CONTRACT

DESCRIPTION

Natural Habitat Assessment: Purpose

Coastal

Sage Scrub

The purpose of this report is to assess a remnant fragment of the native plant community known as "coastal sage scrub" on the UCLA Westwood campus. This assessment will be used to make suggestions for enhancement of the site as a natural habitat.

Description
The assessment will produce a floristic survey, listing all native and exotic plants found on the site. In addition, a map of the site indicating areas of disturbance, areas of relative native or exotic plant abundance, and other major landscape features will be created using an existing base map. Finally, specific suggestions for restoration and enhancement of the native plant community will be made, including a prioritized list of discrete projects that could be undertaken to improve the site.

Location
The coastal sage scrub fragment is located on the northwestern edge of campus, near the intersection of Veteran Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. It is bounded by Bellagio Drive, Lot 11, the North Residential Suites, Lot 15, and an access road extending from the University Child Care Center south, just east of and parallel to Veteran Avenue.

Contents
Contract Description -Natura1 Habitat Assessment: Coastal Sage Scrub Purpose, Description, and Location Habitat Description and Recommendations Introduction Vegetation descriptions by area Area A AreaB Area C Area D Area E Recommendations for treatment Area A Area B Area C Area D Area Prioritized list of discrete projects, by area Conc1usions Plant List-Survey Conducted in Fall '95 Native plants Plants native to the area Regional natives probably planted from cultivation Non-native plants (exotics) and some individual recommendations Plants recently planted from cultivation Plants probably planted from cultivation during previous era Escaped or naturalized exotics (often invasive) Herbaceous weeds Grassy weeds Woody weeds Map of the Site Photographs of the Site Area A and B Area C Area D Area E ii 12 i i
1

1 1

1
2

3 3 5
5
5

5
5 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9

10
10

10
11

13

14
15, 16

Habitat Description and Recommendations Introduction: I am basing my evaluation and recommendations on the assumption, however unlikely, that at some point this site may be considered for some form of "rehabilitation" and a discontinuance of its use as a refuse storage area and equipment yard. Implicit in this assumption, of course, is that the land is not already slated for some capital project.
I have divided the site into more or less geographically distinct areas. Several factors were considered in creating these areas. 1. Composition of the existing plant community. 2. Stability of the plant community (i. e. disturbance regime). 3. Past and present manipulation of the area. a. Clearing, other repetitive disturbance. b. Irrigation of the area. c. Recent landscaping, past plantings. 4. Aesthetic and safety requirements. S. Potential as a teaching tool. a. Demonstration garden using drought tolerant plants. b. Ecologically restored area, returned or maintained as natural area. c. Historical and scientific value of old horticultural "artifacts". d. Studies relating the past use of land over time and the successional patterns and proc-esses of the plant community at prsent. 6. Potential effort and expense required to restore areas.

Vegetation descriptions by area: Note: The geographical descriptions of these areas are intentionally general. The actual boundaries will be by the condition of the land, -and will not be straight lines in the field, nor fixed in time. The estimates of area are imprecise and were estimated with an engineer's scale on a 1" = 40' scale map. For a visual representation, see the map on page 11 .
Area A- The landscaped north end of the site from the cyclone fencing at the north end to about 120' southwest from the end, and then a narrow band continuing south at the bottom of the slope about 30' wiEle, next to the road, to the fence at the pavement's end. The area is approximately 18,000 sq. ft. (.4 acre). This area is characterized by the presence of irrigation, landscaping, and landscape maintenance. Most of the plants found here were -Pffibably planted by the University in the recent past. There is little evidence of naturally occurring, native vegetation here. The plants appear to have been chosen based either on their "nativeness" or their drought tolerance. There are natives such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), Ceanothus cultivars, and elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) planted here. There are also non-natives such as rock rose (Cistus sp.) and Cotoneaster, which are drought tolerant. In the tree layer are Eucalyptus and Canary Island pines (Pinus canariensis), both nonnative trees. There are several other factors, which are important when describing this area. It is irrigated, at least partially. The irrigation is functional along the west edge of Area A. The use of irrigation is excessive for the drought tolerant landscape, and favors the rapid growth of non-native grasses and forbs. The area is also subject to repeated disturbance in the form of mechanical weed cutting for maintenance and fire safety. The need to clear weeds frequently in this area is the product of excessive irrigation.

,...

Finally, There is a great deal of relatively open, exposed ground, which provides an excellent opportunity for weeds to thrive. Along the west edge, there is also a substantial problem with passion vines (Passiflora sp.) overtaking the shrubs. Along the east edge, at the top of the hill, there is a mature landscape which continues along the east fence for almost the entire length of the project site. It is composed of Canary Island pines, oleanders (Nerium oleander), bottlebrush (Callistemon), plumbago (P. auriculata) , xylosma (X. congestum), and creeping fig (Ficus pumila). There are some inactive sprinklers along the east edge next to the fence, presumably for fire control in the event of emergency. The north end of Area A is relatively flat, with a gentle slope of about .25 (rise/run). The narrow band of Area A projecting to the south, along the west edge, is somewhat steeper. The aspect of most of Area A is generally west. Area B- The area continuing for approximately 220' south-southwest to a point approximately adjacent to the southeast corner of the island planter in the child care center's parking lot (excluding the narrow band of Area A). This area, although not irrigated or landscaped, is regularly cleared of grasses (mechanically). There is, therefore, a lot of open space with a low shrub density. The area is approximately 20,000 sq. ft. (.45 acre). This area is characterized by the lack of irrigation, steepness of slope, presence of native vegetation, and evidence of mechanical clearing. There are many native plants here, and virtually no planted shrubs. Regeneration of natives is evident here, but it is limited to some extent by the repetitive clearing. There are large areas with no shrub layer where non-native perennial bunch grasses dominate. These grasses are kept low by mechanical means, and appeared to be dormant at the time of this survey. California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and black sage (Salvia mellifera) dominate the shrub layer. Regeneration of Artemisia and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) was observed, although not abundantly. Other natives, such as monk-ey flower (Mimulus sp.) are evident as w11. There are also beavertail cactus (Opuntia) here, probably Opuntia littoralis ,-a native. There are no trees in this area, except along the east edge as mentioned above. The slope of Area B is .40-.45, aspect is west or west-northwest. Area C- This area continues south from the edge of Area B and is bounded at its south end by a line drawn approximately perpendicular to the road through the southernmost extremity of the abandoned aviary structures on the hill. This area is covered with very dense native vegetation and is virtually inaccessible in some areas. The area is approximately 28,000 sq. ft. (.63 acre). This area is characterized by its dense native shrub layer and native biodiversity. It is the most intact or undisturbed stand of native vegetation on the site. There are some open, grass dominated areas, but the majority of this area is covered by dense stands of laurel sumac, California sagebrush, and black sage. Other natives observed are toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolium), Our Lord's candle(Yucca whippleii), monkey flower, goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), and fuschia-flowered gooseberry (Ribes speciosum). While there are some non-native species and a couple of abandoned aviary structures on this plot, it is, in my opinion, the least disturbed and most valuable for its attributes as native habitat. Spring surveys would undoubtedly turn up many additional natives ptants here.

,..

Area C is bordered by the dirt road on the west edge, and has a short shared border with the southern extremity of area A. The slope of Area C ranges from .30 to .50, and has a west or west-northwest aspect. Area D- Continuing south from Area C, this area's southern boundary is a line connecting the prominent jog in the fence at the end of the parking lot (lot 11?) on top with the gate on Veteran Ave approximately adjacent to it. This area is highly disturbed by ongoing activities near the road and by previous activities up slope. The area is approximately 30,000 sq. ft. (.68 acre). This area is characterized by its high level of disturbance and a preponderance of opportunistic and invasive non-native species. There appears to be a repetitive disturbance regime involving heavy equipment and earth moving, as well as the short term storage of imported soils and plant debris from the campus. This area may have experienced some loss of topsoil as well. The general topography of this area is "bowllike" -it is dished out in the middle portion, and sweeps up steeply towards Area C to the north and Area E to the south. The portion of this area nearest to the road is the most recently and frequently disturbed, but up the hill to the east has been disturbed as well, although in the more distant past. There is an erosion control structure crossing the slope near the east edge which catches runoff and channels it downslope. Runoff drains into the most disturbed area at the west edge, thus creating a more mesic microclimate in the low area. There are areas where only an herb layer exists, and these teAd to be dominated and perennial grasses and herbs. Among those are by mustard (Brassica sp. ), wiJd oats (Avena sp. ), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and horseweed (Conyza spp.). The shrub layer contains scattered natives as described above, and a number of woody or semi-woody opportunistic non-natives. These include tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and castor bean (Ricinus communis), mainly in the western section. The eastern third contains naturalized patches of Lantana and iceplant (Caprobrotus edulis), as well as the typical landscape plants described under Area A for the east edge. The southern edge is composed of a dense native shrub layer interspersed with non-natives such as tree tobacco. There is no well defined tree layer. Although the tree tobacco is sometimes quite tall, it is very sparse, provides very little shade and virtually no cover. The castor bean plants may reach tree size if not bulldozed soon, but that is of little real consequence. There is one large mature elderberry tree in this area, which may be a local native. It is uncertain if a native seed bank persists on the most disturbed parts of this area, but it is assumed that there will be some seed in the areas where native shrubs still prevail. The boundary with Area E is somewhat arbitrary. The slope of Area 0 is about .40 on the steeper east slope and .20 on the more recently disturbed western area. Aspect is southwest, west, and northwest. Area E- The remaining portion of the site is included in this area, all the way to the south end of the dirt road. This area is characterized by evidence of the old horticultural unit of the campus. The area was clearly irrigated at one time. The area is approximately 86,000 sq. ft. (1.97 acre). This area is the largest and most complex. It has a variety of terrains and microclimates. It contains many planted and opportunistic non-native plant species, and some significant patches of native vegetation. Vegetation tends to be quite dense throughout this area. There has been a significant amount of disturbance in the distant past, but recent disturbance has probably been minimal, with the exception of the small equipment yard

,.

(..., .1 5 acre) located within the south end of Area E. This yard is apparently scraped off on a regular basis for weed control, fire suppression, and general housekeeping. One of the most significant attributes of Area E is the presence of a number of trees and shrubs which may have been planted by ornamental horticulture students in the past. There is evidence of a fairly extensive abandoned irrigation system as well. There are trees in straight rows, and a number of other obvious artifacts. The history of the area might prove to be interesting, and would certainly help to illuminate the distribution of plants. This area has a significant tree layer. The primary component is oak trees (Quercus spp.). Although they are not all native oaks, the native coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) is dominant. There is a closed canopy woodland, composed primarily of oaks and Pittosporum undulatum, located just northeast of the north end of the equipment yard described above. There is a rather dense stand of Acacia and Eucalyptus trees between that grove and the yard. Along the east side of the yard is a thicket of elm (Ulmus parvifolia) and native sycamore (Platanus)trees, interwoven with rampant passion vines. There are also several other species of trees, mostly non-native, located the area in seemingly r-aAdom fashion. Cedar (Cedrus deodora), willow (Salix laevigata), juniper (Juniperus sp.), carob (Ceratonia siliqua), and Myoporum are but a small sampling of additional trees scattered about Area E. The shrub layer is -also a mix of native and non-native vegetation. There are healthy and relatively dense stands of California sagebrush, laurel sumac, and toyon. Black sage, monkey flower, goldenbush and giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus) are also evident in various places. There is a fairly large dense patch of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), which mayor may not be native to the site (see below), and a large patch of non-native rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis). Some parts of Area E host a complicated mix of plants. In one rather level clearing, I found the following, all within a 5' radius:
Albizia julibrissin Salix laevigata Baccharis glutinosa B. pilularis Cortaderia sp.

non-native, planted/naturalized (silk tree) native (willow -but native to this site?) native (mulefat) native or cultivar (coyote brush) invasive non-native (pampas grass)

These ass-emblages of plants are no doubt the result of a complex relationship between various disturbances (including evidence of fir-e, irrigation, clearing, etc.),succession, human -intervention (i. e. planting), and colonization by invasive exotic species. Within 10' of this dearing was a dense thicket of native laurel sumac, black sage, and toyon. The herb layer, where evident, is composed mostly of annual and perennial nonnative grasses, dry at the time of this survey. It is quite likely that spring surveys would turn up a more diverse array of herbaceous plants here as well. While it can be assumed that most of the non-native trees and shrubs were planted or escaped from nearby domestic landscapes, it is hard to know which of the native species were naturally occurring on this site. Some observed species, such as coyote brush, have been in common horticultural use for many years but could also occur here naturally. Others, such as some of the oaks, are almost certainly artifacts of the horticulture programs. This is an aspect of Area E that justifies further study. The slope of Area E ranges from about .33 at the northern edge adjacent to Area 0 (northwest aspect), to about .15, northwest of the northern end of the equipment yard (southern aspect). There are a few small, relatively flat areas as well.

Recommendations for treatment:

Area A- In this area, there would appear to be two main goals. The landscape should be appealing to the eye, and it should require little maintenance and water. There are also educational opportunities to be explored here. This area would provide an excellent opportunity for a demonstration garden of some sort. To satisfy these goals, I would recommend either a landscape utilizing regionally native plants, or a drought tolerant "xeriscape", using Mediterranean type plants from all over the world. Many of the plants already in this area would fit nicely into one or the other of these themes, and I would not recommend the wholesale removal of existing plant material. The irrigation would have to be reduced to a level more compatible with this type of planting, and the non-native, weedy species removed. (Even if nothing else is done in this area, these two recommendations should be heeded- too much water is currently applied for many of the existing plants, causing the weed problems and maintenance difficulties now being experienced.) In addition to the obvious visual benefits possible as a result of being properly landscaped, irrigated, and maintained, there are other benefits. This area could serve as a training ground for teaching the proper care of native and drought tolerant plants, the use and care of drip irrigation systems, and effective maintenance techniques in "unconventional" landscape types. There may be potential benefits to the academic community and the general public as well. Area B- There were several important factors considered when evaluating this area. It appears to have a viable native seed bank. The soils are apparently intact, and there may have been relatively little disturbance to them. T-here is a substantial source of propagules on the adjacent plot (Area C). The level of non--native plant intrusion is generally low, with the exception of the grasses. These factors -combine to make this area a good candidate for -a managed return to a more natural condition. In other words, stop those human activities which presently encourage the non-native grasses over the native shrub layer (the repeated disturbance of clearing, primarily). Intervene only to remove any potentially invasive exotics from becoming established. Allow natural processes to return this area to a coastal sage scrub community over time. In allowing and encouraging this natural succession process, there will be ample opportunity to observe and study the process, as well. Area C- The value of an intact plot such as this is immeasurable. It is a seemingly viable habitat fragment, although it as quite isolated. This area is valuable as a reference Plot, and a sourc-e of propagules for r-estoration efforts -elsewhere. This area needs re-Iati-vely Utt-le active intervention. It would need some work to remove non-native species, and -perhaps some active restoration -efforts in those areas whjch have been disturbed. Efforts might include remov-al of .the two aviary structures and active restoration of that site, as well as restoration of the more disturbed area near the roadway on the west boundary of the area. Area D- This area provides a great opportunity for full blown, active restoration efforts. It is highly disturbed and degraded, and has a number of non-native, invasive and weedy species. The soils have been disturbed, and the topography may be substantially altered from its original form. Micorrhizal associations may be disrupted or destroyed, and drainage patterns have been altered. My recommendation is to restore this area as part of an ongoing educational project. This effort should include pre-restoration surveys and studies and postrestoration monitoring and management activities, as needed. Active restoration

activities should include the restoration of topography and hydrology, soil restoration, mycorrhizal inoculation, and propogation and planting of plants. This offers an ideal setting for such a project, since it has an adjacent plot to use as a seed source and a reference plot. Area E- Here, I believe more consideration should be given to the historical and cultural value of the land, with ecological restoration a secondary concern. First, the history of land use should be thoroughly researched, so that-evidence of early University use can be recognized and Hpreserved for its historical value. This .might include the preservation, identification, and labeling of various trees and shrubs on the plot that are relicts from the ornamental horticulture days, as well as irrigation devices and other artifacts from that era. Once this is clearly understood and noted in the field, a different form of restoration could take place. This would concentrate on removing non-native vegetation which has no specific historical or cultural significance (invasive exotics, non-native grasses), and making the landscape accessible to study and viewing by the public by selectively pruning and clearing vegetation. This might also include the construction of a trail system, trail-side signs, and even a research station or interpretive center in the area now occupied by the equipment yard. Prioritized list of discrete projects. by area: Area A (top priority) (medium effort and expense) 1. Reduce irrigation, change to drip irrigation system. 2. Remove invasive exotics such as Cortederia, Passiflora, etc. 3. Eliminate non-native grasses by use of glyphosphate or equivalent. 4. Add new drought tolerant species to landscape design. Increase shrub layer density. 5. Add placards to identify and briefly describe the plants and their use in drought tolerant landscapes. Area D (second priority) (high effort and expense) 1. Discontinue disturbances. 2. Develop and implement a full restoration plan, including soil and hydrological testing and restoration, exotics removal, and replanting utilizing local propagules. 3. Monitor for return of exotics, success of restoration, etc. Area B (third priority) (low effort and expense) 1. Thoroughly inventory t-he area so that changes in the plant cover and composition can be accurately monitor-ed. 2. Discontinue mechanical clearing, or limit it to the perimeter,allowing native shrubs and trees to regenerate. 3. Selectively chemically eliminate non-native grasses, if deemed necessary. 4. Monitor for invasive exotics and remove as needed. Area E (fourth priority) (high effort and expense) 1. Clear out dead wood (but not standing snags) and remove invasive exotics, such as Cortaderia , Brazilian pepper, carob trees, Passiflora, etc. 2. Evaluate, with a historical perspective, the remaining landscape. 3. Develop and implement a restoration and landscape plan for the area based on goals established for its function as a historical or educational tool.

Area C (lowest priority) (low effort and expense) 1. Remove invasive exotics such as tree tobacco, castor bean, etc. by hand. 2. Eliminate non-native grasses as deemed necessary. 3. Remove structures(?). 4. Monitor invasive and weedy sPecies' return, and control as needed. ConclusionsThis piece of land, roughly 4 acres in size, represents a surviving fragment of coastal sage scrub, probably transitional to chaparral. It is an urban remnant, quite unique in many respects. It has been disturbed in many ways over time, and continues to be disturbed in some areas. It has had non-native 'landscape' plants introduced into its midst on at least two occasions, one recent and one less recent. It has been 'invaded' by opportunistic exotics-often persistent and naturalized exotics. It suffers from isolation, and from urban air pollution. Its surface hydrology has been altered. It has been irrigated, and removed from irrigation. Parts of it are still irrigated. Yet it persists as a seemingly viable piece of native habitat. There appears to be a diverse bird community on this site, and there are tales of deer from the facilities people. A faunal survey might be rewarding. The opportunities that are represented by this urban fragment are exciting. There are endless research projects that could be structured around the data available from this site. There are practical opportunities as well. This is an ideal site for ecological restoration. It offers educational opportunities to the public and training potential to the grounds maintenance crew. I hope that this report has helped to shed a little light on these many possibilities, and to bring them a little closer to fruition. It would be a shame to lose this last piece of the natural history of the area.