JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT …...VOLUME 36:1, WINTER 2008 JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY $5.00 (Free to Members) VOL. 36, NO. 1 • WINTER 2008 FREMONTIA

V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

$5.00 (Free to Members)

VOL. 36, NO. 1 • WINTER 2008

FREMONTIASERPENTINE GRASSLANDS

EDGEWOOD—THE WHOLE STORY

COYOTE RIDGE SUCCESS

ITALIAN RYEGRASS INVASION

CNPS FELLOWS: CHARLI AND JOHN DANIELSEN

SERPENTINE GRASSLANDS

EDGEWOOD—THE WHOLE STORY

COYOTE RIDGE SUCCESS

ITALIAN RYEGRASS INVASION

CNPS FELLOWS: CHARLI AND JOHN DANIELSEN

75896-PG cover.pmd 4/1/08, 4:18 PM1

V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

The California Native Plant Society(CNPS) is a statewide nonprofit organi-zation dedicated to increasing the un-derstanding and appreciation of Califor-nia’s native plants, and to preservingthem and their natural habitats for fu-ture generations.

CNPS carries out its mission throughscience, conservation advocacy, educa-tion, and horticulture at the local, state,and federal levels. It monitors rare andendangered plants and habitats; acts tosave endangered areas through public-ity, persuasion, and on occasion, legalaction; provides expert testimony togovernment bodies; supports the estab-lishment of native plant preserves; spon-sors workdays to remove invasive plants;and offers a range of educational activi-ties including speaker programs, fieldtrips, native plant sales, horticulturalworkshops, and demonstration gardens.

Since its founding in 1965, the tradi-tional strength of CNPS has been itsdedicated volunteers. CNPS activitiesare organized at the local chapter levelwhere members’ varied interests influ-ence what is done. Volunteers from the33 CNPS chapters annually contributein excess of 87,000 hours (equivalentto 42 full-time employees).

CNPS membership is open to all.Members receive the quarterly journal,Fremontia, the quarterly statewide Bul-letin, and newsletters from their localCNPS chapter.

VOL. 36, NO. 1, WINTER 2008

F R E M O N T I A

Copyright © 2008

California Native Plant Society

STAFFSacramento Office:

Executive Director . Amanda JorgensonDevelopment Director . Melissa CironeFinance & Administration Manager .

Cari PorterMembership & Sales Coordinator . . .

Stacey FlowerdewAt Large:

Fremontia Editor . . . . . Bart O’BrienSenior Conservation Botanist . . . . . .

position openRare Plant Botanist . . . Nick JensenSenior Vegetation Ecologist . . . Julie

EvensVegetation Ecologists . . . . Jennifer

Buck, Donna ShorrockEast Bay Conservation Analyst . . . . .

Lech NaumovichLegislative Advocate . Vern GoehringLegal Advisor . . . . . . position openWebsite Coordinator . Mark NaftzgerCNPS Bulletin Editor . . . . . Bob HassTraining Coordinator . Josie Crawford

BOARD OF DIRECTORSposition open (President), Sue Britting(Vice President), Steve Hartman (Trea-surer), Lynn Houser (Secretary). AtLarge: Brett Hall, Arvind Kumar, BrianLeNeve, Vince Scheidt, Alison Shilling,Carol W. Witham

PROGRAM DIRECTORSCNPS Press . . . . . . . . . Holly ForbesConservation . . . . . . . position openHorticulture . . Susan Libonati-BarnesPosters . . . . . . . . . Bertha McKinley

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

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 COUNCILBrad Jenkins (Chair), Larry Levine (ViceChair), Sarah Jayne (Secretary)

Alta Peak (Tulare) . . . . Joan StewartBristlecone (Inyo-Mono) . . . . . . . . .

Steve McLaughlinChannel Islands . . . . David MagneyDorothy King Young (Mendocino/

Sonoma Coast) . . . . . Lori HubbartEast Bay . . . . . . . . . . Delia TaylorEl Dorado . . . . . . . . Amy HoffmanKern County . . . . . . . . . Lucy ClarkLos Angeles/Santa Monica Mtns . . .

Betsey LandisMarin County . . Carolyn LongstrethMilo Baker (Sonoma County) . . . . .

Liz ParsonsMojave Desert . . . . . . Tim ThomasMonterey Bay . . . . Rosemary FosterMount Lassen . . . . . . . Catie BishopNapa Valley . . . . . . . . . . John PittNorth Coast . . . . . . . Larry LevineNorth San Joaquin . . James BruggerOrange County . . . . . . Laura CampRedbud (Grass Valley/Auburn) . . . .

Marie BainRiverside/San Bernardino counties . .

Katie BarrowsSacramento Valley . . . Hazel GordonSan Diego . . . . . . . . Marty FoltynSan Gabriel Mtns . . . Gabi McLeanSan Luis Obispo . . . Lauren BrownSanhedrin (Ukiah) . . . . . . . VishnuSanta Clara Valley . . . Kevin BryantSanta Cruz County . . . . Brett HallSequoia (Fresno) . . . position openShasta . . . . . Susan Libonati-BarnesSierra Foothills (Tuolumne, Cala- veras, Mariposa) . . . Patrick StoneSouth Coast (Palos Verdes) . . . . . .

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

Mary Frances Kelly PohYerba Buena (San Francisco) . . . . .

Jo-Ann Ordano

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.

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]

F R E M O N T I A

Printed by Premier Graphics: www.premiergraphics.biz

DISCLAIMER:

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

CALIFORNIA NATIVEPLANT SOCIETY

Dedicated to the Preservation ofthe California Native Flora

Bart O’Brien, Editor

Bob Hass, Copy Editor

Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer

Kathryn Blassey, Editorial Assistant

Brad Jenkins, Jake Sigg, andCarol W. Witham, Proofreaders

75896-PG cover.pmd 4/1/08, 4:18 PM2

F R E M O N T I A 1V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

CONTENTS

THE COVER: Spring view of serpentine grasslands and surrounding plant communities at Edgewood County Park and NaturalPreserve, San Mateo County. Photograph by K. Himes.

CONSERVATION OF SERPENTINE ENDEMICS BY A CNPS CHAPTER: TWOSTRATEGIES by Carolyn Curtis and Donald Mayall ............................................... 2

Serpentine grassland habitats, the bay checkerspot butterfly, the Santa Clara ValleyChapter of CNPS, rare and endangered plants, and successful conservation outcomes arethe unifying features of this short introductory piece for the next two articles. Join authorsCarolyn Curtis and Donald Mayall as they set the stage for two successful conservationinitiatives that are detailed in the following two articles.

EDGEWOOD COUNTY PARK AND NATURAL PRESERVE: HOW IT HAPPENEDby Carolyn Curtis .......................................................................................................3

At last! The full story of how Edgewood Natural Preserve came to be. Edgewood is a majorsuccess story, one of those rare instances when those concerned with both biology andbeauty triumphed over commercial interests. It is also an instructive tale of how to buildongoing effective coalitions and use the political process to achieve the best possibleoutcome for conserving biological diversity.

PROTECTING COYOTE RIDGE by Donald Mayall ............................................. 12

The Santa Clara Valley Chapter’s subsequent success with Coyote Ridge was considerablysmoother due to the application of lessons learned at Edgewood though adapted to fit theunique set of circumstances found in San Jose’s Coyote Valley. Coyote Ridge contains thesole remaining population of the bay checkerspot butterfly and is home to many rare andendangered plant species.

ITALIAN RYEGRASS: A NEW CENTRAL CALIFORNIA DOMINANT? by PeterHopkinson, Matt Stevenson, Michele Hammond, Sasha Gennet, Devii Rao, and JamesW. Bartolome........................................................................................................... 20

Italian ryegrass has recently become a major component of San Francisco Bay Areagrasslands—with major biological consequences. The authors have documented the rap-id assault on these grasslands by this non-native interloper. This aggressive weed alsofigures prominently in the Edgewood and Coyote Ridge articles.

CNPS FELLOWS: CHARLI AND JOHN DANIELSEN by Laura Baker and BarbaraMalloch Leitner......................................................................................................... 25

Charli and John Danielsen have been major figures in the California Native Plant Societyfor over 30 years. These indefatigable members of the East Bay Chapter have held manypositions both at the state and locally—ranging from field trip chair to chapter president tostate president for Charli, while John has served as state treasurer and has provided hisskills on a wide array of projects.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM1

2 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

CONSERVATION OF SERPENTINE ENDEMICS BYA CNPS CHAPTER: TWO STRATEGIES

by Carolyn Curtis and Donald Mayall

ike all other CNPS chapters, theSanta Clara Valley Chapter,covering Santa Clara Countyand the southern two-thirds of

San Mateo County, has its distinc-tive habitats of particular beauty andhot spots of diversity. A factor inthese hot spots in our area is serpen-tine grassland and chaparral associ-ated with tectonic plate movementalong the San Andreas fault. Nonna-tive plants do not do well on serpen-tine, allowing many native wildflow-ers to flourish as they did beforewestern civilization arrived, result-ing in stunning spring displays.Combined with endemics especiallyadapted to serpentine, these areasare also repositories of rare and en-dangered plants and animals.

A keystone species, the baycheckerspot butterfly (Eu-phydryas editha ssp. bay-ensis), listed as threatenedby the US Fish & WildlifeService, once was fairlycommon in the San Fran-cisco Bay area. By the endof the last century, it hadbecome restricted to a fewareas on the San FranciscoPeninsula and in the SantaClara Valley, where itshost and nectar plants sur-vive in serpentine grass-land. Pressed by urbanexpansion, the butterflyhabitat is now only a singlesizeable population.

Because these serpen-tine habitats were also theonly locale for a numberof endangered plants, theSanta Clara Valley Chap-ter became active in try-ing to conserve these ar-eas. One area is EdgewoodPark and Natural Preserve

in southern San Mateo County, westof Redwood City; the other is Coy-ote Ridge, an area east of Highway101, south of the urbanized part ofSan Jose. Both had the same butter-fly host and nectar plants, but thespecial status plants differed.

The butterfly and serpentine area common thread in these two sto-ries, as is the impact of air pollutionon their ecology. That fascinatingstory is told elsewhere (Weiss 1999).To vastly oversimplify it, atmo-spheric nitrogen from air pollutionhas been enriching the nutrient-poorserpentine soil, causing nonnativegrasses, especially Italian ryegrass(Lolium multiflorum), to crowd outthe butterfly’s host plants. This pro-cess first became apparent on andnear Coyote Ridge, where prevailing

L

winds brought high levels of nitro-gen. Butterfly habitat has been main-tained there through managed cattle

grazing. Wind patterns aredifferent at Edgewood, butthe proximity to Interstate280 has brought about thesame result, only moreslowly. The butterfly dis-appeared at EdgewoodNatural Preserve in 2003,but there is a happy end-ing. Read on.

REFERENCES

Weiss, S. 1999. Cars, cows,and checkerspot butter-flies: Nitrogen depositionand management of nu-trient-poor grasslands fora threatened species. Con-servation Biology 13(6):1476–1486.

Carolyn Curtis, 531 AlgerAve., Palo Alto, CA [email protected];Donald Mayall, 531 AlgerAve., Palo Alto, CA [email protected]

Bay checkspot butterfly (Euphydryas edithassp. bayensis) is federally listed as a threat-ened species. Photograph by S. Weiss.

Serpentine grasslands in full early spring bloom at Edgewood NaturalPreserve in San Mateo County. Photograph by B. O’Brien.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM2


EDGEWOOD COUNTY PARK AND NATURALPRESERVE: HOW IT HAPPENED

by Carolyn Curtis

n the summer of 1993, after 13years as the centerpiece of the mostbitter and protracted controver-sy in the history of San Mateo

County, the serpentine habitat ofEdgewood Park was saved from de-velopment as a golf course and offi-cially declared a natural preserve.How this happened is a colorful andmotley story of political opportun-ism, charisma, vision, and behind-the-scenes machinations. It requiredinstitutional courage on the part ofCNPS, as well as thousands of hoursof hard work from scientists andordinary people who held an un-flagging faith that a place so beauti-

ful and biologically valuable simplyhad to be protected.

THE BEGINNINGS

In 1979 the County of San Mateoacquired the Edgewood propertyfrom the State of California. A quar-ter of the money (about $500,000)came from the County Charter forParks Fund, a quarter from theMidpeninsula Regional Open SpaceDistrict (MROSD), and the rest froma U.S. Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund matching grant.

Around the same time, local poli-ticians had promised golfing inter-

ests a county golf course, but vari-ous proposed locations had arousedgreat opposition. When Edgewoodwas suggested, some environmen-talists counseled the agencies to in-vestigate the site before planninganything, because it was known thatserpentinite areas tend to have un-usual vegetation, and are home tomany rare species.

In the Joint Powers Agreementfor Edgewood that was set up be-tween MROSD and the County,MROSD essentially abdicated anydecision-making rights over Edge-wood. The agreement specificallyprovided for a golf course, tennis

Vibrant ruby chalice clarkia (Clarkia rubicunda) provide the late spring highlight to the serpentine grasslands of Edgewood. Photographby K. Himes.

I

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/7/08, 2:03 PM3


courts, swimming pools, waste treat-ment plants, and other kinds ofstructures. This agreement plays arole much later in the story.

The county supervisors moved

forward with plans for an 18-holepublic golf course with clubhouse,and a limited recreational and picnicarea. The Santa Clara Valley Chap-ter of CNPS, the CNPS state organi-

zation, the Committee for GreenFoothills, and the local chapters ofthe Sierra Club and Audubon Soci-ety vigorously protested the plans,researching and proposing an alter-

TABLE 1. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AT EDGEWOOD

Species Legal Status Distribution by County Habitat

San Mateo thornmint Federal: Endangered Edgewood endemic, serpentine grasslandsAcanthomintha duttonii State: Endangered San Mateo County

CNPS List 1B.1

Franciscan onion CNPS List 1B.2 Mendocino to valley and foothillAllium peninsulare var. Santa Clara grasslands,

franciscanum often serpentine

Kings Mountain manzanita CNPS List 1B.2 San Mateo to granite or sandstoneArctostaphylos regismontana Santa Cruz outcrops in chaparral,

coniferous andevergreen forests

fountain thistle Federal: Endangered San Mateo County serpentine seeps andCirsium fontinale var. State: Endangered extirpated at ravines in valley

fontinale CNPS List 1B.1 Edgewood? and foothill grasslands

San Francisco collinsia CNPS List 1B.2 San Francisco to moist, shady woodlandsCollinsia multicolor Monterey

western leatherwood CNPS List 1B.2 Marin to Santa Clara moist slopes inDirca occidentalis partial shade

fragrant fritillary CNPS List 1B.2 Marin to Solano to heavy soils,Fritillaria liliacea Monterey open hills and fields

Marin western flax Federal: Threatened State: Marin to San Mateo serpentine grasslandsHesperolinon congestum Threatened CNPS List 1B.1

serpentine linanthus CNPS List 4.2 Contra Costa to San mostly serpentineLeptosiphon ambiguus Joaquin to San Benito grasslands, coastal

to Santa Cruz scrub and foothillwoodlands

woolly-headed lessingia CNPS List 3 Marin to Yolo to serpentine clay soilsLessingia hololeuca Santa Clara in coastal scrub,

coniferous forests, valleyand foothill grasslands

chaparral mallow CNPS List 1B.2 San Mateo serpentine chaparralMalacothamnus arcuatus to Santa Cruz

white-rayed pentachaeta Federal: Endangered Edgewood and serpentine grasslandsPentachaeta bellidiflora State: Endangered nearby S.F. watershed

CNPS List 1B.1 land endemic,San Mateo County

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM4


nate site across the road on water-shed lands owned by San Fran-cisco (the “southern watershedsite”) that had no special habitats.This group also put out an 18-page background piece onEdgewood Park, including a natu-ral history and a chronology.

By December 1982, despite in-creasing opposition, includingfrom its own County PlanningCommission, the Board of Super-visors approved a master plan forEdgewood. They also certified theEnvironmental Impact Report(EIR) produced by Torrey andTorrey and golf course designerRobert Trent Jones as a staged(phased) EIR. One month later,CNPS and two individuals chal-lenged the EIR in a lawsuit.

In late 1983, the suit was settledout of court, on condition that sen-sitive habitats would be given le-gally adequate protection; an out-side consultant would prepare aneconomic analysis of the proposedgolf course, and alternatives, such asa nine-hole golf course and alternatesites, would be considered. The CNPSlawsuit played a critical role in sav-ing Edgewood’s serpentine habitatsfrom certain doom in the early 1980s.It also proved crucial in later years,when activists used it to remind thesupervisors of the seriousness of theopposition—and of the precarious-ness of the County’s position, as itcontinued to ignore the conditionsof the out-of-courtsettlement.

ADVANCE ANDRETREAT, 1987–1991

Early in 1987, agroup called theEdgewood Park Citi-zens Committee begancirculating a petitionto get the golf coursebuilt. This group ofgolfers, most of whom

lived near the park, included severalpolitically prominent people.

In response, members of theSanta Clara Valley Chapter of CNPSconvened a task force. This grouppursued various strategies, includ-ing lobbying the San Mateo CountyBoard of Supervisors, circulating apetition of its own that garnered4,000 signatures, organizing a letterwriting campaign, lobbying SanFrancisco’s supervisors (particularly

about the southern watershedsite), and planning various waysto educate the public aboutEdgewood’s unique habitat. If allelse failed, the group thought itcould fall back on a countywidereferendum as a second-to-last re-sort, and as a last resort, anotherlawsuit from the state organiza-tion.

Three events, two environ-mental in nature, brought aboutthe end of this round of the fight:•In September 1987 the baycheckerspot butterfly was de-clared a threatened species.Thus, its habitat now had somefederal protection. However,there was disagreement abouthow the boundaries of this habi-tat would be interpreted. Wouldit include the entire park, allthe serpentine areas, all placeswhere the butterfly had beensighted through the years, orsome combination of these?Furthermore, could the countyget a permit anyway for “inci-dental take”—allowing butter-flies to be killed in order to buildthe golf course?

• In January 1988 the Edgewoodharvestman (Calicina minor), arare spider discovered at Edge-wood in 1983, was proposedfor federal listing. (Another rarearachnid, Microcina edgewood-ensis, apparently endemic toEdgewood serpentine, had been

discovered in 1985.)The most decisive

factor, however, wasthat 1988 was an elec-tion year. One super-visor who supportedthe Edgewood golfcourse ran for Con-gress. The chief oppo-nent in the primaryfound out aboutEdgewood andbrought up the issueat every public forum;letters to the editorflowed freely. Several

The rare and endangered plants found at Edge-wood include: TOP: White-rayed pentachaeta(Pentachaeta bellidiflora) occurs on Edgewood andimmediately adjacent parcels of land. In goodyears, there are tens of thousands of individualplants. LOWER LEFT: San Mateo thornmint (Acantho-mintha duttonii) is only found in one small area ofEdgewood Natural Preserve, and nowhere else inthe world. LOWER RIGHT: Marin western flax (Hes-perolinon congestum) is restricted to Bay Area ser-pentine grassland habitats. All photographs by J.Game.

Dr. Stuart Weiss releases a bay checkerspot butterfly onto tidy tips (Layiaplatyglossa) as part of the butterfly’s reintroduction at Edgewood NaturalPreserve in 2007. Photograph by D. Mayall.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM5


months into the primary campaign,this supervisor discovered an alter-nate site for the golf course: at thesouthern end of the San Franciscowatershed. Negotiations began be-tween the San Mateo supervisors andSan Francisco’s mayor. The supervi-sor won the primary in a tight fin-ish, but lost the general election,remaining on the Board of Supervi-sors.

In the meantime, some mem-bers of the environmental commu-nity had changed their minds aboutsiting a golf course on the southernwatershed site. Opposition alsocame from entities bordering thesite. The local chapter of CNPSstayed neutral.

Though Edgewood now ap-peared to have been spared fromdevelopment, some people thoughtthe preserve would not be safe untilit was so tied up with overlappingjurisdictions that no one entity, suchas the Board of Supervisors, coulddo anything on its own to the land.Also, Edgewood’s biological unique-ness had not been officially acknowl-edged; the idea of having Edgewooddeclared a Natural Area Preserve, anew category of parklands for SanMateo County, was still a goal insearch of an executable plan.

THE LAST FIGHT, 1991–1993

By early summer 1991, San Fran-cisco was also having secondthoughts about a golf course on thesouthern watershed site. Ten of SanFrancisco’s eleven supervisors votedthe proposal down, mandating re-view and survey of San Francisco’swatershed lands before any planscould proceed.

Also that summer, a reconsti-tuted Santa Clara Valley CNPSEdgewood task force, which hadbegun discussing how to get Edge-wood declared a preserve, discov-ered that the supervisors were againconsidering locating a golf courseon the Edgewood site, this time anine-hole course, driving range, orboth.

When the Board of Supervisorsset the golf course on the agenda formid-September, the Edgewood taskforce decided to get as many peopleas possible to the meeting. Believingthat park users would be interested,task force members leafleted therethe weekend before. Virtually all whowere contacted—runners, hikers, pic-nickers—were incensed at the ideaof a golf course there. Many attendedthe Board of Supervisors meeting andspoke; more called and wrote letters.

At this meeting, thesupervisors rejecteda list of “alternatesites” and voted 5-0to direct staff to pre-pare a Request forProposals to seek afirm to prepareplans for a nine-holecourse and drivingrange.

Leafletting atEdgewood showedthe task force thatEdgewood had ahighly motivatedconstituency be-yond CNPS and Si-erra Club members.The task force de-cided to launch a

grassroots campaign with an ambi-tious petition drive and a press con-ference. It also decided to convenean organizing meeting with othergroups besides those that had beeninvolved before for the purpose ofstrategizing ways to oppose theproject.

In the past, the Board of Super-visors and the golfing interests hadmarginalized the pro-Edgewood sideas “environmentalists”—a noble titlein some people’s eyes, a derogatoryone to others. The group brain-stormed who the park users were—homeowners, hikers, gardeners,horseback riders, runners, photog-raphers—and the organizations thatrepresented them. Many people atthis meeting knew, or were them-selves, contacts on the boards ofthese organizations.

The new Save Edgewood ParkCoalition quickly drafted a briefstatement of purpose, updated thebackground information piece,composed a one-page flyer, andwrote a four-page brief. An artistwho was a member of the Coalitiondesigned a bumper sticker. Shortlythereafter the Coalition assembledan information packet for newmembers that included these items,plus a copy of the petition, shortarticles for use in newsletters andat meetings, and a photo of Edge-wood in bloom.

Meanwhile the Coalition contin-ued to seek new members and mem-ber organizations. Once groupsjoined, they received notice of Boardof Supervisors meetings, along withnews updates on campaign develop-ments and reprints of related news-paper articles. Though the Coalitionasked for donations informally a fewtimes, there was no financial obliga-tion for membership. Each memberorganization distributed informationamong its own members.

After only eight weeks the Coa-lition—which was now a 25-mem-ber–strong organization—held apress conference at which presspackets were distributed. Long-time

Susan Moore of the USFWS speaks at the bay checkerspotbutterfly reintroduction ceremony at Edgewood NaturalPreserve on April 5, 2007, while children color images ofbutterflies. Photograph by D. Mayall.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM6


Edgewood activist Susan Sommersbrought several of her beautiful 14 x18 inch photographs of Edgewood’sserpentine wildflower meadows infull bloom. The press conferencemade front-page news, as did prac-tically every story about Edgewoodfrom then on. One reporter neverfailed to mention the “spectaculardisplays of wildflowers” when shewrote about Edgewood.

Getting petition signatures wasa major part of the campaign. Justthree sentences long, the petitionopposed the golf course and advo-cated making Edgewood a NaturalArea Preserve. No attempt was madeto use the petitions to qualify for aballot initiative. Anyone could sign,including children. Coalition vol-unteers gathered signatures at thepark every weekend; the volunteerbase grew as park users of all kindsoffered to help. The group also gath-ered signatures at 10-kilometer races(many runners train at Edgewood),CNPS plant sales, and other events.Many circulated the petition, whicheventually garnered over 14,000 sig-natures, on their own at churchesand meetings. Frequently golferssigned.

Since this campaign began dur-ing the fall when wildflowers werenot blooming at Edgewood, signa-ture gatherers had with them a smallphoto of Edgewood in bloom toshow passersby. They gave them aninformational flyer, a copy of thelatest news story, and the addressesof the Board of Supervisors and lo-cal newspapers. In a steady stream,people—including a third-gradeclass!—wrote letters.

When Edgewood was on theagenda at Board of Supervisors meet-ings, the Coalition spread the wordby phone and flyer. Besides a steadycore of supporters, new people al-ways showed up to speak, many ofwhom were working people whotook time off from their work toattend these daytime meetings. Theother side rarely had anyone but thesame small, regular group of golf

course supporters—the same voicesgoing back years.

For higher visibility at publicmeetings and when gathering peti-tion signatures, Edgewood Coalitionmembers wore highly visible four-color badges designed by a sympa-thetic graphic designer that con-tained the Coalition logo, the rubychalice clarkia (Clarkia rubicunda).The Coalition letterhead also fea-tured this logo, along with a list ofits member organizations. At Boardof Supervisors meetings, EdgewoodCoalition spokespersons alwaysmentioned the number of memberorganizations and the current totalmembership, which quickly climbedinto six figures. The number of ac-tive volunteers was also impres-sive—about 100 in all.

ELECTION TIME AGAIN

The Board of Supervisors, upuntil December 1991, had beenstaunchly opposed to preservingEdgewood, repeatedly citing various“overriding economic concerns.” Butthat month the first supervisorswitched sides. The Coalition saw aglimmer of hope. In January the su-pervisors, seemingly aware of increas-ing popular support, set up a com-mittee of golfers, environmentalists,and other community leaders to in-vestigate alternate sites. Three Coali-tion task force members were ap-pointed to this committee. While thealternate sites task force was meet-ing, the Coalition felt that Edgewoodwas safe from development.

By early spring, three of the fivesupervisors were now supporting thepreservation of Edgewood. All three,

coincidentally, were running forCongress. They would be runningagainst another candidate who hadalways spoken out in favor of pre-

TOP LEFT: Sickle-leaf onion (Allium falci-folium) is a delightful miniature perennialfound in serpentine rock outcrops. It hasnot been seen recently at Edgewood. Pho-tograph by B. O’Brien. • TOP: White-rayedpentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) isusually found growing in dense colonies.It is interesting to note how variable thenumber of ray flowers are from plant toplant. All of the white flowered daisies inthis image are this species. Photograph byK. Himes. • BOTTOM: The diminutive mouseears (Mimulus douglasii) is found in shallowserpentine scalds where there is little com-petition from other plants. Photograph byK. Himes.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/7/08, 2:03 PM7


at Edgewood. In June, one supervi-sor won the Republican primary, andone supervisor won the Democraticprimary; she would go on to win thegeneral election in November 1992.

SURPRISE SETBACK

The supervisors’ proposal tomake Edgewood a preserve went tothe Parks and Recreation Commis-sion for approval. Instead of theunanimous rubber-stamping theCoalition expected, it barely passed3-0. (In order to pass, this proposalhad to receive a minimum of threepositive votes.) When the proposalcame back to the Board of Supervi-sors in August for final approval, a“compromise” was passed (3-2). Itset aside two-thirds of Edgewoodas a preserve, but also authorized$25,000 to conduct a constraintsanalysis (feasibility study) to see if a

golf course could be built on theremaining third. The supervisorswho were not running for Congresshad backed the golf course side again.

The Coalition had presumed theParks and Recreation Commission-ers would be knowledgeable aboutEdgewood and neglected to edu-cate them (the other side had obvi-ously worked behind the scenes). Italso had not prepared for a possiblereversal of the preserve proposal. Inresponse, the Coalition expandedto 41 organizations, from its previ-ous 25, and added 12 businesses.More people wrote letters. The Coa-lition wrote a strongly worded com-ments letter opposing the con-straints analysis proposal, butmostly bided its time.

REAL VICTORY THIS TIME

The fall election of 1992 saw adevelopment project on the coastlose by the largest margin in thehistory in San Mateo County. Twonew pro-environment supervisorstook their seats on the board. Itlooked as if there were now at leastthree votes for a natural Edgewoodby the spring of 1993.

In July 1993 Palo Alto-basedThomas Reid Associates, an envi-ronmental review firm, presented itsconstraints analysis to a packedBoard of Supervisors meeting. Theyconcluded that the parts of Edge-wood flat enough to support a golfcourse were the very parts with pro-tected species (a point we had knownall along). After listening to the pre-sentation, even some of the Edge-wood Park Citizens Committeemembers voiced support for a pub-lic golf course in the county but notat Edgewood. Following the unani-mous adoption of the constraintsanalysis, one of the new supervisorspresented a change in the Joint Pow-ers Agreement with MidpeninsulaOpen Space Preserve, giving it equaldecision-making power over Edge-wood. This change also eliminatedall references to structures and spe-

Edgewood’s serpentine grasslands. TOP: Aclassic view in early spring featuring Cali-fornia poppies (Eschscholzia californica),goldfields (Lasthenia californica), and tidytips (Layia platyglossa). • LEFT: In latespring, ruby chalice clarkia (Clarkia rubi-cunda) lights up the drying grasslands. Pho-tographs by B. O’Brien.

serving Edgewood. The fourth su-pervisor was running unopposed forreelection to the board and was stillsupporting the golf course. The fifthsupervisor, the most strident golfcourse supporter, was serving hislast term on the board.

In April, something much moremomentous occurred. In honor ofEarth Day, one of the supervisorsrunning for Congress proposed mak-ing Edgewood a Natural Preserve.The Coalition, of course, turned outthe troops for this Board of Supervi-sors meeting. The proposal passed 4to 1, the only holdout being the pro-golf course supervisor.

The Coalition thought the fightwas over, and threw a victory party

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM8


cifically declared Edgewood a Natu-ral Preserve.

HOW MUCH DANGERWAS EDGEWOOD IN?

This lengthy scenario remindsus that while we have an Endan-gered Species Act in this country, itby no means assures automatic pro-tection of habitat that contains suchspecies. Edgewood Park is a perfectexample of this reality. Although theEndangered Species Act covered theserpentine grassland habitat of thebay checkerspot butterfly after thisinsect was declared threatened in1989, this provided no automaticprotection for Edgewood. The park’sgoverning body would have had toagree to abide by the Act, or be con-strained to. In this case, it had to beconstrained to, which was the goalof the drawn-out community effortdescribed above.

The people working to put a golfcourse on Edgewood included someof the most powerful figures in SanMateo County public life, as well asan internationally known golf coursedesigner. Our side was not perceivedas organized or capable in the waythat the other side was, and clearlydid not possess even a small per-centage of its financial resources.Originally, the environmental com-munity was able to reach a stale-mate, chiefly due to the CNPS law-suit, but not to prevail.

WHAT WORKED ANDWHAT DIDN’T

In the early days, considerableeffort was spent researching thesouthern watershed for an alterna-tive golf course site, and getting thesupport of other entities, such as theCity of San Francisco, to preserveEdgewood in its natural state. Thatstrategy ultimately failed. The feel-ing of environmental organizationsturned against sacrificing one open

space site, however logged over andpreviously farmed, to save another.They felt that the strategy of pro-posing alternate sites for develop-ment is essentially compromise, andis not a proper or productive rolefor conservationists.

The critical change for Edge-wood was the decision to go grass-roots, despite misgivings that itmight prove too labor-intensive.Once this path was taken, the nextcritical choice—and probably themost important to the eventual win-ning over of local politicians—wasto broaden allies on “our side” farbeyond the usual conservation or-ganizations. This strategy provedthat Edgewood had widespread com-munity support, a point underscoredevery time a new member organiza-tion joined the Coalition.

The Save Edgewood Park Coali-tion included conservation organi-zations, including locally based ones;nature-interest groups, such as theDefenders of Wildlife; garden clubs(Garden Clubs of America requiresmember clubs to undertake a con-servation project); homeowners’ or-ganizations; park user groups suchas runners, equestrians, and hikers;student ecology organizations; andmiscellaneous groups such as thelocal humane society, a local politi-cal club, and an ecological street-theater group. The Coalition couldhave signed up many more smalllocal businesses than the 12 it did.Two retail businesses had the peti-tion on display.

Beyond recruiting organizationsinto the Coalition, other effectivetools in the campaign included:

• A way to involve the public: Inour case, we used a petition, ac-companied by a flyer containingthe latest news about Edgewoodand names and addresses ofpeople to write to. We didn’t usea form letter, but urged peopleto write what they felt. Many ofthese letters were truly eloquent.

• Regular community contact: Wehad a presence at the park every

weekend, and at other places aswell.

• Big (14" by18") color pictures ofphotogenic habitats and plantsto show at the press conference,public hearings, and meetings.

• Colorful badges to identify sup-porters at public meetings.

• Cost-spreading: Each memberorganization distributed Edge-wood materials to its own mem-bers, which reduced the Coa-lition’s costs and increased itsefficiency.

• Never giving up: We knew Edge-wood was special and that wewere right.We had fun with this. It was

always heartening to read the latestletter to the editor, exciting to seepeople get involved, and the firstintimations of victory were sweet.

PRESENT AND FUTURE:FRIENDS OF EDGEWOODNATURAL PRESERVE

In October 1993 a gathering atEdgewood celebrated the Coalition’svictory and its disbanding, and thebirth of the Friends of Edgewood.This active organization has takenover responsibility for the EdgewoodNatural Preserve docent programfrom the Santa Clara Valley Chapterof CNPS. It participates in weed re-moval and habitat restoration in con-junction with CNPS and the CountyParks and Recreation Division, and

Tidy tips (Layia platyglossa) and Califor-nia poppy (Eschscholzia californica). Photo-graph by B. O’Brien.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM9

1 0 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

holds monthly adopt-a-highwaycleanups.

The Friends puts out an ex-cellent newsletter and website(www.friendsofedgewood.org);maintains an informal trail pa-trol; and has embarked on anambitious effort to fund andbuild a visitors center in a non-critical habitat area of the pre-serve. Early on, a Friends com-mittee created a draft master planto replace the old golf course-based 1980s master plan forEdgewood.

CNPS and the Friends cross-pollinate: Edgewood neighbors whoget involved in the Friends learnabout CNPS and native plants, andmany CNPS members are active inthe Friends.

INVASIVES: A THREATFROM A DIFFERENTDIRECTION

After Edgewood was designateda preserve, chapter members beganto realize that an entirely differentkind of threat could be upon us—

the loss of habitat due to aggressiveinvasives such as yellow star thistle(Centaurea solstitialis). Nonnativeplants had been of some concernthroughout the chapter’s involve-ment with the site. The area hadnever been plowed or even grazed,but it was rural, with several home-steads and their gardens and or-chards. The main concern in theearly days was a moist swale thatwas heavily infested with fuller’s tea-sel (Dipsacus fullonum). CNPS ob-tained a permit from the county thatallowed crews to dig it out over anumber of years. Eventually the tea-sel was largely eradicated.

Jake Sigg, at that time presi-dent of the neighboring YerbaBuena Chapter, urged us to makeweed management a top priorityat Edgewood. A chapter weedgroup under the direction of KenHimes was formed, which en-gaged in hand removal of yellowstar thistle, slowly regainingground each year. Not nearly asextensive but in some ways abigger problem at the preservewas Italian thistle (Carduus pyc-nocephalus), which thrives in

shade and seemed unfazed by an-nual hand removal. There was also awet meadow near the west entranceof the park that had so much bristlyoxtongue (Picris echioides) that it washard to tell that it had once been afield of Kellogg’s yampah (Perideri-dia kelloggii). Hand removal by vol-unteers brought about a virtuallycomplete restoration of the meadow(see photographs on page 11).

The Friends of Edgewood be-came concerned with invasives andhas proven an excellent source ofvolunteers. Together with CNPS andthe San Mateo County Departmentof Parks and Recreation, the three

Edgewood Natural Preserve is home to many plant communities besides its well-known serpentine grasslands. This view shows someof its oak woodland, chaparral, and a ribbon of riparian vegetation. Photograph by K. Himes.

CNPS volunteers weeding in Edgewood’s yampahmeadow. Photograph by K. Korbholz.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/2/08, 12:19 PM10

F R E M O N T I A 1 1V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

agreed to work together on invasivesmanagement in Edgewood. Countypark crews have cut down eucalyp-tus trees, and mowed and weed-whacked, while volunteers fromCNPS and the Friends do hand re-moval. In addition, the local WeedManagement Area (WMA) has re-ceived several grants for weed con-trol at Edgewood from the Califor-nia Department of Food and Agri-culture.

The worst invasive problem isthe most recent one. We had wit-nessed the impact of nonnativegrasses on butterfly habitat in theSouth Bay, and found it also hap-pening at Edgewood Natural Pre-serve.

By 2003 the bay checkerspotbutterfly had disappeared at Edge-wood. The solution in the SouthBay, managed grazing, was not fea-sible at Edgewood because of itssmall size. Mowing the grasses,which began on an experimentalbasis in the grasslands in 2004 andwas expanded with a grant fromPG&E in 2005, has proven effec-tive. In 2006 an application to rein-troduce the butterfly was approvedby the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

TABLE 2. INVASIVE PEST PLANTS AT EDGEWOOD

Species Rating Location Management

Italian thistle Cal-IPC M woodlands hand pulling byCarduus pycnocephalus CDFA C throughout volunteers

yellow star thistle Cal-IPC H grasslands hand pulling byCentaurea solstitialis CDFA C throughout volunteers

fuller’s teasel Cal-IPC M swale north of hand pulling byDipsacus fullonum CDFA CNL central ridge volunteers

Italian ryegrass Cal-IPC M serpentine mowing byLolium multiflorum grasslands County workers

bristly oxtongue Cal-IPC L yampah meadow hand pulling byPicris echioides CDFA CNL near kiosk volunteers

Ratings: Cal-IPC: H = High, M = Moderate, L = LimitedCDFA: C = lowest of three rating levels, CNL = Considered, Not Listed

TOP: The restored yampah meadow in fullsummer bloom. • BOTTOM: Kellogg’s yampah(Perideridia kelloggii) is a showy, long-livedperennial that favors seasonally moist habi-tats. These habitats are frequently overrunwith invasive exotic plants. Photographs byK. Korbholz.

BUTTERFLIES ARE FREE!

More than 100 people joinedpress and TV crews in the serpen-tine grassland at Edgewood CountyPark and Natural Preserve in earlyApril 2007 for the ceremonial re-lease of several female bay checker-spot butterflies, brought by StuartWeiss from the last remaining ma-jor population at Coyote Ridge. Cat-erpillars from Coyote Ridge had beenreleased at Edgewood a few weeksearlier and were already emergingas butterflies and were seen flyingabout.

In a place of honor before thespeakers’ platform a group of chil-dren colored in butterfly pictures.Stuart placed the butterflies on tidytips (Layia platyglossa) in little potsto let them get adjusted to freedom.Knowing that the bay checkerspotbutterfly is home again at Edgewoodlifts the spirits of those of us whohave worked so long and so hard topreserve not only this remarkablebutterfly, but also its unique serpen-tine grassland habitat.

Carolyn Curtis, 531 Alger Ave., Palo Alto,CA 94306. [email protected]

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM11


PROTECTING COYOTE RIDGEby Donald Mayall

oyote Ridge, a 15-mile-long block of serpen-tine, is the westernmostpart of the Mt. Hamilton

Range, which is oak woodland, for-est, and rangeland. West of CoyoteRidge is Coyote Valley, currently ag-ricultural but under great develop-ment pressure from the expandingCity of San Jose. The ridge consistsof several very large tracts, whichhave been privately owned.

In the early 1980s, it became clearthat new land would be needed forSan Jose’s waste material. A landfillsite under consideration was locatedeast of U.S. Highway 101 between

downtown San Jose and Morgan Hill.The area was known as Kirby Can-yon, after a small stream that ran toCoyote Creek. The name CoyoteRidge was applied later, by chaptermembers and others, to denote theelevation above, which directed wa-ters west to Coyote Creek.

Kirby Canyon seemed undesir-able for other uses from several

points of view. Steep and comprisedof serpentine, the land did not havemuch agricultural value nor was iteasy to build on. It was, however,the home of the bay checkerspotbutterfly. The butterfly was not alisted species at that time, but it hadbeen under study by Stanford Uni-versity’s Center for ConservationBiology (CCB) and seemed likely tobe listed.

United Technology Corporation,which owned a large tract of serpen-tine and nonserpentine land to thenorth where it manufactured andtested rocket fuel, opposed the im-pending listing and took action to

block it, declaring that it would be athreat to national security. A storyby a local reporter exposed the silli-ness of this position, and publicopinion swung in favor of the but-terfly. Anticipating that the listingwould in fact become a reality, thelandfill applicants supported it andsubmitted a conservation plan forthe bay checkerspot butterfly to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) [July 15,1985]. The but-terfly was listed as a federally threat-ened species in September 1987.

THE CONSERVATION PLAN

The Kirby Canyon ConservationPlan called for a 250-acre area adja-cent to the landfill that was primehabitat for the Bay checkerspot but-terfly to be set aside as a mitigationfor the impact of the landfill on but-terfly habitat. This site, subsequentlyreferred to as the Butterfly TrustArea, was leased by the landfill op-erator from a private landowner. Thelease was originally specified to runfor 15 years. The Plan also called formanaged grazing over the entirelandfill site, including the Trust Area.The Plan also set up a trust fund, towhich the landfill operator wouldcontribute $50,000 each year, ex-pecting that at the end of the 15-year period the fund would be largeenough to purchase the trust area.This expectation was based on faultyassumptions that made this purchaseentirely unfeasible; it overestimatedinterest rates and underestimated in-creases in land values. As this dis-crepancy became obvious, chaptermembers grew concerned overwhether the Trust Area would re-main protected.

C

Spring bloom on the serpentine grasslands of Coyote Ridge in Santa Clara County. Photo-graph by K. Himes.

A popular CNPS field trip features theserpentine grassland flora at Coyote Ridge.Photograph by J. Mason.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM12


CNPS CHAPTER ROLE INPROTECTING THE RIDGE

Members of the Santa Clara Val-ley Chapter of CNPS had been in-volved in plant surveys at the sitesince the early 1980s, includingsome working for consultants onthe landfill application. With thechapter rare plant coordinator andothers sending reports to the Cali-fornia Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB), it was clear by this pointthat several sensitive plant speciesoccurred there, including one listedas endangered by the USFWS; a statelisted species; and a number of CNPSspecial status plants (see Table 1).

In November 1990 Dr. StuartWeiss of the Stanford CCB, a stu-dent who had done his doctoralwork on the bay checkerspot but-terfly on Coyote Ridge, presentedhis findings to the chapter in a slideshow that featured dramatic picturesof the wildflower meadows of theridge against the backdrop of theHamilton Range. Naturally, chaptermembers wanted a spring field tripthere. Although the ridge was closedto the public and accessible onlythrough the landfill, Weiss and Dr.Alan Launer of the Stanford CCBarranged for our access and led uson a trip in April 1991. Similar tripstook place in April 1994 and againin 1996, when the wildflower fieldswere so remarkable that it was atopic of discussion within the chap-ter. We resolved to make this anannual field trip.

By 1993 Edgewood was a Natu-ral Area Preserve, while a similartreasure lay within our chapter’sboundaries on private land, lackingany protection except the conserva-tion agreement between the landfilland the City of San Jose. Two eventsadded to our interest and concernfor Coyote Ridge. One was the En-dangered Species Recovery Work-shop for southern San Francisco Bayserpentine plants, sponsored by theCalifornia Department of Fish andGame in April 1997 in Palo Alto,

where the available information onnine List 1B plants was discussedand evaluated. The other event wasthe publication of the Recovery Planfor Serpentine Soil Species of the SanFrancisco Bay Area by USFWS in1998. Both made us aware that CNPScould be doing more to protect en-dangered plants in our region.

We decided to make protectionof Coyote Ridge an official chaptergoal and formed a committee to workon the issue. We drew upon the ex-periences that had proven effectiveat Edgewood, such as educating thepublic and developing coalitions. Avideo about Edgewood had been asuccessful tool for educating chaptermembers and the public, so chaptermembers created one to tell the storyof Coyote Ridge. The video, TheyCalled it the Valley of Heart’s Delight,was shown on local public accessstations throughout the county.

Coyote Ridge, however, lacked

several advantages that Edgewoodhad. It was closed to the public, andno communities around it consid-ered it a destination, recreational re-source, or even an asset of any kind.Consequently there were no neigh-borhood groups to involve in coali-tions. Further, Coyote Ridge was notthreatened by any imminent event.There were no plans for private de-velopment of the land, at least nonethat were known to the public. Noinappropriate public uses, such asroads, golf courses, or reservoirs,were being discussed. So there wasno sense of urgency in preservingthe area. The strategy for CoyoteRidge was going to have to be differ-ent. It was clear that resources be-yond those normally available to thechapter would be required. Fortu-nately the chapter had just acquiredfunds from the Dow Drive Settle-ment agreement, which soon proveda godsend (see sidebar).

THE DOW DRIVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

n 1997 the chapter and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Societyjointly filed suit against the City of San Jose for certifying a negative

declaration allowing a housing project to proceed. The project waslikely to result in the loss of nearly 2,000 Santa Clara Valley dudleya ona serpentine hillside on the west side of the valley (not part of theCoyote Ridge formation). The project proponent settled out of court,and under the settlement agreement the chapter was entitled to chooseexisting dudleya acreage on private land with an equal number ofdudleya. The land was to be placed in a conservation easement operatedby a nonprofit or public agency at the expense of the project proponent.

The chapter subsequently chose an eight-acre parcel on CoyoteRidge, although this mitigation easement could have been locatedelsewhere in the county. The parcel on CoyoteRidge was particularly attractive and we hopedwould set a precedent for obtaining easementsthere. The chapter also received mitigation fundsthat it placed in an account restricted to activitiesthat would preserve serpentine endemics in SantaClara County. These funds were to prove useful indeveloping a database, producing a brochure, andsupporting other activities related to the newlyprotected area.

I

Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii). Photographby J. Game.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM13


EARLY PROJECTS ONSERPENTINE IN SOUTHSANTA CLARA COUNTY

Serpentine is found on both sidesof the Santa Clara Valley. Althoughthere are problems associated withbuilding on it, by the 1980s develop-ers were running out of level spaceand turning their sights to the hills.(A few of the better-known develop-ments that popped up there includethe Valley Christian High School,Calero Lake Estates, Shea Homes,and Cerro Plata.) Most of these placeshad listed plant species, includingthe Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dud-leya setchellii), most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. pera-moenus), and the Mt. Hamilton thistle(Cirsium fontinale var. campylon).The chapter made CEQA commentson the Environment Impact Reports(EIRs) with regard to the suitabilityof the projects, the appropriatenessof the mitigations, and especially thefeasibility of proposed transplanta-tion or relocation of listed speciessuch as those mentioned above. Ingeneral our comments had no im-pact whatever.

The Calero Lake Estates devel-opment was not completed, how-ever, partly because of USFWS re-

strictions to avoid impact to butter-fly habitat. At the Shea Homes de-velopment, which included a sig-nificant amount of butterfly habitat,the developer had stopped all graz-ing. As a result, nonnative grasseschoked out the butterfly host plantand the butterfly population droppedsharply. On a particularly large pro-ject (Cerro Plata), two private indi-viduals sued the City of San Jose onenvironmental and other grounds.The chapter supported the suit fi-nancially, but the city won on a tech-nicality having to do with the pow-ers of charter cities. Subsequently,the Center for Biodiversity sued theUSFWS for failing to enforce theEndangered Species Act (ESA) inregard to this development and ob-tained an injunction, stopping grad-ing at the site. In the settlement theUSFWS issued a Biological Opinionand the builder agreed to a numberof measures that reduced impactson listed species.

LATER PROJECTS, BETTEROUTCOMES

By the late 1990s there was agrowing body of scientific evidence,as well as pressure from USFWS and

public opinion, that resulted in bet-ter environmental outcomes on sev-eral proposed projects in south San-ta Clara Valley. These included theMetcalf Energy Center and the Val-ley Transportation Authority (VTA),both of which involved wideningand access road construction alongUS 101. Metcalf Energy Center pro-ponents conceded that additionalatmospheric nitrogen from thispower plant would have an indirectnegative impact on the bay checker-spot butterfly population. The VTAalso agreed the ramp and highwaywidening would have an even greaterimpact on the butterfly. These enti-ties considered steps to mitigatethese impacts. Additionally, someof these project sites proved to behabitat for the federally listed Cali-fornia red-legged frog (Rana aurorassp. draytonii).

DEVELOPING A COALITION

We recognized that in order toconserve Coyote Ridge, we wouldhave to have the support of otherenvironmental organizations andcredibility with public agencies. Tobegin, chapter members contactedThe Nature Conservancy, which hadjust announced the Mt. HamiltonProject; Waste Management, Inc., theoperator of the landfill; the StanfordUniversity CCB; USFWS; and thenewly formed Santa Clara CountyOpen Space Authority, the publicopen space agency for the easterntwo-thirds of Santa Clara County,including the Coyote Ridge area.

We solicited support and par-ticipation from other environmen-tal organizations, including theCommittee for Green Foothills, theSanta Clara Valley Audubon Soci-ety, the local Sierra Club chapter,and the Greenbelt Alliance. In springof 1999, Dr. Weiss and chapter mem-bers agreed to an expanded programof education and outreach to theenvironmental community of SantaClara County and the decision mak-ers in public agencies, including

Ben Hammett assesses the Mt. Hamilton thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon) wetlandduring the CNPS-DFG Vegetation Survey. Photograph by J. Evens.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM14


TABLE 1. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AT COYOTE RIDGE

Species Legal Status Distribution by County Habitat

big-scale balsamroot CNPS List 1B.2 Tehama to Santa Clara grasslands,Balsamorrhiza macrolepis ssp. macrolepis oak woodlands

Tiburon Indian paintbrush Federal: Endangered Coyote Ridge, Santa serpentineCastilleja affinis ssp. neglecta State: Endangered Clara County and grasslands

CNPS List 1B.2 Marin to Napa

coyote ceanothus Federal: Endangered Santa Clara serpentine grass-

Ceanothus ferrisae CNPS List 1B.1 lands, chaparral

Mt. Hamilton thistle CNPS List 1B.2 Alameda to Santa serpentine seeps

Cirsium fontinale var. campylon Clara and Stanislaus and ravines invalley and foothill

grasslands

Santa Clara Valley dudleya Federal: Endangered Santa Clara serpentine

Dudleya setchellii CNPS List 1B.1 grasslands

Franciscan wallflower CNPS List 4.2 Marin to valley and foothill

Erysimum franciscanum Santa Clara grasslands,serpentine or

granitic

fragrant fritillary CNPS List 1B.2 Marin to Solano heavy soils, open

Fritillaria liliacea and Monterey hills and fields

Loma Prieta hoita CNPS List 1B.1 Contra Costa to chaparral,

Hoita strobilina Santa Clara and woodlands andSanta Cruz riparian areas

smooth lessingia CNPS List 1B.2 Santa Clara serpentineLessingia micradenia var. glabrata grasslands

serpentine linanthus CNPS List 4.2 Contra Costa to mostly serpentineLeptosiphon ambiguus San Joaquin to grasslands, coastal

San Benito to scrub and foothillSanta Cruz woodlands

large-flowered linanthus CNPS List 4.2 Sonoma to San Luis open grassy flatsLeptosiphon grandiflorus Obispo and Kern

Hall’s bush mallow CNPS List 1B.2 Alameda to Santa serpentineMalacothamnus hallii Clara and Merced chaparral

Metcalf Canyon jewelflower Federal: Endangered Coyote Ridge endemic, serpentineStreptanthus albidus ssp. albidus CNPS List 1B.1 Santa Clara County grasslands

most beautiful jewelflower CNPS List 1B.2 Alameda to valley and foothillStreptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus San Luis Obispo grasslands often

serpentine

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM15


elected officials. The outcome of thisdiscussion was the formation of amultigroup coalition, the CoyoteRidge Committee.

Using funds from the Dow DriveSettlement Account, in March 2001the chapter contracted with Dr.Weiss to produce a GIS database ofthe serpentine areas of the county,integrating land-use and biologicaldata on a parcel-by-parcel basis.From that data, we assembled a com-pendium of information on the natu-ral resources of Coyote Ridge. Tak-ing the initiative in collecting thisinformation increased the chapter’svisibility as a serious advocate forthe protection of Coyote Ridge.

ENVIRONMENTALDEVELOPMENTS IN OURFAVOR

In November of 2000, the vot-ers of San Jose approved an initia-tive by over 80% that established anurban growth boundary (UGB)around the city, an astounding mar-gin of support for open space pro-tection. Other cities in the county

had urban growth boundaries thathad been approved by their govern-ing bodies, but this initiative couldbe reversed only by another popu-lar vote. Coyote Ridge lies withinthe limits of the City of San Jose,and beyond the UGB; thus the ridgewas taken off the table as a site fortract development.

In 2001, as part of the settle-ment of a lawsuit initiated by theCenter for Biodiversity, the USFWSproposed designating 15 areas in SanMateo and Santa Clara Counties, in-cluding Edgewood and CoyoteRidge, as Critical Habitat for the baycheckerspot butterfly. Listings of theareas to be designated were pub-lished in 2001. Such a designationdoes not give the federal govern-ment any authority over the use ofnonfederal lands unless the owneris planning a project that requires afederal permit or uses federal funds.Thus, the USFWS ruling did notactually protect any habitat in ourarea, but it put developers and pub-lic agencies on notice that areas thatare or were habitat for the baycheckerspot would receive carefulenvironmental scrutiny.

CNPS PUBLIC OUTREACHFOR COYOTE RIDGE

The Santa Clara Valley Chapter,working with other members of theCoyote Ridge Committee pursuedseveral strategies to engage thepublic.

Walks: Beginning in 1997, thechapter began conducting at leasttwo walks to the ridge every spring.In 2003 the Coyote Ridge Commit-tee invited elected officials and deci-sion makers from a number of pub-lic agencies and nonprofit organiza-tions in the county to spring walkson the ridge. That year was particu-larly good for wildflowers, and thewalks extended into mid-May withat least a dozen trips and more than100 participants. The walks becamea regular feature in successive years.

Talks: The task force also begangiving slide presentations (later be-coming PowerPoint presentations),first to environmental groups whoseparticipation we were soliciting, andthen to public forums, including en-vironmental studies classes at localuniversities and community colleges,to high school teachers, and to otherCNPS chapters.

The Coyote Ridge Brochure: InJanuary 2001, the chapter publisheda full-color brochure about CoyoteRidge, highlighting the natural, sce-nic, and ecological values of its eco-system. Designed by a professionalgraphic artist, the brochure includedpictures of the wildflower meadowsin spring, and close-ups of the but-terfly and some of the listed plants,all taken by professional photogra-phers. Some 4,000 copies of the bro-chure were printed and distributedon field trips and at public presen-tations.

CNPS RESEARCH ONCOYOTE RIDGE

The chapter continues to exploreand document the area.

Monitoring: Chapter volunteers

Christal Niederer directs other CNPS members surveying the Tiburon Indian paintbrush(Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta) at Coyote Ridge. Photograph by D. Mayall.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM16


have developed and expanded a listof plants identified on Coyote Ridgethat currently includes more than400 taxa. Chapter volunteers havealso documented the existence of 14special-status plants on the ridge,resurveying them and sending in re-ports to the CNDDB. Of particularsignificance was a thorough docu-mentation of the state and federallylisted Tiburon Indian paintbrush byDr. Weiss and staff and chapter vol-unteers in May 2006 (see Table 1).

The State-Chapter CNPS–De-partment of Fish and Game (DFG)Vegetation Survey: In 2001 the stateoffice of CNPS solicited proposalsfor a vegetation survey to be con-ducted by the state vegetation bota-nist, with help from the chapter. Be-lieving that some of the vegetationassociations of Coyote Ridge wereundocumented, possibly rare, anddeserving of protection, the chapterresponded with a proposal that wasaccepted by the state office. Trainingbegan in the fall of 2001 and surveyswere conducted in 2002 and 2003.In 2004, CNPS published the report,Vegetation Associations of a Serpen-tine Area: Coyote Ridge, Santa ClaraCounty, California.

FURTHER STEPS TOWARDPRESERVATION

The proliferation of projects af-fecting the bay checkerspot butter-fly and serpentine habitat in south-ern Santa Clara County resulted inincreasing pressure on local agen-cies to consider a multispecies area-wide Habitat Conservation Plan/

Natural Communities ConservationProgram (HCP/NCCP). In Septem-ber 2001, the Board of Supervisorsof Santa Clara County authorized aRequest for Qualifications for thedevelopment of an HCP/NCCP scop-ing and strategy report. In Septem-ber 2004, the County, the Cities of

Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Jose,and the Santa Clara Valley WaterDistrict signed a Memorandum ofUnderstanding. CNPS was the onlyenvironmental nongovernmentalorgaization to attend the signing andwe made it clear we intended to beinvolved in the stakeholder process.

Some of the rare plants at Coyote Ridge include, TOP LEFT: Metcalf Canyon jewelflower(Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus) has bright white calyces and flowers. This plant is nowonly found on Coyote Ridge, as all of its other localities have been buried by housingdevelopments. Photograph by J. Mason. • TOP: Coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae) isfound at the margins of serpentine grasslands and in serpentine chaparral plant commu-nities. It is only found in Santa Clara County. Photograph by J. Game. • BOTTOM LEFT: Mostbeautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus) is found on Coyote Ridge,but this population is not as brightly colored as they typically are at other locations in theregion. Photograph by J. Game. • BOTTOM RIGHT: Tiburon Indian paintbrush (Castillejaaffinis ssp. neglecta) is a more recently discovered rare plant from Coyote Ridge. This pop-ulation is quite a distance from the next nearest population on the Tiburon peninsula inMarin County. Photograph by J. Game.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:51 PM17


It has been our belief that this pro-cess will provide the best protec-tion, in the long run, for the endan-gered serpentine species.

LAND ASSEMBLY

The chapter believed that theassembly of land on Coyote Ridgeprotected by ownership or conser-vation easement would discourageinappropriate proposals for land useand provide the basis for a managedhabitat for the endangered species.What has emerged is admittedlypiecemeal, but as we learned atEdgewood, there are some benefitsin having multiple jurisdictions in-volved in habitat protection. To date,five pieces of land south of MetcalfRoad totaling about 1,000 acres havereceived some form of protection:

The Butterfly Trust Area, a 250-acre area at the top of the ridge eastof the recycling center, is a mitiga-tion site for the loss of butterflies

caused by the construction and op-eration of the landfill. This land isleased by the Kirby Canyon Landfilland Recycling Facility.

Painted Rock Preserve is a pri-vately owned eight-acre parcel at thebase of the ridge, with a conserva-tion easement negotiated by CNPSin settlement of a lawsuit to protectthe federally listed Santa Clara Val-ley dudleya.

The Red-Legged Frog Easement,an 82-acre parcel at the base of theridge next to the Painted Rock Pre-serve, is an easement on land ownedby the adjacent golf course and is amitigation site for the destruction offrog habitat due to the golf coursedevelopment. This area protects wa-tershed lands above the frog’s habi-tat, rather than the actual frog habi-tat itself.

The Silicon Valley Land Conser-vancy properties include 100 acreson Coyote Ridge, as mitigation forthe indirect air pollution impacts on

the serpentine habitat of three powerplants in Santa Clara County, in-cluding the adjacent Metcalf EnergyCenter.

The VTA purchase, mitigationfor the Highway 101 widening andinterchange projects alongside Coy-ote Ridge, is a parcel of 550 acres ofprime habitat on the ridge adjacentto the Butterfly Trust Area and theSilicon Valley Land Conservancyproperties.

LAND MANAGEMENT

Conservation easements or evenland ownership do not adequatelyprotect habitat in an urban setting,such as in southern Santa ClaraCounty. An essential and missingelement is the management of theland to preserve rare species andtheir habitats. This role is being as-sumed by the Santa Clara CountyOpen Space Authority (SCCOSA),a public entity under California lawwith an elected board of directors.It is funded by a parcel tax andcovers the eastern two-thirds ofSanta Clara County. CNPS origi-nally chose SCCOSA to assume re-sponsibility for Painted Rock Pre-serve at the time of the Settlementof the Dow Drive lawsuit. Subse-quently, SCCOSA agreed to assumemanagement of the red-legged frogeasement. These two easements satunmanaged for several years as ne-gotiations over other areas tookplace. As additional pieces of landbecame available, such as the Sili-con Valley Land Conservancy prop-erties and the VTA purchase, a work-able management strategy for theridge began to emerge.

THE SILICON VALLEY LANDCONSERVANCY

The Silicon Valley Land Conser-vancy is a nonprofit organizationformed in 1998 to purchase and holdagricultural easements and criticalhabitat in Santa Clara County. It has

Coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae) blooms in early spring in dense chaparral at thesouth end of Coyote Ridge near Anderson Dam. Photograph by B. O’Brien.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/15/08, 2:37 PM18


the backing of major agricultural andeconomic interests in the county. Itholds title to some butterfly habitaton south Coyote Ridge, on nearbyTulare Hill, and on north CoyoteRidge. In 2006 the conservancy be-gan leading walks on Coyote Ridgeduring wildflower season. In 2007they hired a docent coordinator totrain docents and expand the pro-gram of spring walks. The adoptionof Coyote Ridge by this prestigiousorganization marks a major victoryin the long engagement by CNPS tosee this area protected.

INVASIVES: THE NEWTHREAT AT COYOTE RIDGE

Invasive nonnative grasses, prin-cipally Italian ryegrass (Loliummultiflorum), have long been recog-nized as a threat to the butterflyhabitat, as has the necessity for themaintenance of managed grazing asa means of controlling these grasses.Managed grazing was specified forthe Butterfly Trust Area in the Con-

TABLE 2. INVASIVE PEST PLANTS AT COYOTE RIDGE

Species Rating Location Control

barb goatgrass Cal-IPC H along roads hand pulling byAegilops triuncialis CDFA B in serpentine volunteers, burning

grasslands by County workers

Italian thistle Cal-IPC M woodlands hand pullingCarduus pycnocephalus CDFA C by volunteers

yellow star thistle Cal-IPC H along pipeline weed whacking byCentaurea solstitialis CDFA C fill in serpentine contract workers

grasslands

pampas grass Cal-IPC M wetland near mechanical removalCortaderia selloana CDFA CNL landfill by contract workers

Italian ryegrass Cal-IPC M serpentine managed grazingLolium multiflorum grasslands

Ratings: Cal-IPC: H = High, M = Moderate, L = Limited CDFA: B = middle rating level, C = lowest of three rating levels, CNL = Considered, Not Listed

servation Plan for the Kirby CanyonRecycling Center.

Other invasives have been ob-served by chapter members in thecourse of field trips, such as pampasgrass, yellow star thistle, purple starthistle, Italian thistle, and summermustard (see Table 2). When thechapter became involved in the SantaClara County Weed ManagementArea (WMA), we saw the opportu-nity to apply for funds to removepampas grass and do mechanicalcontrol on yellow star thistle. Thepampas grass has not reappeared andthe yellow star thistle appears to beunder control. While the otherweeds are not a serious infestation,they are not yet controlled by anongoing program of hand pulling bychapter volunteers.

A more serious threat identifiedin the course of the CNPS vegeta-tion survey is barb goatgrass, ob-served along a farm road north ofthe Butterfly Trust Area and spread-ing to the south. This weed growswell on serpentine. Attempts at handremoval by volunteers were not ef-

fective. The most effective controlmethod identified so far is controlledburns in two successive years. TheSanta Clara County WMA has pro-vided support to the SCCOSA toconduct controlled burns in 2007and 2008.

CLOSING THE CIRCLE:RETURNING THE BUTTERFLYTO EDGEWOOD

Looking to the future, CoyoteRidge is playing a role in restoring abay checkerspot butterfly popula-tion to Edgewood. In 2006, Dr.Weiss received approval from theUSFWS to transfer caterpillars andbutterflies to Edgewood in the springof 2007 to re-establish a population.On February 15, 2007, Dr. Weissgathered 352 caterpillars from Coy-ote Ridge and released them inEdgewood Natural Preserve. A fit-ting coda to our story!

Donald Mayall, 531 Alger Ave., Palo Alto,CA 94306. [email protected]

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM19


ITALIAN RYEGRASS:A NEW CENTRAL CALIFORNIA DOMINANT?

by Peter Hopkinson, Matt Stevenson, Michele Hammond,Sasha Gennet, Devii Rao, and James W. Bartolome

he non-native grass, Italianryegrass (Lolium multiflorum),has long been characterizedas a minor player in the Val-

ley Grassland. While this may stillbe true in drier locations, in wetterareas of the state’s annual grass-lands, there is increasing evidencethat Italian ryegrass is now a re-gional dominant, dethroning formerchamps such as wild oats (Avenaspp.), soft chess (Bromus hordea-ceus), and ripgut brome (Bromusdiandrus).

From a cow’s point-of-view, thisnewly emerging dominant is not a

bad thing because Italian ryegrassmakes excellent forage. For a plantconservationist or those with hayfever, however, the news is not sosunny. Italian ryegrass often formsdense stands that may crowd outnative plants, the loss of which mayaffect other native species; ryegrasshas already been implicated in thedemise of populations of the Baycheckerspot butterfly (Euphydryaseditha ssp. bayensis) (Weiss 1999).And as spring allergy sufferers know,when Italian ryegrass begins to re-lease its pollen, several weeks of mis-ery lie ahead!

EVIDENCE FOR WIDE-SPREAD ITALIAN RYEGRASSDOMINANCE IN THE BAYAREA

Native to Europe, Italian ryegrasswas probably introduced to Califor-nia in the late 1700s (Hendry 1931).In most descriptions of the Califor-nia annual grassland, Italian ryegrassis barely mentioned (e.g., Ornduff1974, Heady 1977). A more recentreview of California grassland statesthat Italian ryegrass sometimes domi-nates locally but is generally not aswidespread in the grassland as the

T

Italian ryegrass-dominated site, late in the growing season, Sycamore Valley Regional Open Space Preserve, near Danville, California, June2006. Ryegrass makes up 55% of the plant cover at this site. Photograph courtesy of the Range Ecology Lab, U.C. Berkeley.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM20


filarees (Erodium spp.) andbromes (Heady et al. 1991).Even The Jepson Manual lim-its ryegrass habitat to “dis-turbed sites, abandonedfields.” However, over thepast decade, we have observedanecdotally how often Italianryegrass is the dominant plantin many, largely undisturbedgrassland areas of the East Bayof the San Francisco Bay Area.Other researchers have madesimilar observations in theSouth Bay.

An ongoing study byU.C. Berkeley Range EcologyLab of 40 plots in six EastBay Regional Park District(EBRPD) properties spreadover Alameda and ContraCosta counties provided the data toshow that our observations were infact accurate. Between 2003 and2007, from a pool of approximately90 to 115 species, Italian ryegrasswas the overall dominant species inour study every year. In the warm,rainy years 2005 and 2006, ryegrassmade up 23% and 32%, respectively,of the plant cover: one species con-tributing almost a third of the plantcover at our East Bay grassland sites.Even in the drought year of 2007, atough year for grasses, Italian rye-grass remained dominant at19% cover. Comparing fiveyear average cover values forthe most common species,ryegrass had almost doublethe cover of the next nearestspecies, soft chess (Table 1).

Italian ryegrass was notthe dominant species at ev-ery EBRPD site: some parkshad low levels of ryegrass forreasons that are not yet ap-parent. However, many of theareas with low levels ofryegrass or none at all in 2003had substantial amounts by2006, and the percentage ofsites in which Italian ryegrasswas the dominant increasedfrom 28% in 2003 to 63% in

2006, falling back to 45% during thedrought of 2007.

Moreover, Italian ryegrass ap-pears to have been on the increasefor at least a decade. In a single EastBay Municipal Utilities District wa-tershed in El Sobrante, a nine-yearstudy by our lab from 1993 to 2001showed that ryegrass rose steadilyfrom under 10% plant cover in 1993to dominance at 45-55% cover dur-ing 1997 to 2001.

These high levels of Italian rye-grass in the late 1990s and the 2000s

contrast with the low levelsfound in a five-year studyfrom the early 1970s at an-other East Bay site. From1969 to 1973 at the Univer-sity of California Russell Res-ervation in Lafayette, ryegrassonly rose above 8% plantcover once, when it reached16%.

Elsewhere in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, similartrends are being observed. Inthe South Bay, at StanfordUniversity’s Jasper Ridge Bio-logical Preserve and at Edge-wood Natural Preserve in SanMateo County, Italian rye-grass also appears to haveincreased substantially dur-ing the 1990s (Weiss 1999,

2002). These sites have nutrient-poor, toxic serpentine soil, whichuntil recently has prevented inva-sion by most annual grasses, butryegrass is now able to dominateeven there. Four floras producedsince the 1930s for Jasper Ridge in-dicate that ryegrass was not observedin the serpentine areas there through1983 (see unpublished report athttp://trees.stanford.edu/CNPS/Escobar_Grasses.pdf). In the last fewyears however, at both Jasper Ridgeand Edgewood, ryegrass was the

dominant species, at 20-30%plant cover in 2001 and 2002(Weiss 2002). In several otherareas, both serpentine andnon-serpentine, in south SanJose, Weiss (1999) reports in-creasing ryegrass plant coverand dominance since the mid-1980s or mid-1990s.

IMPACTS OF WIDE-SPREAD ITALIANRYEGRASSDOMINANCE

If this apparent widespreaddominance by Italian ryegrassis a long-lasting change, theecological impacts may be sig-

Italian ryegrass-dominated site, early in the growing season,Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, near Livermore, California,April 2006. Ryegrass makes up over 80% of the plant coverhere. Photograph courtesy of the Range Ecology Lab, U.C.Berkeley.

Italian ryegrass-dominated site, late in the growing season,Sycamore Valley Regional Open Space Preserve, near Dan-ville, California, June 2006. Ryegrass makes up 55% of theplant cover at this site. Photograph courtesy of the RangeEcology Lab, U.C. Berkeley.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM21


nificant. Economic and health im-pacts may also be appreciable.

The California Invasive PlantCouncil’s 2006 Invasive Plant In-ventory (www.cal-ipc.org) catego-rizes Italian ryegrass as having amoderate negative ecological impactin California. Cal-IPC further de-scribes ryegrass as having a signifi-cant effect on native grassland plantcommunities.

While the actual ecological im-pacts of ryegrass dominance inCalifornia’s grasslands are largelyunstudied, ryegrass is known tocompete strongly against other non-native grasses in California (McKellet al. 1969, Fehmi et al. 2001). Inaddition, experiments indicate thatryegrass may increase mortality ofthe native bunchgrass, purple nee-dlegrass (Nassella pulchra) (Fehmiet al. 2004). Purple needlegrass isthe most abundant native species inour East Bay Regional Park Districtstudy. It is also frequently used ingrassland restoration projects.

In another highly invaded grass-land, the pampas of Argentina, Ital-

ian ryegrass, which is non-nativethere too, rapidly out-competedother species, and within three yearsbecame the dominant grass in formeragricultural fields (Facelli et al.1987). The increase in ryegrass coverwas correlated with an increase inlocal extinction of other plant spe-cies and with a reduction in plantspecies diversity. Whether Italian

ryegrass has similar effects in Cali-fornia grasslands is not clear. Forthe EBRPD study, we could not finda strong relationship between Ital-ian ryegrass cover and native plantcover or diversity.

Italian ryegrass is known to sup-press native plants in other Califor-nia vegetation communities. Sincethe 1940s, ryegrass has been seededin chaparral and forests after wild-fires to reduce soil erosion causedby post-fire rainfall. Numerous fol-low-up studies of post-fire ryegrassseeding have shown that plant coverand diversity of native herbaceousspecies are reduced on sites withhigh ryegrass cover (reviewed inBeyers 2004).

One well-studied ecological re-sult of Italian ryegrass dominance isunequivocally negative: the disap-pearance of threatened Bay checker-spot butterfly populations. StuartWeiss has spent years studying thecheckerspot in its South Bay serpen-tine habitat and has documentedhow the fairly recent invasion ofryegrass into serpentine sites has

TABLE 1. AVERAGE PERCENT COVER FOR THE TOP TEN “SPECIES,” INCLUDING LITTER(PREVIOUS YEAR’S DEAD PLANT MATERIAL) AND SOIL, 2003-2007

Species Average percent cover Species Average percent cover2003-2007 2003-2007

Lolium multiflorum 21.3 Erodium botrys 4.1Italian ryegrass filaree

Bromus hordeaceus 11.9 Avena barbata 2.5soft chess slender wild oats

litter 10.4 Nassella pulchra 2.3purple needlegrass

Avena fatua* 9.5 Trifolium hirtum 2.1wild oats rose clover

Bromus diandrus 5.6 Phalaris aquatica 2.0ripgut brome Harding grass

soil 4.6 Vulpia bromoides 1.9brome fescue

* For 2007 only, Avena sp. included in Avena fatua.

The mug shot: Italian ryegrass (Loliummultiflorum ). Photograph courtesy of theOregon State University Forage Informa-tion System’s Image Gallery (http://forages.oregonstate.edu/).

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM22


caused populations of Californiaplantain (Plantago erecta) and othercheckerspot larvae host plants toplummet (Weiss 1999). As go thehost plants, so go the butterflies.Both the Jasper Ridge and theEdgewood butterfly populationshave gone extinct, as have popula-tions in south San Jose, with ryegrassthe prime suspect (Weiss 2002).Other native plants are also declin-ing as Italian ryegrass invades theserpentine grassland (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service 1998).

And before you dismiss the al-lergy problems that Italian ryegrasscauses, a recent analysis by StanfordUniversity’s Sean Anderson esti-mates that allergy-related conse-quences of non-native grasses costCalifornians between $400 millionto $1 billion per year in missed work,medication, and Kleenex. Ryegrasspollen is an abundant and potentallergen and is likely to be respon-sible for a significant portion of thegrass pollen allergies in California.At least three of this article’s authorsare highly allergic to ryegrass, oneof whom had to go to the hospitaldue to a severe ryegrass reactionduring the last field season.

WHY IS ITALIAN RYEGRASSINCREASING?

If the effects of Italian ryegrassdominance are undesirable, is thereanything we can do to cut short itsreign? To answer this question, itwould be helpful to know why thewidespread increase in ryegrasscover has occurred.

Several factors may underlie thechange. Stuart Weiss has presenteda strong case for air pollution beinga primary cause. In addition, warmerand wetter weather may have givenItalian ryegrass the boost it neededto become a common dominant.

Nitrogen “fertilization” of thesoil by automobile air pollution isstrongly implicated as the cause ofryegrass’ invasion of serpentine soils

in the South Bay and Peninsula. Inhis work at Jasper Ridge, Edgewood,and sites in south San Jose, Weisshas shown that various forms of ni-trogen are deposited on plants andsoil at much higher levels in areaswith bad air pollution problems(Weiss 1999, 2002). Experimentsby other Stanford University re-searchers (reviewed in Weiss 1999)have demonstrated that nitrogen fer-tilization can rapidly turn a studyplot from forb-dominated to grass-dominated, and that ryegrass, in par-ticular, grows quickly and vigorouslywith nitrogen fertilization. It appearsthat over many years, air pollutionhas added enough nitrogen to thesoil that a threshold has beencrossed, allowing Italian ryegrass toflourish even in harsh soils.

In combination with nitrogenenrichment, warmer and wetterweather is likely to promote increasesin Italian ryegrass cover. Weiss notesthat ryegrass was rare at Jasper Ridgeuntil 1998, a year of record El Niñorains. Experiments by Sherry Gulmonshowed that ryegrass is favored inconditions with temperatures above68°F and consistently available ni-trogen and moisture (Gulmon 1979).When all three conditions were met,

ryegrass was able to out-compete wildoats and soft chess.

Gulmon’s work suggests that ifglobal climate change brings highertemperatures, especially during thegrowing season, California’s climatemay be even more suitable for Ital-ian ryegrass domination. With con-tinued nitrogen deposition from airpollution, increased temperaturesdue to global climate change, andperiodic high rainfall events, suchas El Niño years, Italian ryegrassmay come to dominate large parts ofCalifornia’s central coast grasslands.

RYEGRASS CONTROL

There is not much we can doabout warmer and wetter weather,and even reducing air pollution fromcars requires large-scale societalchanges. Drought years reduce Ital-ian ryegrass cover somewhat (Weiss1999), but it appears likely that awet and warm year would allowryegrass to re-establish dominance.

Livestock grazing may be onemanagement action that can miti-gate some of the deleterious effectsof ryegrass dominance, at least onserpentine soil. At Weiss’ serpen-tine sites in south San Jose, nearby

From left to right, the Range Ecology Lab field crew: Matt Stevenson, Peter Hopkinson,Sasha Gennet, Michele Hammond, Martin Johnson, and Devii Rao at Vasco Caves RegionalPreserve, near Livermore, California, in 2005. Photograph courtesy of the Range EcologyLab, U.C. Berkeley.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM23


areas that were grazed by cattle main-tained large populations of plantainand checkerspot butterflies, andcover of Italian ryegrass was muchlower. When grazing was re-intro-duced to one of the ungrazed sites,although the butterflies did not re-turn, grass cover, dominated byryegrass, fell from 75% to 45%, whileforb cover increased from 10% to30% (Weiss 1999).

The impacts of livestock grazingon Italian ryegrass and native plantcover were not so clear-cut at ourEast Bay Regional Park District studysites, which are not on serpentinesoil. In three parks (only two in2007), there are both grazed andungrazed sites. Ryegrass cover washigher on the grazed sites in all years,but this difference was only statisti-cally significant in 2004 and 2006.Native plant cover and diversity,however, did not differ between thegrazed and ungrazed sites in anyyear.

CONCLUSION

Data from several studies sug-gest that, over the past decade, Ital-ian ryegrass has emerged as a domi-nant species in the annual grasslandof the San Francisco Bay Area. Al-though the ecological repercussionsof ryegrass dominance are little stud-ied, several lines of evidence sug-gest that native plants and animalscould be negatively impacted. In-creased ryegrass pollen may alsocause higher levels of allergies andasthma in people. Consequently, re-search into the causes, ecologicalimpacts, public health impacts, andcontrol of Italian ryegrass dominanceshould be made a priority.

Research priorities include:

• Collecting further evidencedocumenting the extent of Ital-ian ryegrass dominance in theBay Area and elsewhere in Cali-fornia.

• If long-term datasets are avail-able, evaluating how much rye-

grass abundance has changedover the past several decades.

• Analyzing the relationship be-tween nitrogen deposition andItalian ryegrass dominance in theBay Area with deposition mod-els and field data.

• Conducting greenhouse andfield experiments in serpentineand non-serpentine soils de-signed to investigate the effectsof ryegrass on native grasslandplant species richness and abun-dance. Experiments should beconducted under several levelsof nitrogen, moisture, and tem-perature, including at levels pre-dicted by regional climatechange models.

REFERENCES

Beyers, J.L. 2004. Postfire seeding forerosion control: effectiveness andimpacts on native plant communi-ties. Conservation Biology 18:947–956.

Facelli, J.M., E. D’Angela, and R.J.C.León. 1987. Diversity changes dur-ing pioneer stages in a subhumidPampean grassland succession.American Midland Naturalist 117:17–25.

Fehmi, J.S., E.A. Laca, and K.J. Rice.2001. The effect of small gaps in Cali-fornia annual grassland on above-ground biomass production. Grassand Forage Science 56:323–329.

Fehmi, J.S., K.J. Rice, and E.A. Laca.2004. Radial dispersion of neighborsand the small-scale competitive im-pact of two annual grasses on a na-tive perennial grass. Restoration Ecol-ogy 12:63–69.

Gulmon, S.L. 1979. Competition andcoexistence: three annual grass spe-cies. American Midland Naturalist101:403–416.

Heady, H. 1977. Valley grassland. InTerrestrial Vegetation of California.M.G. Barbour and J. Major, eds. Wiley,New York, NY.

Heady, H.F., J.W. Bartolome, M.D. Pitt,G.D. Savelle, and M.C. Stroud. 1991.California prairie. In Natural Grass-lands: Introduction and Western Hemi-sphere. R.T. Coupland, ed. Elsevier,Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Hendry, G.W. 1931. The adobe brickas a historical source. AgriculturalHistory 5:110–127.

McKell, C.M., C. Duncan, and C.H.Muller. 1969. Competitive relation-ships of annual ryegrass (Loliummultiflorum Lam.). Ecology 50:653–657.

Ornduff, R. 1974. Introduction to Cali-fornia Plant Life. University of Cali-fornia Press, Berkeley.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998.Recovery plan for serpentine soil spe-cies of the San Francisco Bay Area.Portland, OR: USFWS. Available at:http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1998/980930c.pdf, accessedFall 2006.

Weiss, S.B. 1999. Cars, cows, andcheckerspot butterflies: nitrogendeposition and management of nu-trient-poor grasslands for a threat-ened species. Conservation Biology13:1476-1486.

Weiss, S.B. 2002. Final report onNFWF grant for habitat restorationat Edgewood Natural Preserve, SanMateo County, CA. Report to the SanMateo County Parks and RecreationFoundation. Available at: http://www.eparks.net/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/14232740Edgewood-NFWFFinalReport.pdf, accessed Fall 2006.

Peter Hopkinson, ESPM-Ecosystem Sci-ences, U.C. Berkeley, 137 Mulford Hall,Berkeley, CA 94720-3114. [email protected]; Matt Stevenson,Rangeland Research Support, Universityof Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service,Kamuela Extension Office, 67-5189Kamamalu Road, Kamuela, HI 96743-8439. [email protected]; MicheleHammond, ESPM-Ecosystem Sciences,U.C. Berkeley, 137 Mulford Hall, Berke-ley, CA 94720-3114. [email protected]; Sasha Gennet,ESPM-Ecosystem Sciences, U.C. Berke-ley, 137 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA94720-3114. [email protected]; Devii Rao, Gold Ridge Resource Con-servation District, 14775 “B” Third Street,PO Box 1064, Occidental, CA [email protected]; James W.Bartolome, ESPM-Ecosystem Sciences,U.C. Berkeley, 137 Mulford Hall, Berke-ley, CA 94720-3114. [email protected]

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM24


NEW CNPS FELLOWS:CHARLI AND JOHN DANIELSEN

by Laura Baker and Barbara Malloch Leitner

encouraging the publication of TheJepson Manual, and founding theNative Here Nursery in the 1990s.Visionary, dedicated, and enterpris-ing, Charli and John have taken onstrategic positions in many state andchapter offices to help CNPS adaptto the changing times and needs ofthe Society and to address the grow-ing threats to the California nativeflora.

THE EARLY YEARS

John and Charli joined CNPS in1975, and Charli went to work im-mediately as Field Trip Chair for the

San Francisco Bay Chapter. She alsospent time volunteering for the week-end potting sessions in preparationfor the chapter plant sale. These earlyexperiences observing native plantsboth in the wild and at the pottingbench laid the foundation in her na-tive plant education that would provecritical to a developing vision of thepotential for habitat restoration.While Charli was busy with variousroles in the chapter, John was re-cruited by Scott Fleming to help withthe state treasury and was thenelected state Treasurer in 1980. Hisfinancial career as Vice-President atPG&E enabled him to bring a

Charli and John Danielsen,honored this past year asCNPS Fellows, have de-voted over thirty years to

carrying out many important devel-opments in the Society from its in-fancy in the 1970s to the sophisti-cated organization that it is today.Among their contributions are suchsignificant projects as overseeing theoriginal incorporation of CNPS’ rareplant data into the California Natu-ral Diversity Data Base, moving theCNPS state office to Sacramento,supporting the Conservation andManagement of Rare and Endan-gered Plants Conference in 1986,

John and Charli Danielsen at Native Here Nursery in the Berkeley Hills on February 8, 2008. Photograph by J. Bray.

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM25


professional’s hand to getting theCNPS finances in order, learning ac-counting along the way in order tohelp reconcile the books. His tenureas Treasurer extended over a crucialthree years as the Society made thetransition to hiring a full-time pro-fessional botanist, Rick York, in theRare Plant Program. John was in-strumental in helping negotiate theterms for how CNPS rare plant datawould be incorporated into the Cali-fornia Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB) for the first time.

Charli took on the office of Presi-dent of the San Francisco Bay Chap-ter in 1981-82 when the chapterencompassed an enormous geo-graphic area that has since been sub-divided into the East Bay, YerbaBuena, and Santa Clara Valley chap-ters. The organizational experiencethat she gained at the chapter levelwas put to good use as she movedinto the role of Vice President ofAdministration for state CNPS, aperiod during which she becamepoint person on moving CNPS’sstate office from Berkeley to Sacra-mento. The move was finalized in1985. Charli recalled a vivid mem-ory of the volunteers who had beeninvolved in the move shredding theold index cards and having a con-fetti party once the data had beentransferred to computer. Indeedthere was much to celebrate: theSociety was entering the digital ageand the state office was re-locatingto the capitol to increase its influ-ence in state politics!

WIDENING THE SPHEREOF INFLUENCE

As John and Charli helped CNPSinternally to mature and consoli-date, they were also busy wideningthe sphere of influence of scientificinformation about native flora byjoining and initiating other impor-tant projects. The years spent bothon official CNPS business and inspecial projects such as The Jepson

Manual put Charli and John in closeassociation with a network of plantscientists, lay botanists, and volun-teers, all of whom helped shape theirvision of the kind of organizationalsupport that California’s native florawould require in order to thrive.

During the 1980s The JepsonManual project was well underwaywith a multi-talented task force ofvolunteers laboring to update thisall-important reference work. Charliand John took their place on theEditorial Board where John lent ex-pert assistance with computer workand Charli helped to edit the glos-sary so that it would be useful forthe laity. John also sought corporatesupport for the project.

As development pressures inCalifornia mounted and the threatsto native flora increased, conserva-tion became a high priority for thesociety. During Charli’s tenure asState President of CNPS in 1986,the Society held a pioneering con-ference in Sacramento on Conserva-tion and Management of Rare andEndangered Plants from November5-8, a seminal event that helpedstrengthen the network of scientistsand conservation advocates acrossthe state.

THE DAWNING OF NATIVEHERE NURSERY

While Charli spent many an hourin meeting rooms in those earlyyears, it was her love of native plantsand thirst for information aboutthem that drove her to becomeknowledgeable and capable out inthe field. She understood that to beeffective in conservation, she wouldhave to learn to identify the nativeplants, especially the California na-tive grasses, a claim she made goodby connecting with a vanguardgroup. The seeds of restoration biol-ogy had been sown in the late 1970swhen an enterprise called DAWN(Design Associates Working withNature), located near the Berkeley

marina, was founded, which advo-cated and practiced the propagationof native plant species for the pur-pose of restoring ecosystems. Oneof Charli’s larger projects at DAWNwas propagating plants for a resto-ration project at Marina State Beach.By the mid-1980s she had becomechief propagator for DAWN.

Charli had gained experienceboth in the field and in the nurseryand was ready to undertake a majorrestoration project. Together with alarge group of volunteers John andCharli undertook the re-establish-ment of a perennial bunchgrasslandat Mitchell Canyon in Mt. DiabloState Park. The project involved seedcollecting and propagation, a con-trolled burn of the area, large experi-mental plots planted out in variousways, and regular mowing and tend-ing. More than a dozen years havepassed since its inception, and thenative grasses still thrive in MitchellCanyon, though with less hands-onmanagement than in the past.

When DAWN dissolved in theearly 1990s, it named the East BayChapter of CNPS as its successor.The remaining plants from the en-terprise lived on the Danielsens’ backdeck until a new home for themcould be found. With the help andguidance of the East Bay ChapterBoard, Charli began the task of find-ing a suitable location for a nursery,and after two years of complex ne-gotiations with the East Bay RegionalPark District for the lease, the countyplanning department for the build-ing permit, and the utilities for awater hook-up, Native Here openedin 1994 with Charli as Nursery Man-ager. Native Here was one of the firstnurseries founded to support con-servation and restoration through theexclusive use of local ecotypes.

Today the Native Here Nurseryis a team effort that continues to tapthe individual strengths of theDanielsens and the volunteers thatcome to help at the nursery. Johnrelishes the hard handiwork thatkeeps the nursery running—clear-

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM26


ing the site, building the infrastruc-ture, and mending fences. He has acanniness for turning straw intogold: in one notable instance olddiscarded picnic benches from thePark District turned up magically astables for propagation and storing.Yet another of John’s hidden talentsis the care and nurturing of volun-teers who come to lend a hand at thenursery. Charli leads seed collectingexpeditions and teaches propagationtechniques. Over the years manyplant enthusiasts have come to Na-tive Here to learn seed collectingand propagating under a canopy oftrees in Tilden Park. Native Heresupports projects of individual gar-deners, landscapers, and larger cus-tomers such as Walnut Creek OpenSpace, Mt. Diablo State Park, theWatershed Project, Caltrans, and theEast Bay Regional Park District. Theincome from the nursery providesan important source of support to ahost of activities of the East BayChapter.

FIND A HOLE AND FILL IT

One of the secrets to the successof the Danielsens in their service toCNPS and to the cause of protectingnative plants has been their abilityto collaborate with others in identi-fying critical needs and devising so-lutions. Sometimes those collabora-tive efforts have been in reachingout to the larger community. Onesuch example arose in the wake ofthe devastating East Bay Hills Fire.Public agencies took on vegetationmanagement for fuel reduction witha vengeance, launching a wholesaleassault on the native flora along theurban-wildland interface throughthe use of uninformed contractors.Together with a team of others,Charli worked to articulate the ideasbehind a field manual (VegetationManagement Almanac for the East BayHills, first published in 1999) thatcontained photos of common weedsand the native plants with whichthey might be confused, a mainte-

nance calendar that helped workersdecide when and how best to man-age vegetation to minimize impactson flora and fauna, and case histo-ries and lessons learned from spe-cific local management projects.

That same critical thinking anddrive for collaboration have enabledthe Danielsens to spot critical needswithin the Society at the state andchapter level. As CNPS has grownin size and complexity, maintainingeffective internal communicationand retaining institutional memoryhave become increasingly important.Charli has chaired most of the com-mittees in the East Bay Chapter atone time or another, and she hasshuttled back and forth between thechapter and the state level in herwork as Board member, ChapterCouncil Vice-President, and Chap-ter Council Representative. Theseexperiences have given her a 360-degree view of the organization andits needs as well as a strong sense ofthe Society’s history and develop-ment. This depth and breadth ofperspective plays an on-going roleas CNPS continues to generate poli-cies, learn from its past, and adaptto a changing world.

At the local chapter level, one ofthe most important committee po-sitions Charli has occupied is Chairof the Conservation Committee.Recognizing that the East Bay Chap-ter could not be fully effective inmeeting the challenges of conserva-tion with an overstrapped corps ofvolunteers, she spearheaded a suc-cessful funding drive to raise moneyto hire a part-time ConservationAnalyst. This experiment in inte-grating a paid expert into an all-volunteer organization requiredmanagement skills, the capacity todelegate and direct, and a strategicsense of where best to direct ener-gies to make meaningful gains inconservation. Thanks to Charli’soriginal vision, the chapter is enter-ing its fourth year with a profes-sional Conservation Analyst on staff.(Jessica Olsen was the first, and

served for just under a year. LechNaumovich is the second, and hasjust begun his third year in this po-sition.) Today as Chapter President,Charli remains an active member ofthe Conservation Committee and isstill on the front lines, appearing atpublic hearings and meetings to rep-resent CNPS.

For nearly 30 years, Charli andJohn Danielsen have been stalwartsupporters of the California NativePlant Society, holding various stateoffices, creating new visionary pro-jects, and anchoring the East BayChapter in numerous capacities.Their contributions are so many andso varied that it’s difficult to sum-marize them all. In giving so gener-ously of their time and talents, theyhave proved their worthiness to beFellows of CNPS. The Society isdeeply grateful for their shining ex-ample of service.

Laura Baker,79 Roble Road,Berkeley, CA94705. [email protected]; BarbaraMalloch Leitner, 2 Parkway Court,Orinda, CA 94563. [email protected]

The most complete offering of bulbsnative to the western USA available

anywhere, our stock is propagated atthe nursery, with seed and plants from

legitimate sources only.

Telos Rare BulbsP.O. Box 1067

Ferndale, CA 95536www.telosrarebulbs.com

Telos RareBulbs

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM27


T h e C a l i f o r n i a N a t i v e P l a n t

S o c i e t y N e e d s Y o u !

Amanda JorgensonExecutive Director of CNPS

Bequests are an important part of CNPS fundraising efforts. Generous donors from all

regions of the state and from all walks of life have helped CNPS achieve its goals and

have helped fund important CNPS programs.

n addition to naming CNPS in your will or living trust, you can also name CNPS as a

beneficiary of a life insurance policy or retirement plan. There are also planned giving

options that can pay you an income during your life while benefiting the future of CNPS.

o find out more on these giving opportunities, contact:

I

T

The CNPS 2009 Conservation Conference: Strategies and Solutions will bring together over 1,000scientists, conservationists, university students, public policy makers, local and regional planners, andland managers from all regions of the state and beyond to share and learn about the latestdevelopments in conservation science and public policy.

e invite solutions-based papers and posters on the following topics: climate change andCalifornia’s flora; rare plant conservation and restoration; mitigation and monitoring of impacts

on native plants; invasive species; vegetation classification and mapping for plant conservation;conservation genetics; equal protection policies for plants; regional planning tools; land management;and plant-science conservation. We also seek papers on plant conservation from regional andecosystem-level perspectives, including Baja California.

See www.cnps.org for details.

California Native Plant Society

2 0 0 9 C O N S E R VAT I O N C O N F E R E N C E

January 17–19, 2009Sacramento Convention Center & Sheraton Grand Hotel

Sacramento, California

P R E L I M I N A R Y C O N F E R E N C E A N N O U N C E M E N T

Submission Period: March 1 to June 30, 2008

W

phone: (916) 447-2677 x 12fax: (916) 447-2727

email: [email protected]

75896-PG gutsrev1.pmd 4/1/08, 4:52 PM28

V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8 F R E M O N T I A

MATERIALS FORPUBLICATION

Members and others are invitedto submit material for publica-tion in Fremontia. Instructionsfor contributors can be foundon the CNPS website, www.cnps.org, or can be requested fromFremontia Editor, Bart O’Brienat [email protected] or c/oRancho Santa Ana Botanic Gar-den, 1500 N. College Ave.,Claremont, CA 91711.

FREMONTIA EDITORIALADVISORY BOARD ANDREVIEWERS

Susan D’Alcamo, Ellen Dean,

Kathleen Dickey, Phyllis M.

Faber, Holly Forbes, Pam Muick,

John Sawyer, Jim Shevock, Jake

Sigg, M. Nevin Smith, 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

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.

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

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

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

(CONTRIBUTORS: continued from back cover)

Advertise in Fremontia!Journal of the California Native Plant SocietyJournal of the California Native Plant SocietyJournal of the California Native Plant SocietyJournal of the California Native Plant SocietyJournal of the California Native Plant Society

January 1, 2008 Advertising RatesJanuary 1, 2008 Advertising RatesJanuary 1, 2008 Advertising RatesJanuary 1, 2008 Advertising RatesJanuary 1, 2008 Advertising RatesFull PageFull PageFull PageFull PageFull Page $900$900$900$900$900 1/3 Page1/3 Page1/3 Page1/3 Page1/3 Page $350$350$350$350$350Half PageHalf PageHalf PageHalf PageHalf Page $500$500$500$500$500 Quarter PageQuarter PageQuarter PageQuarter PageQuarter Page $300$300$300$300$300

1/8 Page1/8 Page1/8 Page1/8 Page1/8 Page $150$150$150$150$150For Sales and Information Contact: Fremontia Fremontia Fremontia Fremontia Fremontia Editor: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]:OR:OR:OR:OR: California Native Plant Society, Attn: California Native Plant Society, Attn: California Native Plant Society, Attn: California Native Plant Society, Attn: California Native Plant Society, Attn: Fremontia Fremontia Fremontia Fremontia Fremontia Advertising, 2707 KAdvertising, 2707 KAdvertising, 2707 KAdvertising, 2707 KAdvertising, 2707 KStreet, Suite 1, Sacramento, CA 95816; (916) 447-2677, (916) 447-2727 faxStreet, Suite 1, Sacramento, CA 95816; (916) 447-2677, (916) 447-2727 faxStreet, Suite 1, Sacramento, CA 95816; (916) 447-2677, (916) 447-2727 faxStreet, Suite 1, Sacramento, CA 95816; (916) 447-2677, (916) 447-2727 faxStreet, Suite 1, Sacramento, CA 95816; (916) 447-2677, (916) 447-2727 fax

For actual ad sizes, see:For actual ad sizes, see:For actual ad sizes, see:For actual ad sizes, see:For actual ad sizes, see:http://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/pdf/FREMONTIA_0901_AD_SIZES.PDFhttp://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/pdf/FREMONTIA_0901_AD_SIZES.PDFhttp://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/pdf/FREMONTIA_0901_AD_SIZES.PDFhttp://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/pdf/FREMONTIA_0901_AD_SIZES.PDFhttp://www.cnps.org/cnps/publications/pdf/FREMONTIA_0901_AD_SIZES.PDF

Donald Mayall is a retired social researcher. He is a past President of the SantaClara Valley Chapter of CNPS, a current chapter Rare Plant Coordinator, and hasbeen active in documenting the natural resources of Coyote Ridge.

Bart O’Brien is Director of Special Projects at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardenand is Editor of Fremontia.

Devii Rao was a Range Management Master’s student at U.C. Berkeley. She nowworks for the Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District

Matt Stevenson was a Range Management Master’s student at the U.C. Berkeley.He now works for the University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service.

Stuart Weiss is a Conservation Biologist and CEO of the Creekside Center forEarth Observations in Menlo Park. His research on the bay checkerspot butterflyand the effects of nitrogen deposition has appeared in scholarly journals.

75896-PG cover.pmd 4/1/08, 4:18 PM3

V O L U M E 3 6 : 1 , W I N T E R 2 0 0 8

Laura Baker serves as Conservation Committee Chair andCorresponding Secretary for the East Bay Chapter of CNPS.

James W. Bartolome is Professor of Rangeland Ecology atthe University of California, Berkeley.

Janice Bray is a long-time member of CNPS and volunteersmany hours at Native Here Nursery with others who enjoygrowing native plants.

Carolyn Curtis is a retired technical writer, environmentaland political activist, and native plant gardener. She is aformer Director at Large of state CNPS, a past President ofthe Santa Clara Valley Chapter of CNPS, and founding Presi-dent of Friends of Edgewood Park.

Julie Evens is the Senior Vegetation Ecologist for CNPS. Shemanaged the vegetation survey of Coyote Ridge.

John Game works part-time as a molecular geneticist atStanford University and is a Research Associate at the UCHerbarium at Berkeley. He is active with CNPS and Calflora.

Sasha Gennet, a recent PhD in restoration ecology at U.C.Berkeley, studied land use and environmental effects on veg-etation and songbird communities in California grasslands.

Michele Hammond is a Staff Research Associate in range-land ecology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Ken Himes is a Fellow of CNPS and is a long-time memberof the Santa Clara Valley Chapter. He is especially active inthe control of weeds at Edgewood.

Peter Hopkinson is an Associate Specialist in rangeland ecol-ogy at the University of California, Berkeley.

Kathy Korbholz is a hospital administrator and past Presi-dent of the Board of Directors of Friends of Edgewood.

Barbara Malloch Leitner is an independent environmentalconsultant in Orinda. She is a long-time member of CNPSand has served at the chapter and state level.

Judy Mason is a photographer, graphic artist, and long-timemember of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of CNPS.

California N

ative Plant S

ociety2707 K

Street, S

uite 1S

acramento, C

A 95816-5113

Address S

ervice Requested

Nonprofit O

rg.

U.S

. Postage

PA

ID

A.M

.S.

CONTRIBUTORS

FROM THE EDITOR

his issue’s first three articles byCarolyn Curtis and Don Mayallare about a few of my favorite things:

serpentine grasslands, rare and endan-gered plants and invertebrates, sungand unsung CNPS and communityvolunteers, control of exotic invasivespecies—all tied up in the neat pack-ages of Edgewood County Park andNatural Preserve in San Mateo Countyand Coyote Ridge in Santa ClaraCounty. These great conservation suc-cess stories share another fundamen-tal common thread—the Santa ClaraValley Chapter of CNPS. Our Edge-wood story is written by CarolynCurtis, whose dedication and grass-

roots political acumen were instrumen-tal in the ultimate victory there. Asimilar major fight to preserve anotherequally significant serpentine grasslandat Coyote Ridge was averted and thebiological richness of the ridge wasconserved by methods and strategiesinformed by the Edgewood struggle.Don Mayall writes this story.

Ironically both of these islands ofmagnificent floral displays and bio-diversity are threatened by a muchmore insidious threat from Italian rye-grass as detailed by Peter Hopkinsonet al. in the fourth article in this issue.

Laura Baker and Barbara MallochLeitner celebrate the numerous past

and continuing contributions of Charliand John Danielsen. Both were namedFellows of CNPS in 2005. This enthu-siastic and capable East Bay Chaptercouple has dedicated significant partsof their lives to making CNPS the vitalorganization that it is today.

As always, I urge you to enjoy thisFremontia and strongly encourage youto make that special pilgrimage to Edge-wood to pay homage to those innu-merable dedicated spirits who investedso much time and effort to conserveand manage this prize. Regardless ofwhen you read this, NOW is the timefor a visit there.

Bart O’Brien

T

(continued on inside back cover)

75896-PG cover.pmd 4/7/08, 2:05 PM4

Documents

JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT …...VOLUME 36:1, WINTER 2008 JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY $5.00 (Free to Members) VOL. 36, NO. 1 • WINTER 2008 FREMONTIA