Appendix B
Grazing Management Assessment
and Recommendations
Tejon Ranch
Prepared for the Tejon Ranch Conservancy
by
James Bartolome1, Michele Hammond2, Peter Hopkinson1, Felix Ratcliff3, and Sheri Spiegal3
Range Ecology Lab
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
University of California, Berkeley
1
Certified Rangeland Manager, State of California
Associate Rangeland Manager, Cal-Pac Section, Society for Range Management
3
Graduate Student, Range Ecology Lab, U.C. Berkeley
2
February 27, 2013
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
Table of contents
Page
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
2.0 Goals and objectives ......................................................................................................2
3.0 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................4
Climate .....................................................................................................................4
Land-use history.......................................................................................................5
Vegetation types.......................................................................................................5
Geology, soils and ecological site descriptions .......................................................8
Infrastructure, current grazing use and practices .....................................................9
Sensitive resources .................................................................................................11
Wildlife sensitive species ...........................................................................12
Plant sensitive species ................................................................................12
4.0 Grazing management assessment and recommendations ............................................13
4.1 Overview of grazing ecology and management...............................................13
4.2 Grazing capacity assessment............................................................................14
4.3 Method used to estimate grazing capacity on Tejon Ranch ............................16
4.4 Recommended grazing management-related actions ......................................17
4.5 Recommended Best Practices for Tejon Ranch ...............................................19
4.6 Conservancy-led management actions and research........................................20
5.0 Monitoring for Adaptive Management ........................................................................23
6.0 References ....................................................................................................................26
Appendices
Attachment A: Sage Associates: Grazing Operational Management Assessment
Attachment B: Oak recruitment strategy
Attachment C: Riparian enhancement plan
Attachment D: Sensitive wildlife and plant species tables; California Native Plant Society rare plant
ranking description
Attachment E: Grazing capacity estimates and vegetation production maps
Attachment F: Invasive plants management recommendations and table
Ranch-Wide Management Plan, Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-i
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
1.0 Introduction
A Mexican land grant created the original Rancho el Tejon in 1843, which was purchased and combined
with three other Mexican land grants by General Edward Fitzgerald Beale to form Ranchos el Tejon by
1865. In 2008 the Tejon Ranch Company (TRC) and five environmental organizations (Audubon
California, Endangered Habitats League, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and
Conservation League, and Sierra Club), executed the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use
Agreement (Agreement), which placed up to 90% of the 270,000-acre ranch into conservation and
created the Tejon Ranch Conservancy (Conservancy) to serve as steward of the conserved lands. As part
of the Agreement, the Conservancy was charged with developing a Ranch-wide Management Plan
(RWMP) by June 2013, which affords the Conservancy the opportunity to enhance conservation values
in the conserved lands while respecting TRC’s economic uses. Because TRC retains the right to conduct
ranching and livestock management within approximately 250,000 acres of Tejon Ranch including
conserved lands, this grazing management assessment is being developed to support the Conservancy’s
RWMP.
TRC has administrative headquarters in Lebec, California but the Ranch extends into the San Joaquin
and Antelope Valleys and the Tehachapi Mountains in Kern and Los Angeles Counties. This Tejon
Ranch Grazing Management Assessment (TGMA, Appendix B of RWMP Volume 2) provides the
Conservancy with an evaluation of current livestock grazing practices and recommends ways to manage
grazing to meet current industry standards and Conservancy conservation goals. This grazing plan is
written as a collaboration among the UC Berkeley Range Ecology Lab (REL), Sage Associates, and the
Conservancy. Sections of background information about current grazing operations from the Tejon
Ranch Grazing Operational Management Assessment (Attachment A), prepared by Sage Associates, are
incorporated into the main document. This Grazing Management Assessment will serve to inform the
grazing management elements of Conservancy’s RWMP. The RWMP, which provides the overall
direction of the Conservancy’s stewardship activities, may elect to emphasize particular aspects of this
plan given Conservancy conservation priorities, the condition of resources on the ground, feasibility of
grazing management for improving resource conditions, and available Conservancy staff and financial
resources. Thus, the TGMA is intended to broadly treat grazing-related issues and its recommendations
will be prioritized as appropriate in the RWMP Volume 2.
We review the Conservancy’s goals and objectives for the conserved lands, assess the current status of
resources and ranching infrastructure, and present recommendations for grazing management and
resource monitoring in an adaptive management context. Adaptive management recognizes uncertainties
about the effects of management on resources (a perennial problem in range science (Briske et al. 2011))
and the need to learn (Walters 1986, 1993). Learning results from treating management as planned
experimentation with explicit hypotheses (Walters and Green 1997). A good grazing plan incorporates
specified goals and objectives, recommends and justifies specific types of activities; but because of
inescapable spatial and temporal variations in the structure and function of rangeland ecosystems retains
a high degree of flexibility in application to the discretion of the rangeland manager (Bush 2006,
Huntsinger et al. 2007). For example, highly prescriptive grazing plans can appear attractive in the nearterm but rarely are sustainable in the face of normal variations in forage production among years. This
plan identifies best current practices for the Conservancy’s goals but recognizes that an adaptive
approach is needed.
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-1
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
2.0 Goals and Objectives
The Tejon Ranch is topographically and geographically diverse with high conservation value. The
following conservation goals and objectives were developed by the Conservancy for the RWMP. Goals
are grouped under headings of Natural Communities, Watersheds, Landscapes, and Focal Species.
Within each goal, objectives are described and some are prioritized within the RWMP and the TGMA as
“near-term” conservation objectives, focusing on the first 5-year period of RWMP implementation. The
RWMP expects that conservation objectives not identified as near-term priorities will either be achieved
over longer time frames or as specific opportunities arise to work on them. When we later outline
objectives for grazing management, they are linked to the following RWMP goals and objectives that
are affected by grazing-related recommendations.
Tejon Ranch Conservancy conservation goals and objectives
G1) Natural Community Goals and Objectives
G1-1) Maintain and enhance the habitat quality and function of Antelope Valley grassland
ecosystems and the native plant and animal species that characterize them.
a) Continue to characterize plant/soil associations.
b) Establish an invasive plant species monitoring program.
c) Reduce the extent of nonnative plant species, such as cheat grass and mustard, and
increase the extent of native grassland species.
d) Manage Antelope Valley grasslands to benefit populations of target species, such as
pronghorn, burrowing owl, and badger.
G1-2) Maintain and enhance the habitat quality and function of San Joaquin Valley grassland
ecosystems and the native plant and animal species that characterize them.
a) Continue to characterize plant/soil associations.
b) Manage San Joaquin Valley grasslands to benefit target species, such as San Joaquin
kit fox, blunt-nosed-leopard lizard, and burrowing owl.
c) Characterize the historic, native San Joaquin Valley plant and animal communities.
d) Restore native San Joaquin Valley plant and animal communities as desired and
appropriate.
G1-3) Enhance and restore riparian and wetland ecosystems.
a) Complete a baseline characterization of riparian and wetland systems.
b) Restore as appropriate desired vegetation structure (i.e., the desired amount of riparian
vegetation in three dimensions).
c) Reduce populations of noxious nonnative species, such as tamarisk, perennial
pepperweed, and giant reed, and promote native vegetation in treated areas.
d) Increase the overall extent of native riparian and wetland plant species in riparian
habitats.
e) Increase populations of target wetland and riparian wildlife species.
G1-4) Maintain, and enhance as appropriate, the extent and diversity of oak woodlands.
a) Continue to develop complete baseline characterization of oak woodland systems.
b) Restore and increase understory plant diversity (shrubs and herbs) as appropriate.
c) Enhance recruitment for declining tree species.
d) Maintain and enhance populations of oak woodland wildlife species.
B-2 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
G2) Watershed Goals and Objectives
G2-1) Maintain and restore natural hydrologic regimes and surface-groundwater connections.
a) Characterize hydrologic regimes and surface-groundwater dynamics.
b) Maintain, and enhance as appropriate, surface and groundwater dynamics supporting
riparian and wetland systems.
G2-2) Restore natural sediment regimes in watersheds.
a) Characterize sediment regimes across watersheds.
b) Evaluate road/stream interactions and prioritize actions.
c) Reduce excess hillslope and streambed erosion.
G2-3) Restore natural channel dynamics.
a) Characterize stream geomorphic conditions and dynamics.
b) Restore geomorphic and hydrologic processes where desired and appropriate.
G3) Landscape Goals and Objectives
G3-1) Promote “functional diversity” (the variety of species’ traits or ecological roles) and
resiliency of landscapes to change.
a) Continue to identify and describe ecological sites.
b) Increase populations of target plant and animal species as appropriate.
G3-2) Maintain and enhance as appropriate connectivity for native species.
a) Identify and evaluate features and activities that currently reduce landscape
connectivity for target species.
b) Enhance connectivity for target species.
G3-3) Manage fire regimes to minimize risk of severe or irreversible impacts to native species
and ecosystems.
a) Continue to assess structure, composition and fuel loads of natural communities.
b) Implement a program to eradicate nonnative plant species, e.g., tamarisk and cheat
grass, that can alter fire regimes.
c) Monitor the effects of fire suppression and livestock grazing (as a fuel management
tool) on natural communities.
d) Continue existing fire suppression policies.
G4) Focal Species Goals and Objectives
G4-1) Promote viable populations of native wildlife species playing important ecological roles.
a) Develop a better understanding of the relative ecological importance of wildlife
species to Tejon Ranch ecosystems.
b) Characterize the population ecology and dynamics of important native and nonnative
wildlife species.
c) Develop a management strategy for feral pigs.
d) Manage carnivore species to maintain their ecological effects on food webs.
e) Manage game species to maintain sustainable populations and to promote biodiversity.
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-3
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
3.0 Existing Condition of Rangeland Resources
3.1 Climate
The micro-climates in the Tejon Ranch region are quite variable and a product of its regional geography
and terrain. The regional climate is Mediterranean, with cold wet winters and hot dry summers, although
occasional summer monsoonal precipitation is typical. Winter storms generally form in the Gulf of
Alaska and move into the region from the northwest. Thus, at similar elevations, the northern slopes of
the Tehachapi Mountains typically receive more rainfall than the southern slopes, which lie in a rain
shadow. Although the southern portion of the Ranch lies within the Mojave Desert ecological region, the
desert portion of the Ranch (Antelope Valley in the western Mojave Desert) receives significantly higher
average annual rainfall than parts of the Mojave Desert to the east. Based on a regional analysis of
rainfall, soils and species life history requirements, the lowest elevations on the San Joaquin Valley side
of the Ranch have recently been suggested to be part of a heretofore unrecognized desert, the San
Joaquin Desert (Germano et al. 2011).
The Tehachapi Mountains are also windy, as evidenced by the boom of wind power projects proposed
on the desert side of the mountains east of Tejon Ranch. Average monthly wind velocities (1996-2006)
range from 4.5-7.7 miles per hour (mph) in Bakersfield but rise to a range of 11.9-15.5 mph at Sandberg
(south of the Ranch). Wind direction is generally out of the north and northwest in the spring and
summer, shifting to the east and north east in the late fall and early winter (Western Regional Climate
Center 2012).
We used the PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) climate mapping
system, to characterize the climate across Tejon Ranch (PRISM 2012). In Table 3-1 we show three
climate variables (1971-2000 averages): minimum temperature, maximum temperature and precipitation
for four locations on the Ranch: Comanche Point (800’ mean sea level (msl)), Old Headquarters (1,470’
msl), top of Blue Ridge (6,600’ msl), and the Antelope Valley (3,550’ msl).
Seasonal temperature patterns at Tejon Ranch are typical of inland California. Highest mean monthly
temperatures occur from July – September and the coldest temperatures occur from December –
February. Mean monthly minimum temperatures are well above freezing at locations below 1,500’ on
the San Joaquin Valley side of the Ranch, although freezing temperatures do occur periodically; whereas
mean monthly minimum temperatures are near freezing from December to March at the top of Blue
Ridge and during December and January in the Antelope Valley. Mean monthly maximum temperatures
are highest on the San Joaquin Valley side of the Ranch, with average maximum temperatures exceeding
90ºF from June – September. In the Antelope Valley, average maximum temperatures only exceed 90 ºF
in July and August, and the highest elevations of the Ranch never exceed an average maximum
temperature of 85 ºF.
The rainy season at Tejon Ranch generally occurs between November and March, with over 75% of
average annual precipitation recorded during these five months at all four locations in Table 3-1. The
Antelope Valley portion of the Ranch has higher rainfall relative to the rest of the Mojave Desert
ecological region because of the orographic effect of the Tehachapi Mountains and Liebre Mountains to
the south and its relatively high elevation in the Tehachapi foothills.
B-4 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
Table 3-1. Average minimum temperature, average maximum temperature, and average precipitation
for four locations on Tejon Ranch (1971-2000 averages). Source PRISM 2012.
Average Minimum Temperature (ºF)
Site
Comanche Point
Old Headquarters
Blue Ridge
Antelope Valley
Jan
40.5
37.2
32.1
33.1
Feb
44.4
40.1
32.4
34.9
Mar
47.3
43.5
33.0
36.6
Apr May June July Aug Sept
51.0 57.9 64.3 70.1 68.9 65.0
47.3 54.2 61.4 66.7 65.6 61.2
36.1 42.8 50.3 56.2 57.0 53.5
41.0 48.3 56.4 62.1 61.1 55.3
Oct
56.7
53.0
44.6
46.0
Nov
46.0
42.7
37.9
37.3
Dec Annual
39.8
54.3
36.7
50.9
32.2
42.3
33.0
45.4
Oct
82.0
80.4
67.3
77.6
Nov
67.3
66.7
55.9
61.4
Dec Annual
58.2
78.7
58.3
77.0
48.2
64.0
53.9
73.1
Average Maximum Temperature (ºF)
Site
Comanche Point
Old Headquarters
Blue Ridge
Antelope Valley
Jan
58.2
58.4
48.0
53.8
Feb
64.9
63.2
49.3
56.8
Mar
69.0
67.0
52.7
60.0
Apr May June July Aug Sept
77.2 85.2 94.0 99 97.5 92.2
74.0 82.4 91.1 96.5 95.2 90.0
58.2 68.0 77.1 83.6 82.2 77.2
69.6 77.4 86.8 95.4 94.7 89.3
Average Precipitation (Inches)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual
Site
Comanche Point 1.4 1.4 1.9 0.7 0.3
0.1
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8
8.2
Old Headquarters 2.1 1.8 2.8 1.1 0.4
0.1
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.3 1.1
11.8
Blue Ridge
4.0 4.1 4.2 1.5 0.6
0.2
0.1 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.8 2.7
20.8
Antelope Valley 2.4 3.1 2.5 0.7 0.4
0.1 0.02 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.6
13.0
3.2 Land-use history
Historical Grazing Operations
Livestock grazing began on what is now the Tejon Ranch in the 1800’s. TRC has early accounts of
125,000 sheep and 25,000 head of cattle on the Ranch by the 1880’s. The book Men of El Tejon, by
Earle Crowe (1957), writes that 25,000 cattle and 7,500 sheep were grazed on Tejon Ranch in the
1890’s. Crowe also describes the traditional movement of cattle in the 1800’s from the plains to the
hills, and to the mountains and back again by Jose Jesus Lopez the Ranch manager. In the 1900’s
approximately 11,000 - 17,000 head of cattle were run on the Ranch. In the 1950’s about 70 percent of
the cattle range was leased outside of the company. In 1960 Mexican steers were introduced to help
improve the utilization of more remote and steeper ground.
The Tejon Ranch Company Annual Reports for 1992 and 1993 document 8,478 and 7,734 head sold,
respectively. At this time the Ranch was rebuilding its herd after the extended 1988-1992 drought. Focus
was on building a commercial cow herd and stocker cattle grazing on Ranch-owned land, in lieu of the
prior emphasis on registered Herefords. Historically, the Tejon Ranch livestock numbers have varied
based on available feed and management preferences. At times, land has been either leased or has been
owner-operated. Long-term stewardship was historically maintained by knowledgeable long-term ranch
managers, which is reflected in generally good rangeland conditions (Attachment A, Sage Associates
2012).
3.3 Vegetation types
The major vegetation communities within Tejon Ranch are chaparral, Mojave Desert scrub and Joshua
tree woodlands, montane mixed hardwood and conifer forest, riparian, San Joaquin Valley grasslands,
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-5
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
Antelope Valley grasslands, and valley oak savanna and foothill blue oak woodlands (Tejon Ranch
Conservancy RWMP, Applebaum et al. 2010, Barbour et al. 2007).
Chaparral on Tejon Ranch is an evergreen sclerophyllous shrubland community dominated by species in
the shrub genera Adenostoma, Ceanothus, Arctostaphylos and Quercus. Chaparral communities are
located along the southeastern edge of the Tehachapi Mountain Range, as well as on the southern end of
the Tejon Ranch property (Applebaum et al. 2010, Keeley and Davis in Barbour et al. 2011). Chaparral
communities on Tejon Ranch are considered to be in good condition and livestock likely do not
extensively forage in chaparral-dominated areas of the Ranch.
Joshua tree woodlands (Yucca brevifolia) occur within the Mojave Desert scrub vegetation description
(Keeler-Wolf in Barbour et al. 2007). Mojave Desert scrub vegetation is dominated by shrubs in the
genera Ericameria, Eriogonum, and Ephedra, and Encelia, and by various herbaceous species including
desert needlegrass (Stipa speciosa). Aerial imagery analysis by the Bren school describes the Joshua tree
woodland community as healthy and increasing in area over the past 50 years, and livestock grazing has
been suggested as a potential mechanism for increasing cover of Joshua trees (Rowlands 1978).
Livestock grazing has been identified as a potential stressor for Mojave Desert scrub and those impacts
should be considered within management plans for the Mojave Desert region (Applebaum et al. 2010).
The montane mixed hardwood and conifer vegetation communities represent the higher elevation forest
vegetation within the Tehachapi mountain range. Woodland communities include a mix of oak and
conifer species including canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), black oak (Q. kelloggii), ponderosa
pine (Pinus ponderosa), white fir (Abies concolor), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). Canyon
live oaks tend to occur on steeper, often north-facing slopes , whereas black oaks are found in more
variable positions and are often mixed with conifer species (Minnich in Barbour et al. 2011, Applebaum
et al. 2010).
Lower and mid-elevation oak vegetation communities largely consist of valley oak savanna (Quercus
lobata), blue oak woodland (Q. douglasii), and canyon live oak forests (Applebaum et al. 2010). Valley
oaks are endemic to California and often occur in mixed oak woodland or riparian communities. An
analysis of the size structure, understory composition, and demographic parameters of oak populations
on Tejon Ranch (Hoagland et al. 2011) suggests a decline in deciduous oak woodland vegetation,
indicated both by the current lack of oaks in the sapling stage and a small decline in oak canopy cover in
study plots since the 1950s. However, some areas of Tejon Ranch show strong regeneration of oaks,
particularly valley oaks. Oak community understories are dominated by herbaceous species with few
shrubs, but shrubby understories are found on parts of the Ranch and can be associated with high
numbers of sapling valley oaks. Herbivory and ground disturbance by livestock, pigs, gophers, or
ground squirrels can inhibit recruitment of oak seedlings into the sapling and adult stages, and alter
understory plant communities. When rangeland is grazed after grasses mature in late spring, livestock
may browse more on oaks and other woody species (McCreary and George 2005; McCreary 2001),
although livestock grazing at other seasons could indirectly help oak seedlings by reducing competition
with annual grasses and forbs (Tyler et al. 2006). Wildlife such as deer, gophers and ground squirrels
may also have a significant impact on herbivory of oak seedlings and their roots. Feral pigs can also
cause ground disturbance to oak seedlings through rooting activities as well as direct consumption of
acorns which can also reduce sapling recruitment (Sweitzer & Van Vuren 2008). Livestock grazing
affects the biodiversity of the oak community understory (Maranon et al. 2009, Moreno et al. In Press),
but the scarcity of studies contrasts with the many reports from open grassland (Allen-Diaz et al. 1999).
See Attachment B for more detail on oak woodland enhancement strategies.
B-6 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
Tejon Ranch includes a diverse assemblage of riparian and wetland communities associated with
differing stream types or springs and flow regimes. The following are general community types
identified for riparian areas on the Ranch: Valley and foothill riparian, which includes woodlands and
riparian forests such as southern willow scrub (Salix) or cottonwood (Populus)/willow riparian forest
(ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial flow regimes); montane riparian forest (intermittent/perennial flow
regimes); sycamore (Platanus racemosa) alluvial woodlands (ephemeral flow regime); and desert
washes (ephemeral flow regime). Spring-fed wetlands are dominated by herbaceous species such as
spike-rush and cattails. Riparian and wetland vegetation communities on Tejon Ranch, as elsewhere in
the West, are heavily affected by human activities, particularly by livestock grazing, changes in
hydrologic regimes from stream diversions or groundwater utilization, and invasion of noxious plant
species (e.g., salt cedar or Tamarix). In addition, feral pigs on Tejon Ranch are likely responsible for
significant channel, bank and understory disturbance and predation on smaller riparian and wetland
wildlife species. Streams and associated riparian communities, springs and wetlands on the Tejon Ranch
variously show the negative effects of livestock grazing on bank structure and stability, vegetation, soils,
and water quality, but these effects are difficult to separate from those associated with feral pigs
(Applebaum et al. 2010, Attachment A: Sage and Associates 2012). Riparian and wetland habitats at
lower elevations, including the lower reaches of Tejon, El Paso, and Tunis creeks in the San Joaquin
Valley, exhibit poor condition and are good candidates for mitigation of adverse livestock and feral pig
impacts and invasion by nonnative plants. See Attachment C for discussion of riparian enhancement
strategies.
California’s Valley Grassland type is found in the foothills surrounding the Central Valley, including the
central and southern Coast Ranges, and parts of the Transverse and Peninsula Ranges (Bartolome et al.
2007). Nonnative annual grasses and forbs have dominated this grassland type for many decades, and in
most areas, native plants make up only a very small percentage of the total cover. Spiegal’s work at
Tejon Ranch has shown that grassland vegetation varies considerably among sites and years, that
geomorphology and soils play an important role in determining species occurrence, and conservation
goals cannot be either fully developed or practices evaluated under adaptive management without good
environmental site descriptions (Spiegal and Bartolome 2012). Spiegal and Bartolome have defined nine
environmental sites for Tejon grasslands, and have shown a major distinction between the composition
and dynamics of grasslands on environmental sites in the San Joaquin Valley and Antelope Valley of the
Ranch. Environmental sites are distinctive based on both physical/environmental factors and resulting
vegetation composition, and form the basis for establishing realistic conservation goals, for evaluating
the effects of management practices, and for monitoring. Without the development of objective,
quantitative environmental site descriptions adaptive management is both more costly and less effective
(Herrick et al. 2012).
In the San Joaquin Valley grasslands, some environmental sites supported a significant cover of native
forbs in certain years, while others were dominated by nonnative annual grasses in all years (Spiegal and
Bartolome 2012). Native grasses currently are a relatively unimportant component of grasslands at all
San Joaquin Valley sites. We believe that weather, and potentially livestock management practices, play
a role in determining the relative cover of native forbs versus nonnative annual grasses at those sites.
Environmental sites that support high cover of native forbs also support populations of special status
plants and animals that may be adversely affected by dense annual grass cover. Some areas of the San
Joaquin Valley grasslands on Tejon Ranch have been invaded by noxious nonnative species such as
yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Saharan mustard (Brassica tournefortii), and Russian thistle
(Salsola spp.), which reduce habitat quality and function for many native species. In addition, a number
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-7
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
of pastures (including Indian Field, Bull Field, and Upper Chiminez) appear to have fall RDM levels
that regularly fall below regional standards (Bartolome et al. 2006).
Antelope Valley grasslands are characterized by a greater cover of native plants, including native
perennial bunchgrasses, and showy native wildflower (forb) displays in some years. Antelope Valley
grasslands support a population of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) that rely on adequate vegetation
cover for fawning habitat. Portions of the Antelope Valley grasslands have been invaded by short-pod
mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), which have been shown to alter fire
regimes in other parts of the Mojave Desert. In addition, while no regional RDM standards are available
for the Mojave Desert, parts of Tejon Ranch’s Antelope Valley grasslands, particularly parts of the Fish
Creek pasture, appear to regularly have very low RDM, which may adversely affect native plant species
and pronghorn habitat quality.
3.4 Geology, soils, and environmental site descriptions
The diverse array of soils at Tejon Ranch reflects the complexity of the geologic formations and
processes of the region. The Ranch comprises several areas of distinctive geology and soils, including
the Tehachapi Mountains, Antelope Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Tejon Hills.
At the heart of Tejon Ranch lie the Tehachapi Mountains, the “tail” of the Sierra Nevada. The Sierran
batholith was emplaced in the earth’s crust during the Mesozoic era (245 to 65 million years ago
[MYA]) due to the subduction of oceanic plates under the North American plate. The current Sierra
Nevada Mountains are the result of the second pulse of uplift since subduction began. The ancestral
Sierra Nevada laid on top of the batholith, and they were volcanic, much like the Andes of today.
Eventually these ancestral giants eroded to form a low-relief landscape. Between 90 and 50 MYA the
southernmost extension of these modest mountains rotated clockwise into their present orientation due
to faulting related to the change in the relative movement of the Pacific and North American plates and
crustal extension in the Basin and Range Province. About 10 MYA a second pulse of uplift caused the
batholithic plutons to rise in the form of the current Sierra Nevada (Wood and Saleeby 1997, Harden
2004, Clark et al. 2005). The southern Sierra and Tehachapi ranges differ from the central Sierra Nevada
because the emplacement depth of the southern batholith was deeper, at approximately 30 km, whereas
the rest of the batholith was emplaced at approximately 10 km. Because of the emplacement depth, some
of the plutons were metamorphosed as they cooled and crystallized. Accordingly, the rocks composing
the Tehachapi Mountains are a mix of dark-colored mafic granitic rocks (e.g. diorite), light-colored
quartz-rich granitic rocks (e.g. granodiorite), and metamorphosed rocks (e.g. mafic gneiss) (Ross 1985).
The grasslands of the Tehachapi Range are the example of what REL calls environmental site 1. Soil
development is stunted by dynamic soil movement on the steep mountain slopes. These grasslands are
primarily underlain by Mollisols, which typically form in grassland environments. The soils have thick,
dark-colored A horizons rich in organic matter but B horizons that are thin to non-existent. Site 1
grasslands are dominated by exotic annual grasses.
Southeast of the Tehachapi Range, the Antelope Valley is a basin containing sediment eroded from the
Tehachapi and Transverse ranges during the Quaternary period (Ponti 1985). Adjacent to the mountains,
the alluvial fans are elevated, sloped, and Pleistocene in age (2.6 MYA-11,000 YA). These older
formations are dissected by younger, flatter alluvial fans of Holocene age. Soils associated with the
older formations are well developed. They are primarily Alfisols, which feature strongly developed B
horizons due to chemical weathering. In California, it typically takes hundreds of thousands of years for
Alfisols to form, and indeed, one of the oldest soils in the region is an Alfisol on these Pleistocene-aged
B-8 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
alluvial fans. The Ramona soil series is estimated to be over 300,000 years old (Soil Survey Staff 1970,
Ponti 1985). Environmental site 9 is associated with these sloping older fans, where native perennial
bunchgrasses are characteristically abundant.
On the younger, flatter alluvial fans, Entisols are the typical soils. These soils show very little evidence
of soil development, because their alluvial parent material has only recently been deposited.
Environmental site 6 spans this area. The native annual grass small fescue (Festuca microstachys
synonym Vulpia microstachys) is a dominant in years with rainfall conducive to high grass cover.
Lupines and California poppies are also present to abundant depending on weather conditions.
On the western end of the valley lie remnants of playas formed during the Pliocene (5.3-2.6 MYA) and
reflect wetter conditions. Soils formed on these remnants are Vertisols, which are extremely clay-rich.
This is the location of environmental site 10, where native vegetation unique to this area can be found.
Like the Antelope Valley, the San Joaquin Valley is also a sediment basin. In contrast to the Antelope
Valley however, the San Joaquin Valley’s sediments have been eroding from the Sierra Nevada
mountains since the Cretaceous period (145-65 MYA) in a phenomenon known as the Great Valley
Sequence (Harden 2004). While ages of the sediments at great depths reflect this process, the majority of
the alluvium found at the surface of the San Joaquin Valley floor has been deposited in the Holocene.
Soils formed on these younger surficial sediments are typically Entisols with very limited soil
development. Environmental site 2 is found in this area. Site 2 grasslands support primarily exotic
annual grasses with native forbs ranging from abundant to dominant depending on weather conditions.
The Tejon Hills are composed of sediments that were deposited as part of the Great Valley Sequence
during the Paleogene Period (66-23 MYA) in shallow marine and deltaic waters and eventually uplifted
in the Miocene epoch (23 MYA- 5.3 MYA) (Critelli and Nilsen 2000). Soils formed on these sediments
tend to have high concentrations of calcium and sulfate reflecting the paleoenvironments in which their
parent materials were deposited. Inceptisols, a soil order characterized by modest soil development, are
common this area. Like the soils in the Tehachapi range, these soils are on steeper slopes. However,
their unique soil chemistry may contribute to the relatively advanced development of the soils in this
area. This area is the location of environmental site 4. Exotic annual grasses are dominant, but native
geophytes and rare forbs of conservation importance are endemic to this area.
Soil order information derived from the national cooperative soil survey or the Soil Survey Geographic
database (SSURGO) (http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed August 2012).
3.5 Infrastructure, current grazing use and practices
Current Grazing Lease information
The Tejon Ranch currently contains two large cattle grazing lessees with their respective lease
agreements with the Tejon Ranch Company (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). There is an additional 368.5-acre
lease associated with a 42-acre inholding in the eastern portion of the ranch (Burke Lease) which will
not be discussed further at this time. Centennial Livestock currently leases approximately 203,000 acres
south of the Old Headquarters to the southern edge of the ranch including the San Joaquin Valley, the
Tehachapi Mountains, and the Antelope Valley. Cows and calves, and stocker cattle are grazed on the
leased acreage. Echeverria Cattle Company currently leases approximately 55,000 acres north of the Old
Headquarters to the northern edge of the Ranch including the San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi
Mountains, the Tejon Hills, and along Caliente Creek to the south of the Piute Mountains. Cows and
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-9
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
calves, and stocker cattle are grazed on the leased acreage. TRC grazes livestock on some of the Ranch
lands under the historic cross and crescent brand (Attachment A, Sage Associates 2012).
Extensive ranching infrastructure such as fences, water troughs and tanks, improved springs, roads, and
incidental ranching facilities such as chutes, squeezes, etc. have been developed on Tejon Ranch over
the years. The existing ranching infrastructure is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
The two primary grazing leases allow for year-round cow-calf operations supplemented with stocker
cattle (Attachment A, Sage Associates 2012). The actual use of pastures follows seasonal progression of
forage mainly along elevational gradients and availability of stock water. Thus cattle are held in low
elevation pastures in the winter, follow green-up to higher elevations in spring and summer, and move
back to low elevations in fall. Low elevation pastures on the San Joaquin Valley side of the Ranch area
used for calving in the fall and winter, and breeding with bulls following calving. Following long-
Figure 3-1. Ranching infrastructure in the northern half of Tejon Ranch. Note that not all infrastructure
is shown.
B-10 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
standing practice, large scale herding is rarely employed and animals move to follow water and forage
availability within pastures of highly variable size. The infrastructure supporting grazing is adequate,
however Sage Associates (Attachment A) have proposed some improvements in pasture configuration
and developed waters both for conservation goals and to improve livestock productivity, which will be
further discussed below in Sections 4, and 5.
Figure 3-2. Ranching infrastructure in the southern half of Tejon Ranch. Note that not all infrastructure
is shown.
3.6 Sensitive resources
Tejon Ranch provides habitat for approximately 37 special status or sensitive wildlife species and 18
sensitive plant species known to occur on Tejon Ranch. A literature review and summary analysis was
conducted for each sensitive species that included peer-reviewed publications and agency management
reports as well as the opinion of the REL. Based on available evidence, we ranked the general effect of
livestock grazing for each species as beneficial, neutral or detrimental (scale of +3 to -3). Wildlife
species have more publications and report information than many of the plant species. The lack of
information for sensitive plant species is reflected in the ability to determine the effect of livestock
grazing on these plant species (ranking scale is only +2 to -2). We have developed detailed lists of
sensitive wildlife and plant species found in the grazing area of Tejon Ranch with what is known about
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-11
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
grazing impacts, summarized in tables in Attachment D. Based on information in the literature, many of
these species are expected to be unaffected by or benefit from livestock grazing, although monitoring to
assess effects at Tejon Ranch may still be warranted. Several species may experience adverse effects due
to improper grazing management; particularly in riparian areas during the summer dry period. However,
complicating the assessment of livestock impacts is the presence of feral pigs on Tejon Ranch. Feral
pigs are omnivorous and their rooting and foraging behaviors can be detrimental to a number of species.
Feral pigs appear to be particularly destructive in riparian and wetland habitats, where their effects may
be difficult to separate from those of livestock.
Wildlife sensitive species summary
Sensitive wildlife species that are considered to benefit from livestock grazing (i.e., livestock grazing is
considered beneficial if not excessive or in Attachment D with a +3 rank) include: Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia), Ferruginous hawk ( Buteo regalis), California horned lark ( Eremophila alpestris
actia), Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), Bluntnosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), American badger (Taxidea
taxus) and San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica). Sensitive wildlife species where livestock
grazing can have a negative effect (listed in Attachment D with a -3 rank and those that primarily utilize
wetland/riparian habitat) include: Northern harrier Circus cyaneus), Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Twostriped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), yellow-blotched salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzi
croceator), and Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi). Riparian species affected by
livestock grazing to a lesser extent are Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and Yellow warbler
(Dendroica petechia brewsteri) (in Attachment D information for these two species is less definitive;
rankings are -2 and -1 respectively). Negative effects to riparian associates are largely associated with
changes in habitat structure, such as loss of understory cover and trampling of stream banks.
Plant sensitive species summary
Sensitive plant species that are considered to probably benefit from livestock grazing (i.e. livestock
grazing is considered probably beneficial if not excessive or in Attachment D with a +2 rank) are
included in this summary. Livestock grazing is considered likely beneficial (+2 rank) to Hoover’s
eriastrum (Eriastrum hooveri), a sensitive plant species which was federally delisted in 2003. Hoover’s
eriastrum is considered unpalatable to livestock and therefore is potentially at a competitive advantage in
livestock grazed areas (USFWS 2003). Also Round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), and
Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) may benefit from grazing (Attachment D rank for
these species is +1 or possibly beneficial with proper management). Sensitive plants where there is a
probable negative effect (listed in Attachment D with a -2 rank) of livestock grazing and trampling,
again using the findings from BLM and CNPS management reports, are Alkali Mariposa lily
(Calochortus striatus) (Green and Sanders 2011) and Cottony buckwheat (Eriogonum gossypinum)
(CNPS 2012, Longland et al. 2009, C. Shafer pers. comm. 2009). Cottony buckwheat is also thought to
be adversely affected by nonnative plants. Both of these species occur in San Joaquin Valley grassland
environmental sites that support a relatively high cover of native forbs and for which management to
reduce nonnative plant cover is desired.
B-12 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
4.0 Grazing Management Assessment and Recommendations
4.1 Overview of grazing ecology and management
The science base for grazing management has been significantly improved and enhanced over the past
five years, culminating in reviews, analyses, and recommendations for rangeland management practices
in North America (Briske et al. 2011); reviews of effects of practices on California grasslands
(Stahlheber and D’Antonio 2013, Huntsinger et al. 2007); and general management recommendations
for California rangelands (Huntsinger et al. 2007). Those authors concluded that the result of any
specific grazing practice is highly site-specific (in some cases, this is roughly equivalent to soil type)
and primarily depends on the interactions of site and weather with grazing. This means that even if there
were experimental results from local grazing studies, those types of results have limited predictive value
for grazing management under adaptive management (Bartolome et al. 2009). A fundamental principle
of grazing management on Californian rangelands is the need for flexibility in both planning and
application (Bush 2006, Huntsinger et al. 2007). The approach recommended here applies general
principles for informed best grazing management practice under a monitoring approach (detailed in
sections 4.4 and 5.0) sufficient to inform adaptive management decisions (Herrick et al. 2012).
Published research evaluating the use of grazing as a conservation tool for native vegetation restoration
and management report mixed results for California (Kimball and Schiffman 2003, Huntsinger et al.
2007). In a meta-analysis of grazing experiments in California’s Mediterranean-type grasslands
Stahlheber and D’Antonio (2013) reported that grazing often increased native grasses, but also
nonnative forbs; and sometimes increased native forbs, but the results all appeared to be highly sitespecific and dependent on weather patterns. Research includes local results with benefits from grazing
(Germano et al. 2012; Knopf and Rupert 1995), but specific published work is scarce for the San
Joaquin Valley and absent for the Antelope Valley. The research done at the Carrizo Plains by Christian
and colleagues (in litt.), and popularly referred to as showing that grazing does not favor native plants, is
not published and should better be described as inconclusive because it did not reject the conventional
hypothesis that grazing had no effect.
Grazing has been a successful conservation management tool for specific plant taxa in some herbaceous
wetland communities (Marty 2005; Pyke and Marty 2005), probably through the reduction of competing
nonnative species (e.g., nonnative annual grasses and associated thatch accumulation resulting in high
Residual Dry Matter (RDM). RDM is the dry aboveground plant material remaining after the growing
season is completed and is an important indicator of the degree of grazing use on annual rangelands
(Bartolome et al. 2006). In the Temblor Range, Jackson and Bartolome (2002) found that RDM
influenced plant species competition, including abundance of the native chilean trefoil (Acmispon
wrangelianus synonym Lotus wrangelianus), but only in some years. “Grazing” is very poorly
characterized in most studies, making results difficult to properly interpret (Huntsinger et al. 2007). The
management targets being manipulated often vary greatly and defy any broad attempt to group them into
simple categories. Habitat manipulation often positively impacts one species (or group), while
negatively impacting other species. Thus, prior attempts to characterize the effects of grazing depend on
a narrow frame of reference and are very site-specific (Jackson and Bartolome 2007). However, regional
RDM standards (i.e., minimum RDM levels) have been developed to promote protection of rangeland
vegetation and soils (Bartolome et al. 2006) and use of regional RDM standards where they are available
is considered a “best practice” for range management.
Prehistoric and historical grazers/browsers played a role in developing California animal and plant
communities (Edwards 2007, Bartolome et al. 2007); yet climate, land use, and vegetation changes at
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-13
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
different temporal and spatial scales make historical comparisons of doubtful value for predicting
current grazing effects at a given location (Jackson and Bartolome 2007). Still, domestic livestock are
appropriate for vegetation management in weedy plant and animal communities (Barry 2003; Germano
et al. 2012; Griggs 2000; Thomsen et al. 1993), and livestock grazing remains a tool for ecosystem
restoration even in lands previously degraded by excessive livestock grazing (Huntsinger et al. 2007,
Papanastasis 2009).
Traditionally, a goal for livestock grazing management has been maximum uniformity of use within and
between pastures (Heady and Child 1994). More recently, range scientists have argued that the benefits
of heterogeneity for conservation goals outweigh those of uniform use (Bestelmeyer et al. 2011). Cattle
stocking densities are matched with the length of the grazing period, season of use, and the configuration
of the pasture to use forage efficiently while still promoting vegetation heterogeneity beneficial for
conservation goals, including wildlife and plant species. For example, where bare ground is desirable for
enhancing habitat of some vertebrate species (e.g., giant kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San
Joaquin kit fox), greater use by cattle can be encouraged if needed through changes in stocking and
season of use, distribution of salt and dietary supplements, and water facilities. The relative degree of
uniform utilization and heterogeneity can best be determined through RDM mapping (Wildland
Solutions 2008) and then be usefully fed back into modification of management practices.
A plan is necessary to implement management strategies and outline monitoring required to track
success in reaching goals and to adapt new or revised strategies to achieve success (Bush 2006). Good
grazing plans include well defined strategic goals, evaluate existing conditions, identify and propose
management practices, and suggest options for implementation and monitoring. This grazing plan is also
intended to be a dynamic and adaptive document; for example, initial stocking rates use existing levels,
are verified using production estimates from soil surveys, and then will be refined over time by
monitoring RDM.
Often grazing plans are implemented through a long-term grazing lease, which outlines the overall
management of the operation, specifies the conditions of the agreement, and allows for the necessary
year-to-year flexibility. A longer-term lease can be supplemented with a land use agreement or
management plan, an informal or formal agreement with the operator that is evaluated more frequently
and revised as needed (often routinely every year) to meet contingencies such as forage availability,
shorter term opportunities for modified management practices, needs for improved different timing and
distribution of grazing, and short-term needs such as infrastructure repair. This approach is now
common practice for grazing plans (Huntsinger et al. 2007) and it is recommended that TRC, TRC
grazing lessees, and the Conservancy use these annual plans as a means of fostering communication and
collaboration. TRC manages all grazing leases and the Ranch-wide Agreement provides a process for
the Conservancy recommending modifications of any lease terms.
4.2 Grazing capacity assessment
A primary goal of a grazing management plan is to establish the number of grazing animals that the area
under evaluation can support on a sustainable basis, that is, without long-term adverse impacts to the
natural resource base (e.g., soil, vegetation). Range managers call this number “grazing capacity”.
Grazing capacity may be defined more formally as the maximum number of animals in a defined area
that will produce a target level of production without ecosystem deterioration over a defined period,
usually a long time (Heady and Child 1994). There are three main approaches to determining
appropriate grazing levels or grazing capacity: 1) the history of actual use works fairly well if accurate
records are available; 2) the amount of forage available can be estimated; or 3) levels of RDM can be
B-14 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
monitored under existing livestock use (Bush 2006). In theory, with the grazing capacity determined, a
stocking rate can then be decided upon; stocking rate is the actual number of animals in a defined area
during a grazing period (Heady and Child 1994).
Grazing capacity seems a simple concept: “how much grazing can be sustained”. In practice the concept
becomes discouragingly complex both in theory and application and has a long history of problems
when applied to dry rangelands, such as are present at Tejon Ranch. The concept of a single, sustainable
stocking rate has been questioned for dry rangelands in general (Heitschmidt and Stuth 1991) and is
currently regarded as of little value for Mediterranean annual-type range like that found in central
California (George et al. 2001). Although long-term averages can be determined as noted above, they
are of little value under the extreme fluctuations in production caused by year-to-year variation in
weather patterns. Grazing capacity estimates mainly provide a useful starting point for setting a stocking
rate and best serve as a general guide around which stocking rates can be adjusted (Bush 2006).
Stocking rates themselves, however, must be adjustable in response to variations in forage production
and the timing of actual use (Huntsinger et al. 2007).
It is important to realize that setting a stocking rate in California requires retrospective rather than
prospective consideration. Research shows that seasonal forage production in California cannot be
accurately predicted until February, by which time it is generally too late for a livestock operator to
adjust herd size; livestock decisions for the following spring are typically made in the fall of the
previous year. Even those production estimates can have large associated errors in measurement and
should be supplemented by post-grazing measurements reflecting actual use. Problems caused by forage
prediction and measurement are inescapable elements of grazing management in California.
A solution to the difficulty lies in evaluating stocking rates for the coming grazing season based on RDM,
the amount of above ground plant material, remaining from the previous grazing season. Fall RDM
standards, ranging from as little as 100 pounds per acre on flat ground in woodlands and ranging to 300 to
600 pounds per acre, depending on slope, in open dry annual grasslands have been shown protect rangelands
from soil erosion and nutrient loss, and maximize forage production and plant species richness (Bartolome
et al. 2006). When RDM in the fall meets the minimum standards, then the stocking rate suggested by the
grazing capacity estimate is appropriate for the following year’s grazing season. If RDM falls below the
minimum standards, as can happen in a drought year because of the difficulty of predicting forage
production before the start of the grazing season or because of uneven distribution of animal use, the
stocking rate and/or animal distribution for the following year’s grazing season should be re-evaluated. A
reduced stocking rate is likely to be needed for specific pastures to ensure that RDM minimum standards are
achieved for the following grazing season. In other words, livestock use to below RDM minima may
occasionally occur but only within a single season, which is unlikely to result in long-term damage to range
productivity and associated resources. Of course, in extreme drought years when forage production fails, the
grazing season may have to be curtailed. Stocking rate decisions are generally considered the most
important of all grazing management decisions (Holechek et al. 2011) and should therefore be supervised by
an experienced range manager, preferably a State of California Licensed Certified Rangeland Manager
(http://www.rangelands.org/casrm/Assets/Certified/CRMBrochure%20with%20logo%202009.pdf).
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-15
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
4.3. Method used to estimate grazing capacity on Tejon Ranch
Production of available forage to support livestock varies, depending upon an array of environmental
factors including weather, substrate, accessibility, and vegetation composition. Because of the absence
of accurate historical stocking rates, to estimate grazing capacity of Tejon Ranch we used the Ecological
Site method, which is based on vegetation production estimates for different soil types developed by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This soil type-based method provides an
estimate of average above-ground vegetation production values for all soil types but does not always
account for the actual vegetation communities found at any particular site. As such, this method
produces a coarse approximation of forage production, and therefore an estimate of grazing capacity, for
specific locations. In the future it will be desirable to supplement those estimates with actual use values
or to apply the RDM-based grazing capacity scorecard approach (Standiford et al. 1999).
The NRCS has developed an extensive landscape classification system, the Ecological Site Information
System, based on soil type, slope, and vegetation (see http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/ for further details).
The NRCS Web Soil Survey website (http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed August 2012)
provides Ecological Site vegetation production estimates for the grazing area’s soil mapping units at
three levels of annual rainfall: favorable (wet), average (normal), and unfavorable (dry) years. These
production estimates are total annual, above-ground biomass production (i.e., all vegetation, whether or
not it is palatable to livestock) in pounds/acre.
Production estimates using the NRCS Ecological Site method are summarized below. From these
production estimates we provide a coarse estimate of grazing capacity, or Animal Unit Months (AUMs),
which is the amount of forage required by an animal for one month of grazing. In Attachment E,
estimated total biomass production, total AUMs, and average biomass production per acre are provided
for each pasture in Tables E-1 and E-2 and mapped for individual pastures in Figures E-1 through E-12.
Biomass production and AUMs are included using a reduction to 60% of the estimated biomass
production from the NRCS Ecological Site method (Table 4-1). This 60% reduction in biomass
production value creates a forage availability value, or usable forage, to account for unpalatable plants
and a minimum RDM allowance. This produces a preliminary estimate of AUMs useful for planning
purposes.
Range managers frequently define the grazing capacity of a site as the estimated AUMs available in a
normal rainfall year. The estimated grazing capacity of the site is then often used as the initial stocking
rate. Based on the NRCS production estimates, adjusted for available forage and conservation value,
total biomass production is estimated to approximate 224,690 AUMs in a wet year, 161,873 AUMs in an
average rainfall year, and 103,755 AUMs in a dry year. As on most California ranches of the period,
Tejon Ranch stocking levels in the late 19th and early 20th century were higher than currently
recommended. The range of AUMs available appear to include the recently authorized and actual leased
use for normal and wet years, but the maximum head count of 14,500 animals allowed in current Tejon
Ranch leases appears to be above the estimated production available in dry years, suggesting a need for
lease provisions to deal with possible forage shortfalls in adverse years.
B-16 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
Table 4-1: Estimated overall grazing capacity for Tejon Ranch; available production values are 60% of
total NRCS biomass values.
Available Production
Precipitation Year
(60% Total Biomass in Lbs.)
AUMs
103,754,940
103,755
Low
161,872,980
161,873
Normal
224,689,650
224,690
High
See Attachment E for vegetation production tables and grazing capacity estimate pasture maps for dry,
normal and wet rainfall years.
4.4 Recommended grazing management-related actions.
Management actions operationalize the plan’s recommendations and are typically accomplished in
several different ways depending on the goals, available resources, and organizational structure. Federal
land management agencies typically operate under highly structured lease arrangements directly
supervised by professionally trained range specialists applying specified regulations and approved
procedures for monitoring. State and local land management agencies either have professionally trained
range managers directly supervising activities or, less commonly, operate under structured lease
agreements indirectly supervised by an outside range professional. Private grazing agreements have
traditionally operated under loosely structured leases primarily written to cover legal and financial
matters, relying on the lessee to deal with operations (Huntsinger et al. 2007). With the current
popularity of conservation easements, supervision and monitoring of grazing operations by staff range
specialists, consultants, or even independent appointed advisory groups is becoming much more
common on private lands.
The Tejon Ranch Agreement is novel in that while TRC retains the right to conduct livestock grazing
over the conserved lands, the Conservancy has the ability to propose Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce or minimize adverse impacts of livestock grazing to natural resources or to achieve
Conservancy conservation values. In addition, the Conservancy can implement at its own expense
Conservation Activities, such as installation of new fencing or livestock water sources, to promote
conservation values. Monitoring is an essential element of good grazing management, whether for
sustained livestock production goals or for conservation goals. Thus grazing management and
monitoring at Tejon Ranch must be the product of an ongoing, well-structured, and explicit
collaboration between TRC, its lessees, and the Conservancy.
In order to collaborate and coordinate grazing management actions at Tejon Ranch, the Conservancy
and TRC are forming the Tejon Ranch Operations Committee, comprised of relevant senior staff from
TRC and the Conservancy. The role of this committee is to provide a forum for coordinating and
implementing the Conservancy’s adaptive management program, including grazing management
actions, and to ensure information generated from the adaptive management program is appropriately
translated into BMPs that are incorporated into Ranch operations and practices. For grazing
management-related activities, ongoing coordination with TRC’s grazing lessees would occur through
the Operation Committee. The structure of the Conservancy’s adaptive management program, including
the Operations Committee is discussed further in RWMP Volume 2.
This TGMA recommends a number of “best practices” for grazing operations at Tejon Ranch and
Conservancy-led management and research activities. These recommendations will be prioritized for
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-17
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
implementation in the RWMP Volume 2. Grazing management recommendations are separated into two
major groups:
1) Best practices that are considered standard in the industry in California and should be
implemented by TRC as part of ongoing grazing operations to attain animal and forage
production goals and protect rangeland resources; and
2) Conservancy led management actions (accompanied by appropriate monitoring) to enhance
resource conditions where appropriate to meet conservation goals, and research to increase
understanding of natural resources that may be affected by livestock grazing.
This plan recommends that TRC and the Conservancy implement adaptive management to support
decision-making, which is consistent with the Conservancy’s stewardship approach described in the
RWMP. Adaptive management requires development of goals, a process for evaluating adaptive
management needs, recommendations for best management practices to achieve goals, and monitoring
of compliance and effectiveness of the management practices (Herrick et al 2012). Adaptive
management can be generally defined as an iterative decision-making process that incorporates
formulation of management objectives; actions designed to address these objectives and applied in a
manner to reliably inform future management; monitoring of results; and repeated adaptation of
management until desired results are achieved. One significant criticism is that adaptive management
might be used as justification for undertaking actions of unproven effectiveness or as an excuse for
evading the need to develop specific measurable indicators and monitoring programs.
Although much is generally known about grazing effects on Californian grasslands (see Huntsinger et al.
2007), there are large knowledge gaps related to specific conservation goals. To effectively incorporate
adaptive management into grazing management at Tejon Ranch, REL proposes combining two
approaches to evaluating grazing management effects. The first approach informing management adopts
the Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) principles of design. BACI design defines two treatments, a
control and an impact. As Stewart-Oaten and Bence (2001) noted, the control site in the BACI design is
not a true experimental control but rather a measure of the existing natural variation in the ecosystem.
The “before” measurements are crucial in that they provide a means to quantify the differences in
ecosystem function between the control and impact sites not related to the management impact since
these measurements occur before the imposition of any new activity. The “after” measurements are used
to estimate the effect of the management treatment at the impact site based on the divergence between
the control and impact sites. A major challenge for the BACI design is to control for confounding
influences (Walters and Green 1997). This control is particularly challenging when the experimental and
management units are large and diverse, as are pastures on Tejon Ranch (Hobbs 2003) but we have
made considerable progress with the ongoing grassland study in both identifying homogeneous
environmental sites with predictable characteristics and establishing “before” conditions (Spiegal and
Bartolome 2012).
The second approach to evaluating new information is that instead of traditional hypothesis testing, REL
proposes to measure the degree of support in the monitored data for a priori expectations (i.e., models).
An advantage of this approach to testing efficacy of management strategies is the greater relevance of
information gained by evaluating an effect size and associated estimates of uncertainty rather than an
ordinary statistical test of null hypotheses. For example, rather than testing an uninformative null
hypothesis like “low levels of RDM do not enhance abundance of a target species,” instead differences
in abundance of target species under different managed RDM levels and the uncertainties associated
B-18 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
with those differences are reported. This approach is more conducive to an adaptive management
framework than traditional tests (Johnson 2002, Hobbs 2003, Bennett and Adams 2004) in part because
it provides more intuitive answers to managers. For cases where we have competing models to explain
the observed responses, approaches based on information theory (e.g., Akaike’s information criterion)
can be used to quantify the strength of evidence for alternative models (Burnham and Anderson 2002).
This approach has been applied to several California rangeland studies (Bartolome et al. 2009,
Spotswood et al. In Press) and to a large and complex fire management project in Sierra Nevada forests
(Battles et al. 2007, Collins et al. 2011 http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/91/).
4.5 Recommended best practices for Tejon Ranch
•
Establish RDM standards and other metrics to protect rangeland condition. Tejon Ranch has not
historically used RDM as a metric for rangeland condition. Minimum RDM standards for
livestock use have been established (Bartolome et al. 2006) for California coastal and foothills
annual rangelands, which are applicable to all grasslands on Tejon Ranch except for those in the
Antelope Valley. These standards (Table 4-2 and 4-3) vary from 300 lbs/acre on level ground to
600 lbs/acre in steeper terrain or when a greater woody cover is present in dry annual grasslands.
Higher RDM minima are appropriate in oak woodlands. These standards are considered
protective of long-term rangeland productivity and soils but are not targeted at specific
conservation values. No published standards are available for Antelope Valley annual or
perennial-dominated grasslands, so those will need to be developed. Development of RDM
standards for the Antelope Valley portion of Tejon Ranch is a Conservancy-led research activity
discussed in Section 4.6 below.
Table 4-2. Residual dry matter (RDM) standards (lbs/acre) for dry annual grasslands. From
Bartolome et al. 2006. NA = Not applicable to this range type.
Percent
Percent slope
woody cover
0-10%
10-20%
20-40%
>40%
0-25%
300
400
500
600
25-50%
300
400
500
600
50-75%
NA
NA
NA
NA
75-100%
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 4-3. Residual dry matter (RDM) standards (lbs/acre) for annual grasslands/oak savanna
and woodlands. From Bartolome et al. 2006. NA = Not applicable to this range type.
Percent
Percent slope
woody cover
0-10%
10-20%
20-40%
>40%
0-25%
500
600
700
800
25-50%
400
500
600
700
50-75%
200
300
400
500
75-100%
100
200
250
300
•
Implement Fall RDM monitoring to assess compliance with RDM standards. While there are
various techniques for monitoring RDM, we suggest that RDM be evaluated at key locations (a
key location is an area representative of grazing use for the pasture) including all of the existing
51 grassland permanent plots established by the Conservancy (Spiegal and Bartolome 2012) and
a subset of the 161 sites visited by Sage Associates (Attachment A). RDM measurements at
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-19
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
selected locations will include photos, estimates of weight of RDM, stubble height estimates, and
other observations as recommended by Sage Associates (Attachment A). We recommend that
RDM monitoring be conducted jointly by TRC and the Conservancy.
•
Salt and supplements should not be placed adjacent to (preferably not within 1/8 mile) any
livestock water source, stream, or wetland habitat. This is accepted practice to encourage greater
utilization of forage throughout individual pastures and to avoid excessive grazing pressure on
riparian and wetland habitats.
•
Add water troughs where appropriate to replace streams, springs, or ponds as livestock water
sources. The practice of providing adequate supplies of higher quality trough water can improve
livestock performance and reduce grazing pressure at streams and springs (Attachment A).
Developed springs should be boxed and/or fenced to protect the spring source from disturbance
by livestock and feral pigs. The outlets of any flow-through troughs should be rock or concrete
lined to reduce erosion, improve water quality, and provide water for wildlife. Water troughs
should be equipped or retrofitted with wildlife “escape ramps” that allow wildlife that fall into
the trough to climb out. These practices, particularly development of new water sources should
be implemented collaboratively with the Conservancy.
•
TRC, their lessees and the Conservancy should collaborate on operational modifications that
would reduce dry-season grazing intensity in pastures supporting important riparian and wetland
habitats (for example, Bull Field, Indian Field, and Secretario Meadow). If operational
modifications to protect riparian and wetlands are not feasible, work with the Conservancy to
install fencing to protect riparian and wetland habitats.
•
Minimize the use of quads and other vehicles off of ranch roads to move or gather cattle,
particularly in the Antelope Valley where disturbance of sensitive desert soils can take many
years to restore.
•
The TRC should consider should examine modifying grazing leases to an AUM basis, with
RDM-based stocking provisions, better assignment of AU values, and procedures for adjusting
stocking rates and season of use. Adjusting livestock numbers to match available forage,
especially in dry years, is important to maintain the productive capability of grazed grassland
landscapes. Monitoring of RDM and condition of other resources can be used to inform adaptive
management of animal distribution and numbers.
•
TRC, their lessees and the Conservancy should collaborate to develop and implement a process
for RDM-based annual review of livestock use levels and distribution regular reporting of animal
use by lessees and identification of any needed adjustments of stocking to meet RDM standards.
This information should be included in an annual management plan collaboratively prepared by
the Conservancy, TRC, and grazing lessees. Grazing management requires flexibility and an
annual management plan within the overall provisions of the grazing lease is a good way to
ensure regular communication among involved parties and flexibility (Bush 2006).
4.6 Conservancy-led management actions and research
•
Employ an adaptive management approach, as described above, to develop, apply, and evaluate,
grazing practices. The Conservancy’s framework for adaptive management is described in the
RWMP Volume 2, and would be coordinated through the Tejon Ranch Operations Committee
described in Section 4.4.
B-20 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
•
Add water troughs where appropriate to replace streams, springs, or ponds as livestock water
sources. The practice of providing adequate supplies of higher quality trough water can improve
livestock performance and reduce grazing pressure at streams and springs (Attachment A).
Springs should be boxed and/or fenced to protect the spring source from disturbance by livestock
and feral pigs. The outlets of any flow-through troughs should be rock or concrete lined to
reduce erosion, improve water quality, and provide water for wildlife. Water troughs should be
equipped or retrofitted with wildlife “escape ramps” that allow wildlife that fall into the trough to
climb out. These practices should be implemented collaboratively with the TRC. Reaches of
lower Tejon Creek are being targeted for an initial pilot riparian enhancement project
(Attachment C), including development of new off-stream livestock water sources and riparian
fencing. A number of additional water development projects are described Attachment A.
•
Enhance riparian and wetland habitats. TRC, their lessees, and the Conservancy should
collaborate on operational modifications that would reduce dry-season grazing intensity in
pastures supporting important riparian and wetland habitats (for example, Bull Field, Indian
Field, and Secretario Meadow). If operational modifications to protect riparian and spring-fed
wetlands are not considered feasible, work with TRC and their lessees to install fencing to
manage livestock grazing in riparian and wetland habitats. Because riparian areas are attractive
to feral pigs, riparian management will also need to consider control of pigs. A pilot riparian
enhancement project at lower Tejon Creek is described further in Attachment C.
•
The Conservancy will work with TRC and grazing lessees to modify the intensity and timing of
grazing in selected pastures supporting low elevation San Joaquin Valley grasslands with the
goal of improving habitat for selected grassland species favored by low plant cover (e.g. San
Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, burrowing owl). Candidate pastures include White
Wolf South, Kohlmeier, Comanche Strip, Comanche Trap, Little Globe, Alamo Solo, Tejon
Field, and Lower Aqua Blanca. In these pastures, management would generally entail grazing
consistent to achieve low plant biomass and ample bare ground. Improve water availability in
key pastures as recommended by Sage Associates (Attachment A) and refine the distribution of
water using monitoring results.
•
Develop new water sources where needed to improve the distribution of livestock grazing. New
water sources can be developed to increase grazing intensity in underutilized pastures, to reduce
utilization in heavily grazed areas around existing water troughs, or to allow better seasonal
movement of livestock. A number of water development projects are identified in Attachment A.
For example, new waters in the Mendiburu area of the Ranch (southeast portion of the Antelope
Valley side of the Ranch) would allow livestock access to areas of underutilized forage and
could facilitate management of intensity and timing of grazing in more heavily utilized areas of
the Antelope Valley further to the west.
•
Monitor the distribution of invasive plant species and implement strategic control of these
species (see Attachment F). In general, cattle grazing is not considered to be an effective
management tool for most of the invasive plant species present at Tejon Ranch. Invasive plant
species management is discussed further in the RWMP.
•
Identify locations and monitor populations of special status and endemic plants on selected
grassland environmental sites and expand monitoring of special status and endemic plants into
additional ecological sites where warranted. The Conservancy has initiated rare plant surveys on
Tejon Ranch and, within grassland habitats the Tejon Hills have been identified as supporting a
high diversity of special status or rare plants. Develop a rare plant monitoring program and
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-21
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
incorporate these monitoring results into the development and assessment of grassland
management strategies.
•
Enhance recruitment of oaks and oak understory conditions. While there are several specific
areas of Tejon Ranch where significant oak regeneration is apparent, there is evidence that in
other parts of the Ranch survival of oak seedlings and saplings may not be too low to maintain a
stable oak population over the long-term. Managing or excluding livestock grazing alone is not
considered an effective management approach for improving survival of seedlings and saplings
to adult oaks. Strategically installing tree shelters to improve seedling and sapling survival is
considered the most effective approach (Attachment B). However, livestock grazing may have
adverse effects on the biodiversity of understory communities, and grazing management trials to
explore these effects should be implemented. Develop environmental site descriptions and
implement management trials to assess the influence of livestock and feral pigs on the understory
diversity of oak communities, as well as other communities such as shrublands and conifer
forests.
•
Continue monitoring grassland study plots, making adjustments in the sampling frequency where
appropriate. These study plots have been used to understand the nature and distribution of
grassland types, develop grassland site descriptions, and understand inter-annual dynamics and
develop state and transition models. Future monitoring results will be used to refine our
understanding of the grasslands on the Ranch. Monitoring data obtained from these plots will
also be used to establish baseline or “before” management conditions and in the future compared
to “after” management monitoring data for evaluating management effects. Augment the existing
grassland monitoring program with additional rangeland condition metrics to support long-term
monitoring of important rangeland attributes such as soil and site stability, watershed function,
and biotic integrity recommended for adaptive management (Herrick et al. 2012). Based on
research conducted to date, the grassland resources supported by the San Joaquin Valley and
Antelope Valley portions of the Ranch are distinct and lead to somewhat different research
emphases.
•
In the San Joaquin Valley, the research focus is to continue to refine the understanding of the
dynamics of environmental sites in the San Joaquin Valley that support high native plant cover
and/or special status plant species, and identify adaptive management strategies to enhance
native species. Environmental sites that support special status and endemic plants are generally at
lower elevations on recent alluvium and in the Tejon Hills. Supplement botanical monitoring
with analysis of historical vegetation communities using phytoliths to better understand the
potential vegetation communities at these sites. Develop, implement, and monitor modified
practices to enhance native species.
•
In the Antelope Valley, our understanding of the distribution of environmental sites and
vegetation states and transitions is to date poorly quantified. The research focus in the Antelope
Valley is to expand the grassland monitoring program to better refine environmental site
descriptions and to better understand site potential for native plants and pronghorn habitat in the
area. Additional permanent plots are needed to help derive RDM standards for these grasslands
(see recommendation 10 below) and establish “before” conditions in Antelope Valley grasslands
to monitor responses to any future management actions. The additional plots should be
supplemented with additional soil analyses and phytolith analyses.
•
Develop and evaluate RDM and height standards for grazing management in Antelope Valley
grassland for multiple goals including enhancing native plant species, enhancing pronghorn
habitat, and livestock management. RDM and stubble height standards for this grassland type are
B-22 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
not available but could be adapted in modified form from those developed by Don Hyder in the
1950’s for bluebunch wheatgrass in central Oregon and by Bartolome et al. (2006) for Coastal
Prairie, then tested on Tejon Ranch. Based on results of this work, implement grazing practices
to enhance pronghorn habitat and native plant species.
•
Develop environmental site descriptions for riparian and wetland areas. The Conservancy is
helping to sponsor a doctoral research project to develop environmental site descriptions for low
elevation riparian habitats in the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Ranch (this research is
described further in Attachment C). The results of this field research will also serve to monitor
the responses of riparian enhancement approaches in a pilot project on lower Tejon Creek
mentioned in recommendation 3 above (further described in Attachment C).
•
Explore improving the efficiency of RDM mapping by utilizing available technology, including
remote sensing. One of the major issues with adaptive management on rangelands is the cost of
monitoring. Plot-based methods are too costly and inaccurate; while RDM mapping is better,
remotely sensed information would allow for much more precise measures.
5.0 Monitoring for Adaptive Management
Grazing monitoring accomplishes two objectives: 1) Compliance monitoring determines if an action is
appropriately implemented and complies with expectations; and 2) Effectiveness monitoring
determines if management actions are achieving the desired results (Bush 2006). The results from a
properly designed monitoring program provide guidance both for compliance and effectiveness and are
used to improve management practices. A good monitoring program efficiently produces the
information required to accomplish stated goals at minimum cost. Monitoring is an integral part of
adaptive management and should be incorporated into specific management goals and recommended
practices. To provide effective feedback into management decisions, results from monitoring need to
meet a high standard of precision and accuracy, be up-to-date, and be cost efficient, a tall order.
Compliance monitoring for grazing management requires information about the number of animals,
timing of grazing, distribution of grazing, and the intensity of grazing. Not all methods are feasible in
every lease arrangement, and furthermore, existing grazing leases are not subject to changes until the
times of their renewals. The following are compliance monitoring methods proposed for the RWMP to
monitor grazing-related BMPs and Conservation Activities
1) Number of animals: Ideally, livestock should be counted as they are brought on and off of the
property. The counts need to be supervised by responsible range personnel, and thus bringing animals on
requires prior notification. These counts may be supplemented by monthly reporting.
2) The presence of animals (timing and distribution of grazing) on a property should be
documented by regular surveys by responsible range personnel.
3) Using RDM standards as a best practice to guide management of livestock requires
monitoring RDM. The distribution and intensity of grazing can be adequately monitored through
assessment of RDM, however other metrics such as stubble height and/or photo points are also
appropriate. Traditionally, the standard method for monitoring RDM requires the establishment of
permanent monitoring locations in a grazed site. In each location, RDM is determined in early fall,
before the onset of germinating rain, through the use of photo guides and the comparative yield method
(Bartolome et al. 2006; Bush 2006; Wildland Solutions 2008).
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-23
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
More recently, the RDM mapping technique has been developed and implemented in California, an
innovation that allows for a clearer picture of the spatial distribution of RDM (Frost et al. 1988). RDM
mapping is easy to learn and can require less time to complete than the traditional permanent plot-based
method, while still producing robust information. Sites with too little or too much RDM can be quickly
identified, and solutions based on manipulating animal distribution and seasonal use may also be more
easily developed. RDM mapping requires developing RDM classes (e.g., 0-600 lbs/acre, 600-1000
lbs/acre, etc.) and, with a paper map or GPS in-hand, mapping RDM classes based on visual estimation
of fairly large areas. Visual estimations are calibrated during the mapping process by clipping and
weighing RDM from small, representative plots. Annual time-series of RDM class maps can then be
evaluated for areas requiring management attention. The Coastal Training Program at the Elkhorn
Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve in Watsonville periodically offers well-received shortcourses on RDM monitoring (see
http://www.elkhornsloughctp.org/training/show_train_detail.php?TRAIN_ID=Ho5BX3W).
We recommend that the Conservancy adopt plot-based sampling of key areas supplemented by RDM
mapping in selected pastures. Developing a remote sensing-based procedure would allow cost-effective
RDM mapping to be implemented across the entire property and is a method the Conservancy should
continue to pursue. Annual RDM results will be reviewed with the Tejon Ranch Operations Committee
and grazing lessees.
Supplemental salt and mineral distribution across the Ranch should be evaluated on an ongoing basis
and problems identified, brought to the attention of the Tejon Ranch Operations Committee, and
corrected. Responses of areas of particularly low ecological condition attributable to high grazing
intensity around supplements could be assessed via photo-monitoring or another technique.
Effectiveness monitoring is an essential part of adaptive management, and is usually more complex and
expensive than compliance monitoring and requires longer-term data collection. Effectiveness
monitoring should be tied to specific grazing management goals such as: a) enhancing native plant cover
and diversity, b) reducing erosion, c) maintaining water quality, d) enhancing habitat for target wildlife
species, and e) controlling invasive species. The general approach to effectiveness monitoring is to
establish permanent plot locations and measure critical response variables. Plots can be located in areas
both representative of vegetation types and in areas of special concern such as perennial grass-rich
grasslands, areas with grazing-affected target species, and sites with invasive species. Plots will likely be
supplemented with other monitoring data, such as target species population abundances to determine
management effectiveness for those targets.
Under adaptive management principles effectiveness monitoring is planned to reliably and quantitatively
inform management actions. As reviewed above and recently in a comprehensive analysis of range
activities (Briske et al. 2011), traditional experimentation has severe limitations when applied to
landscape level resource management. As justified in section 4.4, the approach of BACI coupled to
inferential modeling with well-defined environmental sites as both the monitoring and management
units is the best framework for adaptive management based effectiveness monitoring at Tejon Ranch.
The groundwork has been laid for grasslands with prior work to identify nine environmental sites,
current (before) conditions, and associated state-and-transition models (Spiegal and Bartolome 2012).
The specific monitoring protocols have been developed and tested as have explanatory models. These
monitoring protocols will be refined for the specific adaptive management actions initiated by the
Conservancy, including the San Joaquin Valley grassland and riparian enhancement projects described
above.
B-24 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
The results of compliance and effectiveness monitoring will be communicated and coordinated through
the Tejon Ranch Operations Committee. The Operations Committee will ensure that BMPs are being
appropriately implemented, Conservancy-led Conservation Activities are coordinated with Tejon Ranch
operations, monitoring results are shared between TRC and the Conservancy, and that adaptive
management results are used to refine and identify Best Management Practices for Ranch operations.
The roles and responsibilities of the Tejon Ranch Operations Committee in the Conservancy’s adaptive
management process are discussed further in the RWMP.
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-25
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
6.0 References
Allen-Diaz, B.H., J.W. Bartolome, and M.P. McClaran. 1999. California oak savanna. Pp 322-339 in
Anderson, R.C. et al. (eds.) Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop plant communities of North
America. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Applebaum, J., E. Brown, S. Forsyth, L. Kashiwase, and D. Murray. 2010. Developing conceptual
models and ecological baselines to support creation of an adaptive management plan for Tejon
Ranch, California. Group Master’s Project, Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. March.
Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. Schoenherr. (eds) 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 3rd
Ed. U. C. Press.
Barry, S. 2003. Using planned grazing to manage for native grasslands. Pages 1–10, in Section 14: in
Grazing (J. Wirka and M.K. McKenna eds). Techniques and Strategies for Using Native Grass
and Graminoids in Revegetation and Restoration. California Native Grass Association.
Bartolome, J.W., W.E. Frost, N.K. McDougald, and J.M. Connor. 2006. California guidelines for
Residual Dry Matter (RDM) management on coastal and foothill annual rangelands. Univ. Calif.
Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Rangeland Management Series Pub. 8092 (Revised). 8p.
Bartolome, J.W., W.J. Barry, T. Griggs, and P. Hopkinson. 2007. Valley Grassland. Pp. 367-393 In:
Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. Schoenherr. (eds) Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 3rd
Ed. U. C. Press.
Bartolome, J.W., R.D. Jackson, and B. Allen-Diaz. 2009. Developing data-driven descriptive models for
California grassland. Pp 124-135 In: R.J Hobbs & K. Suding (eds.) New Models for Ecosystem
Dynamics and Restoration. Island Press.
Bartolome, J.W., R. Barrett, P. Hopkinson, M. Hammond, F. Ratcliff, and N. Schowalter. 2012.
Management and monitoring options for the East Bay Regional Park District. Range Ecology
Lab, University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, CA.
Bennett, L.T., and M.A. Adams. 2004. Assessment of ecological effects due to forest harvesting:
approaches and statistical issues. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:585-598.
Bestelmeyer, B.T., J.R. Brown, S.D. Fuhlendorf, G.A. Fults, and X.b. Wu. 2011. A landscape approach
to rangeland conservation practices. Pp. 337-370 In: Briske, D.R. (ed.) Conservation benefits of
rangeland practices. USDA NRCS.
Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. Chapter 2: Formation of soils from parent materials. Pages 31-74 in
The nature and properties of soils. NJ, Prentice.
Briske, D.R., J.D. Derner, D.G. Milchunas, and K.W. Tate. 2011. An evidence-based assessment of
prescribed grazing practices. Pp. 21-74 in: Briske, D.R. (ed.) Conservation benefits of rangeland
practices. USDA NRCS.
Burnham, K.P., and Anderson, D.R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical
information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer-Verlag. 488 pp.
Bush, L. 2006. Grazing handbook: a guide for resource managers in coastal California. Santa Rosa, CA:
Sotoyome Resource Conservation District. Available on-line at:
http://sotoyomercd.org/GrazingHandbook.pdf.
B-26 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
Buck-Diaz, J., B. Harbert and J. Evens. 2011. California Rangeland Monitoring and Mapping: A Focus
on Grassland Habitats of the San Joaquin Valley and Carrizo Plain. California Native Plant
Society, Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society. 2012. Inventory of rare and endangered plants, v7-06d 10-03-06.
Accessed online August 2012. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/
Christian, C. E., L. R. Saslaw, J. F. Pollock, and D. F. Doak. In litt. Conditional impacts of livestock
grazing on an arid California grassland. Draft manuscript. Sonoma State University,
unpublished.
Clark, M.K., G. Maheo, J. Saleeby, and K.A. Farley. 2005. The non-equilibrium landscape of the
southern Sierra Nevada, California. GSA TODAY 15:4.
Collins, B.M., S.L. Stephens, G.B. Roller, and J.J. Battles. 2011. Simulating Fire and Forest Dynamics
for a Landscape Fuel Treatment Project in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Science 57:77-88.
Critelli, S., and T.H. Nilsen. 2000. Provenance and stratigraphy of the Eocene Tejon Formation, Western
Tehachapi Mountains, San Emigdio Mountains, and Southern San Joaquin Basin, California.
Sedimentary Geology 136:7-27.
Crowe, E.1957. Men of El Tejon: Empire in the Tehachapis. W. Ritchie Press.
Edwards, S.W. 2007. Rancholabrean mammals of California annd their relevance for understanding
modern plant ecology. Pp. 48-52. In: Stromberg, M.R. et al. California grasslands: ecology and
management. UC Press.
Frost, W.E. et al. 1988. Residue mapping and pasture use records for monitoring California annual
rangelands. UC Davis Range Science Report 17.
George, M., J.R. Brown, and J. Clawson. 1992. Application of nonequilibrium ecology to management
of Mediterranean grasslands. Journal of Range Management 45(5):436–440.
George, M., J.W. Bartolome, N. McDougald, M. Connor, C. Vaughn, and G. Markegard. 2001. Annual
range forage production. Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Rangeland Management Series Pub
8018. Available on-line at: http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8018.pdf.
Germano, D.J., G.B. Rathbun, L.R. Saslaw, B.L. Cypher, E.A. Cypher, and L.M. Vredenburgh. 2011.
The San Joaquin Desert of California: ecologically misunderstood and overlooked. Natural Areas
Journal 31(2): 138–147.
Germano, D.J., G.B. Rathbun and L.R. Saslaw. 2012. Impact of grazing and invasive frasses on desert
vertebrates in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:670-682.
Green, J., and A. Sanders. 2011. West Mojave Plan Species Accounts. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. January 2006. Accessed August 7, 2012.
http://www.dmg.gov/documents/WMP_Species_Accounts/Species%20Accounts-Plants.pdf.
Griggs, F.T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve: eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 27(4) &
18(1): 48–51.
Hamilton, J.G. 1997. Changing perceptions of pre-European grasslands in California. Madrono 44(4):
331–333.
Harden, D. R. 2004. California Geology. Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
Harris, N.R. et al. 2002. Long-term residual dry matter mapping for monitoring California hardwood
rangelands. In: USDA Forest Service PSW-GTR-184.
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-27
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
Haydock, K.P. and N. H. Shaw. 1975. The comparative yield method for estimating dry matter yield of
pasture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 15:663–670.
Heady, H.F. 1988. Valley grassland. Pages 491–514 in M.G. Barbour and J. Major (editors), Terrestrial
Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication Number 9,
Sacramento, CA.
Heady, H.F. and R. D. Child. 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Westview Press.
Heitschmidt, R.K. and J.W. Stuth (eds.). 1991. Grazing management: an ecological perspective.
Portland, OR: Timber Press. Available on-line at: http://cnrit.tamu.edu/rlem/textbook/textbookfr.html.
Herrick, J.E., M. C. Duniway, D. A. Pyke, B. T. Bestelmeyer, S. A. Wills, J. R. Brown, J. W. Karl, and
K. M. Havstad. 2012. A holistic strategy for adaptive land management. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 67(4):105a-113a.
Hickman, J.C. (Editor). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Hoagland, S., A. Krieger, S. Moy, and A. Shepard. 2011. Ecology and management of oak woodlands
on Tejon Ranch: recommendations for conserving a valuable California ecosystem. Group
Master’s Project, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of
California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. June.
Hobbs, N. T. 2003. Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales.
Forest Ecology and Management 181:223-238.
Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 2011. Range management: principles and practices. 6th
edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.
Holstein, G. 2011. Prairies and Grasslands: What’s in a Name? Fremontia 39(2) & 39(3): 2-5.
Huenneke, L., S. Hamburg, R. Koide, P. Vitousek, and H. Mooney. 1990. Effects of soil resources on
plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–
491.
Huntsinger, L., J.W. Bartolome, and C. D’Antonio. 2007. Grazing management on California’s
Mediterranean grasslands. Pp. 233-253 In: Corbin, J., Stromberg, M.R., and C. D’Antonio (eds).
California Grasslands: ecology and management. UC Press.
Jackson, R.D. and J.W. Bartolome. 2002. A state-transition approach to understanding non-equilibrium
plant community dynamics in California grasslands. Plant Ecology 162: 49-65
Jackson, R.D. and J.W. Bartolome. 2007. Grazing ecology of California grasslands. Pages 197–206 in
M.R. Stromberg, J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio (editors), California Grasslands – Ecology
and Management, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Johnson, D. H. 2002. The role of hypothesis testing in wildlife science. Journal of Wildlife Management
66:272-276.
Keeler-Wolf, T. 2007. Mojave Desert Scrub Vegetation. Pp. 609-656 In: Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf,
and A. Schoenherr. (eds) Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 3rd Ed. U. C. Press.
Keeley, J.E. and F.W. Davis. 2007. Chaparral. Pp. 339-366 In: Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A.
Schoenherr. (eds) Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 3rd Ed. U. C. Press.
B-28 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
Kimball, S. and P.M. Schiffman. 2003. Differing effects of cattle grazing on native and alien plants.
Conservation Biology 17(6): 1681–1693.
Knopf, F.L. and J.R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. The Condor
97:743–751.
Longland, W.S., M. Aten, M. Swartz, and S. Kulpa. 2009. Who’s eating the flowers of a rare western
Nevada range plant? Rangelands 31:26-30.
Maranon T., F.I. Pugnaire, R.M. Callaway 2009 Mediterranean-climate oak savannas: the interplay
between abiotic environment and species interactions. Web Ecology 9:30-43
Marty, J. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology
19:1626–1632.
McCreary, D.D. 2001. Regenerating rangeland oaks in California. University of California Agriculture
& Natural Resources Publication 21601. Oakland, CA: University of California Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Available on-line at:
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/21601e.pdf.
McCreary, D.D. and M.R. George. 2005. Managed grazing and seedling shelters enhance oak
regeneration on rangelands. California agriculture 59: 217-222. Available on-line at:
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca5904p217-69207.pdf
Minnich, R.A. 2007. Southern California Conifer Forests. Pp. 502-538 In: Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf,
and A. Schoenherr. (eds) Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 3rd Ed. U. C. Press.
Moreno, G., J.W. Bartolome, G. Gea-Izquierdo, I. Cañellas Chapter 6: Overstory-understory
relationships In: Oviedo, J.L., L. Huntsinger, M. Diaz, P. Campos, P.F. Starrs, G. Montero, and
R.B. Standiford (eds) Conservation and Management of Working Mediterranean Oak Woodlands
Ecosystems". (In Press) Springer.
NRCS (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2009. Soil survey of
Kern County, California, southwest part. Accessible online at:
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys.
Papanastasis, V.P. 2009. Restoration of degraded grazing lands through grazing management: can it
work? Restoration Ecology 17(4): 441–445.
Ponti, D. J. 1985. The Quaternary alluvial sequence of the Antelope Valley, California. Geological
Society America Special Paper 203:79-96.
PRISM 2012. PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu, created
April 12, 2012
Pyke, C.R. and J. Marty. 2005. Cattle grazing mediates climate change impacts on ephemeral wetlands.
Conservation Biology 19:1619–1625.
Rowlands, P.G. 1978. The vegetation dynamics of the Joshua Tree (Yucca brevifolia Engelm.) in the
Southwestern United States of America. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
Ross, D. C. 1985. Mafic: gneissic complex (batholithic root?) in the southernmost Sierra Nevada,
California. Geology 13:288-291.
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project 2007 Revised SNAMP Workplan January 16, 2007.
Available on line at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/91/
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-29
Range Ecology Lab
February 2013
Soil Survey Staff. 1970. Soil survey, Antelope Valley area, California. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment
Station.
Spiegal, S. and J.W. Bartolome. 2012. Tejon Ranch Grassland Assessment. Annual Report 2012.
Prepared for the Tejon Ranch Conservancy. Berkeley, California.
Spotswood, E.N., J.W. Bartolome, and B.H. Allen-Diaz (In Press) Landscape hotspots in temporal
dynamics: spatial signature in response to disturbance and climate variability are mediated by
environmental filters and biological legacies in a California oak woodland. J. Veg. Sci.
Stahlheber, K.A. and C.D. D’Antonio. 2013. Using livestock to manage plant composition: a metaanalysis of grazing in California’s Mediterranean grasslands. Biological Conservation 157:300308.
Standiford, R.B., J.W. Bartolome, W.E. Frost, N.E. McDougald. 1999. Using GIS in agricultural land
assessment for property taxes. Geographic Information Sciences 5(1): 47-51.
Stewart-Oaten, A., and J. R. Bence. 2001. Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact
assessment. Ecological Monographs 71:305-339.
Sweitzer, R.A., and D.H. Van Vuren. 2008. Effects of Wild Pigs on Seedling Survival in California Oak
Woodlands in Merenlender, Adina; McCreary, Douglas; Purcell, Kathryn L., tech. eds. 2008.
Proceedings of the sixth California oak symposium: today's challenges, tomorrow's
opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-217. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 677 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr217/
Tausch, R.J., P.E. Wigand, and J. W. Burkhardt. 1993. Viewpoint: plant community thresholds, multiple
steady states, and multiple successional pathways: legacy of the Quaternary? Journal of Range
Management 46(5):439–447.
Thomsen, C.D., W.A. Williams, M. Vayssiéres, F.L. Bell, and M.R. George. 1993. Controlled grazing
on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. California Agriculture 47:36–40.
Tyler, C.M., B. Kuhn, and F.W. Davis. 2006. Demography and recruitment limitations of three oak
species in California. Quarterly Review of Biology 81: 127-152.
USFWS. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eriastrum hooveri Hoover’s
woolly-star) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Federal Register /Vol.
68, No. 194 /Tuesday, October 7, 2003 /Rules and Regulations.
Walters, C.J. and R. Green. 1997. Valuation of experimental options for ecological systems. Journal of
Wildlife Management 61: 987-1006.
Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan Press, New York, N.Y.
374 pp.
Walters, C.J. 1993. Dynamic models and large scale field experiments in environmental impact
assessment and management. Aust. J. Ecol. 18:53-62.
Westoby, M. et al. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range
Management 42:266-274.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2012. Monthly average wind velocity and directions.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
B-30 | Grazing Management Plan
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
February 2013
Range Ecology Lab
Wildland Solutions. 2008. Monitoring Annual Grassland Residual Dry Matter: A Mulch Manager’s
Guide for Monitoring Success (2nd) (Brochure) 34 pp. Guenther, K. and Hayes, G.
Wood, D. J., and J. B. Saleeby. 1997. Late Cretaceous-Paleocene extensional collapse and
disaggregation of the southernmost Sierra Nevada batholith. International Geology Review
39:973-1009.
Ranch-Wide Management Plan Volume 2
Conservation Activities and Best Management Practices
Grazing Management Plan | B-31
ATTACHMENT A
SAGE
(
~
AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
TEJON RANCH
Offices in
Santa Barbara
Mammoth Lakes
GRAZING OPERATIONAL
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
Tejon Ranch Conservancy
P.O. Box216
Frazier Park, CA 93225
Attention: Mr. Tom Maloney & Dr. Mike White
PREPARED BY:
SAGE Associates
June20U
1396 Danielson Road, Santa Barbaro, California 9310B • P.O. Box 50806, Santa Barbara, California 93150
805 969-0557 FAX 805 969-5003 [email protected]
Printed on recycled paper
•
Walk
er Ba
sin Creek
li ente C
reek
Bena RoC a
ad
G
"
)
S
T
"
)
!
$
+")T
!
10
00
S
S
1500
S
!
ON
RO
DE
O
P
'
4!
(
'
4
G
)
"
!
T
"
)
!
S
Loop
'
4
!
S
S
S
T S (
"
W
)
!
20 00
T
"
)
T
"
)
S
S
S
Airplane
T
"
)
T
T
W
"
)
!
(
S
White Wolf Upper
!
!
P
P
W!
(
!
(
!
(
k
j
Middle Stubble
2500
[
[
G
G
"
)
)
"
G
G
"
)
)
"
!
!
Catch
T
)
"
$
+Pen
!
!
S
T
"
)
'
4
G
"
)
G
)
"
W
(
T!
"
)
S
!
G
)
"
T
"
)
T
W
P
"
)
!
(
!
(
Trap
$
+
T
"
)
Wolf
T ")") White
"
)
Corrals
G
G
}
þ
|
·
T
"
)
T
223
G
)
"
T
"
)
T
S
G
)
"
3
'
4
0
4
0
00
T'
"
)
4
T
"
)
00
0
S
G
"
)
0
450
'
4
T
"
)
W
!
(
'
4
50
0
e
Cr
ek
Cl
G "
G
)
"
)
T
"
)
50
G
)
"
T
"
)
T
"
)
S
T
"
)
!
!
T!
W
"
)
(
100
0
'
4
W
!
(
T
"
)
'
4
4000
T
"
)
T
"
)
S
S
S
0
S
W
!
(
00
S
'
4
Bear Mountain
T
"
)
S
50
30
S
'
4
S
2
S
S
T
"
)
!
T
"
)
Kohlmeier
Sasha
Corrals
4
"
)
S
T
"
)
T
"
)
$
+
S
[
T
"
)
P
!
(
P
!
(
Trap
T
"
)
W
T
!
(
"
)
[
T
"
)
S
G
)
"
T
W
"
)
!
(
S
S
T
"
)
T
"
)
r
!
[
T
"
)
00
[
[
"
)
ea
!
2
[
White
T Wolf Camp
2000
45
!
00
5 00
T
"
)
[
"
)"
)
"
)
)"
P
W!
(
!
(
T
P
"
)
!
(
450
0
T
"
)
[
4
!
(
00
S Rodgers TTTT
W
T
S
!
!
T
"
)
W
!
(
White Wolf South
!
General Beale Road
T
"
)
20
S
58
þ
}
|
·
!
(
"
)
G
"
)
G
)
"
20
T
W
"
)
!
(
T
"
)
S Ripley
!
0
0
S
Roblita
S
S
!
!
S
Roblita
Branding
Trap
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4"
T
)
S
G
)
"
)"
"
)
0
20
10
Towerline Road
l")iente - B o d
a
C
G
S
GG
S
10
S
G
)
"
00
S
!
!
!
W
!
(
T
"
)
S
"
)
G
)
"
G
"
)
T
"
)
GRANITE
MINING
W"
!
)
T (
Ro
"
)
h
s
i
f
G
"
)
T
"
)
T
)
$
+"
T
"
)
S
W
!
T
(
"
)
0
!
!
T
"
)
Sliver
15
S
G
"
)
100
T
"
)
T
"
)
1000
00
15
00
S
S
T
"
)
ad
o ad
S
)
"
G
S
S
Caliente Foothills
S"
S
)
le R
T
"
)
T
"
)
W
!
(
!
0
T
"
)
S
S
S
!
!
50
T
"
)
S
!
GG
"
)
)
"
T
"
)
T
"
)
!
!
S
1
T
"
)
AD
!
!
!
S
RO
!
!
!
S1500
!
!
!
S
!
IL
S
YON
T
"
)
T
"
)
)
"
T
"
T
)
!
0
50
S
G
'
4
T
"
)
1
RA
CA
NY
!
!
!
T
"
)
C
!
T
"
)
S
Upper White Wolf North
FI
0
!
!
!
!
!
G
)
"
G
)
"
G
)
"
CI
Y
S
!
P
R
E
S S CAN
S
!
!
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
1500
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
PA
1 50
!
!
!
k
j
Caliente
Corrals
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
S
!
$
+
RN
HA
1000
T
"
)
G
)
"
HE
v il
G
)
"
T
"
)
S
UT
Be
al
W
!
(
Lower White Wolf North
T
"
)
58
þ
}
|
·
SO
T
"
)
!
S
0
0
W
T
"
)
!
(
15
0
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
!
!
!
!
!
!
Towerline Road
!
!
!
!
Branding
Trap
!
G
)
"
!
W
!
(
T
"
)
!
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
!
S
G
)
"
T
P
"
)
!
(
P
'
4'
4
W
!
(
!
!
P
!
(
!
GRANITE
MINING
!
!
S
SY
!
!
!
CA
!
T
"
)
0
G
)
"
De
!
(
P10
G
)
"
00 S y c a m
ore
Can
e r Trail Ro a d
yon
!
!
!
'
4
S
S
M ORE CAN
YO
N
00
'
4
50
S
!
S
P'
!
(
4
'
4
S
'
4
15
P
T
"
!
(
)
0
0
S
P
W
!
(
T
!
(
"
)
!
T
W
"
)
!
(
'
4
1
S
'
4
Lower Sycamore
S
Ed
iso
G
)
"
A
in
rv
P
!
(
'
4
58
OVERVIEW
Sheet 1
þ
}
|
·
223
þ
}
|
·
58
99
"
$
!
#
Sheet 2
5
Sheet 3
Sheet 4
Sheet 5
Comanche
Trap
Sheet 6
Sheet 7
LE S
Legend
W
!
(
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
10
00
S
LIVESTOCK WATER TANK
þ
}
|
·
G
)
"
G
)
"
LOCKED GATE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK TROUGH
KNOWN FENCE LINE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK POND
INTERMITTENT STREAM
PAVED ROAD
MAJOR DIRT ROAD
MINOR DIRT ROAD
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
SPRING / SEEP
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
$
+
0
Y
Comanche
þ
}
|
·
þ
}
|
·
TT
00
0
T
"
)
15
'
4
'
4
20
S
G
)
"
00
S
-
15
nC
an
a
l
50
0
PW
T
!
(
"
)
'
4
!
(
0
150
Comanche Strip
LI
04/10/13 TejonGIS6 M:\...\TR_Conservancy\FormRequest\GIS Mapping\FieldMaps\GrazingMgmnt\GrazingManagement_Report.mxd
S
G
)
"
G
)
"
G
)
"
G
)
"
15
1 50
þ
}
|
·
223
S0
!
LIVESTOCK CORRAL
Source: Tejon Records
LEASED LAND
TEJON RANCH BOUNDARY
Source: 2006 5M DEM
INSIDE OWNER (NOT A PART)
SAGE ASSOC SURVEY DATA
j
k
PLANT MGMT AREA
j
k
SPECIAL MGMT AREA
S
NEW SALT LICK
!
.
NEW SPRING USE
S
"
)
NEW SOLAR PUMP
S
SALT LICK
T
"
)
NEW TROUGH
S
"
)
SOLAR PUMP
W
!
(
NEW WATER TANK
SHEET 1 of 7
FOUND TRC FEATURES
138
Disclaimer: Shown feature locations were derived from various sources. Data are subject to change as more precise information becomes available. Ground verification is required for absolute accuracy.
®
1 inch = 2,000 feet
"
)
SPIGOT
0
2,000
Feet
4,000
S
S
Lower Sycamore
an
al
50
0
PW
T
!
(
"
)
'
4
!
(
v
Ar
in
P
!
(
'
4
S
LE S
G
)
"
A MO
P
T
!
"
(
)
T
"
)
T
"
)
5 00
T
)
RE "
CA
'
4N YON L
W
!
(
W
!
(
'
4
'
4
Comanche
S Trap
ittl
e Syca
mo
r e Canyo
n
G
)
"
G
"
)
2
Herring Road
'
4
15 0
0
YC
Comanche
0
0
TT
LI
T
"
)
20
S
G
)
"
G
)
G "
)
"
S
-
0
Ed
S
'
4
'
4
200
iso
nC
)
"
G
00
15
0
150
Comanche Strip
00
0
0
50
G
G"
)
"
)
G
)
"
G
"
)
!
T
"
)
S
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
T
"
)
!
!
!
!
S
!
!
S
T
"
)
!
an che Point R
o ad
!
!
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
!
!
)
"
Co
m
00
!
G
)
"
S
Upper North Globe
k
j )
T "
T
"
)
COMANCHE
S
k
j
POINT
k
j
T
"
)
00
15
1 0 00
20
!
k
j
k
j
00
10
00
10
S
W
!
(
!
S
!
!
S
S
!
S
15 0 0
!
W
!
(
4
k
j'
G
)
"
G
)
"
!
T
"
)
'
4
!
.
T
"
)
T
"
)
TT Sheep Trail Trap
"
)
"
) Sheep Trail
$
+
Corrals
T
"
)
W
(
k
j!
!
S
!
500
!
G
)
"
h eep T rai l
!
G
"
)
G
!
S
!
10
'
4
00
T
"
)
S
North Globe
T
"
)
!
!
S
!
!
!
!
!
!
[
[
[
[
þ
}
|
·
þ
}
|
·
58
99
"
$
!
#
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Sheet 2
5
Sheet 4
Sheet 5
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
$
+
Sheet 6
Sheet 7
þ
}
|
·
!
!
!
!
!
!
[
[
[
!
!
!
[
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
S
T
"
)
JOAQUIN FLATS
T
"
)
T
W
P"
)
!
(
!
(
00
Joaquin
P
!
(
2000
T
P
"
)
!
(
P
P
!
!
(
(
'
4
'
4
P
!
(
T
"
)
S
3
0
00
30
00
d
Fe
!
T
"
)
P
P
!
(
!
(
T
"
)
35
W
T
"
!
(
)
SLos Borregos
Tierra De
00
GE
RID
G
LO N
T
"
)
'
4
S
'
4
3000
G
)
"
LOCKED GATE
Eucalyptus Field
PAVED ROAD
Source: Tejon Records
KNOWN FENCE LINE
MAJOR DIRT ROAD
Source: Tejon Records
INTERMITTENT STREAM
MINOR DIRT ROAD
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Sheet 3
!
!
!
!
!
[
!
!
!
!
e
an
Lo
tL
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
223
!
!
!
[
[
!
[
[
!
!
þ
}
|
·
'
4
Reservoir 2
'
4
Eucalyptus
Corrals
Legend
W LIVESTOCK WATER TANK
!
(
T LIVESTOCK TROUGH
"
)
LIVESTOCK POND
P
!
(
Tejon Field
'
4 SPRING / SEEP
1500
!
LEASED LAND
TEJON RANCH BOUNDARY
Source: 2006 5M DEM
INSIDE OWNER (NOT A PART)
LIVESTOCK CORRAL
Source: Tejon Records
SAGE ASSOC SURVEY DATA
PLANT MGMT AREA
j
k
SPECIAL MGMT AREA
S
NEW SALT LICK
!
.
NEW SPRING USE
S
"
)
NEW SOLAR PUMP
S
SALT LICK
T
"
)
NEW TROUGH
S
"
)
SOLAR PUMP
W
!
(
NEW WATER TANK
Bano
SHEET 2 of 7
FOUND TRC FEATURES
138
Disclaimer: Shown feature locations were derived from various sources. Data are subject to change as more precise information becomes available. Ground verification is required for absolute accuracy.
2000
Tunis Field
j
k
4000
®
3500
1 inch = 2,000 feet
"
)
SPIGOT
0
2,000
Feet
4,000
40
Sheet 1
T
"
)
T
T
"
)
3 50 0
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
W
T
"
)
50
3000
OVERVIEW
'
4
S )
T
"
T
"
)
0
!
0
1 50
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ek
58
$
+
P
P
!
(
T
T
"
)
"
)
2
0
re
P
!
(
T '
4
"
)
4 '
Tresquela Field
Creek Field
G
)
"
G
)
"
W
(
!
2500
T
"
)
S
T!
P
"
)
(
T
"
)
30
C
þ
}
|
·
T
"
)
P '
!
(
4
'
4 "
T '
"
)
4
T
)
00
'
4
G
G"
)
"
)
T
"
)
)
"
G
)
"
s
04/10/13 TejonGIS6 M:\...\TR_Conservancy\FormRequest\GIS Mapping\FieldMaps\GrazingMgmnt\GrazingManagement_Report.mxd
Orchard Traps
G
)
"
G
)
"
G
"
)
G
ni
Tejon Field
S
!
o Creek
T
"
)
Laval Road
S
T
"
)
Indian Field
2000
G
)
"
G
"
)
T
"
)
S
30 0
Tu
Rock
as
El P
T
"
)
Ceda r C
'
4
S
n
o
any
30
S
Alamo Solo
T
T
"
)
G
"
)
G
)
"
Rock
[
P
!
(
4
T Reservoir 3 '
"
P
!
(
Fertilizer)!
P
(
'
4
'
4
Headquarters
W
!
(
T
T
P
"
)
"
)
!
(
W
!
(
T
"
)
W
!
(
T
"
)
T
T
$
"
+
)
T
"
)
Monte Grain Field
G
)
"
k
j"
j
Tk
)
k
j
Campo
Bonito
Corrals
00
S
!
)
"
[
S
Reservoir
Field
S )
T
"
!
[
G
"
)
G
G
)
"
[
!
[
S
!
[
k
jS
k
j
T
"
)
25
!
[
e
$
+
'
4
T
"
)
Monte
T '
"
)
T
4
"
)
!
S
2 0 00
Campo Bonito
S
S
G
)
"
T
"
)
T
"
)
T
T
"
)
"
T
)
T
!
'
4
T
"
)
T
)
T"
"
)
W
!
(
P
!
(
T Feed Lot
"
)
Corrals
Vaquero
G
)
"
S
!
G
"
)
[
G
"
)
P
P
!
T
(
T
"
)
!
"
(
)
!
G
)
"
30
!
G
)
"
G
)
"
P
!
(
!!
G
)
"
k
j"
T
)
k
j
k
j
S)
T P
"
j
!
( k
P
!
(
Butcher
T
"
)
P
!
(
G
)
"
G
"
)
G
)
"
k
j
k
j
!
!
'
4
P
!
(
T
"
)
G
"
)
Alamo Solo
!
15
00
G
)
"
T
S
"
)
k
j
T
)
T"
"
)
k
j
k
j
S
!
G
)
"
[
T
"
)
S
P
!
(
ek
[
!
T
"
)
W
!
(
Cre
[
'
4
'
4
S
S
k
j
!
Sebastian Road
ell
[
[
South Globe
T
T
"
)
pa r
[
1 50 0
[
[
[
S
!
Ca
[
0
1 5 0[
C r eek
G
)
"
!
S
S
[
!
[
[
!
[
[
T
"
)
!
! !
S
G
)
"
[
[
Little Globe
k
j
!
[
[
W
T
)
T "
!
(
T "
)
"
)
'
4
T
"
)
[
[
[
[
S
[
[
'
4
k
j
k
j
T "
"
T
)
)
15 0 0
[
[
Chana c
!
00
[
!
00
[
!
25
1000
0
1 50
T
"
)
'
4
[
S
[
W
!
(
T
"
)
T
"
)
!
!
[
!
T
"
)
Little Globe
G
)
"
!
[
k
j
[
!
!
G
)
"
G
)
"
!
[
!
0
T
"
)
k
j
150
G
)
"
S
!
[
[
[
!
!
!
k
j
'
4
!
[
[
[
T
"
)
!
!
W
T
!
W
(
"
)
!
(
!
[
[
k
j
[
[
[
[
[
!
[
k
j
S
[
ejo n C ree
k
[
[
1000 T
S
P
!
(
T
"
)
!
[
[
S
S
T
"
)
[
[
[
[
k
j
South Globe
k
j
T
"
)
!
[
!
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
S
!
G
)
"
W
!
(
!
!
[
[
k
j
T
"
)
G
)
"
T
"
)
[
S
!
T
"
)
00
[
T
"
)
!
S
S
S
T
"
)
25
!
!
T
"
)
'
4
!
!
!
!
!
!
T
"
)
G
)
"
!
!
!
!
!
00
00
k
j
T
j
"
) k
!
!
!
!
!
20
T
"
)
S
!
!
!
S
!
!
[
'
4
S
!
!
[
k
j
T
"
)
S
!
!
!
'
4C o m
W
!
(
anc
4 !
.
T '
"
)
he C
ree k
'
4
S
'
4
!
[
!
S
!
!
!
!!
[
!
S
'
4
!
!
!
!
[
T
"
)
!
!
!
!
[
[
[
!
[
S
H I
L
L S
T
"
)
S
[
[
1 500
0
25
k
j "
T
)
k
j
T
"
)
k j
j
k '
S
4
T
"
)
W
T
!
T
(
"
)
"
) "
T
)
!
1000
S
N
[
S
!
O
[
!
T
"
)
!
[
'
4
!
J
15 0
!
k
jk
j
!
[
[
G
[
"
)
[
[
E
S
T
"
)
!
T
S
[
T
"
)
S
!
S
!
S
!
!
!
!
00
1000
W
T
"
T )
!
(
T "
)
"
)
Little Globe
S
G
)
"
Ca
T
T
"
)
"
)
pa r
Sebastian Road
ell
G
)
"
Cre
ek
G
)
"
G
"
)
G
)
"
G
"
)
G
)
"
T
S
"
)
Alamo Solo
9
9
}
þ
|
·
Pa
so C
ree
k
[
[
[
idg
G
)
"
Rancho Road
ele
rR
[
G
)
"
Rock
T
"
)
uy
a
C
S
ek
Tejon Field
T
"
)
'
4
!
G
)
"
!
G
"
)
!
Gibson Road
!
Wh
e
[
!
Tec
re
[
S
Alamo Solo
Canal 850
[
G
)
"
!
"
$
!
#
5
S
G
"
)
[
eR
oa
d
El
T
"
)
T
"
)
!
!
T
"
)
!
!
!
!
Tejon Field
P
!
!
!
(
!
!
S
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
G
)
"
T
"
)
)
"
!
!
!
!
!
d
oa
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
im
i
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
0
1500
k
1
ee
Cr
00
45
INSIDE OWNER (NOT A PART)
PLANT MGMT AREA
j
k
SPECIAL MGMT AREA
S
NEW SALT LICK
!
.
NEW SPRING USE
S
"
)
NEW SOLAR PUMP
S
SALT LICK
T
"
)
NEW TROUGH
S
"
)
SOLAR PUMP
W
!
(
NEW WATER TANK
138
Disclaimer: Shown feature locations were derived from various sources. Data are subject to change as more precise information becomes available. Ground verification is required for absolute accuracy.
Pastoria Mountain
3
SQ
'
4
P
T'
!
(
"
)
4
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
40
4
"
)
SHEET 3 of 7
®
1 inch = 2,000 feet
SPIGOT
00
3500
FOUND TRC FEATURES
"
)
!
Gr
!
!
!
e
zR
ne
!
!
Ch
k
ee
Cr
e
in
ev
ap
!
!
0
!
Source: 2006 5M DEM
!
!
150
!
04/10/13 TejonGIS6 M:\...\TR_Conservancy\FormRequest\GIS Mapping\FieldMaps\GrazingMgmnt\GrazingManagement_Report.mxd
!
Source: Tejon Records
TEJON RANCH BOUNDARY
!
LIVESTOCK CORRAL
LEASED LAND
!
SPRING / SEEP
!
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
j
k
S
SA
0
2,000
Feet
4,000
DG
RI
T
"
)
'
4
25
00
O
IT
LC
INTERMITTENT STREAM
MINOR DIRT ROAD
MUERTOS CANYON
LIVESTOCK POND
ee k
Source: Tejon Records
d
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
MAJOR DIRT ROAD
S
k
E
KNOWN FENCE LINE
ee
5
LIVESTOCK TROUGH
SAGE ASSOC SURVEY DATA
Cr
G
SOR RID
SCIS
0
4
''
4
"
)
'
4
ri
þ
}
|
·
S
0
'
4
to
a
T
"
)
'
4
T
"
)
4
S '
T
"
)
00
0
40 0 0
4000
THE LOLA'S
00
$
+
Sheet 7
T
"
)
ON
Source: Tejon Records
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Sheet 6
'
4
Y
AN
LC
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
PAVED ROAD
2 50
E
RR
Sheet 5
S
Legend
LOCKED GATE
Pastoria Mountain P a s
UI
Sheet 4
T
"
)
W
'
!
4
(
'
4
N
'
4
E
Sheet 3
!
(
"
)
!
(
T
W
T
)
"
!
)
(
'
4 Pa"
W
(D
ia
stor
R
W
!
(
'
4
'
4
'
4S
ID G
Sheet 2
5
Big Springs
P
T
W
YO
R
EL
"
$
!
#
UIR
4
58
P
!
(
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
S
3500
T
"
)
T
)
W
T"
!
(
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
Tunis Mountain
T
"
)
S
Priest Field
3 50 0
0
þ
}
|
·
99
40
þ
}
|
·
S
'
4
T
"
)
S
'
4
Big Springs
Corrals
UpperS
Chiminez
S
West Grasshopper
'
4
þ
}
|
·
4
''
4
0
400
T
"
)
$
+
T
"
)
'
4
S
PA
S
R
S
BIG
SPRINGS
'
4
T
"
)
S
SQ
2000
S
T
"
)
T
"
)
'
4 Trap
Pastoria
Canyon
W
!
(
E
ID G
T
"
)
T
T "
)
"
)
P
T
!
W
(
"
)
'
4
3 0 00
'
4'
4
T
"
)
'
4
R
LE
DD
MI
S
NYON
G
"
)
T
"
)
S
ON
T!
P
"
)
W
(
400 0
T
"
)
S
G
)
"
T
"
)
'
4
oa
)R
West Grasshopper
00
'
4
T
"
)
T
"
)
'
4
50 0
N
S
T
"
)
T
P
"
)
!
(
T
"
)
S
4
W '
!
(
'
4
NY
'
4
'
4
CA
Buzzard
W
!
(
S
P
!
(
0
G
)
"
O
T
"
)
35
S
G
"
)
G
)
"
Upper Ostrich
'
4
Cr
G
"
)
G
)
"
'
4
15
00
'
4
P
T
Corral
"
)
!
T
(
$
+
S
T
"
)
'
4
'
4
LIVE
!
(
"
)
T
"
)
T
"
)
'
4
T
"
)
W
!
(
GRASSHOPPER
FLAT
P
T
W
!
(
'
4
'
4
223
'
4
G
"
)
G
)
"
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
CA
S
ak
G
)
"
S
1500
S
Trap
AK
TT
"
)
P
!
(
"
)
'
4
T
"
)
T
W
"
)
!
(
P
T
!
(
"
)
'
4
!
(
15
G
)
"
A
RI
TO
T
"
)
O
T
T
"
)
"
)
e
Earls Trap
G
)
"
T
)
T"
"
)
T
"
)
L
0
'
4
T
GRAPEVINE "
)
T
4
W '
W
"
)
!
(
!
(
PEAK S
LIVESTOCK WATER TANK
Cr
1
G
)
"
l
tt
G
)
"
G
"
)
A
OE C
MO NR
00
S
P
!
(
CHIMINEZ RIDGE
Ostrich #3
Ostrich #2
S
W
"
)
ANYO N
ALISO C
'
4
'
4
!
(
'
4
T
"
)
!
.
T
"
)
T'
"
)
4
'
4
G
"
)
G
)
"
G
)
"
k
35
4
ni
T
"
)
Upper Westside
0
G
"
)
S
G
"
)
GG
)
"
)
"
0
S
G
)
G "
"
)
T
T
"
)
"
)
T
"
)
G
)
"
TS
"
)
Ca
ee
W
!
(
TrapT
20 0
G
)
"
t
RoadRawhide
e
G
)
"
'
4
)
"
"
)
G
G
W
P
!
(
T T
"
)
"
)
YON
'
4
G
)
"
T
p"
)
Tin"
gSPlan
)
0
CAN
'
4
ston Pu
m
iv
INE
PEV
NYO N
'
4
50 0
!
T
"
)
W
!
(
Belmare
5
GRA
AL LA C A
TR
T
"
)
W
!
(
400
!
G
)
G"
G
"
)
"
)
G "
)
"
G
)
'
4
G
)
"
Tunis Trap
Lower Chiminez
S
G
)
"
00
15
ME
!
(
!
(
'
4 S
!
G
)
"
T
"
)
Ostrich #1
G
)
"
W
!
(
T
"
)
W
W
Westside Foothill
!
T
"
)
'
4
4
P'
!
(
S '
4
'
4 '
T
4"
'
)
4
G
"
)
T
"
)
Edmon
T
"
)
T
"
)
"
)
"$
)
+
T
"
)
T
"
)
'
4
!
"
)
)
"
G
G
G
T
"
)
T
"
)
T
T
"
$
)
+
Belmare
Ostrich
T T Westside
Corrals
S
S
Griffith
Construction
Pastoria
Corrals
T
"
)
00
""
)
)
15
T
"
)
T
"
)
T
G
)
"
G
"
)
G
G
S
!
'
4
'
4
'
4!
(
"
)
Rose Station
T
"
)
G
)
"
!
'
4
Lower
P
Chiminez
Pastoria
Energy Little Cable Field
T
S
S
G
)
"
Big Cable Field
Chiminez
Corrals
S
T
"
)
G
)
"
T
"
)
T
"
)
!
+
T $
"
)
T
T
"
)
Rose Station
Lower Westside
W
!
(
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
T
"
)
t
S
Texaco
Holding Trap
S
!
T
T "
)
T"
"
)
)
W
!
(
T
"
)
S
!
T
"
)
S
G
)
"
G
G
"
)
"
)
Rose Station
Sheet 1
S
G
)
"
)
"
G
"
)
!
'
4
P
!
(
P
!
(
P
(
'
4 !
0
SS
)
"
G
G
)
"
S
OVERVIEW
1 00
Little Cable Field
G
!
!
Upper Aqua Blanca
G
)
"
T
"
)
58
T
"
)
G
)
"
T
"
)
!
!
ifor
nia
Aqu
edu
c
Lower Westside
þ
}
|
·
P
!
(
T
"
)
Lower Aqua Blanca
G
)
"
!
T
"
)
0
!
G
)
"
G
)
"
3 00
S
!
Cal
Rose Station
25 0 0
T
"
)
G
"
)
T
"
)
S
T
"
)
!
G
)
"
"
!
$
#
0
150
0
100
)
"
5
S
S
T
"
)
'
4
G
G
)
"
G
)
"
0
Reservoir 1
Tejon
Ranch
Commerce
Center
Tunis Field
!
00
1
r
s
G
)
"
0
Sa
C
lt
ek
T
"
)
!
1 00
!
S
Laval Road
Tu
!
!
1 000
G
1000
"
$
!
#
Sheet 3
Sheet 4
W
!
(
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
$
+
Sheet 7
þ
}
|
·
!
'
4
P
!
(
G
)
"
LOCKED GATE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK TROUGH
KNOWN FENCE LINE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK POND
PAVED ROAD
MAJOR DIRT ROAD
INTERMITTENT STREAM
SPRING / SEEP
LIVESTOCK CORRAL
Source: Tejon Records
MINOR DIRT ROAD
Fish Creek
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
TEJON RANCH BOUNDARY
LEASED LAND
Source: 2006 5M DEM
4500
0
!
T
"
)
'
4(
P
!
!
'
.
4
P
'
(
4 !
INSIDE OWNER (NOT A PART)
!
'
4
JO RID GE
T
"
)
'MA
4
RT
U
B L'
4
'
4
!
!
!
!
S
00
T
"
)
'
4
!
ARAU
65
00
65
65
O
6000
E
G
D
I
I N EZ R
00
00
N
Tierra De Los Borregos
6
000
5000
'
4
CA
5000
N
BULL R
IDGE
GE
LIVESTOCK WATER TANK
0
!
!
!
4
S
'
4
'
4
j
LOPEZk
k
j
FLATSk
j
k
j
k
j"
T
)
'
4W
(
!
.!
0
P
!
(
'
4
00
00
E
I
R
D
G
E
P
'
4
!
(
S
5000
Fish Creek
'
4
P
'
4
!
(
SAGE ASSOC SURVEY DATA
j
k
PLANT MGMT AREA
j
k
SPECIAL MGMT AREA
S
NEW SALT LICK
!
.
NEW SPRING USE
S
"
)
NEW SOLAR PUMP
S
SALT LICK
T
"
)
NEW TROUGH
S
"
)
SOLAR PUMP
W
!
(
NEW WATER TANK
'
4
Y
X
'
4
'
4
Disclaimer: Shown feature locations were derived from various sources. Data are subject to change as more precise information becomes available. Ground verification is required for absolute accuracy.
T
P
W
"
)
!
(
!
(
'
4
P
!
(
'
4
P
!
(
'
4
Y
X
Fish Creek
'
4
'
4"
T
)
Y X
X
YX
Y
Y X
SHEET 4 of 7
FOUND TRC FEATURES
138
S CANY !
W
T
(
)
O"
N
S
5500
Legend
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Sheet 6
55
'
4
0
5
0
00
T
"
)
'
4
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
S
50
n
!
!
Sheet 5
T
"
)
Bear Trap
Corral
'
4
'
4
'
4
00
T
"
)
W
(
P!
T
"
)
!
(
ek
4000
'
4
S
55
!
Sheet 2
5
NT
O
+")
NY $
E
Haul R o ad
CANYON DE LA LECHERIA
!
!
!
!
58
0
!
!
!
!
!
!
þ
}
|
·
99
CA
N
!
!
þ
}
|
·
BE A
R
!
!
!
223
WINTE
R
!
!
!
3500
!
!
!
!
!
þ
}
|
·
3500
S
T
"
)
A
C
4
P '
G
O
OVERVIEW
Cr e
a
ri
to
s
Pa
S
T
"
)
S
'
4
'
4
'
4
'
4GE
RID
DIE
R
U
P
B
04/10/13 TejonGIS6 M:\...\TR_Conservancy\FormRequest\GIS Mapping\FieldMaps\GrazingMgmnt\GrazingManagement_Report.mxd
!
T
"
)
E
58
Sheet 1
'
4
'
4
þ
}
|
·
GE
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
S
4000
ID
®
1 inch = 2,000 feet
"
)
SPIGOT
TEL
AN
T
P
"
)
!
(
'
4'
4
'
4
Pastoria Mountain
R
NY
CA
E
DG
RI
T
"
)
W
T
W
"
!
)
P !
(
(
!
(
'
4
'
4
'
4
Tierra De Los Borregos
S
ER
PP
O
IT
00
5
G
SOR RID
SCIS
3
T
)
S"
E
00
HO
DC
LC
Pastoria Mountain
W
!
(
L
0
650
3500
D
60
0
50
'
4
A
R
T
RP
A
('
4
BE !
S
50
5500
'
4
!
TO
STRAT N C A
N
4500 YO
N
OO
W
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
DG E
RI
S
U"
T
)
H
G
50
'
4
'
4
!
!
60
00
SA
E
5000
25
00
!
S
5
N
NYO
S CA
P
!
(
E
DG
S
00
!
(
'
4
!
'
4
4500
"
)
$
+
T Geghus
"
)
Corral
Pastoria Mountain
BRONCO CAN
Y
N
RI
GHU
GE
5
'
4 !
W
(
T
'
4 '
4
Mountain
YO
W
Trap
4000
!
T
"
)
'
4
'
4Geghus
S
T
"
)
'
4
W'
4
T!
P
(
"
)
500
0
00
T
'
4"
)
ER
3 50 0
'
4
00
'
4
ek
NT
'
4
T
"
)
HU
00
W
!
(
T
"
)
4 T
''
4
"
)
'
4
S
4
'
4 '
T!
S
'
4
W
(U
W
T
"
!
)
(
4
N '
I'
4S
R I D
TG E
T
"
)
"
)
'
4'
'
4
'
4
4
'
4
T
"
)
T
"
)
S
S
'
4
'
4
Cre
T
"
)
G
40
50
'
4
T
'
4
"
)
S
T'
'
4
"
)
4
T
"
)
'
4
ID
Tunis Mountain
T
"
)
T
"
)
4000
'
4'
4
so
ID
S
'
4
RIDGE
'
4
45
R
N
P
T
"
)
!
(
'
4
'
4
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
Pa
T
"
)
'
4
LA N
T
"
)
!
(
3500
'
4
'
4
'
4
R'
4
'
4
'
4
S
T
W
"
)
!
(
W I N T E R S
45
DA
E
C
DS
THE ISLAN
0
'
4
Tunis Mountain
T
"
)
T
)
W
T"
!
(
"
)
P
!
(
W
'
4
T
"
)
S
W
"
)
!
(
S
S
M A X MIL
CHIMINEZ RIDGE
T
"
)
T
"
)
'
4
'
4
BR USHY RID G E
UpperS
Chiminez
'
4S
3 00
S
T
"
)
d
'
4
S
CA
'
4
T
"
)
T
"
)
T
"
)
'
4
Section 4
D
S
N
YO
N ZIE R ID
!
!
'
4
P
!
(
'
4I
4500
00
T
"
)
Mc
KE
!
!
2000
4000
El
M
'
4
'
4
T
"
)
S
'
4
!
!
!
ek
00
re
2
5
T
P
"
)
!
(
T
"
)
'
4
C
'
4
4
'
4 '
'
4
P
!
(
'
4
BLACK
ROCKS
is
'
4'
4
35
'
4
'
4
4
"
)'
E
5000
!
'
4
T
"
)
T
"
)
T
"
)
S
Eas t
T
"
)
0
S
'
4
BEE
FLAT
!
E
T
"
)
Bull Field
P
!
(
'
4
!
(
P
'
4
Tun
'
4
P
!
(
MUERTOS CANYON
1500
'
4
'
4
!
'
.
4
!
'
.
4!
.
4
j'
k
jk
k
j
Section B
!
G
'
4
Heifer
T
"
)
!
'
4
!
!
Lower Chiminez
T
"
)
S
N
KA
R
!
!
!
!
(
P
'
4
S
'
4
3000
30 0
Section 32
'
4
T
"
)
YO
N
'
4
2 50
RIDGE
!
S
'
4
Lower
Chiminez
S
AN
T
"
)
N
!
!
!
S
Heifer
'
4
'
4
!
!
'
4
R!
P D
W
(
'
4 "
O
T
)
T
"
)
IDG
E RT
S
'
4
!
T
"
)
!
!
Tunis Trap
HAYE
SC
Devils Trap
T
"
)
!
!
T
"
)
$
+
W
!
(
McKenzie
Corrals
'
4
ON
!
BOO CANYON
M
A
B
T
"
)
S
'
4
T
)
"
3500
LE G
T
"
)
S
Upper Aqua Blanca
'
4
P
!
(
P
!
(
P
(
'
4 !
!
!
!
20
00
ek
COO NS
P
!
T
(
"
)
P'
!
(
4
T
"
)
T
"
)
C O'
4
T
"
)
'
4 "
T
)
'
4
!
!
'
4 "
T
)
'
T
4 "
)
T '
)
4
'
4 "
P
!
(
'
4
T
W
"
)
!
(
P
!
(
T
"
)
S
4000
S
4000
'
4
3000
T
"
)
S
r
S
W
!
(
S
S
S
'
4
0
!
!
15
00
T
"
)
GE
RID
'
4
3500
!
!
Perfidio
'
4
T
"
)
P
!
(
3000
!
!
P
'
4
!
(
G
LO N
e
!
'
4
'
4
00
C
"
)
30
P
!
(
so
ON
!
T
"
)
'
4
P
!
(
'
4
Y OT
N
2000
P
!
(
Pa
NY
!
AN
S
T
"
)
00
'
4
S
El
C
Tunis Field
T
"
)
S
P
!
(
2500
IL
S
V
'
4CA
CAT
30
'
4
50
!
!
!
15 0 0
S
0
0
T
"
)
G
G"
)
"
)
20
!
ad
o
R
in S
m
hi
Bano
!
T
"
)
!
!
'
4
!
DE
!
T
"
)
ca
!
!
!
(
'
4
!
P
!
(
P
(
P
P!
!
(
!
(
4"
T
)
'
4 '
P
NYO N
T
"
)
!
ez
C
!
!
Field
T
P
"
)
!
(
P
P
!
!
(
(
4
'
4'
P
!
(
T
"
)
G
)
"
!
Joaquin
2000
Eucalyptus
Corrals
Eucalyptus Field
T
"
)
(
S CA
W
!
(
T
"
)
'
4
!
!
T
"
)
PP
Tierra De
SLos Borregos
0
'
4
T
)
!
("
!
'
4
T
W
PT
S
T
"
)
W
T
"
!
(
)
"
)
"
!
(
!
()
00
'
4
Reservoir 2
T
"
)
3000
S
Field
$
+
P
P
!
(
G
G"
)
"
)
1500
S
JOAQUIN FLATS
00
Chafin
T
"
)
30 0
P
!
(
Laval Road
!
(
T
T
"
)
'
4
S
T
"
)
S
S )
T
"
W
G
)
"
45
S
30
T
"
)
S
IN RIDGE
G
)
"
T
T
"
)
"
)
Creek Field
G
)
"
TE
HI
W
N
!
'
4
Rock
!
(
!
CO
O
NY
A
WC
!
G
)
"
T '
4
"
)
4 '
Tresquela Field
W
G
G
G
T
"
)
U
JOAQ
S
Alamo Solo
Orchard Traps
Rock
[
)
"
)
"
)
"
T
"
)
G
)
"
T
"
)
2500
00
[
T
"
)
0
!
[
!
('
4
'
4 "
T '
"
)
4
T
)
T!
P
"
)
(
T
"
)
G
"
)
G
)
"
450 0
WIT C
tL
Lo
d
Fe
[
G
"
)
"
)
5000
!
[
T
"
)
0
'
4
'
4
P
P
!
(
S
T
"
)
Indian Field
2000
35
40
P
S
a
00
EK
RE
C
H
e
an
0
10
[
T
T
"
)
G
)
"
S
!
[
Monte Grain Field
P
!
(
4
T Reservoir 3 '
"
P
!
(
Fertilizer)!
P
(
'
4
'
4
Headquarters
W
!
(
T
T
P
"
)
"
)
!
(
W
!
(
T
"
)
W
!
(
$
+
e
T
$
"
+
)
T
"
)
d
C
!
S
S
G
"
)
S
Ce
ar
'
4 S
T
"
)
Campo
Bonito
Corrals
y on
!
0
Reservoir
Field
T
"
)
T
0
0
30 0
!
'
4
T
"
)
T
)
T"
"
)
W
!
(
P
!
(
T Feed Lot
"
)
Corrals
Vaquero
Alamo Solo
G
"
)
[
G
"
)
3 50
k
j"
j
Tk
)
k
j
!
)
"
0
S
ek
C re
n
jo
!
G
)
"
G
Te
!
G
)
"
G
)
"
!
( Butcher
T
"
)
P
!
(
d
!
ian R
oa
S
S
P
!
G
"
)
S
T
"
)
S )
T
"
0
25
!
T
S
"
)
k
jS
k
j
T '
"
)
T
4
"
)
'
4
T
"
)
Monte
C
0
0
S eb a s t
G
)
"
G
"
)
G
)
"
Campo Bonito
!
'
4
!
(
"
)
G
"
)
k
j
k
j
S"
T P
)
j
!
( k
TP
G
)
"
"
)
25 0
!!
S
P
!
(
ek
15
00
T
"
)
T
"
)
T
T
"
)
"
T
)
T
!
G
)
"
Cre
!
k
j
k
j
!
!
S
YO
R
A
D
E
45
ell
T
"
)
!
T
"
)
W
!
(
'
4
k
j
T
)
T"
"
)
k
j
!
South Globe
T
T
"
)
pa r
[
[
00
!
Ca
[
[
[1 5
[
!
S
[
1 50 0
!
S
Little Globe
[
!
[
[
[
!
S
[
!
W
T
)
T "
!
(
"
)
0
2,000
Feet
4,000
Trap
d
0
C
C
e
0
3 50
ar
N
ED
C
a ny o n
0
35
30 00
00
40
450 0
0
0
'
4
'
4
P
P
(
!
S
W
S
250 0
'
4
Chafin
5 5 00
S
5 00 0
T
"
)
!
!
00
'
4
0
35
0
3000 3
UIN RIDGE
3500
'
4
4 500
5 50 0
T
"
)
TE JO
4000
T
"
)
4 50
'
4
!
!
!
00
40
'
4
!
D
!
!
!
!
S
!
!
00
'
4
'
4
S
!
T
"
)
6 0 00
S
4
'
4'
'
4
'
4
G
E
st
El
P
as
k
j
k
j
o C reek
P
!
(
!
!
50
k
j
'
4
P aso C r eek
El
E
!
!
[
!
[
'
4
P
!
(
T
"
)
Sa
cat
ar a Cr eek
P
'
4k
!
(
j
k
j
Secretario Meadow
k
jk
jk
j
!
0
!
65 0
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DI
DA
0
ON
45
!
!
ES
C
UA
AG
!
O
!
!
Y
X
G
"
)
kC
T
P
"
)
!
(
T
"
)
anyo
T
"
)
Y
X
n Ro
Tierra De Los Borregos
ad
XS
Y
Y
X
T
"
)
Ro
ad
ree
S
Y
X
T
"
)
!
Y
X
T
"
)
ak
T
"
)
Y
X
!
k
j
G
"
)
!
DE
L
G
"
)
ite
DA
k
j
Wh
X
Y
T
"
)
0
0
NA
35
CA
!
!
kC
E
NT
MO
'
4
'
4"
T
)
Y
X
T
"
)
T
"
)
0
T
"
)
T
"
)
!
Oa
Y
X
Trap
!
T
"
)
P
T
!
(
"
)
S
!
k
j
!
Y
X
Y
X
0
O
AT
k
jk
j
'
4"
T
)
W
T
!
(
"
)
S
!
!
T
"
)
0
'
4
!
on
Y
X
T
"
)
Y
X
P
!
(
'
4
W
!
(
S
S
T
"
)
'
4
G
R
r
u
to
d
oa
S
Ca ny
'
4
G
)
"
!
Oak
0
00
0 5
5000
T
"
)
G
)
"
Legend
W
!
(
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
$
+
þ
}
|
·
!
!
T
"
)
0
4
DE
L
LIVESTOCK WATER TANK
G
)
"
LOCKED GATE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK TROUGH
KNOWN FENCE LINE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK POND
INTERMITTENT STREAM
PAVED ROAD
MAJOR DIRT ROAD
MINOR DIRT ROAD
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
SPRING / SEEP
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Sheet 7
G
"
)
!
!
Co n
'
4
OP
TEL
AN
Sheet 5
!
Mendiburu
Corrals
T
"
)
500
'
4
$
+
T
P
"
)
!
(
!
!
NY
Fish Creek
Sheet 2
!
le
5500
P
!
(
'
4
58
!
tt
00
'
4
þ
}
|
·
'
4 TP
"
!
)
(
!
!
P
!
(
99
!
'
4
!
!
!
'
4
S
T
"
)
'
4
'
4
T
"
)
k
j!
P
(
[
!
k
j
6000
T
P
W
"
)
!
(
!
(
'
4
223
S
50
00
00
'
4
Sheet 6
S
Li
65
S
þ
}
|
·
T
"
)
P
T Tierra De Los BorregosS
'
4
"
)
!
(
'
4
E OA
L
T
T
I
KC
L
T
"
)
T
"
)
W
!
(
'
4
'
4
k
j
00
B
'
4
k
j
E
G
I D
R
'
4
P
!
Y
X
(
U
L
50 0 0
!
65
S CANY !
W
T
"
)
O(
N
Sheet 1
S
P
!
(
P
!
(
CA
'
4
Sheet 4
S
!
.
5000
OVERVIEW
Creek
40
'
4
Tierra De Los Borregos
58
w ood
ON
NY
'
4
'
4
YX
X
Y Y
X
Y
Xþ
}
|
·
n
tto
'
4
S
O
N
6000
E
G
D
I
EZ R
S
00
'
4
6 0 00
'
4
S
'
4
60 0
'
4
0
0
G
)
"
!
k
00
T
"
)
!
RS
PE
OP
0
650
ee
65
!
!
!
!
H
DC
OO
W
60
Cr
T
"
)
Y
X
!
!
0
'
4
A
'
4
j
LOPEZk
k
j
FLATSk
j
k
j
k
j"
T
)
'
4W
(
!
.!
60 0
Tun is
CANYO N DE LA LECHERIA
T
"
)
S
!
60 0 0
6 500
P '
!
(
4
'
4
00
RI D GE
04/10/13 TejonGIS6 M:\...\TR_Conservancy\FormRequest\GIS Mapping\FieldMaps\GrazingMgmnt\GrazingManagement_Report.mxd
!
60
00
FERN BEDS
CAMPO SOULE'
l R oad
S
Sheet 3
!
Co
P
'
4
!
(
4
'
4 '
T
"
)
'
4(
P
!
!
'
.
4
P
'
4 !
(
5
!
'
4
0
"
$
!
#
!
S
'
4
'
4
'
4
þ
}
|
·
!
0
H
au
'
4
!
'
4
W
!
(
T
'
4"
)
k
j
k
j$
T
"
)
+
'
4
5500
!
!
S
P
!
(
Catskin
Corrals
'
4
'
4
5500
T
"
)
!
4
T'
"
)
!
!
!
!
!
!
WHITE OAKS
!
!
TO
STRAT N CA
N
4500 YO
N
ON
ID
5 50 0
55
S
!
!
Ea
'
4
5500
55
00
E
!
Tierra De Los Borregos
R
00
!
!
S
E
'
4
!
G
!
!
50
S
!
!
T
"
)
4500
S
S
T
"
)
!
.
00
S
'
4
0
50 0
!
'
4I
S
PASTURE
'
4
5000
55
5 00
!
T
"
)
S
L
!
.
!
R
!
!
RONCO CA
NY
!
!
[
T
"
)
!
!
j
T k
"
)
JACK'S
[
!
'
4
!
4500
N
!
'
4
T
"
)
S
0
ek
'
4
'
4
'
4 S
RWP D
!
(
'
4 "
O
T
)
Tej o n
G
)
"
N
N C AN YO
Cre
0
00
T
"
)
000
S
500
5500
55
C O'
4
T
"
)
G
)
"
'
4
T
"
)
00
[
S
P
!
(
'
4
50
[
'
4
S
50 00
55
S
'
4
55
00
[
P
!
(
S
P
!
(
0
!
J O AQ
T
"
)
Tierra De
os Borregos
'
4
!
T
"
)
S
6 00 0
50 0 0
00
!
E
W
45
T
"
)
T
HI
CO
N
YO
N
CA
[
!
T
"
)
5000
45
'
4 S
LIVESTOCK CORRAL
Source: Tejon Records
LEASED LAND
TEJON RANCH BOUNDARY
Source: 2006 5M DEM
INSIDE OWNER (NOT A PART)
SAGE ASSOC SURVEY DATA
j
k
PLANT MGMT AREA
j
k
SPECIAL MGMT AREA
S
NEW SALT LICK
!
.
NEW SPRING USE
S
"
)
NEW SOLAR PUMP
S
SALT LICK
T
"
)
NEW TROUGH
S
"
)
SOLAR PUMP
W
!
(
NEW WATER TANK
SHEET 5 of 7
FOUND TRC FEATURES
138
Disclaimer: Shown feature locations were derived from various sources. Data are subject to change as more precise information becomes available. Ground verification is required for absolute accuracy.
®
1 inch = 2,000 feet
"
)
SPIGOT
0
2,000
Feet
4,000
)
"
SO
G
)
"
CA
N
)
"
G
)
"
0
T
"
)
T
"
)
P
!
(
S
G
)
"
G
)
"
N
YO
AN
00
45
S
G
)
"
o C
an
yo
n
OS
OC
AN
YO
GE
!
AN YON
5
!
!
'
4
o
nt
'
4'
4
u
W
!
(
$
+
P
'
4
!
(
N
'
4
S
'
4
Y
X
S
G
)
"
3500
P
'
4
!
(
3500
G
"
)
lan
tR
35
C AN
Y ON
'
4
!
( !
P
P!
(
(
P!
P
!
(
(
'
4
4 0 00
d
G
)
"
00
P
45 0 0
G
)
"
G
)
"
Oso
00
4
T
"
)
'
4
G
"
)
4000
'
4
P
!
'
(
4
S
Alamos Trap
'
4
Tin Mine
Corral
3
000
G orman C
reek
T
W
"
)
!
(
4!
W
(
'
4'
P
!
(
tP
en
'
4
S
'
4
45 0 0
45 0 0
y Ro
ad
SO
NC
JOHN
S
P
!
(
'
4
'
4 '
'
4
4
4
'
4'
'
4
Oso
S
RK
'
4 CANYON
G
)
"
G
)
"
'
4
T
P
'
4
"
)
!
(
'
4
'
4
'
4
5
c
TEJON
PASS
T
'
4
"
)
'
4
Os
'
4
'
4
!
m
Ce
4
a
Pe
Va
lle
S
400
DA
'
4
!
P
'
4
!
(
!
(
PP
!
'
(
4
d
T
)
a "
G
"
)
'
4
4 50
'
4
'
4
!
(
'
4
'
4
S
'
4'
4
0
P
T
)
'
4"
5 00
e
NATIONAL CEMENT
PT
!
(
'
4
"
)
G
"
)
Michener
'
4
P
T
'
4
"
)
!
(
T
"
)
G
"
)
!
'
4
T
"
)
ON
EC
RC
Frazier Mountain Park Road
Lower
Crane
4 00
'
4
YON
AN
Le b
A
ek
Cu d dy C re
Field
BE A
Terrys Mare
Pasture
Y
S
'
4
45 0
T
"
)
Hamilton Field
0
ad
CR
e
G
Re d H i l l
ON
H
UT
G
NY
!
!
5000
T
P
T
"
)
"
!
(
)
W
!
(
'
4
T
"
)
S
!
!
5000
T
"
)
T
"
)
Ro
!
!
T
P
"
)
!
(
4000
'
4
ek
!
o
G
)
"
G
"
)
S
re
4000
RI
DG
E
'
4
C
rR
CA
CA
NY
ON
os
!
Co
N
TO
IL
W
!
(
P
!
(
T $
W"
)
+Equestrian
!
(
'
4
Center k
j
Corrals
'
4
W
!
(
Old Crane N
!
(
m
'
4
P
T
!
(
"
)
0
M
TH
'
4'
4
Oso
G
)
"
0
HA
G
"
)
G
)
"
T
W
"
)
T
"
)
ad
35
Castac
Lake
G
)
"
00
W
T
"
)
!
(
COTTONWOOD
PEAK
IN
E
Los A
l
S
40
0
i
F
y
"
)
LEBEC
o
R
c
3500
40
00
NO
R
Earls
T
Trap
ALT
OS
PALO
S
0 00
3
s
ak
O
ec
Le
b
G
'
4
Pastoria Mountain
!
"
)
E
'
4
00
!
T
ek
LE
L
'
4
S
0
!
)
"
G
"
)
T
"
P
)
!
(
S
T$
"
)
T!
"
+
)
(
!
(
"
)
Dry Field
Corrals
P
W
T
PO
5
LIT
TL
!
T
"
)
W
!
(
N
!
(
4
T '
"
)
W
!
(
4
YON
Te jon La
A
YO
eR
T
"
)
o ad N
P
Dr
i ve
r
D
ke
C
00
!
d
el
SK
!
Upper Lake Field
C
av
S
!
4 0 00
re
ER
'
4
0
'
4
P
!
(
'
4
'
4
CAMPO
TERESA
4500
400
Meadows
T
'
4
"
)
d
aP
!
(
'
4
o
R
T
"
)
4
T '
"
)
T
'
4
"
)
T
W
"
)
!
(
M
CA
SY
4
'
4 '
Fish Creek
a
T"
"
)
T
)
Aliso Field
'
4
0
00
(
R)
M icr o w
3500
DRY
FIELD
S
'
4
E
'
4
45
'
4
T
"
)
B
r
a
e
Tr
ap
DW
Dry Field
4000
'
4
P
!
(
DG
G
"
)
'
4"
T'
'
4
)
4'
'
4'
4
4
'
4
'
4
ek
RI
on
Cre
ri a
'
4
T
"
)
R
NE
IN
ny
E
DG
RI
Ca
4
!
('
DRY FIELD
CAN
"
$
!
#
!
(5
W
g
'
4
T
"
)
P
T
T
"
)
"
)
'
4
!
(
S
to
Pas
T
"
)
N
n
4000
0
35 0
T
"
)
'
4
'
4
P
'
4
4000
'
4
T
"
)
3 50 0
IN
G
)
"
si
G
"
)
P
'
4
!
(
SK
Ri
T'
"
)
P
!
(
4
G
)
"
T
"
)
Big Springs
'
4
'
4
T
'
"
4
)
!
('
4'
4
'
4
3500
00
35
'
4
Gypsen Field
k
ad
o
R
O
IT
ON
ree
G
)
"
CAN
YON
C
00
G
4500
ne
S
G
35
RI
EY
k
j
pe "
T
)
vi
IN
P
!
(
0
'
4
4
NY
LL
G
)
"
ra
LC
CA
A
'
4
45 0
'
4
00
0
S
5 00
S
T
P
"
)
E
STOCKHOLDERS
CAN YON
R
00
00
P
'
4
!
(
W
G
"
)
G
)
"
0
e
45
35
!
(
V
W
T
W
"
!
)
P !
(
(
!
(
'
4
Pastoria Mountain
00
'
4
!
(
P
T
"
!
)
(
'
4
R
T
RP
A
('
4
BE !
W
!
(
T
"
)
S
3500
T
"
)
C
P
!
(
'
4
G
)
"
00
30 0
N
YO
AN
LC
ak
WIL
SE
DHOR
k
SI
LV
EP
)
"
35
00
5
E
RR
O
Ro
H OR
T CA
P N YO
!
(
N
CA
ST
AC
'
4
re
.
CYN
G
G
)
"
G
SOR RID
SCIS
UI
e
er
S
G
"
)
G
)
"
T
"
)
'
4
40
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
P!
!
W
(
(
Pastoria Mountain
3
'
4
P
T'
!
(
"
)
4
'
4
Li v
T
"
)
'
4
00
igi
!
(
S
'
4
SA
SQ
4
0
45
T
"
)
W
4
'''
4
4
T
"
)
ad
00
T
"
)
W
!
'
(
4
'
4
D
W
!
(
Big Springs
!
(
"
)
!
(
!
(
'
4
'
4
T
"
)
'
4
P
T
W
P
S
0
0
Big Springs
Corrals
T
"
)
0
400
T
"
)
$
+
T
"
)
4
T'
"
)
'
4
S
0
25 0
West Grasshopper
40
'
4
"
)
'
4
BIG
SPRINGS
!
S
S
4 50 0
35 0
0
G
)
"
GORMAN
G
)
"
rm
an
P
G
)
"
S
G
)
"
os
40
Go
tR
00
G
)
"
S
'
4
o ad
G
)
"
G
)
"
PE
AC
E
35
VA
LL
00
G
)
"
'
4
EY
Coe
Quail Lake
'
4
þ
}
|
·
G"
G
"
)
)
04/10/13 TejonGIS6 M:\...\TR_Conservancy\FormRequest\GIS Mapping\FieldMaps\GrazingMgmnt\GrazingManagement_Report.mxd
138
"
$
!
#
5
þ
}
|
·
58
OVERVIEW
Sheet 1
þ
}
|
·
223
þ
}
|
·
þ
}
|
·
58
99
"
$
!
#
Sheet 2
5
Sheet 3
Sheet 4
Sheet 5
Legend
W
!
(
T
"
)
P
!
(
'
4
LIVESTOCK WATER TANK
$
+
Sheet 7
þ
}
|
·
LOCKED GATE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK TROUGH
KNOWN FENCE LINE
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Source: Tejon Records
LIVESTOCK POND
INTERMITTENT STREAM
PAVED ROAD
MAJOR DIRT ROAD
MINOR DIRT ROAD
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
SPRING / SEEP
Source: Native Range Survey / Tejon Records
Sheet 6
G
)
"
LIVESTOCK CORRAL
Source: Tejon Records
LEASED LAND
TEJON RANCH BOUNDARY
Source: 2006 5M DEM
INSIDE OWNER (NOT A PART)
SAGE ASSOC SURVEY DATA
j
k
PLANT MGMT AREA
j
k
SPECIAL MGMT AREA
S
NEW SALT LICK
!
.
NEW SPRING USE
S
"
)
NEW SOLAR PUMP
S
SALT LICK
T
"
)
NEW TROUGH
S
"
)
SOLAR PUMP
W
!
(
NEW WATER TANK
SHEET 6 of 7
FOUND TRC FEATURES
138
Disclaimer: Shown feature locations were derived from various sources. Data are subject to change as more precise information becomes available. Ground verification is required for absolute accuracy.
®
1 inch = 2,000 feet
"
)
SPIGOT
0
2,000
Feet
4,000
TEJON RANCH OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDICES
(AVAILABLE ON REQUEST)
ATTACHMENT B
Attachment B: Oak Enhancement
Attachment B is referred to in Section 3.3 Vegetation types of the Tejon Ranch GMP (Appendix B of
RWMP Volume 2).
Oak recruitment
Protection of valley oak (Quercus lobata) and other rangeland oak species seedlings from grazing may
be necessary to ensure recruitment of seedlings into the sapling stage. Especially when rangeland is
grazed during the summer, livestock may browse on seedlings (McCreary and George 2005; McCreary
2001), although livestock grazing may also indirectly help oak seedlings by reducing competition with
annual grasses and forbs (Tyler et al. 2006). Wildlife may also have a significant impact on oak
seedlings. We recommend that the Conservancy, in collaboration with Tejon Ranch, evaluate oak
regeneration and recruitment in its Grazing Area to ascertain the need for oak seedling protection.
Oak seedlings can be protected from wildlife and livestock grazing using “treeshelters”: individual,
translucent plastic protectors that fit over oak seedlings and are secured with a metal fence post
(McCreary 2001). In addition, treeshelters stimulate above-ground growth of oak seedlings by acting as
a mini-greenhouse (McCreary 2001). McCreary (2001) and McCreary and George (2005) recommend
the following practices:
1) use 4-foot-tall treeshelter and leave in place for at least three years after seedling has grown out
of the top; base of the treeshelter should be buried in the ground; treeshelter top should have
flexible wire threaded through it to prevent birds getting trapped (see McCreary 2001 for
details); this flexible wire should be removed as the oak grows out of the treeshelter; and
2) use heavy metal fence post pounded in at least 1 foot deep and secured to treeshelter with wire;
the top of the fence post should be lower than the top of the treeshelter.
Livestock attractants, such as salt and mineral licks and water troughs, should be placed as far as
possible from oak seedling protection sites (McCreary and George 2005). Treeshelters should be
checked annually for maintenance needs and removed before the tree’s diameter is as large as the
shelter’s. See McCreary (2001) for detailed instructions on use of treeshelters.
References
McCreary, D.D. 2001. Regenerating rangeland oaks in California. University of California Agriculture
& Natural Resources Publication 21601. Oakland, CA: University of California Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Available on-line at:
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/21601e.pdf.
McCreary, D.D. and M.R. George. 2005. Managed grazing and seedling shelters enhance oak
regeneration on rangelands. California agriculture 59: 217-222. Available on-line at:
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca5904p217-69207.pdf
Tyler, C.M., B. Kuhn, and F.W. Davis. 2006. Demography and recruitment limitations of three oak
species in California. Quarterly Review of Biology 81: 127-152.
B-1
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
Attachment C is referred to in Section 4.3 Recommended grazing management-related actions within the
Tejon Ranch GMP (Appendix B of RWMP Volume 2).
Introduction
Riparian areas in semi-arid rangelands like the Tejon Ranch are important to local and regional
conservation for multiple reasons: providing wildlife habitat and movement corridors (NRC 2002),
increasing local species richness by harboring different species from adjacent uplands (Sabo et al. 2005),
filtering nutrient and sediment run-off (Naiman et al. 2005), stabilizing stream banks, and mitigating
flood intensity (NRC 2002). Introduced ungulates (primarily feral pigs and cattle) can concentrate in
riparian areas as animals are drawn to the cooler temperatures, shade, available water, and higher quality
forage (Belsky et al. 1999) particularly during seasonally dry periods. Cattle herbivory and trampling
can have negative effects on riparian vegetation and hydraulic and geomorphic processes. In some
systems, feral pig disturbance has been shown to facilitate invasion by nonnative annual grasses and
reduce woody plant recruitment through ground disturbance and seed predation (Kotanen 1995,
Sweitzer and Van Vuren 2008).
Riparian habitats on Tejon Ranch, particularly those in lower elevation areas of the San Joaquin Valley,
reflect the effects of livestock and feral pigs. Many low elevation, San Joaquin Valley stream reaches
and associated riparian vegetation appear to have reduced understory layers. Stream channels and
adjacent floodplains show evidence of rooting by feral pigs, with objects that may provide cover for
reptiles and amphibians displaced by foraging pigs. The observed loss of vegetation cover, physical
disturbance of channels and floodplains, and predation by pigs is hypothesized to result both in reduced
water quality and suboptimal habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
Cattle distribution on Tejon Ranch is managed primarily through seasonal pasture stocking rates, water
developments, salt/supplement placement, and fencing. Feral pigs are currently managed by the Tejon
Ranch Wildlife Management Program via harvest by private hunters. Techniques for successfully
reducing the adverse effects of livestock and pigs in riparian areas and a pilot riparian enhancement
project are described in this appendix. Better understanding of and differentiating between cattle and pig
effects on the ecology of Tejon’s riparian areas will also be important to Conservancy’s goals for
enhancing riparian condition. By investigating the relative contribution made by these managed species
to changes or transitions between riparian ecological states (such as degraded and enhanced states), the
Conservancy will obtain useful information for meeting the following ranch-wide conservation goal and
specific objectives a, b, c, d, and e:
G1-3) Enhance and restore riparian and wetland ecosystems.
a) Complete a baseline characterization of riparian and wetland systems.
b) Restore as appropriate desired vegetation structure (i.e., the desired amount of riparian
vegetation in three dimensions).
c) Reduce populations of noxious nonnative species, such as tamarisk, perennial pepperweed,
and giant reed, and promote native vegetation in treated areas
d) Increase the overall extent of native riparian and wetland plant species in riparian habitats
e) Increase populations of target wetland and riparian wildlife species.
Riparian systems in semi-arid rangelands like the Tejon Ranch may function as non-equilibrium
systems; potential plant communities vary over space or time primarily in response to abiotic factors
such as climatic variation, soil moisture, and stream geomorphology (Stringham et al. 2001, Stringham
C-1
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
and Repp 2010), but also in response to biotic factors such as pig or cattle disturbance. Because of the
site and temporal specificity of these relationships, developing regionally applicable ecological site
descriptions and state and transition models are important to understand the drivers of transitions among
ecological states and the impacts of management decisions on the structure and composition of riparian
communities (Stringham and Repp 2010).
Riparian enhancement strategies
Riparian enhancement strategies are methods for achieving the Conservancy’s ranch-wide goals and
objectives for riparian areas. Due to the temporal and site specificity of responses to management in
non-equilibrium riparian systems, enhancement strategies need to be based on an adaptive framework
where baseline evaluation and monitoring inform and update management practices. In order to evaluate
riparian enhancement, baseline information on key attributes of the system will be collected. This
includes defining riparian ecological sites, and models for transitions between states, and providing
information on plant species richness, distribution, and abundance in riparian areas. Information will be
collected on wildlife diversity including special status vertebrate species such as: two-striped garter
snake (Thamnophis hammondii), Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi), valley
elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), and breeding birds. The Tejon Ranch
Conservancy already has two years of baseline information on the status of breeding birds in riparian
areas of the San Joaquin Valley.
Manipulating the composition and structure of riparian vegetation is a key strategy to achieving riparian
goals and objectives. Vegetation structure affects habitat suitability for many of the riparian breeding
birds (Taylor 1986), and riparian area width affects large mammal use of riparian areas as movement
corridors (Hilty and Merenlender 2004). Some riparian plants such as calico monkey flower (Mimulus
pictus) are of direct conservation concern, while other species such as elderberry (Sambucus nigra) are
hosts for sensitive species. Monitoring the responses of special status species and landscape-level
processes such as wildlife movement to riparian enhancement will ascertain whether riparian
enhancement strategies are successful or whether they need to be augmented.
Riparian enhancement strategies cover the spectrum from passive to active techniques. Passive
techniques emphasize removing factors thought to cause habitat degradation in riparian areas, such as
excessive grazing at critical times and feral pig disturbance. This can be done through seasonal pasture
rotation, or though construction of additional permanent riparian fencing. Passive techniques are well
suited to systems with low to moderate degradation. Active techniques include planting, weeding,
burning, and thinning and can be more resource intensive (McIver and Starr 2001). These techniques
may be necessary to deal with more significantly degraded systems or those that will otherwise not
recover rapidly enough under passive techniques. Salt cedar or tamarisk removal in Tejon Creek would
be an example of active management.
The Conservancy’s riparian enhancement efforts should initially focus on management of cattle and
feral pigs. Three actions will reduce the adverse impacts on riparian systems and develop better
understanding of direct impacts of cattle and pigs. These actions will be accompanied by monitoring.
1) Adjust seasonal use of cattle in pastures containing riparian areas. Removing cattle during
the late spring, summer, and fall from pastures which include riparian reaches is a low-cost
method of ameliorating the effects of seasonal grazing on riparian habitats. It is a first priority for
C-2
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
manipulating cattle distribution because it requires no additional infrastructure, but monitoring
this trial will determine the need for riparian pasture fencing.
2) Build feral pig exclusion plots. Create study plots where feral pigs are excluded to evaluate the
relative effect of feral pigs on vegetation and wildlife in riparian areas. Exclusions would be
approximately 50 meters square.
3) Reconfigure existing pastures and build riparian pastures. Existing pastures could be
reconfigured to better facilitate seasonal management of cattle in riparian areas where needed
and as indicated by activity 1 above. These pastures would need to be built in conjunction with
water developments outlined in the Grazing Operational Management Assessment (Sage
Associates 2012).
Depending on the results of these manipulations, future cattle management options include the seasonal
use of pastures containing riparian areas and fencing riparian pastures to allow better manipulation of
season of use and stocking duration. Depending on the outcome of feral pig exclosure experiments and
information on the effect of pig abundance on response variables, feral pigs may be managed through
increased hunting pressure or riparian fencing.
Tejon Creek Enhancement Project
Riparian habitats at Tejon Ranch were observed to be in less than optimal quality, assumed a result of
adverse effects of excessive cattle grazing and feral pig activities. Lower elevation riparian reaches in
the San Joaquin Valley were identified as key areas for implementation of conservation strategies in the
2012 Grazing Operational Management Assessment (Sage Associates 2012). Given that it is accessible,
located within the conservation easement area currently held by the Conservancy, and has a high
potential for significant improvement, the Conservancy has selected lower Tejon Creek for initial
riparian enhancement efforts. The Tejon Creek Enhancement Project will be implemented as an adaptive
management trial to investigate livestock and pig management as a means of enhancing riparian habitat
on Tejon Ranch, as well as to better understand ecological site characteristics, and associated states and
transitions for these systems.
The Tejon Creek Enhancement Project plan will eventually install approximately 8 miles of new riparian
fencing along the northeast side of lower Tejon Creek (Figure 1). This would create three new riparian
pastures that would allow exclusion or seasonal management of cattle use in lower Tejon Creek. To
ensure adequate off-stream water for livestock, 13 new cattle troughs are proposed to be developed in
the uplands along lower Tejon Creek in conjunction with the new fencing. While the proposed new
riparian fencing (3 strand barbed wired) will not effectively control access to the creek and riparian
vegetation by feral pigs, we anticipate some level of riparian enhancement to be achieved by cattle
management alone.
The relative effects of livestock and pigs, and thus the degree to which riparian enhancement can be
achieved via the respective management of these species is uncertain. To better understand the relative
effects of cattle and feral pigs and responses to their management, we will perform a management study
in Tejon Creek and two other low-elevation San Joaquin Riparian reaches: El Paso Creek and Tunis
Creek. These three ecologically-similar riparian systems will contain treatment and control areas to
develop ecological site descriptions for these riparian systems and to evaluate livestock management
responses in a Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) study design. Manipulating stocking times in
C-3
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
pastures containing riparian reaches is a low-cost approach to seasonally exclude cattle from riparian
areas which will mimic the effect of the Tejon Creek Project Plan. Replicate pig and cattle exclosures
nested within riparian areas in the study pastures will discriminate between the effects of season of use
by cattle and feral pigs on riparian areas..
Figure 1. Existing and new ranching infrastructure associated with the Tejon Creek Enhancement
Project
Monitoring Methods:
The following methods are strategies to build ecological site descriptions, state and transition models,
and to assess vegetation responses for the riparian areas in the study area. They are similar to the
methods used by Spiegal and Bartolome (2012) with additions and modifications made to incorporate
the different spatial and temporal processes in riparian areas as well as to look more specifically at the
effect of cattle and feral pig disturbance in causing transitions between ecological states and poor
riparian condition.
Vegetation is the response variable in this study because vegetation composition and structure is often
associated with habitat quality for many wildlife species (Taylor 1986). Monitoring will focus on
describing riparian vegetation patterns in the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Tejon Ranch, and the
spatial and temporal drivers of these patterns. To adequately assess vegetation will require annual
sampling that is stratified throughout the area of interest.
C-4
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
Proposed methods to sample riparian vegetation include:
a. Stratify 15 sampling plots in the lower reaches of Tejon Creek, Tunis Creek, and El Paso
Creek. In the initial phase of the study, stratification will be limited to areas with developed
woody vegetation; however, the diversity of habitat types within these reaches could represent
differences in ecological site, and ideally will be evaluated at some point. A tentative sampling
design includes: three sampling locations within lower Tejon Creek, six sampling locations in
the vicinity of the Chanac/Tejon Creek confluence, three sampling locations in the lower
reaches of Tunis Creek, and three sampling locations within the lower reaches of El Paso
Creek for a total of 15 sampling locations.
b. Establish permanent sampling locations at each plot using a wooden stake (with GPS
coordinates and photographs) at the center of location and greenline transect end points.
c. Sample streamside vegetation using greenline transect protocol (Herrick 2005), which includes
25 point-intercept samples (taken one per meter) up and downstream of permanent location
marker on both sides of the stream in the greenline for a total of 100 points. Greenline
vegetation is the first contiguous patch of perennial vegetation on stream edge, often near the
top of bank (Winward 2000).
d. Sample perpendicular to stream. This would include 5 transects on either side of stream that
extend from greenline to outside the riparian vegetation. Width of these transects is still to be
determined. Samples will be taken each meter or half meter depending on width of riparian
area, with the purpose of seeing how vegetation changes as distance to stream increases.
e. Belt Transects. Each of the perpendicular transects would also serve as one side of a one-meter
wide belt transect (Herrick et al 2005) wherein all woody species will be recorded and
measured (with information on distance from stream). The purpose of this is to determine
germination and recruitment rates of woody species.
f. Vegetation structural measurements will be sampled using methods described in Herrick et al
(2005).
Feral pigs and cattle are agents of biotic disturbance within riparian areas at Tejon Ranch. Through
herbivory, trampling, and rooting they directly and indirectly affect the distribution, composition, and
structure of plants in these areas. In addition to recording disturbance on line-transects, an index of
biotic disturbance will be created by deploying motion-triggered camera traps at each sampling location.
Video data from these cameras will be used to determine the behavior and the amount of time wild pigs
and cattle spend at each site. Because wild pigs have distinctive markings, population estimates may be
made from camera data (Sweitzer et al. 2000).
Soil attributes are considered one of the primary conditions affecting plant community development and
defining ecological sites (Bestelmeyer et al. 2011, Stringham and Repp 2010). Soil sampling methods
will follow Spiegal and Bartolome (2012). Two pairs of shallow (0-15 cm) and deep (30-45 cm) soil
samples will be taken at each site, to determine soil nutrients, texture, and organic matter. One pair of
samples will be taken using a soil auger at the ends of each greenline transect, and the other will be
taken at the upland extent of the perpendicular transects. These samples will be combined to get an
aggregate statistic of upland and greenline soil characteristics at the two depths per site. Except for
C-5
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
levels of C and N, upland soil characteristics are considered relatively stable over the short time period
of this study (Spiegal and Bartolome 2012), and will only be sampled once at the beginning of the study.
Riparian areas, however, differ from upland sites in that soils may change more quickly as flooding and
fluvial processes redistribute soil, organic matter, and nutrients (Naiman et al 2005). Therefore greenline
soils will be sampled annually.
Stream geomorphology affects the extent, distribution, and potential vegetation states occurring in
riparian areas, as well as hydrologic coupling of streams and their associated riparian areas (Stringham
and Repp 2010, Winward 2000). Fluvial processes (erosion, transport, and deposition) also affect
potential plant communities and increase variation and heterogeneity in riparian soils (Naiman et al.
2005).
Methods to assess stream geomorphology include:
a. Landform of stream channels will be measured in three places at each site: once at the center of
the greenline transects and at the ends of each greenline transect. Measurements will use the
method adapted from Rosgen (1996) outlined in Stringham and Repp (2011) and Herrick et al
(2005). Creek profile measurements record the shape, width, width/depth ratio, side-slope
gradient, and aspect of the creek channel. These measurements will be taken annually unless
there is evidence that stream profile is not changing year to year.
b. Fluvial surfaces (e.g. alluvial bars, stream banks, flood plains, and terraces) will be recorded
annually and drawn on a map of each site.
c. Elevation, stream gradient, and slope and aspect of sites will be measured once in the spring of
2013 at each site, photographs will be taken, and all points located via GPS.
Hydrologic patterns such as soil moisture and depth to water table are primary determinants of riparian
ecological sites (Stringham and Repp 2010). Hydrology of study sites will be assessed with the
following methods:
a. Soil moisture will be measured in five even intervals along each perpendicular transect. Soil
moisture will be measured twice per year; once in late spring and once in early fall (before first
rains). This is to measure when annual plants are likely alive and using surface soil moisture,
and when many annuals have senesced and mainly perennial plants are alive.
b. Depth to water table will be measured by inserting 5 groundwater access tubes (perforated
19mm pvc pipes) approximately 1 meter from each perpendicular line transect. Depth to
groundwater will be measured twice per year at the same time intervals as soil moisture.
Variation in climate is one of the primary elements thought to define ecological sites (Bestelmeyer et al.
2011). Inter-annual variation in climate, especially temperature and precipitation, can drive transitions
between ecological states. The three most important drivers of transitions reported in the Tejon Ranch
Grassland Assessment were related to temperature and precipitation (Spiegal and Bartolome 2012).
Methods to assess climatic variation throughout the study area include:
a. Precipitation data will be obtained from Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent
Slopes Model (PRISM) (PRISM Climate Group 2012).
C-6
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
b. Site-specific temperature data will be obtained using iButtons deployed at each site. iButtons
are a low-cost method of recording the maximum and minimum temperature each day, and can
be deployed for long periods of time.
Statistical analyses will largely follow those done in the Tejon Ranch Grassland Assessment (Spiegal
and Bartolome 2012). They will be a combination of cluster analyses and classification trees used to
quantitatively define ecological sites and the drivers of transitions between vegetation states.
a. Cluster analyses will be performed on vegetation and site information using the program R.
Using the Mantel test to define optimum numbers of clusters, ecological sites will be defined
as each of the clusters produced in the analysis.
b. A classification tree will be used to identify the drivers of transitions between ecological states
(Spiegal and Bartolome 2012, Jackson and Bartolome 2002). This will enable researchers to
tease apart the relative importance of factors such as: annual precipitation, soil moisture, depth
to water table, and extent and timing of pig and cattle disturbance in determining transitions
between states.
C-7
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
References
Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian
ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54: 419–431.
Bestelmeyer, B., J. Brown, S. Fuhlendorf, G. Fults, and X. B. Wu. 2011. A landscape approach to
rangeland conservation practices. Published in: Conservation benefits of rangeland practices.
David Briske, editor. USDA-NRCS.
Herrick, J., J. Van Zee, K. Havstad, L. Burkett, and W. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring manual for
grassland, shrubland, and savannah ecosystems. USDA-ARS. Jornada Experimental Range. Las
Cruces, New Mexico.
Hilty, J., and A. Merenlender. 2004. Use of Riparian Corridors and Vineyards by Mammalian Predators
in Northern California. Conservation Biology 18: 126-135.
Kotanen, P.M., 1995. Responses of Vegetation to a Changing Regime of Disturbance - Effects of Feral
Pigs in a Californian Coastal Prairie. Ecography 18: 190–199.
McIver, J., and L. Starr. 2001. Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin:
Passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 153: 15-28.
Naiman, R., H. Decamps, and M. McClain. 2005. Riparia. Elsevier Academic Press. Burlington,
Massachusetts
National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for
Management, 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for managements. National Academic Press,
Washingtion.
PRISM Climate Group. 2012. Gridded climate data. Online at http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Accessed
October 2012.
Sabo, J.L., R. Sponseller, M. Dixon, K. Gade, T. Harms, J. Heffernan, A. Jani, G. Katz, C. Soykan, J.
Watts, J. Welter. 2005. Riparian Zones Increase Regional Species Richness by Harboring
Different, Not More, Species. Ecology 86: 56–62.
Spiegal, S. and J. Bartolome. 2012. Tejon Ranch Grassland Assessment. Annual Report 2012. Prepared
for the Tejon Ranch Conservancy. Berkeley, California.
Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and D.R. Thomas. 2001. Application of non-equilibrium ecology to
rangeland riparian zones. Journal of Range Management. 54: 210–217.
Strigham, T., and J. Repp. 2010. Ecological site descriptions: consideration for riparian systems.
Rangelands. 32(6):43-48.
Sweitzer, R.A., and D.H. Van Vuren. 2008. Effects of Wild Pigs on Seedling Survival in California Oak
Woodlands in Merenlender, Adina; McCreary, Douglas; Purcell, Kathryn L., tech. eds. 2008.
Proceedings of the sixth California oak symposium: today's challenges, tomorrow's
C-8
Attachment C: Riparian Enhancement Plan
opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-217. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 677 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr217/
Sweitzer, R.A., D.H. Van Vuren, I.A. Gardner, W. Boyce, and J.D. Waithman. 2000.
Esitmating Sizes of Wild Pig Popualtions in the North and Central Coast Regions of California. Journal
of Wildlife Management 64 (2):531-543.
Taylor, D. M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. Journal of
Range Management 39:254-258.
Winward, A.H., Rocky Mountain Research Station (Fort Collins, C.). 2000. Monitoring the vegetation
resources in riparian areas. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station Ogden, UT, USA.
C-9
ATTACHMENT D
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Attachment D is referred to in Section 3.6 Sensitive resources within the Tejon Ranch Grazing
Management Assessment (Appendix B of RWMP Volume 2).
Table D-1: Sensitive Wildlife Table
Significant livestock grazing effects
+3 Beneficial if not excessive
+2 Probably beneficial if not excessive
+1 Possibly beneficial if not excessive
Neutral or not significant
0
-1 Possibly negative
-2 Probably negative
-3 Negative
Source of evidence
Experimental, scientific, or management report based on multi-year monitoring program
E
Detailed descriptive data, management report based on short-term monitoring program
D
Professional knowledge of authors
P
Little to no data readily available
N
Species
Special
Status1
Habitat/
Occurrence2
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing and
Associated Threats
Significant
Grazing
Concern
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
Accipiter cooperi
(Cooper’s Hawk)
CT
(nesting)
Oak woodland,
patchy wooded
areas. Nests
and forages in
riparian areas.
Impacts to riparian
habitat could affect
nesting birds. In the
interior USA, nesting
success was lower in
heavily grazed than
lightly grazed areas.3
-2
E
Agelaius tricolor
(Tricolored blackbird)
DFG:SSC
(nesting
colony)
Forages in
cropland,
grassland, and
along pond
edges. Nests
near fresh
water, often
emergent
wetlands.
Most often breed in
freshwater marshes and
agricultural fields4;
moderate grazing
improves foraging
habitat.5
+2
D
Birds
D-1
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Species
Special
Status1
Habitat/
Occurrence2
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing and
Associated Threats
Significant
Grazing
Concern
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
Aquila chrysaetos
(Golden eagle)
FE, CE
Grassland, oak
woodland.
Nests on cliffs
and large trees.
+1
D
Asio flammeus
(Short-eared owl)
DFG:SSC
Open treeless
areas and areas
with dense
vegetation for
nesting and
roosting.
Grazing may increase
prey visibility by
reducing canopy cover.
In the East Bay, golden
eagle presence may be
greater in grazed areas
(Bell, pers. comm.).
Grazing may increase
prey abundance for
eagles.6
In coastal California,
cattle grazing reduced
short-eared owl prey and
foraging success.7 In
central North America
short-eared owls avoided
areas with active cattle
grazing.8
-2
E
Athene cunicularia
(Burrowing owl)
DFG:SSC
(burrow sites
& some
wintering
sites)
Dry grassland
and desert.
Burrowing owls often
require short grass for
foraging. They are often
associated with grazing.
Livestock grazing may
enhance Burrowing Owl
foraging and nesting
habitat.9,10,11
+3
D
Buteo regalis
(Ferruginous hawk)
DFG:WL
(nesting)
Forages in open
grassland or
scrub.
Grazing reduces plant
cover, making prey more
visible. Ferruginous
hawks increase
abundance and nesting in
grazed areas.12
+3
E
Buteo swainsoni
(Swainson’s hawk)
DFG:SSC
Forages in
grassland,
cropland. Nests
in riparian
areas.
Nests strongly associated
with riparian
vegetation,13 grasslands
provide foraging habitat
only, grazing may
increase prey visibility
(primarily Microtus spp.
and Thomomys bottae
[gophers]) by reducing
canopy cover.
+2
E
Circus cyaneus
(Northern harrier)
DFG:SSC
(nesting)
Grasslands,
wetlands, vernal
pools.
Populations in California
typically found in
ungrazed areas but will
use lightly grazed
grasslands for foraging
and nesting.14 Grassland
-3
D
D-2
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Species
Special
Status1
Habitat/
Occurrence2
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing and
Associated Threats
Significant
Grazing
Concern
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
ground-nesting bird.
Trampling can damage
nests.15
Falco mexicanus
(Prairie falcon)
DFG:WL
(nesting)
Forages in open
areas. Nests in
cliffs and rock
outcrops.
In the East Bay, CA,
prairie falcons appear to
focus their foraging
efforts in areas with
grazing (Bell, pers.
comm.). Literature
review does not show
significant adverse
impacts due to light to
moderate grazing.
+2
D
Charadrius montanus
(Mountain plover)
DFG:WL
Grassland, open
plains.
+3
E
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
(Western yellow-billed
cuckoo)
DFG:SSC
(nesting)
The yellowbilled cuckoo is
a riparian
obligate
species. Its
primary habitat
association is
willowcottonwood
riparian forest,
but other
species such as
alder (Alnus
glutinosa) and
box elder (Acer
negundo) may
be an important
habitat element
in some areas.
Prefer short grass (<2
inches, <500lbs RDM).
Intense grazing enhances
habitat.16
Livestock grazing in
riparian areas can affect
understory vegetation
and cottonwood/willow
recruitment, diminishing
habitat for the
WYBC.9,17 Grazing
should be excluded from
riparian zones to
enhance habitat.
-3
D
D-3
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Species
Special
Status1
Habitat/
Occurrence2
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing and
Associated Threats
Significant
Grazing
Concern
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
Dendroica petechia
brewsteri
(Yellow warbler)
DFG:SSC
(nesting)
Riparian
woodland,
montane
chaparral,
mixed-conifer
forest
Impacts to riparian
habitat could affect
nesting birds.18 Heavy
grazing may be
associated with increases
in population of
parasitic/nest-predatory
Molothrus ater (Brownheaded Cowbird).19
-1
E
Elanus leucurus
(White-tailed kite)
DFG:FP
(nesting)
Grassland, oak
woodland,
vernal pools
White-tailed kite
foraging has been shown
to increase on ungrazed
areas and decrease on
grazed areas.7 However,
the study's authors do
not suggest that grazing
has a numerical effect on
abundance; rather,
raptors shift foraging to
ungrazed areas. Grazing
reduction or
elimination in riparian
areas should provide
sufficient foraging
habitat for
white-tailed kites, and
significant negative
impacts from light to
moderate livestock
grazing is unlikely.
-1
E
Empidonax traillii
brewsteri
(Little willow flycatcher)
CE (nesting)
Riparian. Large
willow thickets
near water
bodies.
Direct effects of grazing
include trampling and
knocking down nests.
Indirect effects include
encouraging nest
parasitism from Brownheaded Cowbirds by
modifying riparian
vegetation.20
-2
P
Empidonax traillii
extimus
(Southwestern willow
flycatcher)
FE, CE
(nesting)
Riparian. Large
willow thickets
near water
bodies.
Grazing can directly
affect flycatcher nesting
by trampling or
knocking down nests. 21
Indirect effects include
encouraging nest
parasitism from Brownheaded Cowbirds by
modifying riparian
vegetation.21, 22 Willow
flycatcher populations
-3
D,E
D-4
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Species
Special
Status1
Habitat/
Occurrence2
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing and
Associated Threats
Significant
Grazing
Concern
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
increase when grazing is
removed.23
Eremophila alpestris
actia
(California Horned Lark)
DFG:SSC
(nesting)
Grassland
specialist
(primary
nesting and
foraging
habitat),
chaparral/scrub,
oak woodland
Prefer short stature,
grazed or burned
grassland.24 Grazing,
burning or mowing
beneficial. 25
+3
E
Falco peregrinus anatum
(American peregrine
falcon)
FD, CE,
DFG:FP
(nesting &
wintering)
Nests in cliffs,
frequents
bodies of water.
Empirical research not
found.
Unknown
N
Gymnogyps californianus
(California condor)
FPT,
DFG:SSC
(wintering)
Grassland,
savannah,
chaparral.
Roosts in trees,
snags and cliffs.
Carrion feeders, not
disturbed by presence of
livestock. Not likely
significantly impacted by
grazing impacts to
vegetation. The
availability of large
carrion (such as cattle) is
an important factor in
condor use of an area.16,
+3
D
Empirical research not
found. Overgrazing,
especially in riparian
systems may degrade
bald eagle habitat.27
Species declining but
causes not clear.
Livestock grazing
impacts neutral or
slightly positive.28
-1
P
0
D
Empirical research not
found.
Unknown
N
9, 26
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
(Bald eagle)
DFG:FP,
DFG:WL
(nesting &
wintering)
Forages in large
water bodies.
Nests in large
trees.
Lanius ludovicianus
(Loggerhead Shrike)
DFG:WL
(wintering)
Grassland, oak
woodland,
riparian. Nests
in scrub or
trees.
Progne subis
(Purple martin)
FD, CD,
DFG:FP
(nesting)
Old-growth
open woodland
with snags.
Forages in
riparian areas,
forest, and
woodland.
D-5
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Species
Special
Status1
Habitat/
Occurrence2
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing and
Associated Threats
Significant
Grazing
Concern
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
Strix occidentalis
occidentalis
(California spotted owl)
DFG:SSC
(nesting)
40-240 ha
patches of
mature forest,
in close
proximity to
permanent
water.
-2
D
Vireo bellii pusillus
(Least Bell’s vireo)
FE, CE
(nesting)
Riparian.
Associated with
willow,
cottonwood,
wild blackberry,
and coyote
brush.
No sub-specific
empirical research
found. Excessive grazing
negatively affects
conspecific ‘Mexican
spotted owl’, by altering
nesting/roosting habitat,
reducing forage base
(voles), and altering fire
regimes.29
Heavy grazing may be
associated with increases
in population of
parasitic/nest-predatory
Molothrus ater (Brownheaded Cowbird).30
-2
E
Anniella pulchra pulchra
(Silvery legless lizard)
DFG:SSC
Chaparral, pineoak woodlands,
stream terraces,
desert scrub,
and sandy
washes.31
-1
P
Gambelia sila
(Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard)
FE, CE,
DFG:FP
Lightly
vegetated alkali
and desert scrub
+3
E
Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
(San Joaquin whipsnake)
DFG:SSC
Grassland,
saltbrush scrub.
Livestock grazing may
affect loose substrate in
which the legless lizard
burrows.4 However, a
literature review does
not show evidence of
negative impacts from
moderate to light
grazing.
Populations of Blunt
nosed leopard lizards are
much higher on heavily
grazed grasslands. There
is a negative correlation
between number of
BNLL and amount of
RDM left on ground.32
Habitat utilization
patterns not well
understood. Livestock
impacts unknown.33
Unknown
N
Reptiles
31
D-6
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Thamnophis hammondii
(Two-striped garter
snake)
DFG:SSC
Occurs with
permanent and
semi-permanent
water bodies
Grazing-induced habitat
modification likely
partly responsible for
decline of species in
northern part of its
range.4 Cattle reduce
riparian vegetation
structural complexity
and overall cover, as
well as prey base for
other riparian garter
snakes.34
-3
P, E
Batrachoseps stebbinsi
(Tehachapi slender
salamander)
CT
Moist north
facing canyons
with woodland
cover.31
-2
P
Ensatina eschscholtzii
croceator
(Yellow-blotched
salamander)
Spea hammondii
(Western spadefoot)
DFG:SSC
Evergreen and
deciduous
forests.31
Livestock trample soils,
vegetation, and burrows,
and have degraded
slender salamander
habitat in Tejon
Canyon.35
Disturbance from cattle
grazing degrades moist
microsite habitat.36
-2
P
DFG:SSC
Grassland, oak
woodland,
vernal
pool/wetland
+3
E
Phrynosoma blainvillii
(Coast horned-lizard)
DFG:SSC
Grassland,
woodland,
chaparral. 31
Trampling may occur
but grazing shown to
deter encroachment by
invasive grasses into
vernal pool habitat.37, 38
Light to moderate
grazing in non-breeding
upland, grassland habitat
may maintain relatively
open, low-stature
vegetation preferred by
toads.
In areas with dense
vegetation, grazing
benefits horned lizards
by reducing plant
biomass.39 The effect of
grazing in other areas is
largely unknown.4
Studies show mixed
results for congeners.
+2
P
Amphibians
D-7
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Mammals
Antilocapra americana
(Pronghorn)
None
Sagebrush,
bitterbrush,
grassland,
riparian, and
alkali desert
scrub
Herbaceous vegetation
and shrub height affect
fawning success. Heavy
grazing can be
detrimental by reducing
vegetative cover and
competing for food
resources.36
Empirical research not
found. Cattle trampling
and herbivory may
degrade riparian habitat
and reduce connectivity.9
-2
P
Bassariscus astutus
(Ringtail)
DFG:SSC
Forest or
shrubland
close to rocky
habitat and
riparian areas
-1
N
Perognathus alticolus
inexpectatus
(Tehachapi pocket mouse)
DFG:SSC
Grassy flats in
pinion pine
forest,
chaparral, sage
scrub, annual
grasslands,
Joshua tree
and pinionjuniper
woodlands.40
Cattle grazing potentially
degrades habitat. Effects
of different intensities of
cattle grazing are
unknown.41
-1
P
Taxidea taxus
(American badger)
DFG:SSC
Dry, open
grasslands,
fields, and
pastures
Grazing does not appear
to be a substantial factor
for badger site
selection.42
0
E
Vulpes macrotis mutica
(San Joaquin kit fox)
FE, CT
Grassland,
scrub
communities,
agricultural
fields, urban
areas. Prefer
loose textured,
deep soils for
denning.26
Heavy grazing (between
500-1000 lbs/acre RDM)
benefits kit fox habitat.
Build-up of thatch and
litter is detrimental to
this species.43
+3
D
FT
Riparian forest
and adjacent
grasslands
where host
plant
Sambucus sp.
(including S.
mexicana) is
present.44, 45
Cattle consume new
growth of host plant,
possibly crushing eggs,
and potentially making
plants less suitable for
beetles.44, 45
-2
D,P
Invertebrates
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
(Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle)
References:
D-8
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
1.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Special Animals (898 taxa), California Natural Diversity Database.
Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. Available online:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf
Accessed 9/2012.
2.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III.
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
3.
Stephens, Robert M., and Stanley H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the Cooper’s Hawk and the
Sharp-Shinned Hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Forest Service, Laramie,
Wyoming.
4.
Jennings, Mark R, Marc P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California,
California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.
5.
Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2007. Conservation Plan for the Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).
Susan Kester (ed.). Sustainable Conservation. San Francisco, CA.
6.
Hunt, W.G., R.E. Jackman, T.L. Hunt,.D.E. Driscoll and L. Culp. 1998. A population study of golden eagles in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: population trend analysis 1997. Report to National Renewable Energy
laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459-01. Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz.
7.
Johnson, M.D., Horn, C.M., 2008. Effects of Rotational Grazing on Rodents and Raptors in a Coastal Grassland.
West. North Am. Naturalist 68, 444–452.
8.
Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998
(revised 2001). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 10 pages.
9.
Tehachapi Upland Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (TUMSHCP).
10. Kantrud, H.A. and R.L. Kologiski. 1982. Effects of soils and grazing on breeding birds of uncultivated upland
grasslands of the northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 15. 33 pp.
11. Lantz, Sarah, Hamilton Smith, Douglas Keinath. 2004. Species assessment for Western Burrowing Owl (ATHENE
CUNICULARIA HYPUGAEA) in Wyoming. BLM. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
12. Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss. 1999
(revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Ferruginous Hawk. Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 23 pages.
13. Woodbridge, B. (1998). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for
reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Accessed online 9/12
http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/riparian/swainsons_hawk.htm
14. Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998
(revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Northern Harrier. Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 15 pages.
15. Snyder, S. A. 1993. Circus cyaneus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2012, August 10].
16. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan.
Bakersfield, California.
D-9
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
17. Wiggins, David A. 2005. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): a technical conservation assessment.
Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. March 25, 2005.
Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf.
18. Szaro, Robert C, Scott C. Belfit, J. Kelvin Aitkin, John N. Rinne. 1985. Impact of Grazing on a Riparian Garter
Snake. Paper presented at the symposium, Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses ,
April 16-18, 1985, Tucson, AZ.
19. Tisdale-Hein, R.E., and R.L. Knight (2003). Studies in Avian Biology (26): 152-156.
20. Green, G.A., H.L. Bombay, and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the Willow Flycatcher in the
Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Vallejo, CA. 62 pp.
21. Sanders, Susan D., and Mary Anne Flett. 1989. Montane Riparian Habitat and Willow Flycatchers: Threats to a
Sensitive Environment and Species. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-llO.
22. Brodhead, Katherine M., Scott H. Stoleson, and Deborah M. Finch. 2007. Southwestern Willow Flycatchers
(Empidonax trillii extimus) in a grazed landscape: Factors Influencing Brood Parasitism. The Auk 124(4):1213–
1228, 2007.
23. Taylor, Daniel M. and Carroll D. Littlefield. 1986. Willow Flycatcher and Yellow Warbler response to cattle
grazing. Population Ecology. (40) 5.
24. Goerrissen, J.H. (2005) Grassland Birds in California: An Investigation into the Influence of Season, Floristic
Composition, and Artificial Structures on Avian Community Structure. PhD dissertation, University of California,
Davis.
25. Dinkins, M. F., A. L. Zimmerman, J. A. Dechant, B. D. Parkin, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, and B. R.
Euliss. 2000 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Horned Lark. Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 34 pages.
26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.
Region 1, Portland, OR. 319pp.
27. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species fact sheet: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region. Available online at:
file:///Z:/Projects/Projects_Current/GMP%20Tejon%20Ranch%20Conservancy/Sensitive%20species/Animals/Bald
%20eagle/Oregon%20Fish%20and%20Wildlife%20office.htm Accessed 09/2012.
28. California Partners in Flight (2005). The sagebrush bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing
sagebrush habitats and associated birds in California. Version 1.0. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation
Science, Stinson Beach, CA. Accessed online 9/12. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/sage.v-1.pdf
29. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol.I.
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
30. Tisdale-Hein, R.E., and R.L. Knight (2003). Studies in Avian Biology (26): 152-156.
31. Californiaherps. 2012. Species Descriptions. Available online at: http://www.californiaherps.com/index.html.
Accessed 9/2012.
32. Germano, D.J., Rathbun, G.B., Saslaw, L.R., 2012. Effects of grazing and invasive grasses on desert vertebrates in
California. Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 670–682.
D-10
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
33. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch (2006). California’s plants and
animals species information pages. Accessed online 11/06. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/cgibin/read_one.asp?specy=reptiles&idNum=37
34. Szaro, Robert C, Scott C. Belfit, J. Kelvin Aitkin, John N. Rinne. 1985. Impact of Grazing on a Riparian Garter
Snake. Paper presented at the symposium, Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses ,
April 16-18, 1985, Tucson, AZ.
35. California Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Five Year Status Report: Tehachapi Slender Salamander. Inland
Fisheries Devision, Endangered Species Project.
36. Germano, D.J., 2006. Habitat Characteristics of Sites with Yellow-Blotched Salamanders (ensatina Eschscholtzii
Croceator). Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1, 121–128.
37. Marty, J. T. (2005). Effects of Cattle Grazing on Diversity in Ephemeral Wetlands. Conservation Biology 19:16261632.
38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern
Oregon. Portland, Oregon. xxvi + 606 pages.
39. Gerson, M.M., 2011. Population Status and Habitat Affinities of the Blainville’s Horned Lizard (phrynosoma
Blainvillii) at a Site in the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California, Usa. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 6, 228–236.
40. Brylski, Philip V. 1998. Tehachapi pocket mouse, Perognathus alticola inexpectatus. In Terrestrial Mammal
Species of Special Concern in California, Bolster, B.C., Ed., 1998. California Department of Fish and Game.
Sacramento, CA.
41. Linzey, A.V. & NatureServe (Hammerson, G.) 2008. Perognathus alticolus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 10 August 2012.
42. Weir, R., H. Davis, and C. Hoodicoff. 2003. Conservation strategies for North American badgers in the Thompson
& Okanagan Regions. Final Report for the Thompson-Okanagan Badger Project. Accessed on-line September 2012.
http://www.badgers.bc.ca/TOB/Final_report.pdf.
43. Constable, Julie, Brian Cypher, Scott Phillips, Patrick Kelly. 2009. Conservation of San Joaquin Kit Foxes in
Western Merced County, California. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. Fresno, California.
44. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon. 62 pp.
45. Barr, Cheryl. 1991. The distribution, habitat, and status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California.
D-11
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Table D-2: Sensitive plant species
Significant livestock grazing effects
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
Beneficial if not excessive
Probably beneficial if not excessive
Possibly beneficial if not excessive
Neutral or not significant
Possibly negative
Probably negative
Negative
Source of evidence
E
Experimental, scientific, or management report based on multi-year monitoring program
D
Detailed descriptive data, management report based on short-term monitoring program
P
N
Professional knowledge of authors
Little to no data readily available
Species
Special
Status1*
Habitat2/
Occurrence3
Androsace elongata
ssp. acuta
(California
androsace)
CNPS List
4.2
Habitat: Chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, meadows
and seeps,
Pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland
California
macrophylla
(Round-leaved
filaree)
CNPS List
1B.1
Habitat:
Clay, Cismontane
woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland
Calochortus palmeri
var. palmeri
(Palmer’s mariposa
lily)
CNPS List
1B.2
Habitat:
Mesic, chaparral, lower
montane coniferous
forest, and meadows and
seeps
D-12
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing
and Associated
Threats
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
CNPS lists cattle
grazing and trampling
as possible threats.2
Significant
Grazing
Effects
-1
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
P
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
Grazing may be used
as tool for restoring
species.4
Closely related
Erodium cicutarium is
very resistant to
livestock grazing.5
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
CNPS lists cattle
grazing and trampling
as threats.2 Congeners
also threatened by
grazing and
trampling.6
+1
P
-2
P
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-2 continued: Sensitive Plant Table
Species
Special
Status1*
Habitat2/
Occurrence3
Calochortus striatus
(Alkali Mariposa
lily)
CNPS List
1B.2
Clarkia
tembloriensis ssp.
calientensis
(Vasek’s clarkia)
CNPS List
1B.1
Habitat:
Alkaline, mesic,
chaparral, Chenopod
scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, and meadows and
seeps
Habitat:
Valley and foothill
grassland
Delphinium
gypsophilum ssp.
gypsophilum
(Gypsum-loving
larkspur)
CNPS List
4.2
Habitat:
Rocky clay, sometimes
serpentinite, Cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland
Eriastrum hooveri
(Hoover’s
eriastrum)
CNPS 4.2
Federally
delisted
Eriogonum
gossypinum
(Cottony
buckwheat)
CNPS List
4.2
Habitat:
Sometimes gravelly,
Chenopod scrub, Pinyon
and juniper woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland
Habitat:
Clay, Chenopod scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland
Eriophyllum
lanatum var. hallii
(Fort Tejon woolly
CNPS List
1B.1
Habitat:
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland
D-13
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing
and Associated
Threats
Grazing and trampling
are threats to this
species.6
Significant
Grazing
Effects
-2
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
D
Grazing not likely to
affect populations
because all
populations within
Ranch occur on steep
hillsides.7
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
Many delphiniums
have alkaloids toxic to
cattle, and some are
avoided early in the
season.8
Plants unpalatable to
cattle. Increased
survival in grazed
areas because of
reduced plant
competition.9
No empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing effects.
Based on study of
another rare (but
perennial)
Eriogonum,10
potentially vulnerable
to vertebrate grazing.
Potentially threatened
by trampling and nonnative plants.2
Competition from
non-native grasses and
forbs combined with
low precipitation in
recent years are
believed to be the
primary threats to this
species (C. Shafer,
pers. comm., July
2009)
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
0
P
Unknown
N
+2
D
-2
E
-2
P
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
Special
Status1*
Habitat2/
Occurrence3
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing
and Associated
Threats
Threats include:
grazing, trampling,
and compaction by
cattle.
Significant
Grazing
Effects
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
Eschscholzia
lemmonii ssp.
Kernensis
(Tejon Poppy)
CNPS List
1B.1
Habitat:
Chenopod scrub, valley
and foothill grassland
-1
P
Fritillaria striata
(Striped adobe lily)
CT, CNPS
List 1B.1
Habitat:
Usually clay, cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland
0
D
Layia heterotricha
(Pale yellow layia)
CNPS List
1B.1
-2
P
Layia leucopappa
(Comanche Point
layia)
CNPS List
1B.1
Habitat:
Alkaline or clay,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland
Habitat:
Chenopod scrub, valley
and foothill grassland
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
Livestock grazing is a
potential threat2,
however congener
Eschscholzia
californica may
benefit from reduction
in competition
mediated by livestock
grazing.11
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
Trampling, herbivory
are potential effects.
However, grazing
prior to flowering
(until February) can
benefit species by
reducing competition
with annual grasses.12
Cattle grazing
probably negatively
affects populations.13
-1
P
Microseris sylvatica
(Sylvan microseris)
CNPS List
4.2
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
Grazing possibly
threatens
populations.14
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
CNPS lists cattle
grazing as threat.2
-2
P
Species
sunflower)
Habitat:
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, Great Basin
scrub, Pinyon and
juniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland
(serpentinite)
D-14
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-2 continued: Sensitive Plant Table
Species
Special
Status1*
Habitat2/
Occurrence3
Mimulus pictus
(Calico monkey
flower)
CNPS List
1B.2
Habitat:
Granitic, disturbed areas,
broadleaved upland
forest, cismontane
woodland
Navarretia setiloba
(Piute Mountain
navarretia)
CNPS List
1B.1
Opuntia basilaris
var. treleasei
(Bakersfield cactus)
FE, CE,
CNPS List
1B.1
Habitat:
Clay or gravelly loam,
cismontane woodland,
pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland
Habitat:
Sandy or gravelly,
chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland
Viola purpurea ssp.
aurea
(Golden violet)
CNPS List
2.2
Habitat:
Sandy, Great Basin
scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland
Potential Effects of
Livestock Grazing
and Associated
Threats
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
CNPS lists grazing as
a threat to the species.2
Congener’s have
variable responses to
grazing.15
Significant
Grazing
Effects
-1
Type and
Quality of
Information
Available
P
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
Livestock grazing not
likely to affect
species.16
Cattle herbivory
reduces annual
grasses. This reduces
competition, fire
frequency, and rot of
cactus. High cattle
intensity may cause
trampling damage.17
Empirical speciesspecific information
on grazing not found.
CNPS lists grazing as
a threat.2
0
P
+1
E
-1
P
* California Department of Fish and Game
FE Federally Endangered, CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened, CT California Threatened
FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed), CCE California Candidate Endangered
FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed), CCT California Candidate Threatened
FPD Federally Proposed for Delisting, CSC California Species of Special Concern
FC Federal Candidate, CFP California Fully Protected
FSC Federal Species of Concern
D-15
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
CNPS = California Native Plant Society Listing:
1A. Presumed extinct in California
1B. Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2. Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere
3. Plants for which we need more information - Review list
4. Plants of limited distribution - Watch list
1.
CDFG 2012. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Natural Diversity Database.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf Accessed 8/9/12.
2.
California Native Plant Society (2012). Inventory of rare and endangered plants, v7-06d 10-03-06. Accessed
online August 2012. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/
3.
White, Mike. 2012. Tejon Focal Species. Document given to Range Ecology Lab outlining which species to
include in GMP.
4.
Gillespie, Ian G., Edith B. Allen. 2008. Restoring the rare forb Erodium macrophyllum to exotic grassland in
southern California. Endangered Species Research (5).
5.
Howard, Janet L. 1992. Erodium cicutarium. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed 8/9/12.
6.
Green, Julie, Andrew Sanders. 2011. West Mojave Plan Species Accounts. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. January 2006. Accessed August 7, 2012.
http://www.dmg.gov/documents/WMP_Species_Accounts/Species%20Accounts-Plants.pdf.
7.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.
Region 1, Portland, OR. 319pp.
8.
Phister, James, Michael H. Ralphs, Gary D. Manners, Dale R. Gardner, Kermit W.Price and Lynn F. James.
1997. Early Season Grazing by Cattle of Tall Larkspur-(Delphinium spp.) Infested Rangeland. Journal of Range
Management. 50 (4).
9.
USFWS. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eriastrum hooveri (Hoover’s
woolly-star) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Federal Register /Vol. 68, No. 194
/Tuesday, October 7, 2003 /Rules and Regulations.
10.
Longland, W.S., Aten, M., Swartz, M., Kulpa, S. 2009. Who’s Eating the Flowers of a Rare Western Nevada
Range Plant?. Rangelands 31:26-30.
11.
Smith, C. 2010. Plant guide for California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center. Lockeford, CA 95237.
12.
Stebbins, J.C., 1989. Striped adobe lily species management plan. Endangered Plant Project. Sacramento.
California Department of Fish and Game.
13.
USFWS 1996. Memorandum of understanding: Conservation Strategy for Blakely’s spineflower, Fort tejon
woolly sunflower, Parish’s checkerbloom, pale-yellow layia.
14.
USFWS 1996. Federal Register Volume 61, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996). Available online at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1996-02-28/pdf/96-4413.pdf Accessed 8/22/12.
15.
Meinke, Robert J. 1995. Assessment of the genus Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae) within the interior Columbia
River Basin of Oregon and Washington. Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. US Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management, Walla Walla, Washington.
16.
USFWS__ Federal Register Volume 63, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 1998)
17.
Cypher and Fiehler 2006. Preliminary Study to Determine the Effect of Nonnative Grasses on the Survival and
Reproduction of Bakersfield Cactus. Submitted to US Bureau of Reclamation, California.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant ranking
D-16
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-2 continued: Sensitive Plant Table
The following description is taken directly from the CNPS website
(http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php, accessed January 2011):
List 1A: Plants Presumed Extinct in California
The plants of List 1A ([fewer] than 30 taxa) are presumed extinct because they have not been seen or
collected in the wild in California for many years. All of the plants constituting List 1A meet the
definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California
Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state
listing. Should these taxa be rediscovered, it is mandatory that they be fully considered during
preparation of environmental documents relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
List 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
The plants of List 1B are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California.
All of the plants constituting List 1B meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant
Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California
Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully
considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
List 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere
Except for being common beyond the boundaries of California, the plants of List 2 would have appeared
on List 1B. All of the plants constituting List 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native
Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California
Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully
considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
List 3: Plants About Which [CNPS Needs] More Information - A Review List
[List 3 comprises plants that] are united by one common theme – [CNPS lacks] the necessary
information to assign them to one of the other lists or to reject them. Nearly all of the plants remaining
on List 3 are taxonomically problematic. Some of the plants constituting List 3 meet the definitions of
Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered
Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing.
[CNPS strongly recommends] that List 3 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of
environmental documents relating to CEQA.
List 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List
The plants in this category are of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in
California, and their vulnerability or susceptibility to threat appears relatively low at this time. While
[CNPS] cannot call these plants "rare" from a statewide perspective, they are uncommon enough that
their status should be monitored regularly. Very few of the plants constituting List 4 meet the definitions
of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered
Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible for state
listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and [CNPS strongly recommends] that List 4
plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
This may be particularly appropriate for the type locality of a List 4 plant, for populations at the
D-17
Attachment D: Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species Tables
Table D-1 continued: Sensitive Animal Table
periphery of a species' range or in areas where the taxon is especially uncommon or has sustained heavy
losses, or for populations exhibiting unusual morphology or occurring on unusual substrates.
Threat Ranks
The CNPS Threat Rank is an extension added onto the CNPS List and designates the level of
endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking, with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered.
A Threat Rank is present for all [List 1Bs, List 2s and the majority of List 3s and List 4s.] [List 4s] may
contain a Threat Rank of 0.2 or 0.3; however an instance in which a Threat Rank of 0.1 is assigned to a
List 4 plant has not yet been encountered. List 4 plants generally have large enough populations [not to
have] significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions still exist
to make the plant a species of concern and hence be placed on a CNPS List. In addition, all List 1A
(presumed extinct in California), and some List 3 (need more information) and List 4 (limited
distribution) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.
Threat Rank Extensions
•
•
•
0.1-Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat)
0.2-Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat)
0.3-Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current threats
known).
D-18
ATTACHMENT E
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1: Animal Unit Month (AUM) for dry, normal, and wet rainfall years for the pastures in
the Tejon Ranch Grazing Area; calculated from estimated biomass production (60 percent of
total) or available forage; pasture order is largest to smallest
Pasture
Tierra De Los Borregos
Pastoria Mountain
Fish Creek
GIS
name
Past35
Past130
Past100
Acreage
55,577
17,075
15,270
Low
AUM
28,249
10,940
4,491
Average
AUM
40,665
14,867
7,283
High
AUM
56,151
19,043
10,118
Tunis Mountain
Oso
South Globe
Big Springs
Liebre
Bear Mountain
Past129
Past135
Past23
Past101
Past144
Past13
14,584
11,084
9,927
8,306
7,917
5,573
7,435
3,032
3,822
2,167
1,495
2,824
10,468
5,400
8,578
3,034
2,722
4,236
14,835
7,105
12,142
4,173
4,188
6,684
White Wolf South
North Globe
Coe
Joaquin
West Grasshopper
Lower White Wolf North
Past3
Past21
Past122
Past37
Past96
Past0
5,509
4,820
4,531
4,320
3,664
2,989
912
1,685
1,446
1,700
448
1,105
1,674
3,968
2,291
2,535
596
1,995
2,347
5,467
3,452
3,982
744
2,787
Hamilton Field
Campo Bonito
Comanche
Bano
Upper White Wolf North
Lower Chiminez
Past112
Past25
Past17
Past54
Past1
Past68
2,984
2,874
2,862
2,829
2,687
2,452
1,091
1,444
478
1,360
572
1,214
1,633
2,477
823
1,997
945
1,609
2,321
3,297
1,116
3,000
1,288
2,122
Little Globe
Caliente Foothills
Big Cable Field
Lower Sycamore
Upper North Globe
Heifer
Past24
Past2
Past72
Past147
Past22
Past61
2,304
2,302
2,216
2,081
2,062
2,001
1,242
479
504
776
78
766
2,703
788
1,134
1,252
104
1,151
3,844
1,098
1,449
1,796
154
1,909
Chafin
Buzzard
Lower Westside
Rose Station
Alamos Trap
Alamo Solo
Past30
Past99
Past70
Past71
Past119
Past34
1,906
1,892
1,865
1,850
1,849
1,752
570
0
0
0
1,045
804
866
0
0
0
2,060
1,629
1,321
0
0
0
2,523
2,206
Perfidio
Section B
Fish Creek Trap
Upper Chiminez
Tunis Field
Michener
Past59
Past66
Past114
Past74
Past58
Past142
1,681
1,619
1,617
1,566
1,555
1,409
1,048
825
312
1,436
1,383
540
1,420
1,223
782
1,923
2,068
1,436
2,121
1,991
1,185
2,414
2,776
1,705
E-1
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1 continued
Pasture
Indian Field
Lower Aqua Blanca
Upper Westside
Kohlmeier
Roblita
White Wolf Upper
Trap
Tejon Field
Monte
GIS
name
Past28
Past60
Past98
Past16
Past5
Past7
Acreage
1,303
1,260
1,247
1,223
1,198
1,072
Low
AUM
747
925
0
449
337
465
Average
AUM
1,120
1,316
0
674
603
698
High
AUM
1,613
1,886
0
900
838
1,154
Upper Lake Field
Ostrich #1
Past102
Past57
Past27
Past140
Past108
Past90
1,020
986
977
915
877
810
279
472
480
409
110
0
395
727
872
697
167
0
622
1,009
1,168
905
263
0
Pastoria Canyon Trap
Westside Foothill
Dwr Afterbay
Belmare
Eucalyptus Field
Tresquela Field
Past85
Past93
Past136
Past78
Past55
Past40
797
739
739
736
709
703
224
0
69
29
608
498
282
0
171
66
829
796
339
0
226
84
1,233
1,067
Priest Field
Inside Owner
Upper Ostrich
Section 4
Bull Field
Upper Aqua Blanca
Past83
Past104
Past91
Past67
Past69
Past64
695
689
659
645
626
615
439
143
66
662
77
445
587
208
83
888
106
619
735
281
99
1,127
141
889
Comanche Strip
Loop
Section 32
Rock
Butcher
Monte Grain Field
Past18
Past4
Past62
Past46
Past29
Past33
602
594
593
571
561
553
208
46
379
353
491
411
375
82
541
627
687
653
499
114
806
843
919
871
White Wolf Camp
Ostrich #2
Ripley
Headquarters
Past10
Past92
Past146
Past128
Past6
Past31
524
485
480
435
419
412
288
0
182
443
182
338
432
0
448
594
273
520
628
0
636
745
364
693
Old Crane Field
Gypsen Field
Texaco Holding Trap
Comanche Trap
Reservoir Field
Past120
Past105
Past80
Past19
Past32
389
371
343
332
330
112
0
0
99
291
170
0
0
200
438
264
0
0
270
584
E-2
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1 continued
Pasture
Little Cable Field
Middle Stubble
Dry Field
Sliver
Orchard Trap
GIS
name
Past138
Past9
Past113
Past131
Past52
Acreage
322
302
294
270
266
Past109
Past145
Past123
Past77
Past97
Past141
Low
AUM
Average
AUM
High
AUM
0
171
214
22
182
0
257
298
50
287
0
362
404
69
397
262
259
253
242
215
212
113
102
81
0
158
0
164
245
117
0
234
0
229
343
177
0
315
0
Past94
Past63
Past20
Past121
Past56
Past84
199
192
184
175
172
168
0
84
48
0
84
76
0
126
60
0
126
103
0
210
81
0
201
135
Past47
Past137
Past111
Past49
Past133
Past103
166
156
134
131
129
124
1
73
0
94
19
0
2
138
0
150
31
0
2
184
0
201
44
0
Ostrich Triangle Field
Tunis Trap
Meadows
Little Cable Field
Permanent Pasture
Creek Field
Past88
Past65
Past107
Past139
Past117
Past53
119
117
111
109
107
100
0
105
0
0
0
68
0
158
0
0
0
110
0
211
0
0
0
148
Lower Crane
Rodgers Farm Field
Fertilizer Field
Past143
Past11
Past41
Past125
Past127
Past126
98
98
98
94
94
87
1
55
88
21
101
55
1
82
132
44
134
92
1
116
176
78
168
137
Past36
Past15
Past118
Past86
Past115
86
85
82
75
71
44
44
0
0
0
82
66
0
0
0
110
101
0
0
0
Aliso Field
Rock Plant Field
Secretario Meadow
Ostrich #3
Devils Trap
Sheep Trail Trap
Terrys Mare Pasture
Inside Owner
Inside Owner
Little Cable Field
Meadows
Horse Pasture
Geghus Trap
Lower Vaquero
White Wolf Trap
Rawhide
E-3
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1 continued
GIS
name
Past75
Past124
Past87
Past116
Past8
Past89
Acreage
55
49
47
46
41
39
Holding Trap
Past38
Past42
Past110
Past39
Past76
Past95
Bear Mountain Trap
Pastoria Trap
Feed Lot Corrals
Trap
Barracks House Trap
Upper Orchard Trap
Trap
Pasture
Coe Trap
Trap
Earls Trap
Airplane
Earls Trap
Middle Vaquero
Feed Lot Corrals
Holding Trap
Upper Vaquero
Lower Orchard Trap
Feed Lot Corrals
Meadows
Feed Lot Corrals
Inside Owner
Stockholders Corral
Totals
Low
AUM
Average
AUM
High
AUM
0
9
0
0
20
0
0
23
0
0
29
0
0
40
0
0
41
0
34
34
31
30
29
28
16
16
18
16
0
0
31
32
27
28
0
0
41
43
37
37
0
0
Past14
Past79
Past45
Past82
Past12
Past51
28
28
25
23
21
20
16
0
14
0
12
18
25
0
25
0
18
27
34
0
33
0
24
35
Past81
Past48
Past50
Past134
Past44
Past106
13
13
12
12
11
10
0
3
11
1
5
0
0
5
16
2
11
0
0
6
22
4
14
0
Past43
Past132
Past26
Past73
4
3
1
1
2
1
0
1
4
1
0
1
5
2
0
1
257,733
103,755
161,873
224,690
E-4
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-2: Average per acre biomass production (60 percent of total) or average available forage per
acre for dry, normal, and wet rainfall years for the pastures in the Tejon Ranch Grazing Area; pasture
order is largest to smallest
Pasture
Tierra De Los Borregos
Pastoria Mountain
Fish Creek
GIS
name
Past35
Past130
Past100
Acreage
55,577.2
17,074.7
15,270.5
Low
Lbs/acre
508
641
294
Average
Lbs/acre
732
871
477
High
Lbs/acre
1010
1116
663
Tunis Mountain
Oso
South Globe
Big Springs
Liebre
Bear Mountain
Past129
Past135
Past23
Past101
Past144
Past13
14,583.9
11,084.4
9,927.1
8,305.6
7,916.5
5,573.4
510
275
385
261
189
507
718
489
864
365
344
760
1017
644
1223
502
529
1200
White Wolf South
North Globe
Coe
Joaquin
West Grasshopper
Lower White Wolf North
Past3
Past21
Past122
Past37
Past96
Past0
5,509.0
4,820.2
4,530.7
4,319.6
3,664.3
2,988.7
166
350
319
394
122
370
304
823
506
587
163
668
426
1135
762
922
203
932
Hamilton Field
Campo Bonito
Comanche
Bano
Upper White Wolf North
Lower Chiminez
Past112
Past25
Past17
Past54
Past1
Past68
2,984.4
2,873.6
2,862.1
2,828.6
2,686.8
2,451.8
366
502
167
481
213
495
547
862
288
706
352
656
778
1147
390
1061
480
866
Little Globe
Caliente Foothills
Big Cable Field
Lower Sycamore
Upper North Globe
Heifer
Past24
Past2
Past72
Past147
Past22
Past61
2,304.5
2,302.1
2,215.8
2,081.0
2,061.6
2,001.5
539
208
227
373
38
382
1174
343
512
602
51
575
1669
477
654
863
75
954
Chafin
Buzzard
Lower Westside
Rose Station
Alamos Trap
Alamo Solo
Past30
Past99
Past70
Past71
Past119
Past34
1,906.3
1,891.8
1,865.1
1,850.0
1,848.6
1,751.6
299
0
0
0
566
459
454
0
0
0
1115
930
693
0
0
0
1366
1260
Perfidio
Section B
Fish Creek Trap
Upper Chiminez
Tunis Field
Michener
Past59
Past66
Past114
Past74
Past58
Past142
1,680.9
1,619.4
1,616.6
1,566.4
1,555.4
1,409.2
624
509
193
916
889
383
844
755
484
1227
1328
1019
1262
1229
733
1541
1783
1209
Indian Field
Lower Aqua Blanca
Past28
Past60
1,302.8
1,260.4
574
734
860
1045
1239
1497
E-5
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1 continued
GIS
name
Past98
Past16
Past5
Past7
Past102
Past57
Acreage
1,247.2
1,222.9
1,198.1
1,071.7
1,019.9
985.5
Low
Lbs/acre
0
367
281
434
273
480
Average
Lbs/acre
0
551
503
651
386
738
High
Lbs/acre
0
736
700
1077
609
1024
Upper Lake Field
Ostrich #1
Pastoria Canyon Trap
Westside Foothill
Past27
Past140
Past108
Past90
Past85
Past93
977.1
914.9
877.0
810.4
797.3
739.4
491
446
125
0
281
0
892
761
190
0
353
0
1194
988
300
0
426
0
Dwr Afterbay
Belmare
Eucalyptus Field
Tresquela Field
Priest Field
Inside Owner
Past136
Past78
Past55
Past40
Past83
Past104
739.0
736.4
708.5
703.4
695.4
689.4
93
40
857
709
633
207
232
90
1170
1133
846
302
307
114
1739
1517
1058
407
Upper Ostrich
Section 4
Bull Field
Upper Aqua Blanca
Comanche Strip
Loop
Past91
Past67
Past69
Past64
Past18
Past4
658.7
644.9
626.3
614.8
602.0
593.8
100
1027
123
723
346
77
125
1376
170
1006
625
138
151
1747
225
1446
832
192
Section 32
Rock
Butcher
Monte Grain Field
White Wolf Camp
Ostrich #2
Past62
Past46
Past29
Past33
Past10
Past92
592.7
571.5
560.8
552.5
524.1
485.2
640
616
874
743
551
0
912
1097
1225
1182
827
0
1360
1474
1639
1575
1200
0
Ripley
Headquarters
Old Crane Field
Gypsen Field
Past146
Past128
Past6
Past31
Past120
Past105
480.2
434.6
419.0
411.6
388.6
370.8
378
1018
434
820
287
0
933
1366
651
1262
438
0
1325
1713
868
1682
680
0
Texaco Holding Trap
Comanche Trap
Reservoir Field
Little Cable Field
Middle Stubble
Dry Field
Past80
Past19
Past32
Past138
Past9
Past113
342.9
332.5
330.4
321.8
302.0
293.6
0
297
882
0
567
729
0
603
1328
0
851
1017
0
813
1771
0
1200
1378
Pasture
Upper Westside
Kohlmeier
Roblita
White Wolf Upper
Trap
Tejon Field
Monte
E-6
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1 continued
GIS
name
Past131
Past52
Past109
Past145
Past123
Past77
Acreage
269.8
265.7
261.7
258.7
253.2
242.1
Low
Lbs/acre
82
688
430
393
321
0
Average
Lbs/acre
184
1084
624
944
462
0
High
Lbs/acre
256
1497
869
1323
696
0
Past97
Past141
Past94
Past63
Past20
Past121
215.3
212.2
198.8
192.1
183.7
174.9
734
0
0
439
263
0
1088
0
0
659
329
0
1466
0
0
1094
441
0
Little Cable Field
Meadows
Horse Pasture
Past56
Past84
Past47
Past137
Past111
Past49
171.5
168.1
165.6
155.6
133.6
130.7
487
454
7
474
0
714
730
615
11
888
0
1146
1170
804
15
1185
0
1534
Ostrich Triangle Field
Tunis Trap
Meadows
Little Cable Field
Past133
Past103
Past88
Past65
Past107
Past139
129.3
124.0
118.6
117.0
111.2
109.3
145
0
0
900
0
0
242
0
0
1350
0
0
339
0
0
1800
0
0
Permanent Pasture
Creek Field
Lower Crane
Rodgers Farm Field
Fertilizer Field
Past117
Past53
Past143
Past11
Past41
Past125
107.3
99.8
98.1
97.7
97.7
93.9
0
677
6
563
900
229
0
1100
10
844
1350
477
0
1482
13
1200
1800
840
Geghus Trap
Rawhide
Past127
Past126
Past36
Past15
Past118
Past86
93.8
86.6
85.6
84.7
81.7
74.7
1072
394
515
520
0
0
1430
662
965
779
0
0
1789
982
1290
1186
0
0
Coe Trap
Trap
Earls Trap
Airplane
Past115
Past75
Past124
Past87
Past116
Past8
71.0
55.1
48.9
46.9
45.8
40.5
0
0
181
0
0
489
0
0
469
0
0
734
0
0
822
0
0
1020
Pasture
Sliver
Orchard Trap
Aliso Field
Rock Plant Field
Secretario Meadow
Ostrich #3
Devils Trap
Sheep Trail Trap
Terrys Mare Pasture
Inside Owner
Inside Owner
Lower Vaquero
White Wolf Trap
E-7
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Table E-1 continued
Pasture
Earls Trap
Middle Vaquero
Feed Lot Corrals
Holding Trap
Upper Vaquero
GIS
name
Past89
Past38
Past42
Past110
Past39
Past76
Holding Trap
Bear Mountain Trap
Pastoria Trap
Feed Lot Corrals
Trap
Barracks House Trap
Upper Orchard Trap
Trap
Lower Orchard Trap
Feed Lot Corrals
Meadows
Feed Lot Corrals
Inside Owner
Stockholders Corral
Total
Acreage
38.7
34.2
33.8
31.2
29.9
28.9
Low
Lbs/acre
0
480
473
588
520
0
Average
Lbs/acre
0
900
935
883
928
0
High
Lbs/acre
0
1200
1256
1200
1232
0
Past95
Past14
Past79
Past45
Past82
Past12
28.1
27.9
27.6
25.5
22.8
20.7
0
587
0
528
0
588
0
881
0
952
0
882
0
1200
0
1269
0
1200
Past51
Past81
Past48
Past50
Past134
Past44
20.4
12.7
12.6
11.9
11.7
10.9
879
0
231
900
111
469
1328
0
346
1350
166
955
1770
0
462
1800
277
1287
Past106
Past43
Past132
Past26
Past73
10.1
3.5
3.1
1.2
0.6
0
480
240
0
600
0
900
400
0
900
0
1200
560
0
1200
257,732.7
E-8
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-1. Forage production (lbs/ac) during a favorable (high) rainfall year for the northern portion of
Tejon Ranch.
E-9
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-2. Forage production (lbs/ac) during a favorable (high) rainfall year for the southern portion of
Tejon Ranch.
E-10
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-3. Forage production (lbs/ac) during an average (normal) rainfall year for the northern portion
of Tejon Ranch.
E-11
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-4. Forage production (lbs/ac) during an average (normal) rainfall year for the southern portion
of Tejon Ranch.
E-12
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-5. Forage production (lbs/ac) during an unfavorable (dry) rainfall year for the northern portion
of Tejon Ranch.
E-13
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-6. Forage production (lbs/ac) during an unfavorable (dry) rainfall year for the southern portion
of Tejon Ranch.
E-14
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-7. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) supported during a favorable (high) rainfall year for the
northern portion of Tejon Ranch.
E-15
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-8. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) supported during a favorable (high) rainfall year for the
southern portion of Tejon Ranch.
E-16
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-9. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) supported during an average (normal) rainfall year for the
northern portion of Tejon Ranch.
E-17
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-10. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) supported during an average (normal) rainfall year for the
southern portion of Tejon Ranch.
E-18
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-11. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) supported during an unfavorable (dry) rainfall year for the
northern portion of Tejon Ranch.
E-19
Appendix E: Tejon Ranch Grazing Capacity Estimates
Figure E-12. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) supported during an unfavorable (dry) rainfall year for the
southern portion of Tejon Ranch.
E-20
ATTACHMENT F
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Attachment F is referred to in Section 4.3 Recommended grazing management-related actions
of the Tejon Ranch GMP.
Invasive plants summary
Controlling invasive plants has proven to be one of the greatest challenges facing California rangeland
managers and restoration practitioners (Stromberg et al. 2007). Invasive plant management tools
available to rangeland managers include livestock grazing; however, a single weed management tool
often does not result in successful control (DiTomaso et al. 2007). To increase the likelihood of
successful long-term control, weed management experts recommend combining several weed
management methods, tailored to situation-specific goals, constraints, and opportunities (DiTomaso et
al. 2007). Consequently, we recommend that Tejon Ranch Conservancy staff maintain a formal weed
management plan. A weed management plan should include a well-designed monitoring component that
evaluates treatment effectiveness and assesses any unintended consequences, such as increased erosion
or impact on non-target species. A detailed weed management strategy is beyond the scope of this
Grazing Management Assessment; we present brief overviews of common management methods for
weed species of concern at Tejon Ranch.
Using livestock to control invasive plants often requires prescription grazing, which is the application of
specified livestock grazing actions to accomplish specific vegetation management goals. Grazing
intensity, animal distribution, and grazing period are often rather different from standard “conservation
grazing,” and livestock performance may be significantly reduced. Consequently, finding a lessee
willing to implement a grazing prescription can prove difficult and may require reduced grazing fees or
even payment to the lessee. Intensive grazing, sometimes necessary for successful weed control, may
have undesirable consequences: concentrated hoof impacts and greatly reduced vegetative cover (i.e.,
reduced RDM) could result in increased soil erosion; greater bare ground may also allow other weeds
species to establish and thrive. In addition, intensive grazing may negatively affect desired species and
habitat values in the weed-infested area.
Those caveats noted, prescription grazing can work well in controlling some weed species (DiTomaso et
al. 2007). An essential planning factor is that prescription grazing needs to be timed to the target
species’ phenology. Grazing must occur when weeds are most vulnerable to defoliation; poorly timed
grazing can actually benefit targeted weeds (Huntsinger et al. 2007). Timing prescription grazing to
avoid vulnerable periods for desired plants may also be necessary. Another consideration is the effect of
prescription grazing on stocking rate. Forage consumed as part of a grazing prescription should be
considered when making stocking rate decisions, although AUMs in weed-infested areas may differ
from standard calculations. Again, a formal weed management plan should address these important
issues.
F-1
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Tejon Ranch Conservancy staff list the following species as weeds on Tejon Ranch:
locoweed (Astragalus oxyphysus)
Saharan mustard (Brassica tournefortii)
red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens)
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus)
tocolote (Centaurea melitensis)
yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)
shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana)
perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)
horehound (Marrubium vulgare)
milk thistle (Silybum marianum)
tamarisk (Tamarix sp.)
Two of these invasive species are not well controlled by livestock grazing (DiTomaso and Healy 2007)
and so are not further addressed in this plan:
tamarisk (Tamarix sp.)
perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium; see note in Invasive Plant Species Information
section below).
In the weed list above, locoweed (Astragalus oxyphysus) is unique in being a native plant. However, it
contains an alkaloid toxic to livestock and may also concentrate selenium to toxic levels (Forero et al.
2010; Izbicki and Harms 1986). Although obviously not a plant to be controlled with livestock grazing,
its control is an appropriate subject for a grazing plan. DiTomaso and Healy (2007) recommend
excluding livestock from areas infested with locoweed. Forero et al. (2010) note that in some instances
poisonous plants can be controlled effectively with herbicides and recommend consulting with local
county farm advisor or Cooperative Extension specialist for site-specific control information. McDaniel
et al. (2006) provide some basic information about effective herbicides for locoweed control; however,
confirming their efficacy for California rangelands with a local expert would be good practice.
Only two of the invasive species of concern have been the focus of substantial research: yellow
starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). For both weeds, livestock grazing
may offer some measure of control in certain circumstances. Multiple weed management methods are
often necessary for satisfactory outcomes. See Invasive Plant Species Information section below for
invasive plant species table (Table D1) and current existing management information.
Yellow starthistle is one of the worst grassland weeds in California, occupying over 3 million hectares
of California grasslands and continuing to spread (Bossard and Randall 2007). Much research effort has
been devoted to the control of yellow starthistle in California (DiTomaso et al. 2006), and several
management activities, including prescribed burning, livestock grazing, herbicide application, and
biological control agents, can help control, if not eliminate, this weed (DiTomaso et al. 2007). Grazing
prescriptions must be carefully designed because research has shown that grazing yellow starthistle at
the wrong phenological stage can actually benefit the plant, and excessive trampling by livestock can
increase yellow starthistle density (Huntsinger et al. 2007). In addition, yellow starthistle is toxic to
horses.
E-2
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Bossard et al. (2000) report that intensive grazing of yellow starthistle by sheep, goats, or cattle before
the spiny stage but after bolting can reduce biomass and seed production. DiTomaso et al. (2007)
describe a successful long-term control program using a prescribed burn in the first year, followed by a
second-year clopyralid treatment. Bossard et al. (2000) recommend burning after native species have
dispersed their seeds but before yellow starthistle produces viable seed in the summer months.
Unfortunately, use of prescribed burning may increase other undesirable plants, such as mustards.
Biological control agents are also under development and some have been deployed in California
rangelands; the risk of control agents attacking native species, especially Cirsium, is very low, but
should be evaluated in areas of high conservation values, such as Tejon Ranch (DiTomaso et al. 2006).
Goat grazing has proved successful in controlling yellow starthistle experimentally (Thomsen et al.
1993; Goehring et al. 2010) and in management situations (DiTomaso et al. 2006). Unlike cattle or
sheep, goats will eat yellow starthistle in the spiny stage and so can be deployed later in the season;
goats are also undeterred by steep slopes and can be corralled within small areas by electric fencing. As
a result, a mixed goat and cattle or sheep strategy may afford greater control than cattle or sheep alone.
On the downside, goat rental can be expensive (goat grazers are typically paid to graze their animals),
goats are vulnerable to predators, and their impact on non-target species may be undesirable (DiTomaso
et al. 2006). Furthermore, because they are often fenced into small areas and will eat a wide variety of
plants, goats can remove most of the plant cover in an area; unless carefully managed, they may increase
erosion (for example, on steep slopes). Such considerations should be addressed in the weed
management plan and monitored for if goat grazing is implemented.
Cheatgrass is a major invasive weed in the Great Basin, where it has displaced native communities
through direct competition and indirectly by changing the frequency, extent, and timing of wildfire
(Young 2000; Mosley et al. 1999). In California, cheatgrass is of increasing concern, especially in
northeastern California (Sawyer et al. 2008) but also in California’s deserts (Bossard and Randall 2007;
although see DiTomaso et al. 2007 who limit its major impact in the state to the Modoc Plateau).
Eradication of cheatgrass is generally not a reasonable goal, and even control of cheatgrass is difficult
(Mosley 1999).
Herbicides (e.g., imazapic) can prove moderately effective, although some are no longer available for
use in California (Young 2000; Morris et al. 2009). Prescribed burning is generally ineffective.
Livestock grazing, in particular sheep grazing (Hempy-Mayer and Pyke 2008; Mosley 1999), may help
control cheatgrass if carefully managed. Recent research in Oregon intermountain steppe determined the
optimal timing for cheatgrass defoliation; however, whether even optimal defoliation will reduce
cheatgrass reproduction to levels at which native species can establish and dominate remains an
unanswered question (Hempy-Mayer and Pyke 2008). As with yellow starthistle, several cheatgrass
biocontrol agents are under active development (Meyer et al. 2008). One fungal pathogen shows
particular promise; however, the pathogen is not specific to cheatgrass and can attack annual and
perennial grass species, including native species (Stewart 2009; Beckstead et al. 2010).
Cheatgrass’ congener, red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), may be as great a concern as
cheatgrass in California deserts (Brooks 2000), but little research has been conducted on its effects in
California and on control methods. In a thinning experiment, Brooks (2000) demonstrated that red
brome negatively affects native annual plants in the Mojave. Control methods effective for cheatgrass
may also prove successful with red brome.
F-3
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
A primary difficulty with controlling the two bromes is that both are annual grasses in mixed stands of
potentially desirable annual grasses, such as the native small fescue or Festuca microstachys (synonym
Vulpia microstachys), or even nonnative forage grasses, as well as many species of native annual forbs.
Many of the control techniques developed for cheatgrass were designed for:
1) ecosystems in which the main desirable species are perennial grasses and shrubs, in which case
the ecological differences between the weed species and the desirable species can be taken
advantage of (Mosley and Roselle 2006);
2) situations in which cheatgrass forms a monoculture so effects on non-target species are not a
consideration (Mosley and Roselle 2006); or
3) situations in which fine fuel biomass reduction is the primary goal and so the method, such as
fall grazing, does not significantly reduce the weed crop the following season (Schmelzer
2009). Since these situations do not currently apply at Tejon Ranch, the associated control
methods may be of limited efficacy or may present too great a risk to native species.
E-4
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Table F1: Invasive species of concern for Tejon Ranch
Common name
Saharan
mustard
Red brome
Cheatgrass
Yellow
starthistle
Habitat3;
specific Tejon
Ranch location
Successful methods of
control
Desert dunes,
desert and
coastal scrub
Hand pulling may be
effective in small areas,
when seed bank is
suppressed.
Competition from
annual grasses
suppresses species.
Early season chemical
control may be
effective.1
Bromus
madritensis ssp.
rubens
Scrub, grassland,
desert washes,
woodlands
Livestock grazing may
be useful in controlling
red brome. Spring
burning before seed set
may control
populations.1
Bromus
tectorum
Interior scrub,
woodlands,
grasslands,
pinon/Joshua
tree woodland,
chaparral
Scientific name
Brassica
tournefortii
Centaurea
solstitialis
Grasslands,
woodland,
riparian
Livestock grazing (in
particular sheep
grazing) may be
effective control agent
6,7
. Establishing
perennial plants can
suppress cheatgrass
populations.1
Carefully timed
prescribed grazing after
bolting but before
‘spiny stage’ can reduce
biomass and seed
production.1 A multiyear combination of
controlled burning, and
spraying with herbicide
‘clopyralid’ is effective
in long-term control.2
Mechanical methods
such as pulling, tilling,
and mowing can be
effective at reducing
YST, but they risk
disturbing soil and
promoting YST if
improperly timed.5
F-5
Ineffective
methods of
control
Burning:
stands recover
within 1-2
years of
prescribed
burn.
Grazing is
probably not
effective in
controlling
species.1
Hand pulling
and herbicide
application are
effective, but
not feasible on
the scale of
most red brome
occurances.1
Prescribed
burning
typically
exacerbates
invasion.1
Grazing at the
wrong
phonological
stage can
benefit YST.4
CALIPC threat
rating3 and Tejon
Ranch Weed
Management
Strategy (WMS)
Management
Feasibility
Ranking8
CALIPC rates
Saharan
mustard as
HIGH.
WMS
feasibility rank
is B.
CALIPC rates
red brome as
HIGH.
Not listed in
WMS.
CALIPC rates
cheatgrass as
HIGH.
Not listed in
WMS
CALIPC rates
yellow
starthistle as
HIGH.
WMS
feasibility rank
is C.
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Shortpod
mustard
Blessed milk
thistle
Hirschfeldia
incana
Silybum
marianum
Scrub,
grasslands,
riparian areas
Multiple years of
manual removal or
cultivation during
seedling stage may
control populations.2
Grasslands,
riparian areas,
disturbed places.
Cultivation can control
seedlings, mowing
mature plants can
control stands.2
CALIPC rates
shortpod
mustard as
MODERATE.
Burning can
encourage seed
production and
establishment.2
WMS
feasibility rank
is C.
CALIPC rates
blessed milk
thistle as
LIMITED.
WMS
feasibility rank
is C.
1.
Bossard, C.C., Randall, J.M., Hoshovsky, M.C., 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of
California Press.
2.
DiTomaso, J.M., Healy, E.A., 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. ANR Publications.
3.
Cal-IPC. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council:
Berkeley, CA.
4.
Huntsinger, L., J.W. Bartolome, and C.M. D’Antonio. 2007. Grazing management on California’s Mediterranean
grasslands. Pages 233-253 in: M.R. Stromberg, J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio (eds.), California grasslands:
ecology and management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5.
DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser, and M.J. Pitcairn. 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide. Berkeley, CA:
California Invasive Plant Council. Available on-line at: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/yst.php.
6.
Hempy-Mayer, K. and D.A. Pyke. 2008. Defoliation effects on Bromus tectorum seed production: implications for
grazing. Rangeland ecology and management 61: 116-123.
7.
Mosley, J.C. 1996. Prescribed sheep grazing to suppress cheatgrass: a review. Sheep and goat research journal 12:
74-81.
8.
Knapp, J.J. and D.J. Knapp. 2010. Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy. Unpublished Report submitted to The
Tejon Ranch Conservancy, Frazier Park, California. 62 Pp.
E-6
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Invasive Plant Species Specific Information
From Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands by Bossard et al. 2000
Saharan mustard (Brassica tournefortii)
Grazing: Since Saharan mustard establishes from a seedbank, it is doubtful that grazing could suppress
the spread of this annual. Experiments could be undertaken to determine whether foraging interferes
with recruitment and growing season biomass by placing livestock in fields of Saharan mustard during
early winter (e.g., January).
Manual methods: Hand pulling might be effective in limited areas when seed pools have been
suppressed.
Prescribed burning: The occurrence of this annual in harsh deserts of the Old World has no doubt
selected it to survive long periods in soil seedbanks. Therefore, planned burns may not be a useful
option. Although fires cause high seed loss, stem densities reach pre-burn levels within one or two
growing seasons. Partial seed survival after fire may be related to its hard seed coat.
Biological control: Saharan mustard is closely related to a number of important vegetable crops
(broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, etc.), so it will be difficult to find an agent that will attack this
plant but not damage food crops. Even the possibility of transfer of a control agent to a valuable food
crop may create political pressures that could prevent importation of the agent.
Plant competition: Establishment of dense cover of exotic annual grasses apparently suppresses this
species.
Chemical control: The extremely early development of this species might make early chemical control
a possibility, especially when desirable native species have not yet begun to develop. This should be
investigated experimentally. Whatever method is used to control Saharan mustard, efforts should be
made to completely remove plants from a stand as simply reducing plant density may increase the
production of seeds (Trader 2006).
The 2010 Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy ranks Saharan mustard as a “High-B”, meaning it
has a high threat rating from CALIPC, and a moderate feasibility of eradication on the ranch. It lists
application of Glyphosate 2% or Garlon 4 Ultra 1% w/ CMR foliar sprayed in the spring as measures for
controlling Saharan mustard. This recommendation is based on the species, not on site-specific
requirements of the weed populations.
Red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens)
Grazing: Livestock grazing may be used in lieu of hand pulling. Unfortunately, desirable native species
are eaten as well, and alterations to the soil caused by livestock may promote further establishment of
red brome.
Manual methods: Seedlings can be pulled before they produce seeds, but this is practical only on a
small scale.
Prescribed burning: Burning aids the establishment of red brome in most cases. One exception is fire
occurring in spring before seeds are fully mature or have otherwise dispersed to the ground. Naturally
occurring spring wildfires can reduce the above-ground biomass of red brome while enhancing that of
native forbs in both coastal and desert regions of southern California. Temperatures in fires in grassland
and scrub habitats easily kill red brome seeds suspended in the flame zone, but often are not high
enough to kill seeds located at or below the soil surface (Brooks 1998). Some perennial plants are more
vulnerable to fire in spring than in other seasons. However, the high water content of perennials during
spring can provide some protection if the intensity of the fire is low.
F-7
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Biological control: Some species in the genus Bromus are susceptible to both viral and fungal
infections. A black smut that destroys the inner part of the spikelet, thereby reducing or preventing seed
production, is naturally present in wild populations of red brome in California. Unfortunately, this
fungus does not reach levels of infestation that significantly affect population size.
Chemical control: Various herbicides, including glyphosate, have controlled red brome in agricultural
applications, but they are either not practical to use over the large expanses typically infested by red
brome or not currently registered for wildland use.
The 2010 Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy does not mention red brome.
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
Grazing: Grazing management systems that favor perennial herbaceous species are excellent tools in
the suppression of this pest. This is a good means to avoid the risk of extensive wildfires that cause
severe ecological degradation. Late fall and early spring grazing has been shown to significantly reduce
plant numbers. However, heavy grazing will promote cheatgrass invasion.
Physical control: Mechanical methods: Mechanical fallows are effective in controlling cheatgrass and
establishing herbaceous perennial seedlings. The fallow process accumulates moisture and nitrate to aid
in seedling establishment. Tillage in spring after cheatgrass is established is effective if sufficient
moisture remains for perennial seedling establishment. Mowing has been shown to reduce seed
production when the stand is mowed within one week after flowering. This reduces seed production, but
does not eliminate it because plants that develop later and escape mowing will produce seed.
Prescribed burning: Burning of pure cheatgrass stands enhances cheatgrass dominance. This is
because wildfires often occur in late summer or fall, a poor time for perennial plants to reestablish. Open
ground created by fires is readily colonized by annuals such as cheatgrass. However, burning of mixed
shrub-cheatgrass stands generates enough heat to kill most cheatgrass seeds and offers a one-season
window for the establishment of perennial seedlings. This is why prompt revegetation after wildfires in
sagebrush communities is so important. Because cheatgrass is a cool-season annual, prescribed fire in
late spring might help to control this species, especially in areas where native warm-season grasses are
desired. A prescribed fire should kill seedlings and further reduce the surface seedbank. Spring burning
of the closely related Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) showed that consecutive annual burns reduced
brome density and standing crop (Whisenant and Uresk 1990).
Biological control: Insects and fungi: No insects or fungi have been approved by the USDA for use on
cheatgrass. Research into the biological control of cheatgrass is limited. Cheatgrass is often infected
with a head smut fungus (Ustilago bulleta Berk.) that, when severe, may reduce seed yield. Some
research has been conducted on pink snow mold (Fusarium nivale) as a biological control agent, but
information has yet to be released. In addition to these molds and smuts, over twenty diseases of
cheatgrass have been reported.
Plant competition: Biological suppression is the most cost-effective and least ecologically intrusive
method of controlling cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is not competitive with established perennials, particularly
grasses. Establishing native perennials is easiest after cheatgrass is removed by other control methods.
Chemical control: Several effective herbicide techniques used in the past are no longer available. The
registrations for these herbicides have either been lost or not renewed because of cost to the
manufacturing companies. Glyphosate (as Roundup®, Rodeo®) applications control cheatgrass, but its
effectiveness is limited by the environmental conditions during the cold early spring when glyphosate
should be applied. Several newer herbicides are being tested for selective control of cheatgrass in
perennial broadleaf seedling stands.
E-8
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Most of the work on the chemical control of cheatgrass has focused on infestations in agricultural crops.
Chemical control research in prairies has been primarily limited to atrazine. Herbicides active on
cheatgrass in various crops include diclofop, atrazine, simazine, amitrole, imazapyr, sulfometuron,
paraquat, and glyphosate. Many herbicides are not specific to cheatgrass or may not be specifically
licensed for this use.
Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
Grazing: Intensive grazing by sheep, goats, or cattle before the spiny stage but after bolting can reduce
biomass and seed production in yellow starthistle (Thomsen et al. 1996a, 1996b). To be effective, large
numbers of animals must be used for short durations. Grazing is best between May and June, but
depends on location. This can be a good forage species.
Mechanical methods: Tillage can control this thistle; however, this will expose the soil for rapid
reinfestation if subsequent rainfall occurs. Under these conditions, repeated cultivation is necessary
(DiTomaso et al. 1998). During dry summer months, tillage practices designed to detach roots from
shoots prior to seed production are effective. For this reason, the weed is rarely a problem in agricultural
crops. Weedeaters or mowing can also be used effectively. However, mowing too early, during the
bolting or spiny stage, will allow increased light penetration and more vigorous plant growth and high
seed production. Mowing is best when conducted at a stage where 2 to 5 percent of the seed heads are
flowering (Benefield et al. 1999). Mowing after this period will not prevent seed production, as many
flowerheads will already have produced viable seed. In addition, mowing is successful only when the
lowest branches of plants are above the height of the mower blades. Under this condition, recovery is
minimized. Results should be repeatedly monitored, as a second or perhaps a third mowing may be
necessary to ensure reduced recovery and seed production (Thomsen et al. 1996a, 1996b).
Prescribed burning: Under certain conditions, burning can provide effective control and enhance the
survival of native forbs and perennial grasses (Robards, unpubl. data, DiTomaso et al. 1999a). This can
be achieved most effectively by burning after native species have dispersed their seeds but before yellow
starthistle produces viable seed (June-July). Dried vegetation of senesced plants will serve as fuel for the
burn. At Sugarloaf Ridge State Park in Sonoma County, three consecutive burns reduced the seedbank
by 99.5 percent and provided 98 percent control of this weed, while increasing native plant diversity and
perennial grasses (DiTomaso et al. 1999a). No additional control method was used in the fourth year. In
that year, unfortunately, the seedbank of yellow starthistle increased by thirty-fold compared to the
previous year (DiTomaso unpubl. data).
Biological control: Insects and fungi: Six USDA approved insect species that feed on yellow starthistle
have become established in California (Pitcairn 1997a and 1997b). These include three weevils,
Bangasternus orientalis, Eustenopus villosus, and Larinus curtus, and three flies, Urophora sirunaseva,
Chaetorellia australis, and C. succinea (Woods et al. 1995). All of these insects attack yellow starthistle
flowerheads, and the larvae utilize the developing seeds as a food source. The most effective of these
species are E. villosus and C. succinea (Balciunas and Villegas 1999). With the possible exception of a
few sites, the insects do not appear to be significantly reducing starthistle populations, but success may
require considerably more time for insect numbers to increase to sufficient levels.
Current evidence indicated a 50 to 75 percent reduction in seed production in areas with significant
bioagent populations (Pitcairn and DiTomaso unpubl. data). A root-attacking flea beetle (Ceratapion
brasicorne) is also being studied (Pitcairn, pers. comm.). Researchers are seeking other starthistlespecific foliar- and stem-feeding insects in Asia Minor. Research is also currently being conducted on
three native or naturalized fungal pathogens, Ascochyta sp., Colletotrichum sp., and Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum for the control of yellow starthistle seedlings (Woods and Popescu 1997).
F-9
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Plant competition: Revegetation with annual legumes capable of producing viable seed provides some
level of control in pastures (Thomsen et al. 1996a, 1996b). In some areas subterranean clover (Trifolium
subterraneum) proved to be the best of sixty-six legumes tested. In other sites rose clover (T. hirtum)
and/or perennial grasses may be the preferred species. Control was enhanced when revegetation was
combined with repeated mowing (Whitson et al. 1987).
Chemical control: Although several non-selective pre-emergence herbicides will control yellow
starthistle, few of these can be used in rangeland or natural ecosystems. The exception is chlorsulfuron,
which provides good control in winter when combined with a broadleaf selective post-emergence
compound. However, chlorsulfuron is not registered for use in rangelands or pastures.
The primary options for control in non-crop areas are post-emergence herbicides; 2,4-D, triclopyr,
dicamba, and glyphosate (DiTomaso et al. 1998). All but glyphosate are selective and preferably applied
in late winter or early spring to control seedlings without harming grasses. Once plants have reached the
bolting stage, the most effective control can be achieved with glyphosate (1 percent solution). The best
time to treat with glyphosate is after annual grasses or forbs have senesced, but prior to yellow starthistle
seed production (May-June). The most effective compound for yellow starthistle control is clopyralid (as
Transline®), a broadleaf selective herbicide (DiTomaso et al. 1998). Clopyralid provides excellent
control, both pre-emergence and post-emergence, at rates between 1.5-4 acid equivalent or 4-10 oz
formulated product per acre. Although excellent control was achieved with applications from December
through April, earlier applications led to significant increases in quantity of other forage species,
particularly grasses.
The 2010 Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy lists yellow starthistle as a “High-C” meaning it has
a high threat rating from CALIPC and a low feasibility of eradication on the Ranch. It recommends a
foliar application of Aminopyralid or Cloypyralid in late spring to control yellow starthistle (Knapp and
Knapp 2010).
Shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana)
Not covered in Bossard (2000)
The 2010 Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy lists shortpod mustard as a “Moderate-C” meaning
it has a moderate threat rating from CALIPC and a low feasibility of eradication on the Ranch. It
recommends application of Glyphosate 2% or Garlon 4 Ultra 1% w/ CMR foliar sprayed in the spring as
measures for controlling shortpod mustard. This recommendation is based on the species, not on sitespecific requirements of the weed populations (Knapp and Knapp 2010).
Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)
Some weed management experts have stated that sheep or goat grazing can help control perennial
pepperweed (e.g., Wilson et al. 2006). However, successful control entails repeated, intensive grazing
treatments within a season, and continuing control over several years; even close adherence to such a
long-term treatment regime produces variable results (Wilson et al. 2006). Livestock will not graze
dense stands of the weed (Jacobs and Mangold 2007). An additional concern is that perennial
pepperweed seed germination is enhanced by passage through the ruminant gut (Jacobs and Mangold
2007). Consequently, livestock that have grazed perennial pepperweed must be carefully contained for
several days before entering weed-free areas.
E-10
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Livestock grazing on new growth following herbicide treatment may help reduce re-establishment of
pepperweed stands from surviving deep root systems (Jacobs and Mangold 2007).
Blessed milk thistle (Silybum marianum)
Not covered in Bossard (2000)
In areas of continual disturbance, eradication of blessed milk thistle is virtually impossible until the
factors which cause the disturbance are removed. Milk thistle will stay localized in these areas unless
disturbance becomes more widespread. Over-grazing and fire are two factors which encourage the
spread of milk thistle in large areas.
To achieve control and potential eradication of milk thistle, physical removal, cultivation and mowing
can prove effective if complemented by sowing a perennial, or otherwise competitive grass. The most
effective herbicide used on milk thistle is 2,4-D. The plant is most susceptible to the chemical from the
seedling to the rosette stages of growth. The introduction of the biocontrol agent Rhinocyllus conicus on
milk thistle populations has provided some degree of control of milk thistle in Southern California.
However, specialists at the USDA office of biological control are advising against its release due to the
fact that it has been found on at least ten species of native Cirsium. There are no completely satisfactory
techniques to eradicate blessed milk thistle. All techniques should be considered experimental and
treated as such, with the use of controls and careful documentation and reporting.
The 2010 Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy lists blessed milk thistle as a “Limited-C” meaning
it has a limited threat rating from CALIPC and a low feasibility of eradication on the Ranch. It
recommends foliar applications of Aminopyralid or Cloypyralid in the spring to control blessed milk
thistle, and states that litter accumulation will decrease milk thistle germination (Knapp and Knapp
2010).
References
Beckstead, Julie, Susan E. Meyer, Brian M. Connolly, Michael B. Huck, and Laura E. Street. 2010.
Cheatgrass facilitates spillover of a seed bank pathogen onto native grass species. Journal of ecology 98:
168–177.
Bossard, C.C. and J.M. Randall. 2007. Nonnative plants of California. Pages 107-123 in: M.G. Barbour,
T. Keeler-Wolf, and A.A. Schoenherr (eds.), Terrestrial vegetation of California. Third edition.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, editors. 2000. Invasive plants of California's
wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Available on-line at: http://www.calipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/online.php.
Brooks, M. 2000. Competition between alien annual grasses and native annual plants in the Mojave
Desert. The American Midland Naturalist 144:92-108.
Cal-IPC. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive
Plant Council: Berkeley, CA.
DiTomaso, J.M., S.F. Enloe, and M.J. Pitcairn. 2007. Exotic plant management in California annual
grasslands. Pages 281-296 in: M.R. Stromberg, J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio (eds.), California
grasslands: ecology and management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
F-11
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser, and M.J. Pitcairn. 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide. Cal-IPC
publication 2006-03. Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council. Available on-line at:
http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/yst.php.
DiTomaso, J.M. and E.A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and other western states. Oakland, CA:
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Forero, L. et al. 2010. Livestock-poisoning plants of California. Publication 8398. Richmond, CA:
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Available on-line at: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8398.pdf.
Goehring, B.J., K.L. Launchbaugh, and L.M. Wilson. 2010. Late-season targeted grazing of yellow
starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) with goats in Idaho. Invasive plant science and management 3:148154.
Hempy-Mayer, K. and D.A. Pyke. 2008. Defoliation effects on Bromus tectorum seed production:
implications for grazing. Rangeland ecology and management 61: 116-123.
Huntsinger, L., J.W. Bartolome, and C.M. D’Antonio. 2007. Grazing management on California’s
Mediterranean grasslands. Pages 233-253 in: M.R. Stromberg, J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio (eds.),
California grasslands: ecology and management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Izbicki, John A. and T.F. Harms. 1986. Selenium concentrations in leaf material Astragalus oxyphysus
(Diablo locoweed) and Atriplex lentiformis (quail bush) in the interior coast ranges and the western San
Joaquin Valley, California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4066. Sacramento, CA: U.S.
Geological Survey.
Jacobs, Jim and Jane Mangold. 2007. Ecology and management of perennial pepperweed [Lepidium
latifolium L.]. Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-11. Bozeman, MT: USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Knapp, J.J. and D.J. Knapp. 2010. Tejon Ranch Weed Management Strategy. Unpublished Report
submitted to The Tejon Ranch Conservancy, Frazier Park, California. 62 pp.
McDaniel, Kirk, Keith Duncan, and David Graham. 2006. Locoweed control: aerial application or
ground broadcast. Publication BC-5. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, College of
Agriculture and Home Economics, Cooperative Extension Service.
Available on-line at: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/BC-5.pdf.
Meyer, Susan E., David L. Nelson, Suzette Clement, and Julie Beckstead. 2008. Cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum) biocontrol using indigenous fungal pathogens. Pages 61-67 in: Kitchen, Stanley G.,
Pendleton, Rosemary L., Monaco, Thomas A., and Vernon, Jason (comps), Proceedings—Shrublands
under fire: disturbance and recovery in a changing world. Proc. RMRS-P-52. Fort Collins, CO: USDA
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Morris, Christo, Thomas A. Monaco, and Craig W. Rigby. 2009. Variable impacts of imazapic rate on
downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and seeded species in two rangeland communities. Invasive plant
science and management 2:110–119.
Mosley, J.C. 1996. Prescribed sheep grazing to suppress cheatgrass: a review. Sheep and goat research
journal 12: 74-81.
Mosley, J.C., S.C. Bunting, and M.E. Manoukian. 1999. Cheatgrass. Pages 175-188 in: R.L. Sheley and
J.K. Petroff, (eds.), Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University Press.
E-12
Appendix F: Invasive Plant Management Recommendations
Mosley, Jeffrey C. and Lovina Roselle. 2006. Targeted livestock grazing to suppress invasive annual
grasses. Pages 67-76 in Launchbaugh, Karen (ed.), Targeted grazing: A natural approach to vegetation
management and landscape enhancement. Englewood, CO: American Sheep Industry Association.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second edition.
Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
Schmelzer, Lee. 2009. Reducing fuel load of key cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominated range sites
by the use of fall cattle grazing. Masters thesis. University of Nevada, Reno.
Stewart, Thomas E. 2009. The grass seed pathogen Pyrenophora semeniperda as a biocontrol agent for
annual brome grasses. Masters thesis. Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young
University.
Stromberg, M.R., C.M. D’Antonio, T.P. Young, J. Wirka, and P.R. Kephart. 2007. California grassland
restoration. Pages 254-280 in: M.R. Stromberg, J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio (eds.), California
grasslands: ecology and management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wilson, Linda, Jason Davison, and Ed Smith. 2006. Forbs: perennial pepperweed (or tall whitetop)
Lepidium latifolium. Page 152 in Launchbaugh, Karen (ed.), Targeted grazing: A natural approach to
vegetation management and landscape enhancement. Englewood, CO: American Sheep Industry
Association.
Young, J. 2000. Bromus tectorum L. Pages 76-80 in: C.C. Bossard, J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky
(eds.), Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
F-13