvigilant to guard against a slow deg-radation of the last wild plants grow-ing on Rincon Ridge.

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

Adams, J.E. 1940. A systematic studyof the genus Arctostaphylos Adans.J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 56(1):1–62.

McMinn, H.E. 1939. An IllustratedManual of California Shrubs. J.W.Stacey, San Francisco, CA.

Baker, M.S. 1932. A new species ofArctostaphylos. Leafl. West. Bot. 1(4):31–32.

Roof, J.B. 1972a. Detective story: Our“lost” Sonoma Barren. The FourSeasons 4(2):2–16.

Roof, J.B. 1972b. A new variety ofArctostaphylos stanfordiana fromSonoma County, California. TheFour Seasons 4(2):16–17.

Roof, J.B. 1980. A fresh approach tothe genus Arctostaphylos in Califor-nia. The Changing Seasons 1(2):2–32.

Van Soelen, P. 2004. The Vine Hillmanzanita. Pacific Horticulture 65(1):34–42.

Wells, P.V. 1988. New combinationsin Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae): An an-notated list of changes in status.Madroño 35:330–341.

Wells, P.V. 1992. New infraspecifictaxa and combinations in Arctosta-phylos. The Four Seasons 9(2):54–59.

Wells, P.V. 2000. The Manzanitas ofCalifornia, Also of Mexico and theWorld. Published by the author.

Greg Wahlert, 2166 35th Ave., San Fran-cisco, CA 94116. [email protected]

CNPS volunteer Lynn Houser surveysthe Hadley Hill site, a highly valuableremnant of chaparral barrens that maysoon be developed.


IN MEMORIAM: SCOTT SUNDBERG, 1954-2004

Editor’s note: Scott Sundberg was aJepson Manual author and collectorin California, and loved the part ofOregon that is part of the CaliforniaFloristic Province: Josephine and Currycounties. He was a personal friend ofmine, and like Jim Hickman andmyself, a University of Oregon alum-nus. In forging ahead with work on anew flora of Oregon, he followed inHickman’s footsteps. His work is beingcarried on by his wife, Linda Hardisan,and others.

cott D. Sundberg of Corvallis,Oregon, died 30 December2004 of cancer. An Oregon

native, Scott’s interest in the plantsof the state began as an undergradu-ate at the University of Oregon. Hewas a botanist for the Bureau ofLand Management, Coos Bay Dis-trict from 1978-1980. He received

his PhD in botany in 1986 from theUniversity of Texas at Austin, wherehe studied the taxonomy of plantswithin the Compositae. After post-doctoral studies in Ohio and sev-eral years of research and botanicalconsulting in Seattle, Scott returnedto Oregon to oversee the integra-tion of the University of Oregonand the Oregon State UniversityHerbaria.

In 1994, Scott initiated theOregon Flora Project, with the goalof writing a new flora of Oregon.He served as director for that projectuntil his death, supervising over 60students, several professional em-ployees, and directing over 230 vol-unteers. Along with a new flora heenvisioned the establishment of theOregon Plant Atlas, the OregonVascular Plant Checklist, the Or-egon Flora Photo Gallery, and theOregon Flora Newsletter.

Scott’s 29 scientific publicationsinclude taxonomic papers (descrip-tions of new species, nomenclaturalchanges, and new classifications),laboratory-based investigations inplant systematics, and treatmentsfor checklists, field guides, andfloras. The majority of his publica-tions concern the composite fam-ily. In addition, Scott has con-

OREGON PLANT ATLAS ONOREGON PLANT ATLAS ONOREGON PLANT ATLAS ONOREGON PLANT ATLAS ONOREGON PLANT ATLAS ON-LINELINELINELINELINE

he Oregon Flora Project announces the launching of the Or-egon Plant Atlas, the first comprehensive on-line mapping tool

for Oregon plants. Over 385,000 data points representing 4,337 taxaare derived from the Atlas specimen and observation databases, andvirtually all information associated with each data point is accessibleto the user by clicking on the dots. Information is continuouslyupdated through the efforts of avid field workers and Oregon FloraProject staff. The Oregon Plant Atlas can be accessed through theOregon Flora Project website at www.oregonflora.org. The Atlas ispartially funded by National Science Foundation grant BRC-0237459, and by donations from individuals and plant-orientedsocieties including the Native Plant Society of Oregon.

Scott Sundberg, Oregon Flora ProjectDirector. Photograph by D. Wolverton,courtesy of The Oregon Stater.

tributed numerous articles to theOregon Flora Newsletter (www.oregonflora.org). A complete list ofhis scientific publications will ap-pear in that publication.

Memorial gifts in Scott’s honor can bemade to NPSO—Oregon Flora Project,and mailed to P.O. Box 402, Corvallis,OR 97339.

Aaron Liston, Department of Botany &Plant Pathology, Oregon State Univer-sity, 2082 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, OR97331.

S

T

Scott Sundberg in September 2004. Pho-tograph by M. Sundberg.


BOOK REVIEW

Plants and Landscapes for Sum-mer Dry Climates of the San Fran-cisco Bay Region. 2004, East BayMunicipal Utility District, Oakland,CA. 336 pages, soft cover, $34.95.

Once again the East Bay MunicipalUtility District (EBMUD) has pro-duced a wonderful reference guideto selecting plants suited to the Medi-terranean climate of the San Fran-cisco Bay Area. The book is a designachievement and is supported by vividphotographs of the plants selected.Non-native plants do dominate thebook, but when one must select plantsfrom local nurseries, having this bookon the shelf is a requirement. In fact,the purist could easily create a garden

by restricting their choices to the 124natives listed which comprise trees,shrubs, grasses, perennials, annuals,biennials, ferns, and vines.

This gardening reference is also asound primer for the general readeron local plant communities, charac-teristics of drought tolerant plants,weather and climate unique to theBay Area, general design principles,and water conservation. Several pagesare devoted to healthy soils, a topicoften overlooked in other similarbooks. Borrowing a feature found inthe Sunset Western Garden Book, spe-cial sections detail plant choices forattracting birds and butterflies (butoverlooks much needed pollinators,

reptiles, and amphibians), clay soil-tolerant plants, plants for ground cov-ers, tree selections in three sizes tomeet individual circumstances, andchoices for hedges, screens, wind-breaks, dry shade, and hot exposedlocations.

Individual plant descriptions arewell written in a comfortable, flowingstyle, include cultivars available in thetrade, and give horticultural tips whenappropriate. EBMUD’s entry into thehorticultural landscape realm began in1986 when they published Water Con-serving Plants and Landscapes for the BayArea. A popular favorite, this publica-tion was designed more as a ready ref-erence guide and featured the plantstogether with all their cultural require-ments. The latest book requires thereader to flip back and forth betweenthe plant catalogue and the culturalrequirements found in the section“Plants At A Glance.” This change informat is cumbersome and at timesannoying, but the diligent gardenerwill persevere. (Let’s hope the bind-ing holds out.)

This latest book also lacks the irri-gation principles found in its prede-cessor, an omission I found surpris-ing in an agency that provides waterto 1.3 million customers. However,their attention to California natives asrecommended plants is noteworthy.Overall, natives comprise 36% oftheir listings compared to only 17%in their first publication. Of particu-lar interest is the broad list of refer-ences that highlight California nativeplants, local gardening, and regionalnatural history. Even though the num-ber of plants featured in this publica-tion is similar to its predecessor, thebook tops out at a whopping fourpounds, four times heavier than theoriginal. There are over 345 specificplant entries with 520 color photo-graphs, making this a book that canserve as a fine guide to appropriateplant selection for the San FranciscoBay Area, as well as a beautiful visualreference to many native plants grow-ing throughout our region.

Mike KosloskyEast Bay Chapter


MATERIALS FORPUBLICATION

Members and others are invitedto submit material for publicationin Fremontia. Instructions forcontributors can be found on theCNPS website, www.cnps.org, orcan be requested from FremontiaEditor, Linda Ann Vorobik,[email protected], or c/oUniversity and Jepson Herbaria,1001 Valley Life Sciences Bldg.#2465, University of California,Berkeley, CA 94720-2465.

FREMONTIA EDITORIALADVISORY BOARD

Susan D’Alcamo, Ellen Dean,Kathleen Dickey, Phyllis M.Faber, Holly Forbes, PamMuick, Bart O’Brien, John Saw-yer, Jim Shevock, Teresa Sholars,Nevin Smith, Dieter Wilken,John Willoughby, Carol W.Witham, Darrell Wright

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

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

Card Number TOTAL ENCLOSED:

Exp. date

Signature

Phone

Email

Please Join Today!

❏ $20 Limited Income ❏ $35 Individual ❏ $45 Family/International ❏ $75 Supporting

❏ $100 Plant Lover ❏ $250 Patron ❏ $500 Benefactor ❏ $1,000 Mariposa Lily

Please make your check payable to “CNPS” and send to: California Native Plant Society, 2707 K Street, Suite 1,Sacramento, CA 95816-5113. Phone (916) 447-2677; fax (916) 447-2727; www.cnps.org.

❏ Enclosed is a matching gift form provided by my employer

❏ I would like information on planned giving

CNPS member gifts allows us to promote and protect California’s native plants andtheir habitats. Gifts are tax-deductible minus the $12 of the total gift which goestoward publication of Fremontia and the CNPS Bulletin.

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

F R E M O N T I A

riginals, prints, and cards for chocolate lily, butterflytulips, camas, maidenhair fern, other California

native plants, and more.

New this month: Westernsword fern 16 by 20 inchprints (edition 200) onArches watercolor paper.

www.VorobikBotanicalArt.com*

O

*My apologies to those who hadtried to visit the site before and weredenied access; the site has beenupdated and improved. Please tryagain! Thank you, Linda

Western Sword Fern (Polystichummunitum). Pen & Ink with Watercolor.P A I D A D V E R T I S E M E N T

quality botanical art at affordable prices


California N

ative Plant S

ociety2707 K

Street, S

uite 1S

acramento, C

A 95816-5113

Address S

ervice Requested

cents worth for his final days as direc-tor of this program, with his thought-ful overview, cover image, andthought-provoking editorial. The nextarticle summarizing the VegetationProgram follows naturally in thatmany conservation goals are answeredby the work of the Program. Considerthis article, written by Todd Keeler-Wolf, director, and Julie Evens, seniorvegetation ecologist, as the introduc-tion to a special issue on Californiavegetation, slated for the January 2006issue of Fremontia.

Greg Wahlert and Phil Van Solenremind us of why California is botani-cally such a fascinating state: they writeof two rare manzanitas from SonomaCounty, where there are no less than

FROM THE EDITOR

elcome to the third of fourinstallments of the cel-ebration of the California

Native Plant Society’s 40th year. Thisissue’s article on the Society’s Chap-ters includes those from the middle-north section of state, west from theBay Area east to and over the Sierra.Once again I am amazed by the var-ied activities and conservation work ofthe chapters. Can I be a member ofevery chapter? After reading abouteach of them, I want to!

In line with the 40th celebrationtheme for this year’s Fremontia thereare two articles on state programs.David Chipping, author of the Con-servation Program article, has pro-vided us with much more than his two

WN

onprofit Org.

U.S

. Postage

PA

IDO

akland, CA

Perm

it # 3729

CONTRIBUTORS

David Chipping is the director of the California NativePlant Society (CNPS) Conservation Program, but will bestepping aside this year.

Julie M. Evens is the senior vegetation ecologist for CNPS.She has directed projects and workshops to identify anddefine plant communities in the state from the MojaveDesert and Sierra Nevada west to the Coast.

Todd Keeler-Wolf is the senior vegetation ecologist withthe California Department of Fish and Game. He has ac-tively promoted the classification of vegetation in the statethrough vegetation sampling and mapping projects.

Aaron Liston is the director of the Herbarium at OregonState University, Corvallis.

Phil Van Soelen is co-owner of California Flora Nurseryin Fulton, Sonoma County, a past president of the CNPSMilo Baker Chapter, and for many years was the manager ofthe Vine Hill Preserve. His article on Vine Hill Manzanitaappeared in the January 2004 issue of Pacific Horticulture.

Greg Wahlert is currently finishing a molecular phylog-eny of Arctostaphylos for his master’s degree at San Fran-cisco State University. He has served as CNPS Milo BakerChapter’s preserve steward at Southridge in Santa Rosa forthe last 15 years.

18 county endemics, including fourspecies of manzanitas. This issue endswith a farewell to Scott Sundberg, whopassed away in 2004. Scott was a sun-flower family specialist, author of thecoyote brush treatment for The JepsonManual, and at the time of his death,working towards the production of anew flora of Oregon.

A final note: keep a lookout for anew editor for Fremontia. My tenureas editor ends with the October 2005issue, and I hope to help find some-one for this position who will enjoy asmuch as I have this great society ofbotanists, conservationists, and thoseappreciative of flowers.

Linda Ann VorobikFremontia Editor

vol. 33, no. 3 july 2005 fremontia

Documents