Introduction Management Strategies for The central maritime - PDF document

Introduction Management Strategies for � The central maritime chaparral community Central Maritime Chaparral (CMC) in the Elkhorn Slough Watershed, North Monterey County, California is classified by various federal, state, and local agencies as a rare type of native plant by Tami Nakahara community � Several rare native plant species are located here Pajaro Manzanita Hooker’s Manzanita ( Arctostaphylos pajaroensis ) ( Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp . hookeri ) Photo by Gary A. Klee Photo by Gary A. Klee Monterey Ceanothus Reasons for Protection ( Ceanothus cuneatus var. rigidus ) � Since these rare species are not currently listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), as threatened or endangered, they are not protected under the ESA � Development in these habitats could push these rare species and entire communities toward extinction if not protected now 1

Purpose Objective 1 � To gather comprehensive scientific and � To conduct an extensive literature review regulatory information on CMC and make and interview various federal, state, and recommendations on the types of strategies that local agencies and organizations to collect could be used to manage the CMC community in comprehensive information on North Monterey County � Ecology of CMC � To examine the current use of CMC conservation � Strategies and recommendations for the easements for residential developments to management of this rare plant community determine if and what guidelines could be implemented to protect CMC from further decline Management Issues in North Objective 2 Monterey County � To examine established conservation � Habitat loss and fragmentation easements to determine if there is a correlation between the dimensions of � Fire suppression easements and the percent cover of non- � Succession to oak woodland native species � High fuel load � Invasion by non-native species � Hybridization � Sudden Oak Death Syndrome Fire Suppression Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Succession to Oak Woodland 2

Fire Suppression Fire Suppression High Fuel Load High Fuel Load Jubata grass, pampas grass ( Cortaderia jubata ) Pampas Grass Along Trail Photo by Gary A. Klee Hottentot fig, iceplant Iceplant Choking Out Coyote Brush ( Carpobrotus edulis ) 3

Blue gum eucalyptus Low Species Diversity in Eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus globulus ) Understory Non-native Grasses in Disturbed Non-native Grasses Areas Management Strategies Management Strategies � Botanical surveys/baseline studies � Easements � Mitigations � Local Coastal Program (LCP) � In situ approches � Size, shape, spatial arrangement, connectivity � Mitigation agreements � Buffer zones � Monitoring plans/agreements � Easement contracts � Purchase easements/donations 4

Management Strategies Management Strategies � Prescribed burns � Weed control � Maintain shifting mosaic of age classes � Bradley method � Crush and burn � Sudden Oak Death Syndrome � Multicutting /strategic recycling/chipped biomass � Cutting/mowing � 3,000 seedlings per acre after burning compared to 29 seedlings per acre after cutting (Harding ESE, Inc. 2002a) Map of Study Area Methods � Study area � Coastal zone and adjacent non-coastal area in Elkhorn Slough Watershed, North Monterey County � No large wildfires have occurred in this region in approximately 80 years due to fire suppression Easement 1a Data Collection Photo by Eric Van Dyke � Vegetation Surveys � Conducted from June to September 2001 � Identified 40 residential parcels with CMC botanical surveys conducted from 1987 to January 1999 � Contacted owners of the 33 parcels with conservation easements designated on them � Final pool of ten parcels contained a combined total of 13 easements 5

Easement 1a Easement 1a Easements 12a and b Easement 12a Photo by Eric Van Dyke Easement 17 Easement 12b Photo by Eric Van Dyke 6

Easements 21a, b, c, d, and e Easement 17 Photo by Eric Van Dyke Easement 21a Easement 21d Easement 23 Easement 21e Photo by Eric Van Dyke 7

Easements 26a and b Easement 26a Photo by Eric Van Dyke Easement 28 Data Collection Photo by Eric Van Dyke � Percent cover of each species � Transects � Average of 50-meters long � Randomly placed � Quadrats � 1 m 2 quadrats were placed at 5-meter intervals along each transect � Tree, shrub, and herb layer measured Data Analysis Data Collection � Agency interviews � For the vegetation surveys, a Product Moment Correlation statistical test was done to determine � Conducted from February to September 2002 whether there was a significant correlation � Interviewed 9 federal, state, and local between agencies and organizations The average percent cover of non-native or native � � Interviewed 1 to 2 people from each agency species in an easement and the easement size, shape, � Each interviewee was asked a standard list of and distance to the nearest source of non-natives and CMC questions regarding their agency’s policies, strategies, and recommendations for managing CMC 8

Results of Vegetation Surveys Data Analysis � For non-native and natives � Information from the literature review and � No significant correlation between the agency interviews was compared to � % cover and area determine � % cover and the distance to the nearest sources of � What is known about the biological and non-natives ecological requirements of CMC � % cover and the distance to the nearest sources of � Which strategies and policies are currently CMC being used and which are recommended for � Significant correlation between the conservation of CMC � % cover and edge-to-area ratio � r ≥ 0.553, α = 0.05 Easement 17 Area vs. Perimeter Photo by Eric Van Dyke 900.000 800.000 700.000 600.000 Perimeter (m) 500.000 400.000 300.000 200.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 2000.000 4000.000 6000.000 8000.000 10000.000 12000.000 14000.000 16000.000 Area (m 2 ) Relationship Between Non-natives and Relationship Between Natives and Edge- Edge-to-Area Ratio to-Area Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.25 Edge to area ratio Edge to area ratio 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent cover of natives Percent cover of non-natives Figure . Correlation between percent cover of natives in quadrats and edge to area ratio of easement. 9

Summary of Interviews with Results of Agency Interviews Agencies and Organizations Do your principal management plans involve any of the following tools?: � Loss of habitat or habitat fragmentation Conservation Impact Prescribed Easements? restrictions? Mitigations? burning? Mowing? California Coastal listed as the management concern that has Commission Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. US Bureau of Land the highest priority for CMC (55%) Management Fort Ord No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. US Fish and Wildlife Service Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. USDA Natural Resources � Two other management concerns for CMC Conservation Service No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. California Department of listed as having the highest priority: fire Fish and Game Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. County of Monterey Planning and Building suppression and invasive non-native plant Inspection Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. Monterey County Parks No. Yes. No. No. No. California Native Plant species (33% each) Society, Monterey Bay Chapter Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Elkhorn Slough Foundation No. Yes. No. No. No. Percentage with “yes” responses. 56% 100% 78% 44% 0% Summary of Interviews with Results of Agency Interviews Agencies and Organizations Do your principal management plans involve any of the following tools?: � According to the agencies, the non-natives Specific Control of policies for invasives? Restoration? Monitoring? Enforcement? CMC? that are the biggest threats to CMC, in California Coastal Commission No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. US Bureau of Land order of importance, are: Management Fort Ord Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. US Fish and Wildlife Service Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. � Pampas grass USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. California Department of � Eucalyptus Fish and Game Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. County of Monterey Planning and Building � Iceplant Inspection Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. Monterey County Parks Yes. No. No. No. No. California Native Plant � French broom ( Genista monspessulana ) Society, Monterey Bay Chapter Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Elkhorn Slough Foundation Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. � Non-native grasses Percentage with “yes” responses. 89% 78% 78% 78% 44% Conservation Easements Other Agency Recommendations � Monterey County’s use of conservation Conserve more habitat 1. easements in proposed developments is � Conservation easements inconsistent Mitigation banks � � Lack of maintenance, monitoring, and � Buffer zones enforcement � County does not enforce Right of Entry provision � Easement boundaries were not marked on the ground 10