The goal of this project was to identify policies, at the federal, state, and county level, and assess their effects on the management and conservation of California grasslands. Our findings are synthesized in a chapter of the University of California Press book Ecology and Management of California Grasslands (in press).

We conducted in depth web and literature searches to accomplish these goals. Much of our effort went into compiling and synthesizing local data from several counties with significant grassland coverage. These data included structured phone interviews and general plan documents.

The policies that we determined had the potential to impact grassland conservation are organized according to whether they originate at the federal, state, or county-level.

  Mechanism Features
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Prohibits take or destruction of critical habitat for federally listed grassland associated species.
Clean Water Act (CWA) Can protect vernal pool habitat, if under federal jurisidiction.
State California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Prohibits take or destruction of critical habitat for state listed grassland associated species.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluates environmental effects of projects and requires mitigation for significant impacts.
Williamson Act Prevents development on agricultural land for at least 10 years.
County General Plan` Recognition of the biological importance of grasslands in general plans can set the stage for increased conservation.
Agricultural Zoning Prevents housing development and some agricultural uses are compatible with grassland habitat.
Open Space Zoning Provides weak controls on development, though a small amount of this land is strongly protected (conservation easements, etc.).

A large number of policies currently operate to influence the future of grasslands in California. Regulations such as ESA and CESA focus on biological management, while policies in county general plans and zoning ordinances focus primarily on agricultural management, which is a less rigorous and long-lasting form of protection. Non-regulatory financial incentives protect land from conversion through acquisition and easements, which can have a wide range of management goals.

The association of grasslands with wide ranging endangered species like the California condor and San Joaquin kit fox, as well as locally important species such as Stephens’ kangaroo rat and Bay checkerspot butterfly has led to the establishment of large grassland reserves in many areas of the state undergoing large-scale development, with the trend being towards larger, sub-county or county-wide biological conservation programs. The ESA and CESA are currently the major drivers of biologically-oriented grassland protection in urbanized and urbanizing areas of California.

At the county level grasslands are viewed primarily as an agricultural resource. County zoning ordinances can prevent development of grasslands by regulating land use. Because of the extent of privately owned grassland area zoned as open space or agriculture, this provides a substantial level of protection from higher intensity land uses and urbanization. Still, agricultural and open space zoning designations are a less reliable and non-permanent source of protection, since the management goals of these areas may not align with the goal of protecting the ecological integrity of grasslands. This can cause grasslands to become preferred areas for development given increasing restrictions on development in prime farmland, oak woodlands, and coastal sage scrub communities.

Because the majority of grassland in California privately owned, private conservation initiatives are seen as one of the most important methods of future protection. NGOs can help to meet biological goals for grasslands by incorporating management practices into easement contracts, thereby involving private landowners in management decisions while affording recognition of the biological importance of grassland ecosystems.

Our full project brief can be found here.