Changes in California’s grasslands associated with human activity vary along a gradient from complete destruction in the worst case to preserved fragments of presumed pristine stands

activity vary along a gradient from complete destruction in the worst case to preserved fragments of presumed pristine stands in the best. Yet the most “pristine” California grasslands represent only a small proportion of California’s current grasslands, and even they include some non-native species (Safford and Harrison 2001; Stromberg et al. 2001; Gelbard and Harrison 2003). Some grasslands mostly or entirely devoid of native grasses still harbor relatively rich floras of native herb species (Lulow 2004). More common are stands dominated by a few species of non-native grass, with scattered natives (both grasses and herbs) making up varying degrees of relative cover. The challenge of restoring California grasslands is to develop site-appropriate goals along with prescriptions that match this wide range of grassland conditions. While preserving and managing California grasslands with a higher component of native species may seem like an easier task, it is often those that have been completely destroyed that can be most easily restored, simply because they are less complex and the practitioner can start from a clean slate. This paradoxical quality of grassland restoration and the dilemmas faced by grassland restorationists are the subjects of this chapter. Restoration is the complex set of efforts to reverse or mitigate effects of human activity on the landscape (Packard and Mutel 1996). The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) has defined ecological restoration as