vol. 34, no. 3 • july 2006 fremontia · volume 34:3, july 2006 a journal of the california native...

V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

A JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

$5.00 (Free to Members)

VOL. 34, NO. 3 • JULY 2006

FREMONTIA

JEPSON, MUIR, AND THE SIERRA CLUB OUTING OF 1909

LOCAL LAND-USE PLANNING AND VEGETATION MAPS

WEEDS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN WETLANDS

A NATIVE PLANT GARDEN (PART 2)

V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

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 mission throughscience, conservation advocacy, edu-cation, and horticulture at the local,state, and federal levels. It monitorsrare and endangered plants and habi-tats; acts to save endangered areasthrough publicity, persuasion, and onoccasion, legal action; provides experttestimony to government bodies; sup-ports the establishment of native plantpreserves; sponsors workdays to re-move invasive plants; and offers a rangeof educational activities includingspeaker programs, field trips, nativeplant sales, horticultural workshops,and demonstration gardens.

Since its founding in 1965, the tra-ditional strength of CNPS has been itsdedicated volunteers. CNPS activitiesare organized at the local chapter levelwhere members’ varied interests influ-ence what is done. Volunteers fromthe 33 CNPS chapters annually con-tribute in excess of 87,000 hours(equivalent to 42 full-time employees).

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

CALIFORNIA NATIVEPLANT SOCIETY

Dedicated to the Preservation ofthe California Native Flora

VOL. 34, NO. 3, JULY 2006

F R E M O N T I A

Copyright © 2006

California Native Plant Society

STAFFSacramento Office:

Executive Director . Amanda Jorgenson

Development Director/Finance Manager . . . . . . . . . . . Cari Porter

Membership Assistant . . . . Christina

Neifer

Bookkeeper . . . . . . . . . Anne Wood

At Large:

Fremontia Co-Editors . . . . Linda Ann

Vorobik, PhD; Bart O’Brien

Senior Conservation Botanist . . . . . .

position open

Rare Plant Botanist . . . position open

Senior Vegetation Ecologist . . . Julie

Evens

Vegetation Ecologist . . . . Anne Klein

East Bay Conservation Analyst . . . . .

Lech Naumovich

Legislative Advocate . Vern Goehring

Legal Advisor . . . . . . . Sandy McCoy

Website Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . .

John Donaghue

CNPS Bulletin Editor . . . . . . Bob Hass

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Brad Jenkins (President), Sandy McCoy

(Vice President), Steve Hartman (Trea-

surer), Lynn Houser (Secretary). At

Large: Sue Britting, Charli Danielsen,

Dave Flietner, Diana Hickson, David

Magney, Spence McIntyre

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

MEMBERSHIPMembership form located on inside back cover;

dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the Bulletin

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

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

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

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

Sonoma Coast) . . . . . Lori HubbartEast Bay . . . . . . . . Elaine P. JacksonEl Dorado . . . . . . . . Amy HoffmanKern County . . . . . . . . . Lucy ClarkLos Angeles/Santa Monica Mtns . . .

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

Liz ParsonsMojave Desert . . . . . . Tim ThomasMonterey Bay . . . . Rosemary FosterMount Lassen . . . . . . . Catie BishopNapa Valley . . . . . . Marcie DannerNorth Coast . . . . . . . Larry LevineNorth San Joaquin . . James BruggerOrange County . . . . . . Sarah JayneRedbud (Grass Valley/Auburn) . . . .

Marie BainRiverside/San Bernardino counties . .

Katie BarrowsSacramento Valley . . Diana HicksonSan Diego . . . . . . . . Dave FlietnerSan Gabriel Mtns . . . Gabi McLeanSan Luis Obispo . . . Lauren BrownSanhedrin (Ukiah) . . . . . . . VishnuSanta Clara Valley . . . Judy FenertySanta Cruz County . Fred McPhersonSequoia (Fresno) . . . . . Peggy JonesShasta . . . . . Susan Libonati-BarnesSierra Foothills (Tuolumne, Cala- veras, Mariposa) . . . Patrick StoneSouth Coast (Palos Verdes) . . . . . .

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

position openYerba Buena (San Francisco) . . . . .

Mark Heath

MATERIALS FOR PUBLICATIONCNPS members and others are wel-come to contribute materials for publi-cation in Fremontia. See the inside backcover for manuscript submission in-structions.

Linda Ann Vorobik and Bart O’Brien,Co-Editors

Bob Hass, Copy Editor

Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer

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

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

PROGRAM DIRECTORS

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

Conservation . . . . . . . position openHorticulture . . . . . . . . . Peigi DuvallPosters . . . . . . . . . Bertha McKinley

and Wilma FolletteRare Plants . . . . . . . . . position openVegetation . . . . . .Todd Keeler-Wolf

F R E M O N T I A

Printed by Premier Graphics: www.premiergraphics.biz

F R E M O N T I A 1V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

BOTANY MAN JEPSON, NATURALIST MUIR, AND THE SIERRA CLUBOUTING OF 1909 by Richard G. Beidleman ......................................................... 3

Most of Fremontia readers know the name Willis Linn Jepson as the first botanist at UCBerkeley and the namesake for one of our state floras: The Jepson Manual. In this articleview Yosemite from Jepson’s perspective, as he travels through the area with John Muir andothers in the early 1900s.

A WINNING COMBINATION: LOCAL LAND-USE PLANNING AND FINE-SCALE VEGETATION MAPS by Liz Chattin, Lorraine Rubin, andDavid Magney .............................................................................................................9

The authors tell the story of the under-appreciated power local governments have in theprotection of biological resources, the important role vegetation maps can play in thisprotection, and the low-budget strategy Ventura County is initiating for acquiring stan-dardized vegetation data.

WHAT WEEDS DOMINATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN WETLANDSAND WHY? by Brad Burkhart .............................................................................. 14

This article reviews the results of one of the first comprehensive attempts to map andquantify the acreage of dominant riparian weed species along the San Diego River andthen explores the ecological mechanisms which allow these species to out-compete thenative vegetation. Recommendations are made to improve future riparian restorationefforts in urban areas.

A NATIVE PLANT GARDEN IN THE BERKELEY HILLS, PART TWOby Jenny S. Fleming .................................................................................................20

The second of a three-part series on one of the state’s foremost home gardens that isdedicated to native plants. The article continues with a detailed accounting of layout,architecture, and plants used within this lovely landscape. This exceptional garden,created by CNPS Fellows Jenny and Scott Fleming, continues to be a beacon for nativeplant enthusiasts.

BOTANICAL DELIGHTS OF THE SIERRA NEVADA Photographs byLinda Ann Vorobik .................................................................................................. 22

As a good-bye to readers in her last issue as editor of Fremontia, Linda Ann Vorobikshares some of her photographic images collected from the Sierra Nevada: a page of insectsand flowers, and a page of paintbrushes (Castilleja). These images were taken during herfield work for her upcoming guidebook to Sierra Nevada plants.

BOOK REVIEW: CALIFORNIA’S FRONTIER NATURALISTS by Richard G. Beidleman. Reviewed byDan Cheatham .............................................................................................................................................. 24

CONTENTSEDITORIAL: WELCOME BART O’BRIEN! .............................................................................. 2

THE COVER: Mountain, subalpine, and meadow in the high Sierra, as would have been seen by W.L. Jepson and his companionson their 1909 journey (see page 3). Photograph by L. Vorobik.

2 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

USEFUL WEBSITES ANDCONTACTINFORMATION

California Native PlantSociety (CNPS):

www.cnps.org, with links toconservation issues, chapters,publications, policies, etc.

For updates onconservation issues:Audubon Societywww.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 onlinevoter guide with state-specificnonpartisan election andcandidate information.

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

EDITORIAL:WELCOME BART O’BRIEN!

fter over five years of editing Fremontia, journal of the California Native

Plant Society (CNPS), I am very pleased to hand over the role of editor

to Bart O’Brien, long-time CNPS member, outstanding horticulturist and

botanist at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSABG), and co-author of

the award-winning California Native Plants for the Garden with Carol Bornstein

and David Fross. This beautiful volume is reviewed in the January issue of

Fremontia (Volume 34, No.1).

Bart brings so much to this society as editor of its journal. He has

authored numerous publications including those in Fremontia, and was the

convening editor for the special issue of Fremontia on growing native plants

for the garden (Volume 29, No. 1).

His ongoing work with the Los Angeles River substantially contributed

to the collaborative publication of the award-winning Los Angeles River

Master Plan Landscaping Guidelines and Plant Palettes for the Los Angeles

County Department of Public Works in 2004. His latest book, co-authored

with Betsey Landis of CNPS and Ellen Mackey of Theodore Payne Founda-

tion, is the bilingual Care & Maintenance of Southern California Native Plant

Gardens – Cuidado y mantenimiento de jardines de plantas nativas del sur de

California to be published this summer by Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California.

Bart is best known for his knowledge as a horticulturist: he has intro-

duced numerous different native plant cultivars including those from some

of our favorite genera: Arctostaphylos, Ceanothus, Dendromecon, Heuchera,

Malacothamnus, Zauschneria (Epilobium), and section Audibertia of the ge-

nus Salvia. He was named Horticulturist of the Year in 2005 by the Southern

California Horticultural Society. This year he was honored with a life mem-

bership from the California Garden Clubs, Inc. In addition, Bart is a fifth

generation Californian (born and raised in Hollister) and is an accomplished

collector, grower, photographer, and lecturer.

Bart also brings with him a thorough knowledge of Southern California

native plants, as he has done extensive field work in the southern inner

Coast Ranges (especially in San Benito County), the eastern Mojave ranges,

as well as in Baja California, primarily from the US border south to the

Vizcaino Peninsula.

I am particularly excited that Fremontia will now be seated in Southern

California at RSABG. Now we can strengthen the numbers and kinds of

contributions to our journal from that area. Thanks to RSABG for supporting

Bart in his role as Fremontia editor, and to the University Herbarium, UC,

Berkeley for their support in kind of my editorship.

Linda Ann Vorobik

Out-going Editor, Fremontia

A


BOTANY MAN JEPSON, NATURALIST MUIR,AND THE SIERRA CLUB OUTING OF 1909

by Richard G. Beidleman

here’s nothing like a succinctacademic exchange to clearthe mountain air. It happenedalong the bank of lower

Rancheria Creek in Hetch HetchyValley, where naturalist John Muirand Dr. Willis Linn Jepson, UC Ber-

keley professor of botany, were hav-ing lunch. The topic was plantnames, and Muir was saying that hedidn’t like the “folk names” ofplants, even if they didn’t “misrep-resent botanically.” Citing the dig-ger pine, he exclaimed emphatically

“No, call it Sabine pine, after Dr.Sabine.”

While the designated commonname for digger pine is now “foot-hill pine” or “gray pine,” the scien-tific name remains Pinus sabiniana,honoring Joseph Sabine, the long-time secretary of the London Horti-cultural Society. Jepson did notmuch care professionally for plantcommon names either, but duringhis botanical travels he always notedwhat names the locals used for dif-ferent plants. So his quick reply toJohn was, “If you go into the foot-hills and say Sabine pine to the set-tlers, no one would know what youmean. But the settlers know what Imean in plant names since I speaktheir language!”

In truth, both Muir and Jepsonspoke the same mother tongue, alove for the out-of-doors. While Johnwas a major founder of the SierraClub, Willis was among the selectfew who endorsed the Sierra Clubincorporation papers in 1892. Thetwo knew each other, of course, butthe previous time they were togetherin the field was undoubtedly at theAleutian island of Unalaska in 1899,when the Harriman Expedition’snatural scientists (including Muir)met with a four-man botanical ex-pedition from Berkeley that includedJepson. The present Rancheria Creekluncheon exchange took place onJuly 27, 1909, during what wasJepson’s first participation in a sum-mer Sierra Club outing, this one toYosemite National Park.

AS CHANCE WOULDHAVE IT

Jepson had anticipated being inYosemite the summer of 1909, butnot necessarily with the Sierra Club.

Hetch Hetchy Falls, with maul oak (Quercus chrysolepis), incense cedar (Calocedrusdecurrens), and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). This and other black and whitephotographs by W. Jepson, 1909, courtesy of the Herbarium Archives, UC Berkeley.

T


Some months earlier, he had prom-ised to give a series of lectures onCalifornia flowers for the newlyformed Yosemite Valley Chautau-qua. When problems arose with thelecture schedule and the stipend hewas supposed to receive, and hewas reminded that the Sierra Clubwas having its summer outing inYosemite, he wavered about the lec-tures. The deciding factor was thecontroversy raging over the HetchHetchy Valley dam building, andProfessor Jepson finally decided infavor of the Sierra Club, “for thissummer I have missionary work todo . . . ”

Thus it was that Willis Jepsonjoined the Sierra Club party of some30 men and women for the start ofthe Yosemite outing at El Portal onJuly 3. It was indeed a distinctivefield party, which included, amongothers, William E. Colby, secretaryof the Sierra Club, Allen Chamber-lain, former president of the Appala-chian Mountain Club, Professor Wil-liam O. Crosby, geologist of M.I.T.,geologist George D. Lauderback,George Schwarz who had workedfor the US Forest Service, C.W.Pohlmann who would soon be serv-ing on the Club’s Local Walks Com-mittee, Jepson’s personal friendCharlie Dutton, impresario Degrassiwith his violin, and John Muir.

THE PARTY HEADS OUT

Jepson was in his floral elementon the trip to Yosemite Valley fromEl Portal, jotting down in his fieldbook the variety of trees and shrubsalong the Merced River route, fromred bud (Cercis occidentalis) andmustang mint (Monardella lanceo-lata) to poison oak (Toxicodendrondiversilobum) and the first Douglas-firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Whenthe distinctive California torreyas,with their shiny green fruit resem-bling unripe plums, began showingup in abundance, Jepson was de-lighted to inform the travelers thatthese were definitely not plum trees.

Two days later the excursion wason its way up into Little YosemiteValley, past Happy Isles, Vernal andNevada falls, and by July 7 climbingthe Sunrise Trail (now part of theMuir Trail) and then east towardsEcho Creek. At an overnight camp-site where snow bush (Ceanothuscordulatus) matted the ground, hik-ers simply put their bedrolls atopthe bushes. Off to the south was astriking view of Mt. Clark, namedby Joseph Whitney of the early Cali-fornia Geological Survey after GalenClark, Yosemite State Park’s firstguardian.

REMINISCING ANDBOTANIZING

Muir told the group that the yearafter he first came into YosemiteValley he had gone to work forClark’s friend James Hutchings at$70 a month, cutting up ponderosapine with a straight saw for lumberwhich would be used to build asawmill. Muir also reminisced abouthis 1877 trip with Harvard botanistAsa Gray and Sir Joseph Hooker ofKew Gardens, London, toward Mt.Shasta. One evening Gray had ex-pressed surprise that Linnaeus’s fa-vorite plant, twinflower (Linnaea bo-realis), had been found in Oregonbut not in California. The next morn-ing Hooker, crossing a small gully,discovered a plant sprawling overthe slope which turned out to be thevery species. “It is Linnaea!,” Hookerexclaimed. “Strange,” Muir reflected,“that it should have been found sosoon after Gray’s remark.”

Evening saw the Sierra Club partyon the shore of Lake Merced, whereJepson discovered the finest grove ofquaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)he had ever encountered in Califor-nia. With the same diligence thatwent into gathering data for his forth-coming Silva of California, Jepsonproceeded to measure height and cir-cumference of eight aspens, the tall-est 80 feet high. In the process, henoted that many of the trunks bore

marks of bear claws, “sometimes longgashes where drawn down, some-times sharp points like a driven nail.”

On the evening of July 13 thegroup camped at the base of LembertDome in Tuolumne Meadows. Thenext morning they headed for a basecamp below Mt. Dana. On the trail,Jepson and Muir discussed the dif-ferent forms of tamarac (lodgepole)pines (Pinus contorta var. murrayana)in the west, noting that the onesalong the coast (P. c. var. contorta)were usually dwarfed, while in otherplaces some held closed cones foryears until opened by fire.

TWO JOHNS: TORREY ANDLEMBERT

The next day, while scaling Dana,Muir conversed about guiding AsaGray in Yosemite Park back in 1872.He had shown Gray the uniquetorreya (Torreya californica), and thetwo chatted about the botanist forwhom it had been named, JohnTorrey of Columbia College. Muirasked Gray if Torrey was planninga California trip, to which Gray re-plied “Oh, Torrey is an old mannow. If you want to see Torrey youwill have to go to New York.” Grayhad no sooner departed from thePark by way of Coulterville Trailthan Muir received a message thatthere was another botanist at thehotel who wanted to see him. Hewas tired of botanists by this time,but when Joseph LeConte said “Youmust come up,” Muir acquiesced andmet none other than the venerableJohn Torrey, who had just come intoYosemite Valley by the Big Oak FlatTrail! What a coincidence.

In Tuolumne Meadows Jepsondelivered a stirring oration on theSierran forest, from Sonoran foot-hills to alpine summits, with palat-able but limited facts and a plethoraof stirring emotions for the gath-ered congregation, “garnering in thisJuly treasures of mountain delightsto have the thrifty sweetness for De-cember.” Climaxing his talk was a


reciting of “The Campfires of theYoung Men.” This was indeed a dayfor lecturing, because at the eveningcampfire William Colby talkedabout John Lembert, after whomLembert Dome had been named,noting that Professor Edward LeeGreene, Jepson’s old mentor at UCBerkeley, had named a compositeflower (Senecio lemberti, now S.pauciflorus) after Lembert.

PICKING UP THE PACE

Next morning, as a relief fromlectures, the hikers headed forMountains Lyell and McClure, even-tually making their way across a win-try landscape of snow fields and greatrocky slopes with patches of soilwhere snow-melt streams were trick-

ling down. The alpine flower gar-dens were disappointing, because theseason was too early at high alti-tude. But Jepson prostrated himselfto count petals, stamens, and stylesof ten delightful alpine lewisiaLewisia pygmaea, the tiny relative ofthe bitter root Lewisia rediviva, dis-covered by Meriwether Lewis over acentury earlier in Montana.

Jepson’s collecting the cinque-foil Potentilla brewerii (now P. drum-mondii ssp. brewerii) here occasionedMuir to refer to William Brewer,whose surveying party in 1863 hadnamed Dana and Lyell peaks afterAmerica’s and England’s foremostgeologists. “What legs he had be-neath him! He astonished even thenatives!” Not to be outdone, Jepsonwas quick to reply that “he did not

collect a really good deal—not nearlythe amount one would have expectedfrom four years in the field.” Whenthe quartet of climbers includingJepson made it back from the Lyellbase camp to Tuolumne Meadows,they emulated Brewer by coveringthe eight miles in two hours, lednearly the entire way by flower loverEloise Fife, who was as diminutiveas some of the subalpine vegetation.

At Tuolumne Meadows severalparties took off on a knapsack tripdown the Tuolumne River, the mencarrying packs weighing 30 to 37pounds while the women only toted9 to 15 pounds. Jepson vented hisdisgust: “In other words, the menare carrying food for the girls. Manyof them are no mountaineers at all.”But there was general merriment

McClure Fork toward Mt. Florence.


when Jepson’s loquacious friendCharlie Dutton, in crossing ConnessCreek on a log, shrilly cried out forhelp when he got half way over, andhad to be assisted the rest of the way.

The main party hiked to the cas-cades below Conness Creek wherethey got a beautiful view down theGrand Canyon of the Tuolumne.After a lunch stop on a windy out-crop, the trail dropped into a moistvalley filled with wildflowers: waist-high lupines, blue larkspurs, severalspecies of mariposa lilies, scatteredaspens and conifers, and a thicket ofhuckleberry oak (Quercus vaccini-folia) that was about 30 feet squarebut only a foot high.

A BEDAZZLING GRANITEWILDERNESS

On July 20 the party was makingits way up Return Creek and acrossto the northwest into MatterhornCanyon, where they encountered agrove of mountain hemlock (Tsugamertensiana), the finest Jepson hadever seen in California, with manytrunks five feet in diameter. The nextday they traversed Benson Pass, andfrom a rocky promontory had asuperb view eastward towards thesnowy peaks of Ritter, Banner, Dana,Lyell, Hoffman, and Conness, andof the wild, high granite wilder-ness to the north. At the viewers’feet were beautiful rock gardens ofmountain pride (Penstemon new-berryi), forming rose-red flowerclusters a foot across in the granitecrevices, with reclining mats ofwhitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)whose upright branchlets had beenmanicured by the wind.

Now came the scenic series oftarns which today lie along the Pa-cific Crest Tahoe-Yosemite Trail:Smedberg, Rodgers, Neall. Therewere wonderful reflections just af-ter sundown in Rodgers Lake, rightbefore the afterglow began. Jepsonwrote quickly in his field book, “Itis the most wonderful scene of thesort that ever met my eye. A highrock dominating the opposite shore,the snow-banked cliffs with a fewclusters of tamarac pines and hem-locks—the whole with the brillianceof the California atmosphere andwith that unusual softness seen inthe English lakes.”

POLITICS INTRUDES ONTHE SOLITUDE

On July 23 the Sierra Club hik-ers were in Pleasant Valley, havingcome down Rodgers Canyon, witha side trip to an overlook intothe narrow Muir Gorge of theTuolumne, and a steep rockyscramble past Table Lake to PiuteCreek in the canyon bottom where

they set up camp at 7,000 feet. Thefollowing day the party took the trailup the side of Rancheria Mountainoverlooking Piute Creek, and con-tinued into Pate Valley and theGrand Canyon of the Tuolumne,with Hetch Hetchy Valley to thewest. Muir was telling Jepson hewas aggravated that UC BerkeleyPresident Benjamin Ide Wheelercould not make up his mind to takea stand against damming HetchHetchy, despite Muir’s urging. InMuir’s opinion Wheeler did not wantto “risk offending some rich man inSan Francisco—it being his busi-ness “to ‘lay for money’ all the while.”Indeed, during his decade in officePresident Wheeler had been an un-usually successful fundraiser.

TREE CLIMBING FOR FIRCONES

The track along RancheriaMountain was hemmed in for aways by the reddish purple moun-tain monardella (Monardella odora-tissima), and the minty scent ofcrushed foliage was exceedinglyheavy and strong. Jepson was irkedthat some Sierra Club members, whoactually knew better, insisted on call-ing the mint pennyroyal. “Peoplewill have common names,” Jepsonmuttered to himself. “If they can’tget the special name, they will trans-fer one from a garden plant.”

The day’s lunch site was beneathspreading limbs of an incense cedar,beyond a little springy meadow acrosswhich were “thrown” two streamersof strikingly beautiful shooting stars(Dodecatheon jeffreyi). In the after-noon the trail began to drop down,and rocky cliffs at the upper entranceto Hetch Hetchy were coming intoview. The trees of lower altitude werereplacing the high-country vegeta-tion, red firs giving way to white firs.And, because fir cones never fall tothe ground unless cut by squirrels,Jepson climbed 50 feet up a white firto collect the candle-like purplishcones for his hiking companions.

Junipers (Juniperus occidentalis) and tam-arac pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana)on granite at McClure Fork.


REACHING HETCH HETCHY

On July 26 the Sierra Club groupwas down in Hetch Hetchy Valley,at its upper end near Pate Valley,where rose great rock walls studdedwith trees. The valley floor’s greenfields were surrounded by scatteredgroves of pines and oaks, and alongthe Tuolumne River were stands ofblack cottonwoods, which despitethe name were beautifully white-trunked in the moonlight of the firstcamping night in the valley. The nextday as the group traveled fartherwest, the cliffs became like those ofYosemite, smooth towering granitemassifs with a dotting of maul oaksin rifts of the wall. They passed nu-merous midsummer waterfalls and amultitude of wildflowers.

The final camping spot in HetchHetchy was at the west end, on July28. As Jepson wrote in his journal,what “a delightful and lazy campingspot, the wind rustling through the

great oaks and pines, the woodpeck-ers calling in the oaks just as theycalled when I was a boy and thoughtthen as I think now that there is nomore alluring and gratifying wood-land sound.” At the evening camp-

fire, Allen Chamberlain of the Ap-palachian Mountain Club talkedabout the club’s outings in theNortheast, where rain and wetnesswere often the order of the day andnight, and cooking had to be done

TOP: Tuolumne Meadows, in the Canadian Zone according to W.L. Jepson, with tamaracpine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), and western whitepine (Pinus monticola). • BOTTOM: Tuolumne Pass, with whitebark pine and tamarac pinein foreground. Whitebark pines also on mountainside.


in the protection of a tent. Whatdifferent memories there would beof the Sierra, with cloudless nightsfor almost a month now, and thedays brilliant, always cool, invigo-rating, bracing. The Californianshoped that Chamberlain would userecollections of this beautiful west-ern setting to solicit his club’s sup-port against the damming of HetchHetchy!

AN ENDURINGLEGACY

On July 30 theouting made itsway out of HetchHetchy down to Ha-zel Green and theMerced Grove ofbig trees, whereJepson energeticallycounted all the se-quoias and plottedthem on a map inhis field book. NearCrocker Ridge thegroup held the lastcampfire of theouting. There were

goodbye speeches, a violin solo byDegrassi, and finally the grand fi-nale. The whole assemblage formeda huge circle, joined hands; “andwith the moon above the treesthrowing great shadows,” TheBotany Man recited with upliftedhand the goodnight benediction ofthe fairies in Midsummer Night’sDream: “Weaving spiders come nothere.”

Sad to say, the scenic wildernessvalley of Hetch Hetchy would in afew years become a reservoir, de-spite the many voices raised againstthe dam. On Christmas Eve of 1914John Muir passed away; but his bo-tanical colleague of the 1909 outingwould make many a return visit toYosemite, giving lectures, teachingclasses, leading hikes, and investi-gating flora. During the last fiveyears of his life, Willis Linn Jepsonwould serve as honorary vice presi-dent of the Sierra Club, which hehad helped found almost 60 yearsearlier.

In the year 2000, the 50th anni-versary of UC Berkeley’s Jepson Her-barium was celebrated. Among itsvast collection of plants are the manyYosemite specimens which Jepsongarnered in 1909, and in the Her-barium Archives is the field book inwhich The Botany Man describedhis first Sierra Club outing.

Richard G. Beidleman, The Jepson Her-barium, 1001 Valley Life Sciences Build-ing #2465, University of California, Ber-keley, CA 94720-2465.

TOP: Benson Pass, with tamarac pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murray-ana) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). • BOTTOM:Rodgers Lake, with tamarac pine and mountain hemlock.


A WINNING COMBINATION: LOCAL LAND-USEPLANNING AND FINE-SCALE VEGETATION MAPS

by Liz Chattin, Lorraine Rubin, and David Magney

This is the forth article of a seriesfrom the California Native PlantSociety’s Vegetation Program, editedby Julie Evens and Todd Keeler-Wolf.See Fremontia Volume 34, No. 1, pp.3–16 for the first two articles, andFremontia Volume 34, No. 2, pp. 11–18 for the third article. The fifth and

In order to protect locally rare and significant plant communities, the Ventura County Planning Division evaluates the potential influenceof human development on vegetation. Photograph by J. Evens.

he authors of this article, Liz Chattin, biologist, Lorraine Rubin,grants administrator, and David Magney, botanist and environ-

mental consultant, work for the Ventura County Planning Division.With grant funding from various sources, they are working to im-prove the protection of wetlands and other sensitive biological re-sources through the land-use planning process.

last article of the series will appear inFremontia Volume 34, No. 4 (the Oc-tober 2006 issue).

istorically, those involvedin conservation work haveeither overlooked or havebeen unaware of the piv-

otal role that local land-use plan-ning departments can play in fur-thering habitat protection. Someeven perceive local agency staff as“part of the problem.” But when lo-cal California Native Plant Society(CNPS) chapters take the time tocultivate good working relationshipswith local planning staff, the preser-vation of rare plants and high-prior-ity plant communities can beachieved.

To do so first requires under-standing the role that local land-useplanning departments play in pro-tecting natural resources, and alsothe importance of having reliable

HT

1 0 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

baseline data that can guide plan-ning decisions. It also requires thatwe reshuffle our own conservationgoals, so that obtaining fine-scalevegetation maps becomes one of thehighest priorities of local and otheragencies.

The truth is that many of ourbest environmental policies, fromthe California Environmental Qual-ity Act (CEQA) to the local GeneralPlan, are often only as good as theprocedures and resources of the lo-cal land-use planning department.This is where many of these policiesare implemented. Those of us in thetrenches of the Ventura CountyPlanning Division are often sur-prised at how few people in thebusiness of resource protection un-derstand this.

Lengthy watershed plans aresometimes written by special-inter-est groups and can cost millions ofdollars and several years to com-plete. Frequently, the local planningagencies are not actively involved indrafting the plan. Consequently,these watershed plans generally haveno teeth of their own. Implement-ing the recommendations of a wa-tershed plan is largely dependent ona local jurisdiction modifying exist-ing policies and programs, such ascarrying out riparian buffer setbacks,smart growth policies, and low-im-pact development strategies. This isoften why many of the recommen-dations in these noble plans are ig-nored or fail to have key elementsconverted to policy.

As planners, we have seen mil-lions of dollars in habitat protectiongrants issued every year for “res-toration” work. But where is themoney for prevention and imple-mentation of the policies that pro-tect these resources in the first place?There are many other critical areasrelated to restoration that are rarelyfunded. These include: 1) mappingthe resources at a useful scale; 2)developing guidelines for impactanalysis and mitigation strategiesthat actually work; 3) monitoring

the long-term success of mitigationprojects; and 4) maintaining landsdonated for mitigation. Public agen-cies have to be pretty clever or luckyto find grantors who will fund thesesorts of efforts.

Meanwhile, pressures for devel-opment continue unabated. Thepopulation continues to grow, ris-ing real estate values encourage newdevelopment, applications for newland-use permits continue to be sub-mitted to the County, grading per-mits are issued without adequate

knowledge of the resources, and vio-lators are rarely penalized (due tolack of coordination or communi-cation between departments andlack of funding or political will) forbulldozing local streams and wet-lands and stripping the hills of natu-ral vegetation.

If our goal is to protect habitat,one of the wisest uses of funds is toprovide local land-use planningagencies with the resources theyneed to implement the policies (of-ten quite powerful) they alreadyhave in place. And, in today’s worldof computer mapping or GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), one ofthe greatest needs of local govern-ments is finer scale GIS maps of theresources we are charged with pro-tecting. We can do a much betterjob of resource protection when wehave baseline data that we can eas-ily visualize and use.

VALUE OF VEGETATIONDATACEQA Analysis

When applicants come into ourcounty government center wantinga permit for a new land use, thePlanning Division acts as “leadagency” under CEQA. The PlanningDivision is responsible for coordi-nating the CEQA review of theseprojects for potentially significantimpacts to the environment.

Planning staff decide whether aproject may have a potentially sig-nificant impact on biological re-sources, and whether an assessmentby a professional biologist is war-ranted. This decision is made easier,and the resources are ultimately bet-ter protected, when planners haveinformation regarding the nature ofthe biology onsite. In our jurisdic-tion and in others throughout thestate, determining significant im-pacts to biological resources from aproject is often based on two things:1) a review of coarse maps, if avail-able; and 2) a single site visit con-ducted by a planner who typicallydoes not have biological expertise.

On the other hand, when veg-etation maps are drawn at a fine-scale (e.g., at the Alliance or Asso-ciation level), they can provide use-ful information regarding the loca-tion, percent, and total area of com-mon, rare, and invasive plant com-munities—something the coarsemaps do not provide. Such coarsemaps rarely include scarce or rarehabitats, many of which support rareplant species. If local planning agen-cies had such comprehensive, fine-scale vegetation maps, it is likelythis would not only improve theaccuracy of CEQA determinations,but also improve the efficiency ofthe process, which could translateinto lower costs to the applicant.

CEQA also requires that we as-sess the cumulative impacts ofprojects when added to the overalleffect of all other projects (thosefrom the past, present, and in the

“If your goal is habitat

protection, one of the

biggest bangs for your

buck is to give local land-

use planning agencies the

resources they need to

implement the policies they

already have in place.”

F R E M O N T I A 1 1V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

foreseeable future). Without a de-tailed vegetation map of the county,which would provide a baselineinventory of existing biological re-sources, determining an individualproject’s cumulative impact on bio-logical resources becomes very dif-ficult.

Regional PlanningStandardized vegetation maps

are also important for developingregional and general plans. For in-stance, western Riverside Countyrecently completed a standardizedvegetation classification system andmap based on the CNPS Manual ofCalifornia Vegetation, which was in-strumental in developing their Mul-tiple Species Habitat ConservationPlan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is partof the Riverside County IntegratedProject and is intended to stream-line the environmental process, re-duce regulatory agency involvementwith future projects, and conserveimportant habitat areas for multiplespecies.

MitigationLand-use planners must balance

many issues, two of which are re-source protection and propertyrights. This balancing means com-promises must be made; thus, wehave mitigation measures recom-mended and implemented (hope-fully successfully) for all significantimpacts to the environment result-ing from the project. Depending onthe resource impacted, mitigationmay occur onsite or offsite, and in-kind (like-for-like). For example, ifa project would destroy a rare plantpopulation, mitigation for that sig-nificant impact could include avoid-ing the population onsite, trans-planting it or planting new plantsin an appropriate place onsite, orestablishing a new population orexpanding an existing one offsite.(Note: CNPS recommends avoidanceof the impact as the preferred miti-gation measure, as it has the highestlikelihood of success.) Mitigation

is ideally planned for and agreedupon in advance.

Fine-scale vegetation maps areextremely useful in helping to lo-cate areas for offsite mitigation, suchas habitat restoration. For example,in Los Angeles County, vegetationmaps developed according to theManual have been used to find ap-propriate restoration sites for theLyons Canyon Ranch Environmen-tal Impact Report.

In land-use violation cases in-volving illegal grading and vegeta-tion removal, it can be extremelyhelpful to know what plant com-munities were present prior to theviolation in order to properly re-store the site. Many land-use viola-tions in Ventura County involvedamage to wetland and stream habi-tats. While most wetland maps donot identify the plant communitiespresent within a wetland, vegeta-tion maps (mapped to the Allianceor Association level) would identifythe native plant communities thatwere present prior to the violation.

In addition, these maps make itis easier to identifyand track infesta-tions of non-nativeinvasive species inthese habitats. Se-lecting a streambank restorationproject may bemore straightfor-ward if relativeplant communitiesare already known.Fine-scale vegeta-tion maps wouldalso improve firemanagement byproviding the nec-essary data to un-derstand burn pat-terns and risks.

AgencyCoordination

Finally, use ofstandardized veg-etation maps would

allow agencies to better communi-cate and coordinate the managementof biological resources.

NOT JUST ANY DATAWILL DO

Very coarse vegetation maps, of-ten derived from satellite imageryand classified into a handful of cat-egories (such as chaparral, mixedconifer forest, or grassland), areavailable for many areas. Whilethese are better than the absence ofmapped data, fine-scale maps areneeded for these data to be trulyuseful for making decisions aboutland-use planning, policy, permit-ting, and restoration.

Ventura County’s Planning Di-vision does receive fine-scale veg-etation maps on a fairly regular ba-sis, but for relatively small areas ofthe County. These maps come inbiology reports submitted as part ofthe CEQA review process. But thenumber of different ways vegetationcommunities can be classified ap-pears to be equal to the number of

The Holland system would map this entire area as bigpodceanothus (Ceanothus megacarpus). The International VegetationClassification system (IVC) at the Association, or finest, levelshows two distinct vegetation communities, thus providing muchmore useful information about the habitat and the potential forassociated sensitive status species. Photograph by J. Christian,National Park Service.


different consulting firms doing themapping.

All of the benefits listed aboveassume that local governments haveconsistent and standardized vegeta-tion data. A project-by-project patch-work of maps prepared by consult-ing firms using different classifica-tion schemes and different scales isnot very helpful. This method offersno easy way to combine data, andtherefore no way to consistently ana-lyze them. With the explosion ofGIS data development at all levels ofgovernment, adherence to data con-sistency standards becomes impera-tive so that data can be widely used,shared, and understood across agen-cies. With the adoption of the Inter-national Vegetation Classificationsystem (IVC) by federal (US ForestService) and state resource agencies(California Department of Fish andGame), and global and national con-servation organizations (e.g., TheNature Conservancy), it becameclear that as a unit oflocal government, ourplanning departmentalso needed to alignwith this standard. InCalifornia, the CNPSManual of CaliforniaVegetation uses theIVC system.

While we plan touse the IVC, we havesome reservationsabout doing so. Thisrelatively new systembrings with it some

challenges, including the fact thatnot all vegetation classes have beendeveloped for Ventura County, andthe cost of developing statisticallyaccurate classes is quite high. In ad-dition, many biologists are reluctantto use this classification system sinceit does not always convey wildlifeassociations (such as “conifer for-est,” “chaparral,” and “freshwatermarsh”) directly. And many also pre-fer the familiarity and simplicity ofthe Holland system.

OUR APPROACH

Funding for the development ofcomprehensive fine-scale vegetationmaps is not in most local govern-ment budgets these days. Grant fund-ing is sometimes an option; how-ever, those funds are typically for afocused geographical area and task(such as removal of the noxious weed,Arundo donax) and usually cannot beused to map an entire county.

The unincorporated area ofVentura County (our jurisdiction)covers approximately 82,650 acres(excluding the Los Padres NationalForest). One estimate for mappingour area according to the IVC sys-tem to the Association level was$2.50/acre, or $206,625. This esti-mate does not include the cost ofthe imagery (both stereo and colorinfrared) needed for a project of thisscale, which makes it prohibitivelyexpensive: stereo coverage for anarea the size of Ventura Countycould easily be $500,000, with suffi-cient vertical accuracy and highenough resolution to adequatelyidentify dominant species of the dif-ferent plant communities. As muchas we need it, the costs of collectedcomprehensive fine-scale vegetationdata according to the IVC are out ofthe question for us at this time.

Step 1: Compile, Cobble, andCrosswalk Old Data

The obvious thing to do is tostart with the data and resources wehave. So far, we have researchedand compiled the digital vegetationdata that already exist for VenturaCounty. We have found six data setsworthy of integrating into a baselinemap. All the datasets use differentclassification schemes and are at dif-ferent resolutions, based on the needsof the original mapping projects. Wehave one data set from each of ourthree main watersheds—the VenturaRiver, the Santa Clara River, and theCalleguas Creek watershed. We alsohave three additional data sets fromtwo other sources: the US ForestService’s California Vegetation Map-ping database or CalVeg, and the USGeological Survey’s National GAPAnalysis Program.

In GIS, we cobbled these dispar-ate data sets together, always givingpreference to the finest scale datawhen the datasets overlapped. Then,using David Magney’s botanical ex-pertise and knowledge of local plantcommunities, we determined howeach dataset corresponded to the

Ventura County has combined existingmapping datasets into a countywide vegeta-tion map using one classification system.A section of the map is provided above,showing the juxtaposition of a fine-scaledataset (left) and a coarse-scale data set(above). Maps by D. Magney.


Alliance level. What we ended upwith is one countywide vegetationmap that uses a single classificationsystem.

Step 2: Plan to Add New DataProject-by-Project

While we do not have fundingfor a comprehensive countywidemapping effort, what we do have inour favor is that vegetation mapsassociated with CEQA documentscome through our office on a regu-lar basis. Applicants are already pay-ing for development of these maps.If they are classified according tothe IVC, we can begin getting theconsistency and detail that we want.Therefore, this has become our plan.

These project-by-project data,along with other sources of new IVCdata, will be combined with our cur-rent vegetation base map to con-tinually expand and refine the storyof Ventura County’s flora. For now,

biologists will make use of the veg-etation classes that do exist, andwhere the existing classes do notwork, they will create new ones ac-cording to IVC protocols. We willthen work with CNPS so these newclasses contribute to the develop-ment of official, statistically deter-mined classes.

Before implementing the newmapping protocols, however, wehad to address a potential hurdle—the fact that most local biologistsare not very familiar with the IVCsystem. So the Ventura County Plan-ning Division, with assistance fromCNPS (Julie Evens) and the Depart-ment of Fish and Game (ToddKeeler-Wolf), led a two-day IVCvegetation mapping and classifica-tion workshop for area consultingbiologists. The workshop was well-received, with many attendees ask-ing for additional training.

The next step will be implemen-

tation. Stay tuned for a later reporton our success. We feel confidentthat our push for standardized data,as well as the fine-scale data that tellus so much more about our habitatsand their biodiversity, will help usto make more informed planningdecisions in the future. With moreprecise vegetation mapping data, wewill soon be able to implement moreeffectively the many biological re-source protection policies that land-use planners play such a central rolein, from the General Plan, to CEQA,to watershed management plans, andmuch more.

Elizabeth Chattin and Lorraine Rubin,Ventura County Planning Division, 800S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740. [email protected];[email protected]. DavidMagney Environmental Consulting, P.O.Box 1346, Ojai, California [email protected]

Teaching local biologists how to map and classify vegetation according to the International Vegetation Classification (IVC) system at arecent workshop in Ventura County. Photograph by L. Chattin.


WHAT WEEDS DOMINATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAURBAN WETLANDS AND WHY?

by Brad Burkhart

ince the late 1960s there hasbeen a turnaround in na-tional and state attitudestowards urban wetlands,

especially in California. We havemoved from a philosophy that usedto view urban freshwater drainagesas water sources (for drinking, wash-ing, and processing) or sewage/stormwater conveyance systems, to onethat recognizes the importance ofwetland habitats in maintaining wa-ter purity and healthy habitat forwildlife.

We have also come to recog-nize the role our own activities playin degrading wetlands. These in-clude physical impacts (such asbridge or drainage improvements),chemical runoff, increased flood-ing (due to paving over watershedswith nonpermeable surfaces likeasphalt), and the introduction ofnon-native plant species that out-compete the natives. Is it any won-der that riparian habitat restorationand preservation have become highpriorities?

MANY SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA WETLANDSARE A RECENTPHENOMENON

Even though we frequently hearthe figure that 90-95% of California’soriginal wetlands have been filled ordrained, the fact is that almost noperennial streams existed in south-ern California before the onset ofurban development (Ellis and Lee1919). Most drainages were origi-nally episodic, flowing only a fewmonths of the year during and afterstorm events.

Today the situation is greatlychanged. Former episodic rivers andcreeks now carry water year-round

due to irrigation runoff from land-scaped areas, both residential andcommercial. Many new wetlandshave sprouted up in finger canyonsand arroyos where none existed de-cades ago. For example, data takenfrom a US Geological Survey waterflow station on Peñasquitos Creekin the north city area of San Diegoshows this once episodic creek be-came a permanent year-round creekin 1982, and has remained so eventhrough several bouts of severedrought. This change, due to theintense urbanization of this water-shed, began in the 1970s and con-tinues today (White and Greer2002). There is little doubt that thisincrease in urban wetlands has ex-panded nesting and foraging oppor-tunities for many riparian animalspecies beyond what existed previ-ously.

THE INVASION OF EXOTICSPECIES

However, urbanization of thelandscape in Southern California hasalso introduced many non-nativeplant species for ornamental andfunctional purposes. Some of theseplants are able to invade and ex-clude native wetland vegetationcover because their ecological needsare broader than those of native spe-cies and they do not have pests fromtheir countries of origin to slow theirspread. What has resulted are largemonocultures of single non-nativespecies where formerly many na-tive species coexisted. Althoughsome invasive plant species provideat least minimal habitat for a fewspecies, including roosting loca-tions, nesting sites, and forage orpollen and nectar, studies haveshown that these non-native mo-

nocultures displace a native habitatof far greater diversity and quality(Ohmart 1982).

Additionally, some species suchas giant reed (Arundo donax) or tama-risk (Tamarix spp.) transpire waterat such high rates that they can drivethe water table below the surface,eliminating surface flow (Sudbrock1993; Johnson 1986; Hoddenbach1987) and the associated nativecover it supports. Unlike surplusrunoff that often benefits wetlandhabitat expansion, invasions by ex-otic plant species usually decreasehabitat values and the amount ofnative wetlands.

For these reasons, the eradica-tion of highly invasive exotic spe-cies, such as giant reed and tama-risk, and the replanting of areasoccupied by these species with na-tive wetland species has become ahigh priority in many urban areas.To the best of our knowledge, fewcomprehensive, quantitative surveysof urban wetland systems have beencarried out. Therefore, many landmanagers and regulatory personnelhave tended to focus on the mostobvious invasive species, such as gi-ant reed, and forget there are otherspecies waiting in the wings to filltheir ecological niche once the domi-nant species is eradicated. In addi-tion, because most programs ori-ented towards invasive wetland weederadication are funded by the needfor wetland mitigation credits, theytend to focus on the acreage neededfor credit, rather than choosing sitesthat are defensible against reinva-sion after required maintenance ac-tivities cease. A lack of funds for thelong-term maintenance of restora-tion sites is the biggest barrier topreventing the reinvasion of weedspecies.

S


SAN DIEGO RIVERWETLAND WEED SURVEY

It was with this problem in mindthat Burkhart Environmental Con-sulting and Kelly and Associates

developed a proposal for the Friendsof the Mission Valley Preserve tomap 11.5 miles of the most domi-nant invasive weed species in wet-lands along the San Diego River andwithin the city limits (Table 1). The

project was funded in early 2001 bythe City of San Diego using sewerspill fines imposed by the CaliforniaWater Regional Quality ControlBoard. The study area runs fromInterstate 5 on the west (startingabout one mile from the ocean) tothe Santee City border on the east,but excludes Mission Trails RegionalPark which has already largely elimi-nated invasive species within its bor-ders.

Mapping data was collected uti-lizing specially flown low-elevation,50-scale aerial photos that were laterverified on foot after initial handdrafting from the aerials. This scaleof mapping was selected because itcan be easily translated into the land-scape construction documents usedto guide contractors in implement-ing habitat restoration projects whenfunds become available for restora-tion. To make the translation of fi-nal weed maps easy to use by groupsseeking mitigation credits, thesquare footage of each polygon ofweed cover was also noted on themaps, making it easy to assemblethe mitigation credit required forspecific projects. From these maps,acreage of cover for each weed werealso assembled and analyzed for theentire study area.

A second purpose of the projectwas to provide a plan for the even-tual eradication of the invasive weedspecies from the river’s wetland habi-tats and their replacement with ap-propriate native species. Thereforea second task funded under the grantwas to develop a master weed eradi-cation and habitat restoration planthat could be used by the city andprivate developers, as monies be-came available, to restore the river’swetlands. This plan, called the SanDiego River Invasive Exotic WeedEradication Master Plan, was com-pleted in September 2002. The cityis currently incorporating it into theSan Diego River Resource Manage-ment Plan being developed by itsParks and Recreation Departmentand due to be approved by the San

TABLE 1. SAN DIEGO RIVER WETLAND WEED SURVEYAcres % Weed Cover Nos.

WEED SPECIES

Giant Reed 37.95 57.8% * (Arundo donax)Pampas Grass 0.55 0.8% 1970 (Cortaderia selloana)

EXOTIC BROADLEAF TREES

Brazilian Pepper 6.85 10.4% 649 (Schinus terebinthifolius)

Eucalyptus 6.27 9.6% 975 (Eucalyptus spp.)

Evergreen Ash 0.63 1.0% 91 (Fraxinus uhdei )Other Exotic Trees** 2.48 3.8% 358

TOTAL BROADLEAF TREES: 16.23 24.7% 2073

PALM TREES***

Large Palms 0.4 0.6% 37Medium Palms 1.37 2.1% 194Small Palms 0.68 1.0% 392

TOTAL NON-SEEDLING PALMS: 2.45 3.7% 623TOTAL SEEDLING PALMS: 0.07 0.1% 538

Castor Bean 2.42 3.7% * (Ricinus communis)Tamarisk 0.98 1.5% 91 (Tamarix spp.)Ludwigia 4.97 7.6% * (Ludwigia spp.)****

TOTALS: 65.62 100%

* Numbers not counted for these clonal species.** Including: lemon bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus), Peruvian pepper (Schinus

molle), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia),common fig (Ficus carica), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), oleander (Neriumoleander), other minor species.

*** Including mainly Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) and Canary IslandPalm (Phoenix canariensis).

**** Both native and non-native species of Ludwigia are found in California andcreate wetland weed problems. The Ludwigia mapped in Table 1 likely includesseveral taxa.

NOTE: In addition to the above listed species, minor populations of the followinginvasive weed species were documented in the study area: Cape ivy (Delaireaodorata), cruel vine (Araujia sericofera), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), stickyeupatorium (Ageratina adenophora), tall whitetop (Lepidium latifolium), andVirginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).


Diego City Council in 2006. Thus asadditional local habitat restorationfunding becomes available throughpublic or private sources, the cityintends to use the project MasterPlan as a template for developingand permitting new projects. Sig-nificantly, these maps constitutethe majority of urbanized areas alongthe river that would be generatingprojects requiring wetland mitiga-tion credits to implement.

Finally, the project includedfunding for an initial eight-acre res-toration of a demonstration site tobe implemented after the manage-ment plan was completed. Regula-tory permits were secured in the fallof 2002 for this pilot project andweed eradication began at that time.Pilot project planting was completedin the spring of 2003.

This article summarizes the re-sults of the Master Plan study. Italso discusses some of the ecologi-cal reasons why the species mappedare currently the most dominant in-vasive species in Southern Califor-nia riparian systems and will con-tinue to expand their coverage with-out active human intervention toprevent their spread.

SELECTION OF TARGETWEEDS FOR MAPPING

The target species selected formapping account for almost all non-native canopy cover in the wetlandsunder study, and have the highestpotential for expanding their cover-age. We start by reviewing the sevencategories of invasive weed speciesselected for mapping under thestudy (see Table 1). Later we willdiscuss more about why the par-ticular ecological characteristics as-sociated with these species makeriparian wetlands especially proneto their invasion. Each category de-lineates a single weed species ex-cept those for broadleaf trees andpalms, where several species werelumped under one mapping cat-egory due to similar ecological char-

acteristics. All of these species werepart of the original project designexcept castor bean (Ricinis commu-nis), which was added after it be-came apparent during the data col-lection that it dominated large areasalong the river corridor.

Approximately 438 acres of wet-land habitat were surveyed. Of thistotal, 65.6 acres or 15% constitutedweed species cover. In addition tomapping weed cover, we also count-ed numbers of tree species and esti-mated numbers of individual pam-pas grass. With palm trees, the num-bers of plants were further dividedinto large (6%), medium (37%),small (63%), and seedling palms.Although no attempt was made toassess the size of broadleaf tree spe-cies, some preliminary data on thissubject was obtained from the pilotproject and is shown in Table 2.Pilot project implementation alsoallowed us to discern the amount oferror in the mapping methods usedby comparing actual numbers oftrees eradicated to those originallymapped.

Two categories of weed coveraccount for the majority of weedacreage. Giant reed, a non-nativegrass species, comprised the great-est percentage of cover, or 58% ofall exotic weed acreage mapped.Broadleaf evergreen tree species ac-counted for another 25% with thehighest amounts for Brazilian pep-per (10.4%) and eucalyptus (9.6%).If the palm category is included withthese first two categories over 86%of weed cover mapped is accounted

for. Ludwigia, an aquatic plant thatcan form large monocultures onslow moving open water, consti-tuted the third largest category ofcover at about 8%. The pampasgrass, castor bean, and tamarisk cat-egories combined add only an addi-tional 6% of cover.

The lower cover categories aresomewhat deceptive since the num-bers of pampas grass, palms, andtamarisk (3,221) are nearly one-thirdmore than the number of broad-leaf trees counted and thereforeprobably have a higher expansionpotential than their current cover-age would suggest. Similarly thenumber of palms and palm seed-lings (which were probably under-counted) is over half as great as allbroadleaf trees (1,160 compared to2,073) and if these seedlings surviveto maturity they will account for amuch greater acreage of cover. Nev-ertheless, giant reed and evergreentrees are clearly the top two weedtypes in need of control.

A later result of site data col-lected during implementation of thepilot project was that greater acre-age and numbers of plants werefound to occur on site when restora-tion work was implemented. Thisoccurred despite conscientious aerialmapping and ground-truthing thatwas hampered in areas by impen-etrable vegetation and where otherspecies had spread under the nativecanopy. For instance, approximately20% greater acreage of giant reedwas encountered during removalsat the pilot project site than was

TABLE 2: PILOT PROJECT TREE REMOVALS

Large Medium Small

12”+ DBH 6-12” DBH 1-6” DBH TOTALS

Unmapped: 26 24 10 60

Total Trees Mapped: 9 44 35 88

Total Trees Removed: 35 68 45 148

% of Total Trees Mapped: 26% 65% 78% 59%

% Increase During Install: 289% 55% 29% 68%


shown on Master Plan maps. Table2 also shows that the numbers ofbroadleaf trees were underestimatedby 68% overall, while trees over a12-inch diameter at breast heightwere underestimated by almost300%. This was particularly surpris-ing, since it was expected that thelarger trees would be the most ap-parent on aerial photos. As it turnedout, the single largest canopy exotictree, eucalyptus, had no distinct sig-nature on the aerials unless itsshadow could be detected fallingoutside the riparian area. By com-parison, giant reed, Brazilian pep-per, and even castor bean had moreor less distinct signatures.

Although the quantities shownin Table 1 are probably underesti-mated, they do give a fair assess-ment of the degree to which thesespecies are able to invade urban wet-lands. And although the amount ofweed infestations will vary by spe-cies and extent in other SouthernCalifornia wetland systems, we an-ticipate these same species will con-tinue to be the dominant invasiveweeds in urban wetlands because oftheir special ecological characteris-tics. Our previous work in manyother drainages in Southern Califor-nia supports this conclusion. Laterin this article we will discuss whythese species are particularly suc-cessful in invading urban wetlands.

Another major finding of thestudy is that exotic broadleaf andpalm tree species are the second mostdominant category of riparian weedsafter giant reed. This is significant,since relatively few if any riparianhabitat restoration projects along theriver have targeted non-native treespecies for removal, nor have mostother riparian mitigation/restorationprojects in Southern California.

Also, as anticipated, it was foundthat where funding was in place forlong-term weed management offormer mitigation sites, there was alow reoccurrence of invasive weedspecies. In contrast, previous miti-gation projects that did not have on-

going weed management programsusually showed substantial reinva-sion of weed species. Over 14 majorand minor wetland restoration/miti-gation projects have taken placewithin the area over the last 15 years.However, the only one which con-sistently resisted reinvasion by themost pernicious species was the city-managed First San Diego River Im-provement Project (FSDRIP), whichincludes funding for long-term weedmanagement.

Finally, the study’s initial fieldsurveys revealed small infestationsof two well-known, highly invasivespecies, Cape ivy (Delairea odorata),formerly known as German ivy(Senecio mikanioides), and tallwhitetop (Lepidium latifolium), alsoknown as perennial peppercress.Although their numbers were toosmall to make the acreage tables,their recognition has already led toefforts to eradicate both before theyspread.

MECHANISMS ALLOWINGINVASIVES TO DOMINATE

To better understand why cer-tain weed species can out-competenative riparian woodland specieswhile other introduced species can-not, let us look at some of the majorecological characteristics of plantspecies which allow for non-nativeinvasions.

Lack of Pests and Diseases. Wehave already provided a partial an-swer to this question in noting theseare imported species without theiroriginal native pests. Pests becomemost important over the long-termas the lives of older native plants areshortened or their structure weak-ened by insect, bird, or mammalforaging and fungal, bacterial, or vi-rus infections. Non-native specieslive longer in most cases becausethey are much less likely to be im-pacted by such vectors.

In addition to being more resis-tant to pests and diseases, a num-ber of plant growth and seed germi-

nation characteristics also givehighly invasive weed species a clearadvantage in out-competing nativetrees and shrubs for a place in theriparian woodland canopy and openwater.

Plant Form. Generally the mostimportant physical characteristicthat allows a species to dominatevegetative cover is its growth form.The taller a plant is at maturity, themore likely it is to out-compete otherspecies. This means a species mustreach a mature height tall enough tobe a component of the vegetationcanopy cover. In the riparian wood-lands that constitute most urbanwetlands, this means a species mustreach the mature heights of mulefat, sycamore, willow, and cotton-wood trees and shrubs that natu-

TOP: Removing giant reed (Arundo donax)at San Diego River Pilot Project site. BOTTOM:Replanting eradication areas with riparianwoodland species. All photographs byauthor.


rally dominate these woodlands,typically from 6 to 40 feet or more.All the species noted as dominant inTable 1 reach such heights exceptfor ludwigia, which dominates openwater areas because there are noother significant floating aquatics inthe Southern California native flora.

More Effective Reproduction.Dominance of a plant species in avegetative cover begins with the es-tablishment of the species on a site.Those species which have the mostflexible strategies for getting seed orpropagules to a site and then gettingthem established have a clear ad-vantage in dominating the cover. Inone or more of three key areas, theweed species that dominate urbanwetlands possess clear reproductiveadvantages over native species.

First, of the wetland weed spe-cies in Table 1 that spread by seed(all except giant reed), their seedhas a broader tolerance of accept-able germination sites than nativecanopy species. Almost all nativecanopy species have short-lived seed(the seed of willows survives no morethan 24 hours) which must be de-posited on moist sites of bare earthin full sun to effectively germinate.However, Table 1 seed reproducingspecies can successfully germinateon a variety of sites ranging fromwet to dry, full sun to partial shade,and acidic to highly alkaline. Manycan germinate on the surface or evenwhen buried by flood debris, mak-ing them much more likely to estab-lish than the natives which requiremore specific ecological conditionsfor their seed to germinate. Finally,unlike native riparian trees andshrubs, the seed of the most domi-nant weed species often remain vi-able for long periods of time—forpalms sometimes more than a year.This allows them to germinate when-ever conditions are right no matterthe season.

Second, seed amounts and dis-persal mechanisms can be crucial toplant invasions. Native canopy coverspecies rely for the most part on

producing copious amounts of windborn seed. While some Table 1 spe-cies reproduce in this manner (tama-risk and pampas grass), the mostdominant either do not reproducewell from seed (giant reed andludwigia) or rely on water or animaldistributed seed for dispersal. Ex-cept for pampas grass and tamarisk,even the amount of seed producedby these species is considerably lessthan that of the natives. In this casethe flexibility derived from longer-lived seed, combined with dispersalmechanisms that favor seed deposi-tion under existing native canopyrather than on sites without cover,provides the clear advantage to weedspecies for expanding into areas ofexisting native cover.

A final highly effective mode ofdispersal is through vegetative re-production where parts of existingplants are either able to break offand wash down stream to new inva-sion sites, or where a species is ableto gradually expand its patch cover-age by clonal spread. Several nativewillow species possess both of thesecharacteristics, although their po-tential for spread through flood dis-persion is relatively low.

In contrast, giant reed, the mostpernicious of the Table 1 weed spe-cies, is highly effective at both thesemeans of spread. Clonally it willgradually increase patch size. Its rootstructure is much denser then wil-low clones, which allows thesepatches to effectively exclude anyother canopy species from the areaoccupied by the patch (unless thespecies is already established beforethe spread takes place). Similarly,while giant reed can be spread bybroken-off canes rerooting, its mosteffective way of invading new ripar-ian sites is by means of large rootmats uprooted during major floodevents. The root mats are thenwashed downstream to new entrap-ment sites where local sedimentcovers them, allowing regrowth.Ludwigia is also most commonlyspread by floating mats breaking

loose during flooding and beingwashed downstream, where theyreroot through either soil or water.

Seedling Shade Tolerance. Oneof the single most important charac-teristics allowing the Table 1 weedspecies to dominate riparian wood-land canopies is the shade toleranceof their seedlings. Only coast liveoak (a marginal wetland species) andto a lesser degree western sycamorehave any seedling shade toleranceamong the natives. On the otherhand, all of the evergreen weed treespecies (including palms) as well asgiant reed and pampas grass (whichare also evergreen) have highly shadetolerant seedlings. Many of thesespecies eventually reach heightsgreater than the surrounding nativecanopy, which they gradually shadeout. Once these species come todominate wetland canopies, nativesare unable to re-establish until theweed canopy cover is damaged, dies,or is eradicated. Since the weed spe-cies are generally long-lived com-pared to natives the opportunity fornative re-establishment is low. Shadetolerance is also the chief reasonwhy animal vector and flood spreadof weed species seed into existingriparian woodlands is such an effec-tive invasion strategy, since shadetolerant seedlings germinate in theriparian understory and then latershade out shade intolerant natives.

Growth Rate and Continuity.One of the best-known ways weedspecies use to out-compete nativesafter disturbance is by their fastgrowth rate. All the species listed inTable 1 share this common trait andin most cases can reach maturecanopy height in one to five years inunshaded areas. Giant reed is espe-cially known for its growth rate. Theauthor has personally measured gi-ant reed rhizomes growing at greaterthan six inches per day. Pampas grassand tamarisk are also known for theirrapid maturation rates. However, fastgrowth rate is less of a competitiveadvantage in wetland areas becauseall native riparian species also pos-


sess this characteristic. Where it be-comes an advantage ecologically isby its lack of interruption. All nativeriparian species (except coast liveoak, which is a marginal wetland spe-cies) go deciduous for brief periodsduring each winter. The only Table 1species to experience dormancy istamarisk. All others continue to growyear-round, although their growthslows during the short-day portionsof the year when the natives go de-ciduous and stop growth altogether.

Resilience After Flood Distur-bance or Fire. Table 1 weed speciesare also considerably more resistantto flood and fire disturbance than arenative canopy species. Of the nativecanopy species, only coast live oakand to a lesser degree western sy-camore dependably resprout afterfire. In contrast, all Table 1 speciesexcept ludwigia dependably resproutimmediately after fire damage eitherfrom their trunks or crowns.

In addition, while Table 1 spe-cies are tolerant of temporary flood-ing in ways similar to ripariancanopy species, they are generallymore resistant to disturbance byflood erosion since their root sys-tems are either deeper (tamarisk,broadleaf trees) or more extensive(e.g., palms, pampas grass, giantreed) than the natives.

These weed species are also moretolerant than most native canopyspecies of drier conditions and thusvariations in water table depth dur-ing droughts. Tamarisk, in particu-lar, uses its deeper root system dur-ing desert droughts to out-competenative desert wash trees and shrubs.But most of the Table 1 species canbe equally happy growing on drierupland sites as within high watertable areas, whereas willows—a ma-jor dominant in most riparian wood-lands—would die under such con-ditions. Even the floating aquaticludwigia is equally happy establish-ing in drier canopy understoriesalong the shoreline.

Broader Tolerance of Poor SoilConditions. The final ecological

characteristic that favors the inva-sion of the weeds in Table 1 intowetland canopies is their toleranceof a higher level of alkalinity thannative canopy species. Some spe-cies such as pampas grass and tama-risk are particularly competitive inhighly salty soils and will take overin such areas because native seed-lings cannot survive. This charac-teristic is particularly importantwhere there are high evaporationrates, as in Southern California, be-cause salt remains on the soil sur-face as water tables recede duringthe hot summer months.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, it is the combina-tion of these ecological growth char-acteristics which the Table 1 speciesshare that appear to provide themwith superior competitive abilitiesin wetlands over native species. Theyremain a problem in urban wetlandsbecause they are continually beingused for ornamental or commercialpurposes, sometimes despite localordinances against such practices.In addition, once established in awatershed they are easily spread bywater and animal vectors into ripar-ian canopy areas where their com-petitive ecological characteristics al-low them to take over.

It is clear that as long as this

practice persists, active and continu-ous weed management programswill be required to prevent the even-tual dominance of these species inurban wetlands. The San Diego RiverMaster Plan represents an essentialfirst step in assessing the extent ofthe invasive weed problem in theurban wetland areas of San Diego,as well as in providing strategies forits future management. The resultof this mapping effort provides animportant and first quantitative as-sessment of the amount and extentto which highly invasive exotic weedspecies have established in South-ern California urban wetlands basedon the San Diego River example,which we believe to be typical. Inaddition, we hope to have made astrong case for the comprehensiveplanning of watershed habitat res-toration including the design ofdefensible restoration sites (usuallyfrom the top of the watershed down),eradication of all major invasiveweed species present, and finally,the importance of continuing weedmanagement funding after initialrestoration.

For references and more informationplease contact the author.

Brad Burkhart, Burkhart EnvironmentalConsulting, 4709 Biona Drive, San Diego,CA 92116. [email protected]

Brazilian pepper and palm tree infestation mapped on the lower San Diego River for futureeradication.


A NATIVE PLANT GARDENIN THE BERKELEY HILLS, PART TWO

by Jenny S. Fleming

The following is a continuation of the article reprinted with permission fromRancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. The original publication is: Fleming, JennyS. 1997. A Native Plant Garden in the Berkeley Hills. In Out of the Wild and Intothe Garden II: California’s Horticulturally Significant Plants. 1995 SymposiumProceedings. Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Occasional Publications #2.Pages 218-225.

n a period of exceptionally heavyrain in the spring of 1958, a largesection of the concrete rail drive-way wall collapsed in a muddy

ooze. We found that Scott’s well-engineered wall would not resist theopening of an old, hidden, generallyinactive creek bed. We decided tohave the heavy clay trucked awayand we rebuilt the wall with back-fill of large angular “quarry run”crushed rock for better drainage. Iwaded into the mud to rescue myprized dogwood tree and planted iton the lower, stable bank. To plantthis wall I spent many hours appli-quéing clay mud between the rails,

as our rock fill does not supportplant roots.

Near the street at the top of thewall I placed a western leatherwood(Dirca occidentalis) a rare San Fran-cisco Bay endemic shrub, hoping itwould be appreciated by knowledge-able passers-by. I admit that fewpeople notice this jewel; for us itsearly blooms announce the comingof spring.

At the top of the driveway be-yond the rail wall is the pouredconcrete stairway that constitutesthe main entry to our house. Wehave faced the concrete with lavafieldstone set in mortar, now cov-ered with moss and lichen, andplanted with California polypody(Polypodium californicum), mistmaidens (Romanzoffia californica),and live-forever (Dudleya caespi-tosa). As I had no tools to press soilinto the tiny, rough crevices, I

Douglas irises (Iris douglasiana) and California thrift (Armeria maritima ssp. californica) nestle between lava-rock boulders and a narrowstairway in the rockery at the Fleming garden in Berkeley, California. All photographs by B. O’Brien.

The Fleming meadow and rock garden, asseen in 1993.

I


pushed the mud with fingers andattempted to persuade the plants tocling in the vertical wall. It is noteasy to water this area, so I pur-posely used summer dry plants.

From the landing halfway up thefront stairs, you can step through aredwood gate to a path along the topof the driveway wall or climb a rockstairway to the living level—house,patio, and meadow. On the slopeabove the rail wall are three largetrees: a coast redwood (Sequoia sem-pervirens), an incense cedar (Calo-cedrus decurrens), and a beautifultree long gone from California. Thelatter is the dawn redwood (Metase-quoia glyptostroboides) which thrivedin what is now California over tenmillion years ago, and I thought itwould be interesting to plant onenear its two relatives. The fall colorof this ancient deciduous redwoodis a bright rusty brown and addsinterest to a green landscape.

I am fond of vine maple (Acercircinatum), an elegant small treewith gold or red autumn leaves andin good scale for small gardens. Ihave planted two in this bank, onein deep shade and one in part sun.Also in half-day sun on a steep por-tion of this bank is a young dog-wood (Cornus nuttallii), a difficulttree to keep alive in captivity. It maythrive for a few or many years, thensuddenly collapse in early summer.The cause of early death is probablyroot crown rot. The root crown ofdogwood should be checked oftenfor any soil or mulch buildup andgently cleared, pref-erably with a streamof water.

Under the treesgrow western bleed-ing heart (Dicentraformosa), false lily-of-the-valley (Maian-themum dilatatum), awhite Trillium chloro-petalum, native irishybrids and, on thesunny edge, a clumpof leopard lily (Lilium

pardalinum). My prizein this area, a gift fromJim Roof, is an unusu-ally beautiful Trilliumchloropetalum—claretred with white throat.Because its color is soclear and strong, I havetwice raised and dividedit to spread in my gar-den and to share withfriends. I plan to dig abulb once again to giveto a qualified and inter-ested nurseryman for propagationand dissemination.

About 1958 we planted a gallon-sized giant sequoia (Sequoiadendrongiganteum) near the northwest cor-ner of the patio level in deep fillretained by another concrete railwall. This has become a garden gi-ant, which we estimated was over13 feet around and 80 feet tall. It is abeautiful specimen with classicalconic shape and silvery green foli-age. Scott trained a Dutchman’spipevine (Aristolochia californica) upand around the trunk of the sequoiato display the unique flowers. Beau-tiful but thirsty, the sequoia rootnetwork confounds my efforts tomaintain a mountain meadow a fewfeet to the southwest.

Originally our meadow was a di-chondra lawn, which worked wellfor the swing set. When the timecame that our girls no longer usedthe apparatus, we decided a plainlawn of grass or dichondra would beuninteresting. We undertook to es-

tablish a mountainmeadow, using low-land plants. We tilledthe soil as deeplyas we could, put inirrigation lines, andadded a huge amountof good topsoil andmulch so we couldmound and contour.We mixed in abouttwenty percent byvolume of rock woolto gopher-proof the

area. This has beenhighly successful andwe have used the samemethod in other plant-ings up the hill. Fiber-glass insulation scrapsfrom construction pro-jects serve the same pur-pose—“gopher food,”as we call it. Althoughthe little buggers occa-sionally probe themeadow and similarlyprotected areas, they

quickly decide to pursue their for-tunes elsewhere and do virtually nodamage.

From a plant sale at Strybing Ar-boretum, I obtained a Marin Countyform of red fescue (Festuca rubra)and spent one year growing a largepatch elsewhere on the property un-til I had enough to plant the small—about 350 square feet—meadow. Inthe fall, David Bigham, a friend andlandscape architect with a stronginterest in natives and especiallygrasses, divided the fescue into tinyrooted sprigs and planted them inthe prepared meadow area. At thistime I also planted about 100 bulbsof Ithuriel’s spear (Triteleia laxa) anda few dozen each of golden brodiaea(T. ixioides) and camas (Camassiaquamash). I continue to add springcolor using buttercup (Ranunculuscalifornicus) and meadowfoam (Lim-nanthes douglasii). As the roots ofthe giant sequoia have invaded themeadow and used much of the mois-ture, I now must irrigate the areathrough the summer. We mow themeadow with grass shears in earlyOctober, every year.

[See the next issue of Fremontia (Vol-ume 34, No. 4) for the final install-ment of this delightful and informa-tive journey through the Fleming gar-den.]

Contact the author through Bart O’Brien,Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden,1500N. College Avenue, Claremont, CA [email protected]

The Fleming mailbox, sur-rounded by lush native wood-land plants.

Dutchman’s pipevine (Ari-stolochia californica).


BOTANICAL DELIGHTSOF THE SIERRA NEVADA

Photographs by Linda Ann Vorobik

very day in the field I have a moment that assures me it is a gift to bealive and in the Sierra Nevada. Many of these moments come fromanimal sightings of the smallest, but not insignificant, kind. Thisshould be another excellent year in the mountains, worthy of revelry

in plants, insects, and ecosystems until late in the season.E

An impressive subalpine field of mountain bistort (Polygonum bistortoides) with flower-visiting sawfly.

ABOVE RIGHT: Long-horned beetle visiting corn lily (Veratrum californicum).• ABOVE LEFT: Long-horned beetle drinking from desert buckwheat (Erio-gonum nudum). • BELOW RIGHT: Painted lady enjoying a patch of wildonions (Allium sp.). • LEFT: Cuckoo waspvisiting the flowers of California buck-wheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Althoughthis buckwheat may not be the mostattractive plant, it is extremely commonin California and is an important food plantfor insects.


t is only fitting that I, as a watercolorist and more especially, alover of puns as well as plants, present images of a variety of

paintbrushes (species of the genus Castilleja). Only a few out of theapproximately 20 plus species of the Sierra are shown here.

CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT: Castilleja lemmonii, fromLittle Lakes Valley. Named for the collector Lemmon,and not its color! • C. minor. A relatively uncommonannual species that grows in moist areas. Seen atMono Lake in saline soils; this image taken from thesouthern Sierra near Kennedy Meadows. • C. miniatafrom near Carson Pass. This species is very commonin subalpine wet meadows and along streams. • C.angustifolia, from near Bodie. This species is commonwithin the lower sagebrush zone of the eastern Sierra,and is part of a large and quite variable complex.Some know it as C. chromosa, a name which betterdescribes the awesome red color of flowers andbracts. • C. applegatei, from Sonora Pass. Note thewavy leaf margins, a distinguishing feature of thispaintbrush. • C. linearifolia from Rock Creek, InyoCo. Usually with salmon-pink inflorescences.

I


BOOK REVIEW

California’s Frontier Naturalists,Richard G. Beidleman. University ofCalifornia Press, 2006. 484 Pages, 41illustrations. Hard cover price $39.95.

Many members of the CaliforniaNative Plant Society may be familiarwith the names Fremontodendron,douglasiana, or Eschscholzia. But whowere the taxonomic namesakes andwhat were their contributions?

Here is your chance to learn an-swers to these and many other ques-tions from a newly published book byRichard Beidleman. In a work thatsurely qualifies as a labor of love, hechronicles California history fromnaturalist to naturalist, starting withLa Pérouse’s visit to Monterey in 1786.Along the way we refresh our knowl-edge of the state’s natural history withinthe context of world events involvingEngland, Spain, Russia, Mexico, andthe brash newcomer, the United Statesof America.

I was particularly drawn to thechapter on Archibald Menzies, who

collected during Captain GeorgeVancouver’s explorations of the Amer-ican west coast in the mid 1790s.Among the type specimens he gath-ered (original specimens used to de-fine a newly discovered species) werethose of the California quail, Califor-nia condor, and California redwood.He also collected what is now knownas the Monterey pine. The journals ofMenzies filled five volumes, resultingin, among other things, 14 Californiataxa—according to the index of plantnames—bearing the species epithetmenziesii. If you throw in synonymsand subspecies, the total comes to 50taxa.

California’s Frontier Naturalistscontinues with a recount of the days ofthe overland expeditions such as thoseof John Charles Frémont, the railroadsurveys, and the closing days of theAmerican frontier. These chapters in-troduce us to the names of David Dou-glas, Thomas Nuttall, Thomas Coulter,Karl Hartweg, and others.

As is typical throughout the book,Beidleman provides us with interest-ing insights into the interactions be-tween the various groups of explorers,such as the English and their Spanishhosts. Surely there is no other singlegeographic area with such a rich his-tory of its natural history.

California’s Frontier Naturalists iseasy and fascinating reading. It willenhance the reader’s existing appre-ciation for favorite plants as they dis-cover the who, what, and where ofmany of their discoveries.

For example, did you know thatDarlingtonia was collected as a quick-grab by botanist William Brackenridgewhile he and other members of theWilkes expedition were fleeing an-gry Native Americans? Or did youknow the decades-long story of howEschscholzia californica became ourstate flower by signature of GovernorGeorge Pardee? In spite of valiant lead-ership by botanist Sarah Lemmon,Pardee’s predecessor, Governor HenryGage, had refused the request, stating,“I do not think the adoption of a stateflower is a proper subject for legisla-tion.” Gage’s view appears to have runagainst popular opinion, consideringthe March 3, 1903 front-page head-line in the Oakland Evening Enquirerwhich stated: Golden Poppy Is OurEmblem. Beidleman then explains thatit was Senator Smith who introducedthe legislation. The news article goeson to tell how Oakland resident Mrs.G.L. Lemmon was “the one largelyresponsible” for the statewide cam-paign and that Senator Smith presentedher with the bald eagle quill-featherpen used by the governor in signingthe bill.

The late 1890s saw the end of ournation’s frontier adventures and theadvent of our own home-grown natu-ralists and their supporting institu-tions, such as the University of Cali-fornia, Leland Stanford Jr. University,and the California Academy of Sci-ences. These and other greatly infor-mative stories are covered in the latterchapters of this book.

Dan CheathamEast Bay Chapter

ADVERTISE IN FREMONTIA!Color ads for book stores, publishers, nurseries,

or others selling items of interest toCalifornia Native Plant Society members

Rates available from the CNPS office

(916) [email protected] / www.cnps.org

by Linda Ann Vorobikfree delivery on orders over $20

Oncidium hybrid

Check out Linda’s website,www.VorobikBotanicalArt.com, for illustrationand botanical workshops, including:

“Painting Orchids on the Big Island of Hawaii”October 2006

NOTECARDS, PRINTS, AND ORIGINALS

V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6 F R E M O N T I A

MATERIALS FORPUBLICATION

Members and others are invited

to submit material for publica-

tion in Fremontia. Instructions

for contributors can be found

on the CNPS website, www.cnps.

org, or can be requested from

the next Fremontia Editor, Bart

O’Brien at [email protected] or

c/o Rancho Santa Ana Botanic

Garden, 1500 N. College Ave.,

Claremont, CA 91711.

FREMONTIA EDITORIALADVISORY BOARD

Susan D’Alcamo, Ellen Dean,

Kathleen Dickey, Phyllis M.

Faber, Holly Forbes, Pam Muick,

Bart O’Brien, John Sawyer, Jim

Shevock, Linda Ann Vorobik,

Carol W. Witham

❏ 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!

Please make your check payable to “CNPS” and send to: California Native Plant Society, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sacra-mento, CA 95816-5113. Phone: (916) 447-2677; Fax: (916) 447-2727; Web site: www.cnps.org.; Email: [email protected]

❏ Enclosed is a matching gift form provided by my employer

❏ I would like information on planned giving

CNPS member gifts allow us to promote and protect California’s native plants 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

Brad Burkhart. See contributors list, back cover.

Liz Chattin. See contributors list, back cover.

Julie Christian is a botanist with the Santa Monica Mountains National Recre-ation Area.

Julie Evens is the lead vegetation ecologist for the California Native Plant Society.She manages a variety of projects to characterize vegetation statewide.

Willis Linn Jepson was the first botanist at the University of California, Berke-ley, and the namesake for The Jepson Manual, and the Jepson Herbarium. Hisphotographs were presented for use in Fremontia by Richard Beidleman fromthe archives of the Jepson and University Herbaria, University of California,Berkeley.

Bart O’Brien is the incoming Fremontia editor and is co-editor of this issue, Se-nior Staff Research Associate at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, and co-authorof the recently released, award-winning book, Native Plants for the Garden, pub-lished by Cachuma Press.

Linda Ann Vorobik edited Fremontia for the past six years, is co-editor of this issueof Fremontia, and is a professional botanist and botanical illustrator. The Fremonto-dendron californicum artwork that graced Fremontia’s masthead from 2001 through2005 was created by Linda and first appeared in 1993 in TheJepson Manual, J. Hickman, Editor (used here with permis-sion from the Jepson Herbarium, UC. © Regents of the Univer-sity of California). We are deeply indebted to Linda for hermany years of service to CNPS, and look forward to her futurecontributions to Fremontia in her new capacity as a memberof the Editorial Advisory Board.

CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHERS

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

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

V O L U M E 3 4 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 6

FROM THE EDITOR

Richard G. Beidleman, PhD, is emeritus professor of ecol-ogy at Colorado College, Colorado Springs, research associ-ate at the Jepson Herbarium, instructor for the Jepson work-shops, UC Berkeley, and author of California’s Frontier Natu-ralists, recently published by UC Press.

Brad Burkhart is principal of Burkhart Environmental Con-sulting, a firm specializing in habitat restoration projects. Hehas focused on habitat restoration for over 20 years, man-aged a native plant nursery, completed and monitored con-ceptual and construction plans for habitat restoration projects,and taught native plant landscaping and restoration.

Dan Cheatham is probably best known for the Cheatham &Haller habitat classification system that was developed, withProfessor Robert Haller, in the 1970s for use by the Univer-sity of California Natural Reserves System and served as aforerunner of vegetation classification systems in use today.

Liz Chattin is a conservation biologist who has worked withthe US Geological Survey, National Forest Service, and Na-tional Park Service on inventory and monitoring projects. Shecurrently works on grant projects focused on improvingVentura County’s review and protection of biological resources.

Jenny S. Fleming is one of the founding members and along time Fellow of CNPS. Throughout her long horticul-tural career, Jenny and her garden have provided inspirationand plants to innumerable gardening enthusiasts.

David Magney is principal of David Magney EnvironmentalConsulting and has a thorough knowledge of California florawith over 20 years of field experience. He is president of theChannel Islands Chapter of CNPS.

Lorraine Rubin has worked on environmental programs forthe County of Ventura for the last 17 years. She worked inwater conservation, recycling, and for the last fours she hasbeen writing and administering grants for the County.

DC

alifornia Native P

lant Society

2707 K S

treet, Suite 1

Sacram

ento, CA

95816-5113

Address S

ervice Requested

Nonprofit O

rg.

U.S

. Postage

PA

IDO

akland, CA

Perm

it # 3729

CONTRIBUTORS

National Park, not by current-day trav-elers, but rather by Willis Linn Jepson,John Muir, and others, in 1909. Thearticle includes a selection of photo-graphs taken by Jepson. The journeyis related by archivist Beidleman,whose excellent new book, California’sFrontier Naturalists, is reviewed onpage 24. Also, look on pages 22–23 fora selection of plant images from theSierra by Vorobik.

Our series of articles assembledand edited by the Vegetation Program’sJulie Evens and Todd Keeler-Wolf con-tinues with an article by Chattin,Rubin, and Magney, describing theirproject in Ventura County, highlight-ing the importance and utility of map-ping vegetation at a more detailed level

than has previously been done. Next,Brad Burkhart presents his successfulrevegetation project on the San DiegoRiver. It is inspiring to see how anurban landscape can be transformedfrom a site full of weeds to one full ofnative plants, thus welcoming bothwildlife and people.

The last article continues the three-part series describing Scott and JennyFleming’s home garden, a lovely land-scape full of beautiful native plants. Ihope that you are out enjoying yournative plant garden, or hiking theSierra, or working on a revegetationproject. But if not, enjoy reading. Toyou, readers, my fond farewell as Fre-montia editor.

Linda Ann Vorobik

o you notice a change in thismailing? The California Na-tive Plant Society is using its

funds in the most cost-effective man-ner by mailing the CNPS Bulletin andFremontia as a combined unit. Thischange also allows the society to printthe CNPS Bulletin in color.

This is my farewell issue as editorand the issue to welcome Bart O’Brienas co-editor of Fremontia. I introducehim, his expertise as a horticulturist,and his latest award-winning book onpage 2. Bart will begin as sole editorwith the next issue of Fremontia. Wel-come Bart!

As appropriate to the season, thefirst article of this issue recreates ajourney through what is now Yosemite

vol. 34, no. 3 • july 2006 fremontia · volume 34:3, july 2006 a journal of the california native...

Documents