!
Cal-IPC News
Protecting California’s Natural Areas
fr
om Wildland W
eeds
from
Weeds
Vol. 11, No. 4, Winter 2004
Quarterly newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council
Beetles!
USDA and
and the
the Diorhabda
USDA
beetle target tamarisk in the
West. IIss this the makings of a
biological contr
ol success stor
y?
control
story?
Article page 4.
Inside:
How much do wildland weeds cost society?
Alert: Brachypodium sylvaticum (false brome)
Lessons from the San Diego fires
Weed awareness events in DC and California
From the Director’s Desk
Marshalling resources for 2004
California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 525-1502
fax (510) 217-3500
www.cal-ipc.org
A California 501(c)3 nonprofit organization
Our Mission
To protect California’s natural areas
from wildland weeds through
research, restoration, and education.
Staff
Doug Johnson, Executive Director
dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org
Brianna Richardson, Project Manager
brichardson@cal-ipc.org
Board of Directors
Steve Schoenig, President (2004)
California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
Alison Stanton, Vice-President (2004)
BMP Ecosciences
Carri Pirosko, Secretary (2004)
California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
Beth Leger, Treasurer (2004)
U.C. Davis
Joe DiTomaso, Past-President (2004)
U.C. Davis Weed Science Program
Deanne DiPietro (2004)
Sudden Oak Death Project
Here at the office, we keep getting lucky with volunteer help. We currently have four people
making significant volunteer contributions to our work: Jinji Wimalsena, a recent graduate
in Environmental Biology from CSU Northridge,
is organizing the weed list revision; Bertha
McKinley, ex-president of the San Diego CNPS
chapter, has been overseeing membership renewals
and book orders; Elizabeth Stampe, a development specialist for Greenbelt Alliance, is designing
a new weed brochure; and Heather Sprung, a
transitioning high-tech writer, is helping prepare Jinji, Bree, Doug, and Bertha at our
ar
k office.
Par
ark
grant proposals. Bree and I are grateful for all their Aquatic P
help.
es br
ochur
alterantives
brochur
ochuree (“Don’t Plant a Pest!”) has been distributed widely.
The landscaping alterantiv
Calls come from garden clubs looking for speakers, from the media, and from other regions
and states wanting to develop their own brochures. Definitely an idea whose time has come.
In late February, weed worker representatives from across the country will be traveling to
nv
asiv
eness Week. This
Washington, DC, for the fifth annual National IInv
nvasiv
asivee Weeds A
Awar
wareness
war
year’s California delegation includes David Chang from the Santa Barbara WMA and Bob
Case from the Alameda/Contra Costa WMA. They will give agency and elected officials a
better understanding of how weed work is happening on the local level.
Several articles in this issue focus on tamarisk—its economic costs, the legislation seeking to
address control issues, and the USDA’s promising biocontrols research program. As one of
the worst weeds in the West (including desert California), it offers a glimpse into how our
research and funding systems are capable of reacting. Let’s hope this sets a trend, and helps
us find support for other major wildland weeds we face.
Scott Steinmaus (2004)
California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
Bill Winans (2004)
San Diego County Watershed
Management Program
Jon Fox (2005)
California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
Mark Newhouser (2005)
Sonoma Ecology Center
Dan Gluesenkamp (2005)
Audubon Canyon Ranch
Bobbi Simpson (2005)
National Park Service – Exotic Plant Management Team
Jason Giessow (2005
Santa Margarita/San Luis Rey Weed Management Area
Wendy West (2005)
El Dorado County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
Affiliations for identification purposes only.
Last year of term noted.
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004 – Volume 11, Number 4
Editor: Doug Johnson, dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org
Cal-IPC News is published quarterly by the California
Invasive Plant Council. Articles may be reprinted with
permission from the editor. Submissions are welcome.
We reserve the right to edit all work.
2
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
Belo
chers Tom D
udley (right) of UN R
eno and D
an B
ean of UC D
avis rrelease
elease
w: Resear
elow:
esearchers
Dudley
Reno
Dan
Bean
Davis
Diorhabda beetles onto tamarisk in California
’
s
Ow
ens
V
alley
.
California’ Owens alley.
Wildland Weed N
News
News
News
News
Neews
wsN
wsN
wsN
wsN
USDA-APHIS is moving ahead with plans to
revise regulations governing importation
of plants. The revision is likely to also address
both invasive insects and diseases that ride on
imported plants, as well as the potential for
the plants themselves to be invasive. An
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
should be released summer 2004.
THE WEED LIST NEEDS
EEDS YOUR
OUR HELP!
Habitat® herbicide has received full label
approval from the Environmental Protection
Agency. Habitat® is labeled for controlling
undesirable emergent, shoreline and woody
vegetation in and around standing or flowing
water. Target plants include water hyacinth,
purple loosestrife, and saltcedar, among others.
The newest weapon in the war on weeds may
weed
have four legs, fur, and be named “Knap
“Knapw
Nightmare.” Once trained to detect drugs,
this German shepherd is now learning to sniff
out spotted knapweed. When her training at
Montana State University is complete,
Nightmare will be able to scout rangeland
with a GPS flashcard attached to her collar,
which will mark places where she stops to dig
at a scent. If successful, this experiment could
make dogs invaluable helpers in early
detection and mapping efforts. Associated
Press, 12/31/2003.
We’ve recruited 236 new members in the
last two month! That brings us one-third
of the way to our goal of 1,500 members
by March 31— we still need 433 more.
Please ask your friends and colleagues
who are concerned about the California
landscape to become members. Ask the
people sitting next to you at your next
WMA meeting if they are members yet.
We need their support. If each current
member recruits just one new member,
we’ll meet our goal! And if you recruit
three or more new members, we have
rewards including books, T-shirts, water
bottles, and free admission to the 2004
Symposium.
Not all mammals are being so helpful. In
ers have begun utilizing
Shasta county, beav
beavers
Arundo donax as material for constructing
dams. Given the ability of arundo to spread
through small fragments, this practice is likely
to speed the spread of this riparian weed.
Redding Record Searchlight, 12/27/2003.
Advocacy on tap…
National IInv
nv
asiv
war
eness Week is February 23-27. While the California deleganvasiv
asivee Weeds A
Awar
wareness
tion is in Washington, DC, this would be a great time to visit the local offices of your federal
representatives.
California IInv
nv
asiv
war
eness Week is coming up July 19-26, 2004. Time to start
nvasiv
asivee Weeds A
Awar
wareness
organizing local events!
ay at the Capitol is tentatively scheduled for
As of press time, the first California Weed D
Day
March 24 in Sacramento. This will be a great chance to discuss weed issues with agency
managers and elected state officials. Check
Our goal: 1,500
members by
March 31!
Illustration by Ryan Jones
Help gr
ow our
gro
membership!
We need yyour
our kno
wledge and experience to help ev
aluate plants for the
knowledge
evaluate
Cal-IPC List using the ne
wly dev
eloped criteria. We hav
evie
wers
newly
developed
havee rrevie
eview
identified for many plants, but still need reviewers for many more.
Visit
evie
wers, and
eview
help us produce the improved list!
Acacia paradoxa (kangaroothorn) · Agrostis stolonifera (redtop bentgrass) ·
Alternanthera philoxeroides (alligatorweed) · Anthemis cotula (dog fennel) ·
Anthriscus caucalis (bur chervil) · Araujia sericofera (bladderflower) · Bellis perennis
(English lawn daisy) · Berberis darwinii (Darwin barberry) · Brachypodium…
1,067 members
in January, 2004 !
831 members in
October, 2003
Christmas tidings for w
eed staff on holiday
ocky
weed
holiday.. R
Rocky
Mountain N
ational P
ar
k, D
ec. 25, 2003. P
hoto bbyy B
rianna
National
Par
ark,
Dec.
Photo
Brianna
Richardson.
Cal-IPC News Winter 2004 3
Featur
e
eature
Progress on the Biological Control of Tamarisk
Text and photos bbyy Raymond I. Carr
uthers 1 and C. JJack
ack D
eLoach 2
Carruthers
DeLoach
USDA-Agricultural Research Service in 1Albany, CA and 2Temple, TX
Dicidious shrubby saltcedars (Family: Order = Tamaricaceae:
Tamaricales) are among the most devastating exotic weeds invading
western North American riparian ecosystems. Their effects on native
vegetation, wildlife, and hydrology are severe and well-known (see
article on economic impacts, page 6). Their widespread distribution
across western states makes their eradication unrealistic by physical
control techniques alone except at sites with limited infestations.
In 1986, the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) began
overseas research on biological control. By the early 1990s, several
promising insect agents were brought to the U.S. for host-specificity
testing in quarantine. After more than a decade of experimentation,
safety testing, and regulatory consideration, one species of leaf beetle,
Diorhabda elongata deserticola, collected from Fukang, China, and
Chilik, Kazakhstan, was released into field cages at ten sites in
California, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming during
1999 and 2000. Following two years of cage studies, permits were
granted that allowed open field release in these six states in May,
2001. Monitoring over the last two years has demonstrated marked
early success in several test sites.
At five sites north of the 38 parallel, where the Chinese biotype
of D. elongata has been in the open environment for two or more
years, populations have had overwintering success and significant
impact on tamarisk. During the summer of 2002, Diorhabda caused
dramatic defoliation of saltcedar at Lovelock, Nevada and good
defoliation at Pueblo, Colorado. At sites
in at Delta, Utah, Schurz, Nevada and
In two years,
Lovell, Wyoming, they caused only
beetles at
partial defoliation, but they produced
Lovelock have
substantial population increases. By the
expanded from
end of the third growing season in late
less than an acre summer of 2003, the beetles had begun
a rapid and dramatic defoliation of
to 143 acres,
defoliating tama- tamarisk at five of the seven release sites
north of the 38th parallel. At the best
risk as they go.
site (Lovelock, NV), defoliation
increased from 0.8 ha in early September 2002, to 4.3 ha in early July 2003, to 190 ha by early September
2003, along an approximate 5 km reach of the Humboldt River. In
Colorado, the beetles increased from a single defoliated tree in 2001
to a 100m radius of the release point during 2002, and by September 2003 they had defoliated ca. 40 ha of saltcedar. At Delta and
Lovell, the beetles overcame both bird and ant predation in 2002 to
defoliate ca. 30 ha and 9 ha respectively by this past September. At
the establishment site closest to California in Schurz, NV, the beetles
have now defoliated ca. 15 ha along the Walker River.
ARS began this research based on requests from a number of
groups including The Nature Conservancy, several rancher associations, state/ local water boards, the US Bureau of Reclamation and
4 Cal-IPC News Winter 2004
Aerial photos fr
om A
ugust, 2002 (top) and JJuly
uly
w rapid
from
August,
uly,, 2003 sho
show
spread of beetles at the Lovelock site. Agents were initially released
near the center of the photos (expanded por
tion of top photo). P
ale
portion
Pale
vegetation spreading to upper right of photos is denuded tamarisk.
members of Cal-IPC. Many prospective control insects were
investigated in the Eurasian homeland of saltcedar, from the
Mediterranean Basin to China. Over 300 different insects were
found to feed on saltcedar in Eurasia, attacking all parts of the plant.
These natural enemies appear to be a major factor in limiting saltcedar
populations in much of its area of origin.
At most of the release sites in western states, Diorhabda beetles
were placed into sleeve bags over terminal branches outside the cages
for one-two weeks until they had begun ovipositing, and then the
bags were removed. This allowed field monitoring teams to follow
the development and mortality of the beetles by knowing where and
saltcedar plants, but monitoring data that is to be collected in 2004
should document saltcedar mortality in some areas. Overwintering
success of the Crete beetles in open field situations is expected in the
spring of 2004 and hopefully significant defoliation will then begin
on saltcedar populations in areas below the 38th parallel. With results
in hand from these southern sites this summer, we will be working
with the US Fish & Wildlife Service and local cooperators along both
sides of the Mexican border to determine if these new beetles should
be released in Mexico.
USDA-ARS scientists have been working closely with a number
of groups to assess the benefits and safety of tamarisk biological
control, and have had many independent cooperators assessing
associated direct and indirect impacts on the local plant and wildlife
communities. So far, the project has produced the expected desired
benefits with no deleterious side effects. Based on these assessments,
USDA is hoping to move forward with a cooperative saltcedar
biological control implementation effort in areas above the 38th
parallel where the Chinese Diorhabda beetles are working exceptionally well. USDA-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service) has already filed a Federal Register notification outlining their
plans to work with several state Departments of Agriculture and
federal agencies (such as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau
of Land Management) to establish beetle nursery sites and begin
more widespread distribution of these beneficial insects in several
states. In more southern areas, the research will continue, and
hopefully demonstrate that the new stains of beetles now under
investigation are both effective and safe to release in other areas where
tamarisk is causing extensive environmental damage.
Adult Diorhabda eating tamarisk leaves.
Contact the authors at
how many eggs were present. Additional beetles were released into
the open—altogether one to several thousand beetles were released
into each of the various test sites. The beetle successfully overwintered in the open environment in five sites north of the 38th parallel
in Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.
However, the beetles did not successfully establish outside of
cages in more southern sites in Texas or California, presumably
because daylength is too short at these southern sites and the beetles
were forced into overwintering diapause too early. This prevented
them from successfully overwintering, and none emerged the
following spring in these more southernly locations. Efforts to
establish the Chinese beetles at these sites were terminated, and plans
were developed to locate and test additional natural enemies for these
locations. ARS scientists and their state cooperaters have been
evaluating Diorhabda populations from other locales including strains
from Africa, Greece and several Middle Eastern countries. These are
expected to overwinter more effectively in the more southern U.S.
sites.
This past fall, beetles from Crete were permitted for release and
placed in field cages in Central California, New Mexico and southern
Texas where they are expected to be better adapted to the local
climatic conditions. Following thorough field cage host-specificity
tests, the Crete beetles were released into sites including an open field
along California’s Cache Creek and at Fort Hunter Liggett inland of
Monterey. These populations and their biological impact are being
monitoring carefully using a combination of ground-based sampling
and remote sensing. Little is known yet about the rate of kill of the
Nada Carruthers of USDA-APHIS and cooperator Javid Kashefi
collect insects in Greece as potential biocontrol agents for tamarisk.
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
5
How much do weeds cost society?
The tamarisk example
Information in this article is taken from
“Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix
invasion” by Erika Zavaleta, a chapter in
Invasive Species in a Changing World, edited
by Harold A. Mooney and Richard J. Hobbs
(2000 Island Press).
spanning from a conservative estimate to a
“bolder” estimate.
and whooping crane), and one candidate for
listing (peninsula bighorn sheep), the total
value lost over 55 years is $85-360 million.
Water Losses
Tamarix uses, on average, 1.0-1.54 feet/
These economic losses over a 55-year
year more water than native vegetation. In
period add up to between $7.39 and 16.16
billion. Given the estimated extent of tamarisk
total, this costs the U.S.
1.16-2.41 million acre-feet in the West, this comes to $6,300-$10,000
per acre of land invaded. This loss can be
of water each year. This
compared to the cost of controlling tamarisk
water has monetary value
to assess if control is economically costfor municipal use, agriculeffective. The estimated cost of eradicating
tural use, and “instream”
uses such as boating. Based tamarisk and replanting with native species is
estimated at approximately $3,000 per acre
on the costs of planned
(or $3.48-4.83 billion over the entire region).
water projects, the total
At discount rates up to 6%, the 55-year
value of water lost to
benefits of tamarisk removal outweigh the
southern California and
costs.
Arizona municipalities is
An analysis like this one demonstrates that
$1.4-3.7 billion over 55
even conservative estimates of damage, based
years (this timeframe was
on only a few of a plant’s impacts, can make a
chosen to match current
An unlined irrigation ditch in the Ow
ens Valley
hoto
Owens
alley.. P
Photo
good case for control.
water contracts in the
courtesy of G. Donald Bain,
region). Water losses to
agriculture are estimated to
Invasive plants cost society in a number of be worth an additional $2.1-6.7 billion over
ways, and it is apparent that the cost is large.
55 years. Finally, instream water losses
In a much-quoted Cornell University study,
include lost hydro$1.4 to 3.7 billion
Water Losses: M
unicipal
Municipal
researchers conservatively estimate that
electric generation
invasive species cost the U.S. $138 billion
capacity, estimated at Water Losses: Agricultural
$2.1 to 6.7 billion
each year (Pimental et al, 1999, accessed Jan.
$880 million to $2.4
$880 million to 2.4 billion
Hyydr
dropo
opow
Water Losses: H
opo
wer
2004 at
and lost recreational
$2.9 billion
Flood Damage
impacts is difficult. Some effects have a direct
value to boaters
market value, such as lost water, while other
(determined using
$85 to 360 million
Wildlife Losses
effects, such as reduced ecological integrity, are “willingness to pay”),
$7.39 to 16.16 billion
challenging to translate into dollars. It is
estimated at $29-132 Total Estimated losses
crucial to have estimates, though, so that the
million.
Estimated costs rresulting
esulting fr
om Tamarix inv
asion oovver a 55-y
ear period,
from
invasion
55-year
problem of invasive plants can be weighed
in 1998 dollars.
Flood Damage
against other financial threats that vie for the
Increased sediment accretion caused by
Net Benefits
attention of policy makers.
Discount rate
tamarisk causes narrowing of stream channels,
($1998/acre)
Tamarisk is one of the few plants that
and this increases flood damage. This
have been evaluated economically, and its
0%
$3,312 to 6,975
increased damage is estimated at $2.9 billion
evaluation provides a useful example of a way
1%
$2,146 to 4,966
over 55 years.
to estimate damage caused by invasive plants.
2%
$1,363 to 3,584
Though not all of the impacts of tamarisk are
3%
$837 to 2,525
evaluated, the sum of several major impacts— Impacts on Wildlife
Using willingness-to-pay values for
including water supply, flood control, and
4%
$484 to 1,954
protecting threatened species, economic losses
wildlife—gives a gauge of the damage caused
5%
$249 to 1,483
resulting from tamarisk damage to wildlife can
by one of the West’s most widely know
6%
$95 to 1,147
be calculated. Focusing on federally listed
invasive plants. The economic impacts in
these areas are summarized in the accompany- species impacted by Tamarisk invasion
Net benefits of Tamarisk rremo
emo
emovval oovver a
ing tables. Typically a range of figures is given, (southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle,
55-year period in 1998 dollars.
6 Cal-IPC News Winter 2004
Invasive species legislation:
What’s hot on “The Hill”
Tamarisk, or saltcedar (Tamarix species), is one invasive weed that
has gotten the attention of lawmakers in Congress. Four bills—two in
the House and two in the Senate—have been introduced to increase
research into tamarisk water usage and more effective tamarisk
eradication techniques. The reason for all this legislative attention is
the tremendous amount of water used by tamarisk in the West each
year—estimated to be enough to support 20 million people or a
million acres of agriculture.
The highest profile legislation comes from Senator Domenici of
New Mexico (R). The “Saltcedar Control Demonstration Act” (S.
1051 and S. 1516; also HR 2707 (Pearce, R-NM) as a companion
bill on the House side) would initiate major spending by the
Department of the Interior—up to $50 million/year—to implement
demonstration projects aimed at determining the best methods for
removing tamarisk. The act also includes Russian olive (Eleagnus
augustifolia), another invasive tree found in Western riparian areas.
Demonstration projects would explore methods and challenges in
management, including all aspects of destruction, biomass removal,
restoration, and maintenance. Long-term funding strategies will also
be identified.
HR 695, introduced by Scott McInnis (R-CO) would authorize
$1 million to Mesa State College in Grand Junction, Colorado, for
development of enhanced methods of long-term control and
suppression of saltcedar in the Colorado River watershed in western
Colorado and eastern Utah. Mesa would provide matching funds of
$1 million.
At least eleven other bills currently in Congress deal with the
issue of invasive species. Particularly important for California are
S.144 (Craig, R-ID) and H.R.119 (Hefley, R-CO), the “Harmful
Invasive Weed Control Act,” which would authorize the Department
of the Interior to distribute $100 million each year through 2007 to
“eligible weed managment entities” such as Weed Management Areas.
Because California’s state funds for WMAs through S.B.1740 sunset
this year, passage of these federal bills would be a great shot in the
arm for the continued success of our WMA network. Currently,
H.R.119 has stalled in the House Natural Resources committee,
chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Stockton). Cal-IPC and other
groups are working to convey our strong support for this legislation
to Rep. Pombo and others in Congress.
Other invasive species legislation currently pending includes bills
that would: codify the National Invasive Species Council, which was
created by executive order in 1999 (S. 536); provide $80 million in
grants for invasive species control projects (H.R. 2310); strengthen
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
(H.R. 1080 and S. 525); provide funding for aquatic invasive species
research (H.R. 1081); provide funding to control invasive nutrias in
Maryland and Louisiana (H.R. 273); and control ballast water
emissions in the Great Lakes (H.R. 3122 and H.R. 989).
Trends
Invasive species legislation may be tending more toward speciesspecific and location-specific bills, rather than general, over-arching
Tamarisk Legislation:
S. 1051 Saltcedar Council Demonstration Act
Introduced 5/13/2003 by Pete Domenici (R-NM); Cosponsored by
Reid (D-NV) and Bingaman (D-NM). Bill remains in committee.
S. 1516: Saltcedar Control Demonstration Act
Introduced: 7/31/2003 by Senator Pete V. Domenici (R) New Mexico.
Cosponsored by: Senator Campbell (R), Colorado.
Bill remains in committee.
H.R. 2707: Saltcedar &Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act
Introduced 7/1/2003 by Steve Pearce (R-NM). Cosponsored by
Beauprez (CO), Bonilla (TX), Cannon (UT), Cardoza (CA), Cubin
(WY), Filner (CA), Grijalva (AZ), Hunter (CA), Matheson (UT),
McInnis (CO), Moran (KS), Neugebauer (TX), Osborne (NE), Renzi
(AZ), Stenholm (TX), Thornberry (TX), Udall (CO), Udall (NM),
Wilson (NM). On 10/29/03 the House Committee on Resources
ordered the bill to be reported (as amended) by unanimous
consent.
esear
ch and Contr
ol A
ct of 2003
H.R. 695: Tamarisk R
Control
Act
Resear
esearch
Introduced 2/11/2003 by Scott McInnis (R-CO). Cosponsored by
Tancredo (R-CO) and Beauprez (R-CO).
Bill remains in committee.
legislation. According to Tim Playford,of the Invasive Weeds
Awareness Coalition in Washington, D.C., one reason for this trend is
that the federal government has not taken the initiative in drafting
broad invasive species policy and programs, and that groups working
on specific species, or in specific locations, decide to pursue legislation
to support for their own projects. There is some concern that this may
fracture the larger invasive species community as groups vie for
federal support. This makes H.R.119 extremely important to
encouraging local activities across the entire range of invasive plant
work. The bill’s funding would provide a financial incentive for all
states and counties to organize the necessary infrastructure for
obtaining funds and successfully fighting weeds.
Support for H.R.119 will be a major focus of the fifth annual
National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week in Washington, DC in late
February. California will be sending a delegation to discuss our weed
work with agency officials and legislators, so that they will be aware of
the extent of the problem and of the work that is getting done at the
local level.
Nor
ton, Veneman launch tamarisk initiativ
orton,
initiativee
At press time, we received the announcement that Interior
Secretary Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann M.
Veneman have announced plans to work with Southwestern states
and communities on a strategic initiative to control tamarisk. The
effort will formally begin with a three-day conference, March 31
to April 2 in Albuquerque, N.M. Press release at
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
7
Regional
7th Annual Monterey
ence
“W
ar on W
eeds” Confer
Weeds”
Conference
“War
Text and photos bbyy B
rianna Richar
dson
Brianna
Richardson
The 7th Annual War on Weeds Conference was hosted by the Watershed Institute at
California State University, Monterey Bay,
and by Return of the Natives, and held on
campus at the converted Fort Ord, Friday
November 14th.
This year’s theme
was “Big Tools,
Little Tools: the
Right Tool for the
Right Weed.”
And of tools there
were plenty. In
addition to
speakers, there
were two “toolgate” parties
where participants
could check out
The Hydro-Ax.
the latest and
greatest in weed-control machinery.
The first tool-gate session focused on Big
Tools, including a flail mower, the Catepillar
AVS, which can be used to send
French broom into oblivion, the
Hydro-Ax Brushcuttter, which can
mow invasive plants of any height,
Conference attendees visit a Fort Ord burn site.
and a well equipped truck, decked
out for large scale spraying.
The real innovators, however, were
and one man’s 23-year fight against yellow
found at the Small Tools tool-gate, where
starthistle.
Charlie Moore demonstrated how to harvest
After a day of weed talk, it was refreshing
weeds with a old fashioned scythe, Darlene
to get outside and see some real, albeit
Chirman showed off a homemade
unintentional, restoration work. In July 2003,
pampasgrass plume-hook (a hardware store
an accidental fire started on Army land
hook screwed into a broom handle) that
adjacent to Bureau of Land Management land
allows workers to pull the tall plumes to
at Fort Ord. The fire burned approximately
within cutting reach, and Philomene Smith
600 acres that was considered prime area for a
shared her “herbicide for volunteers,”
prescribed burn. Since the burn, regular
straight vinegar in a garden sprayer, which
surveys have been conducted to compile plant
“kills seedlings dead.”
lists of what returns to the area. BLM
The speakers and attendees found the
restorationists expect a number of previously
conference a great opportunity to share their
rare natives to make a post-burn comeback.
successes, frustrations, and ideas. Discussion
Conference organizer Bruce Delgado led
topics included making connections across
attendees on a hike through the burn site.
the scope and scale of weed work, using
The faint drizzle and charred landscape
tarping to control iceplant and Harding
provided an eerily beautiful end to the day.
grass, control of aquatic and riparian weeds,
Lessons learned after the San Diego County fires
By Car
olyn M
ar
tus and Carrie Schneider
an D
iego Chapter of the California N
ativ
lant SSociety
ociety
Carolyn
Mar
artus
Schneider,, SSan
Diego
Nativ
ativee P
Plant
You may not have heard, but there has
been an extensive debate in San Diego
County after last fall’s fires about reseeding for
erosion control—is it useful at all, and if you
do it, what seeds should be used?
The fires alone caused considerable
environmental destruction, decimating
declining populations of rare and endangered
plants and butterflies, but the real ecological
battle was the contentious issue of [re]seeding.
We in the San Diego Chapter of CNPS were
particularly concerned about reseeding efforts
that included invasives like rye grass (Lolium
spp.) and African daisy (Dimorphotheca
sinuata). The debate illustrates the need for
better consensus on post-fire erosion control
and seed mixes in order to prevent future
ecological problems. Here’s my version of how
the issue unfolded over the last few months in
8 Cal-IPC News Winter 2004
San Diego County.
After the Cedar and Paradise fires in San
Diego County in late October 2003,
government agencies scrambled to calm
residents’ concerns about erosion control. A
donor in Oregon sent 43,000 lbs of rye grass
seed (Lolium spp.) to aid fire victims, facilitated by Congressman Duncan Hunter’s
office (R-El Cajon). Calls and e-mails
opposing the use of rye grass went out to the
conservation community in San Diego, and
then calls poured into the offices of Congressman Hunter, Senators Feinstein and Boxer,
and then-Governor Davis. CNPS-SD
contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the Natural Resource Conservation
Service to express our opposition to the use of
rye grass for erosion control.
Studies have shown that seeding with
rye grass can be ecologically damaging, and we
thought the agencies were already convinced
that seeding was a bad idea. Apparently, they
were only convinced that aerial seeding was a
bad idea. Congressional aides told us that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture was recommending the use of rye grass. We are unsure
how much has actually been distributed. We
have only been able to confirm that the rye
grass was handed out over the weekend of
November 15th and 16th at one location in the
city of Poway.
Rye grass was not the only seed waiting to
be spread on the hillsides of San Diego. The
San Diego County Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures handed out a
…Continued next page.
we need to educate local, regional, and federal
agencies and elected officials about the
environmental and economic impacts of
invasive plants. A productive discussion with
all concerned stakeholders about the appropriate seed mixtures for post-fire erosion control
needs to happen before our next major fire
season.
Contact authors at
Burrascano, who has compiled a reference list of
articles dealing with erosion control and post-fire
seeding issues. To request a copy, email her at
Photo courtesy Carolyn Martus
seed mix (described in a press release as
“native”) that contained non-native species
including African daisy (Dimorphotheca
sinuatua) and rose-clover (Trifolium hirtum).
CNPS-SD spoke with county officials but
they maintained that these two species are
useful for erosion control. In addition, they
said that the plants must not be a problem
since they are not on the Cal-IPC list (D.
sinuata is under “Needs more information”).
This points out the need to get the list
updated as soon as possible, and to have a
disclaimer to avoid such interpretations.
D. sinuata is invading open spaces in
Riverside County and Ventura County. The
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service actually ordered
CalTrans to stop using D. sinuata in the
Coachella Valley because it was escaping
roadsides and getting into neighboring open
spaces. San Diego County has maintained
that their seed mix is appropriate because it is
meant to be used only in already disturbed
areas around homes. But the fires happened
in wildland areas at the urban-wildland
interface, and many damaged homes are
directly adjacent to open space and in upper
parts of our watersheds.
One of the authors personally spoke
with a family who owns 10 acres in the
unincorporated eastern part of the county
that was affected by the fire. They had no
structures on their property, so it was basically
open space. They went to one of the county’s
erosion control centers and were prescribed
the non-native/native seed mix to use on their
property. They specifically asked for a seed
mix that would not affect native habitats and
were told that the seed mix was native and
would not cause any problems. Fortunately,
we let these individuals know about D.
sinuata and T. hirtum. But in cases like this,
the county’s intention—that the seed mix
would only be used in disturbed areas around
structures—was not the actual practice.
We learned many things after these most
recent fires. One of the most important is that
Agencies like the NRCS and USFS do
not have clear guidelines for post-fire
erosion control. In fact, one can find
articles on their websites that recommend
planting not only rye grass and African
daisy, but English ivy and iceplant as
well (weblink below). Such articles can
give the message to any citizen or land
manager that this is what federal land
managers recommend doing. It is crucial
that the NRCS and others work on
better guidelines and update their
information.
Letters
Hi friends,
I am a botanist-naturalist in New Hampshire. I’m
the governor’s appointed public representative on the
New Hampshire Invasive Species Commission. I was
very impressed with your [landscaping alternatives]
brochure on choosing the right plants. We are about to
embark on an educational component to our work here.
We are unusual in New Hampshire in that we are
empowered by the legislature to create a list of plants
that will no longer be allowed to be sold. This has
caused some issues with three popular landscaping
plants that are proven invasives in New Hampshire.
California and New Hampshire are so different, but
we also have so much in common. The names are
different but the problems are certainly nation- and
world-wide. Please sign me up as a member so I can
follow what you are doing for informational
purposes.Thanks,
Deb Lievens, Londonderry, New Hampshire
ker
Cartoon from The N
Nee w Yor
orker
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
9
WEED ALER
T
ALERT
Brachypodium sylvaticum (slender false brome)
Jim JJohnson,
ohnson, SStr
tr
eamkeeper
an F
rancisquito Watershed Council
treamkeeper
eamkeeper,, SSan
Francisquito
The first California collection of Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.)
Beauv. (slender false brome or false brome) was identified in early
December, 2003, by Dr. Fred Hrusa, senior plant systematist for
CDFA Plant Pest Diagnostic Center, from specimens sent to him
through the San Mateo County Department of Agriculture. The
plants were found growing in the San Francisquito Creek watershed
located in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. He has given it a Q
rating, a provisional status, pending evaluation of the plant’s invasive
potential by a state committee that will be established for the species.
web-site on the plant at
Nature Conservancy at
Brachpodium sylvaticum is a very invasive, perennial, non-rhizomatous bunchgrass native to Eurasia and North Africa. It thrives in a
broad range of conditions, from fairly deep shade to full sun, from
dry upland prarie to riparian corridor, from near sea-level to 3500
feet. From my experience the plant does not go dormant, and under
the right conditions produces seed throughout the year. It recovers
quickly after fire, is not particularly palatable to wildlife or stock and
the clumps coalesce to form a dense groundcover shading out low
growing plants and preventing seed germination.
B. sylvaticum, foreground, along Highway 84 in the Santa Cruz
Mountains.
It is, however, currently widespread in Oregon, particularly surrounding the Willamette Valley, and expanding rapidly. Federal and state
agencies, companies and non-profits there have established a False
Brome Working Group in Oregon to deal with the infestation which
covers some 10,000 acres in the state. They have decided eradication
is impossible and that containment is the only option. We might
expect similar invasiveness in parts of California and should lose no
time in mapping the extent of the current invasion, beginning
control and, in particular, familiarizing those concerned about
wildland weeds in California with the plant so they can begin to look
for it. The Oregon False Brome Working Group maintains a good
10 Cal-IPC News Winter 2004
The grass is easily identified once one is familiar with it. The pictures
on the web and accompanying this article should provide a strong
visual cue to the observer. The following description is my own from
collections of this infestation. Systematists with a broader range of
specimens will have slightly different details. Most distinctive in
identifying false brome is the single row of ciliate-pilose hairs fringing
the leaf blade and similar hairs covering the leaf sheath and accentuated at the collar.
The leaf sheath is
open to the base.
Leaf surfaces are
sparsely covered by
similar hairs (very
sparse on the
abaxial-dorsalsurface in specimens from this
infestation recently
collected). The leaf
blades are a
distictive bright
green, flat, about
Photo courtesy John Beall
Photo courtesy John Beall
It is, moreover, a handsome plant, likely introduced in Oregon
through the horticultural trade. Indeed, when I first discovered it
several years ago, I had hoped it was native so we could use it in our
native revegetation projects. As time went by and no one was able to
identify it (being new to California,
it is not listed in state floras), we
Mandy T
uo
Tu
off TNC’
TNC’ss
began to grow suspicious. NeverOregon Field Office
theless, succumbing to its charm,
sa
ys, “Get it no
w…
say
now
two years ago I planted it in a
before it’s too late!”
revegetation site isolated from the
wildlands in a creekside urban park
where I could keep an eye on it. It has formed a dense cover 12-18
inches high where it was planted and the patch has quadrupled in
size through seed dispersal. We will now gain our first experience in
false brome control by eliminating this infestation.
and the open sheath are diagnostic,
according to what others have written.
Photo courtesy John Beall
Brachypodium sylvaticyum has no
rhizomes or stolons. Each plant
increases its size by bunching at the
base until individual plants coalesce to
form a solid mass. The roots are
surprisingly weak for a deep-rooted
bunch grass, so the plants are easy to
pull with the right soil moisture,
particularly if the plants are lifted first
with a spading fork. Care must be
exercized so that all basal growth
points are eliminated. But this is
tedious. Glyphosate is probably a
better option for control of pure
stands. Seeds are said to be short-lived.
B. sylvaticum among redwood trees.
10-12 mm wide and 20 cm long. They are
lax, curving downward from the center of the
plant. The thin flowering culms (about 4 dm
long) similarly nod. The inflorescence consists
of six or more sessile (or very short stalked)
spikelets, each about 1 cm apart on the
drooping rachis. The awnless glumes subtending the spikelet are small and persistant on the
rachis, which does not disarticulate. The
spikelets contain 8 or more florets on short
pedicels. The lemmas are longer than the
glumes and bear awns (10-12 mm) longer
than themselves. But I believe the flat,
nodding leaf blade, the leaf and sheath hairs
The plant is will established around
Schilling Lake in Portola Valley in San
Mateo County on the peninsula south
of San Francisco. It must have been
there for some time. Though we have
not fully mapped the extent of the infestation, it stretches at least 1 mile (the area of
most dense cover is about 1/2 mile long)
along the steep canyon of Dennis Martin
Creek from near the base of the Santa Cruz
Mountains to the crest, perhaps. Its spread
laterally from the creek is unknown.This is
mostly redwood forest. It does not seem to
grow in the densest shade of the redwoods,
but does well where there are sun breaks and
in the mixed evergreen forest nearby. In those
few spots where there is full sun, it grows
luxuriantly.
The center of the infestation is on
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(MROSD) land in Thornewood Open Space
Preserve and their resource manager is very
interested in controlling the infestation. It also
occurs on private property along Grandview
Terrace and Espinoza Drive at Highway 84
near Skylonda. Our San Mateo County Weed
Management Area (WMA), the county
agriculture commission, and the local CNPS
chapter are very concerned also. Regardless of
state designation, this is definitely a plant to
become familiar with, identify and eradicate
where possible in California. It has the
potential to become widspread in the coastal
mountains with serious ecological implications. As Mandy Tu of The Nature
Conservancy’s Oregon Field Office said when
hearing of our collection, “Get it now…before
it’s too late!”
Follow up note: On January 13th, a group of
representatives from MROSD, the California
Native Plant Society, the San Francisquito
Watershed Council, California State Parks,
and other members of the San Mateo County
WMA visited the B. sylvaticum infestation to
appraise the situation and begin making
management decisions. They estimated the
extent of the infestation at approximately 30
acres. Approximately half of this area is on
MROSD land, and half is on adjacent or
nearby private land. Much of the area is also
heavily populated with native, perennial
grasses, which will pose additional management challenges. The group will coordinate
through the Weed Management Area to
determine the best methods for control. They
will likely start by containing the infestation,
then work on eradication.
IPINAMS: Landmark conference on invasives
In November, the first ever IPINAMS
(“Invasive Plants in Natural and Managed
Systems”) conference was held in Fort
Lauderdale, FL. The meeting was organized
by the Weed Science Society of America and
the Ecological Society of America, and
represented a historical coming together of
researchers studying invasive plants from
different disciplines. Over 800 people
attended from around the world, sharing
their research, experience and ideas on
invasive plant biology and control. Keynote
speakers included the Executive Director of
the U.S. National Invasive Species Council
and Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth.
Many items from the National Management
Plan were addressed during the conference,
including Early Detection/Rapid Response,
regulatory streamlining, prevention, control
and management, restoration, education. At a
workshop on nursery introductions, Cal-IPC’s
landscaping brochure was well-received.
The IPINAMS organizing committee
was co-chaired by Carla D’Antonio and
Nelroy Jackson, both past board
members of Cal-IPC.
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
11
Readings
Readings,,
Resources &
Reviews
The Federal Interagency Committee for the
Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
(FICMNEW) has released an updated version
of their National Early Detection and Rapid
Response System for Invasive Plants in the
tates
United SStates
tates. Those wishing to participate
in Phase II testing and development of the
local, state, and regional aspects of the system
should contact FICMNEW. To view the
National EDRR plan visit
The California Watershed Network and the
Watershed Management Council released a
or
um
report on the California Watershed F
For
orum
held in September, 2003. The report
identifies the main issues facing watershed
partnerships, and outlines an action plan with
four primary aspects of communication,
funding and technical support,
regionalization, and self-help.
Two new publications are available through
the Aquatics Ecosystem Restoration Foundation
tion: Best Management Practices for Aquatic
Plant Management and Economic Impact of
Aquatic Weeds-Literature Review.
asiv
The Alien Plant Working Group’s Inv
nvasiv
asivee
Plant Calendar for 2004 is now complete
and available on-line. The calendar includes
invasive plant meetings, workshops, and other
events.
The Center for Invasive Plant Management
is once again offering grants up to $5,000 for
enhancement of Cooperative Weed Management Areas in the West. Deadline for
proposals is March 5, 2004. Online application form at
ess rrelease
elease for your weed
Want to write a pr
press
event? The Center for Invasive Plant Management has tips on how to do so.
anagement Website
The Organic Weed M
Management
provides organic gardeners with information
about the biology of garden weeds, including
identification, management strategies and
ecological information.
A University of Nevada Cooperative Extension fact sheet on “Measures to Prevent the
Spr
ead of N
oxious and IInv
nv
asiv
nvasiv
asivee Weeds
pread
No
ctivities
During Constr
uction A
Construction
Activities
ctivities”” is available at
Treatment Calendar
Adapted from a card put out by the Solano County Weed Management Area, which is double sided
and outlines the timing for control of barbed goatgrass, medusahead, common reed, arundo, and
pampasgrass, in addition to the weeds below. To obtain a copy of the calendar contact the WMA
through their website at
Solano County Weed Management Area 2002
Broadleaf Weeds
Jan.
Feb.
Yellow starthistle,
Purple starthistle
Artichoke thistle
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Transline®
2,4-D, Dicamba, Garlon® or
glyphosate
Grazing
Mowing
Burning
Garlon3A®
Remove flowers previous spring, glyphosate in following spring
Cut near base, paint with 25% glyphosate
Foliar: glyphosate,
Arsenal®, or Garlon 3A®
Cut near ground, apply Garlon 4® or
Pathfinder to stump®
Tamarisk
Hand pulling or hoeing
glyphosate, Prowl®
or 2,4-D
Puncturevine
dithiopyr preemergence
Perennial
pepperweed
Mowing
12 Cal-IPC News Winter 2004
Chopper®, Telar®, Do not apply these herbicides near water.
Arsenal®, Stalker®
2,4-D or glyphosate If dense, mow area and apply to resprouting plants.
Dec.
The WILDLAND WEED CALENDAR
Are you holding a weed event? If you have a
regional, statewide, or national event that
you would like to see mentioned here, please
send info to
Wor
kshop on the C
ritical IIssues
ssues of B
iological
orkshop
Critical
Biological
Control
February 1-3, 2004
Greenbelt, MD
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), will host
a workshop on critical issues in biological
control. The workshop will seek to determine
how ARS can best contribute to the advancement of biological control.
Contact Chris Dionigi or Ernest S. Delfosse of
the ARS, 301-504-6470.
Idaho Weed Confer
ence
Conference
February 4-5, 2004
Nampa, ID
Presentations will include the ecology of weed
invasions, early detection of leafy spurge and
other weeds using NASA program techniques,
nursery establishment, distribution and
montitoring of important biological control
agents for knapweeds, purple loosestrife and
toadflaxes.
Weed Science SSociety
ociety of America Annual
Meeting
February 9-12, 2004
Kansas City, MO
Symposium topics will include: the fate of
agrochemical in the environment and the
implications for water quality, remote sensing,
crop biotechnology, and the sustainability of
glyphosate.
Inv
asiv
pecies P
lant Wor
kshop
nvasiv
asivee SSpecies
Plant
orkshop
February 12-13, 2004
Kansas City, MO
The North America Weed Management
Association (NAWMA) will co-sponsor an
Invasive Plant Species Workshop with the
Weed Science Society of America (WSSA),
following the WSSA meetings.
National IInv
nv
asiv
war
eness Week
nvasiv
asivee Weed A
Awar
wareness
(NIW
AW 5)
(NIWA
February 23-26, 2004
Washington, DC
This event keeps growing, with weed
advocates attending from around the country
to attend sessions with high-ranking agency
officials and lawmakers. Property rights and
the passage of HR 119, providing $100
million to local WMAs, are sure to be
important topics this spring.
Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)
Meeting
March 2-3, 2004
Oahu, HI
A field tour is tentatively scheduled for ISAC
members on March 4, 2004.
Inv
asiv
pecies Wor
king G
eeting
nvasiv
asivee SSpecies
orking
Grroup M
Meeting
March 15, 2004
Spokane, WA
Association (NMFWA) will hold its annual
training workshop in conjunction with the
North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. The Invasive Species
Working Group of NMFWA will meet at
8:00 a.m.
Living Landscapes: Linking Ethnobiology
and Restoration Ecology in the Revival of
Native Systems
March 24-27, 2004
Davis, CA
The 27th annual conference of the Society of
Ethnobiology will discuss the enduring
stewardship legacy of the Native peoples of
the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Ecology and Management of California
Grasslands
April 2-3, 2004
Berkeley, CA
Sponsored by the California Biodiversity
Center. Conference attendees will compare
research findings and explore the scientific
basis for management decisions.
Nativ
rasses and G
raminoids: Tools for
ativee G
Grasses
Graminoids:
Protecting Water Q
uality
Quality
April 22-25, 2004
Modesto, CA
Annual conference of the California Native
Grass Association. Three days are split
between workshops, technical sessions, and
fieldtrips.
The National Military Fish and Wildlife
Quotable:
Putting in rye grass does not help with
“erosion…
It provides a superficial cover of roots that won’t do
enough to stabilize the soil.
”
Bill Tippets, California Department of Fish and Game, in the
San Diego Union Tribune, November 14, 2003.
With a flavor like candy, Yellow Star
“Thistle
Honey comes from a vibrant wildflower growing
throughout Northern California. As the [human] population
grows, stands of these yellow, fuzzy flowers become fewer and
fewer. Beekeepers vie for hive locations in the last areas densely
covered with Yellow Star Thistle. Use honey happily because
honey has NO FAT!
”
California Yellow Star Thistle Honey label, from the Moon Shine
Trading Co., Woodland, CA. Available at Peet’s Coffee & Tea.
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
13
New and Contributing Members
Thank yyou
ou for yyour
our gener
ous suppor
t! This list reflects donors and
generous
support!
new members since the last newsletter.
Donations
Tarja SSagar
agar (Thousand Oaks)
Julie E
tra (Western Botanical Services, Reno)
Etra
Ken P
oerner (Solano Land Trust, Fairfield)
Poerner
Life Members
John R. Ekhoff (Cal. Dept. of Fish & Game, Long Beach)
Joan and Kevin Bockman (Buena Vista Native Plant Club, Oceanside)
Elizabeth Crispin (Mount Shasta)
Gigi H
urst (Habitat West, Inc., Escondido)
Hurst
Micki Kelly (Kelly Biological Consulting, San Anselmo)
Sustaining Members
Greg Ar
chbald (Grass Valley)
Archbald
Christie & John Hastings (Lafayette)
P.L. Ov
ermir
Overmir
ermiree (San Francisco)
Sally Falkenhagen (Menlo Park)
James S. Young (El Cerrito)
Zeb Young (Santa Rosa)
Annette Wheeler (Los Altos Hills)
Darlene Chirman (Chirman Biological Consulting, Santa Barbara)
Victoria Jadali (Thousand Oaks)
Carolyn Johnson (Sebastopol)
Stan Weider
eidertt (Shingletown)
Contributing Members
Clar
ence Weinmann (Berkeley)
Clarence
Mar
ynn Co
aryy L
Lynn
Coxx (CNPS, Kensington)
Betty Kipp (CNPS, Berkeley)
Dorothy B. Hunt (Pacific Grove)
W illiam J. M
cClung (Claremont Canyon Conservancy, Berkeley)
McClung
Henry E. Bennet (Davis)
Nadene Ivens (Fullerton)
T. Charles M
oor
Moor
ooree (Sunnyvale)
June B
ilisoly (Portola Valley)
Bilisoly
Jennifer Langford (Jenesis Ecological Services, Avila)
Mark Langner (California State Parks, Bridgeport)
Matthew Zlatunich (San Francisco)
Irene Winston (Berkeley)
Collette Z
emetis (Dept. of Water Resources, Davis)
Zemetis
Laura Morgan (Oakland)
Michael Wood (Walnut Creek)
Kenneth C. Johnson (Santa Clara)
Christina M. Korten (LA Unified School District, Los Angeles)
Peter R
udy (Big Chief Tree Service, El Cerrito)
Rudy
New Individual Members
Alan E
rickson (Yucca Valley), Allan Thode (Murphys), Allan W. B
eeson
Erickson
Beeson
(A.W. Beeson & Associates, Nevada City), Allison Connor (Berkeley), Alys
Wall (San Diego State University, San Diego), Ann Lange (Back Country
rikson (Master Gardener,
Horseman of America, Lake Isabella), Anne T. E
Erikson
Santa Barbara), Ari Golan (San Rafael), Barbara Brydolf (River Ridge Ranch,
Springville), Barbara Williams (BLM, Lodi), Becky Fewel (Santa Cruz),
Belinda G
ilber
itz Jr
Gilber
ilbertt (CNPS, Ahwahnee), B enjamin H
Hitz
Jr.. (Santa Barbara),
Bess Christensen (CNPS, Lompoc), Betty DeShong Meador (Ramona),
Betty Tomeo (Santa Monica), Bill Ralph (Livermore), Bob Young (CNPS,
utemoeller (Redwood Coast Land Conservancy, Gualala),
San Carlos), Bob R
Rutemoeller
Bonnie Mary Rathjen (Pleasanton), Brad Monroe (Ornamental Horticulture, El Cajon), Brad Olson (East Bay Regional Parks District, Oakland),
Bruce Pavlik (BMP Ecosciences, Oakland), Buck King (Oakland), Carl
Hurst (Ramona), Car
ol D. Weiske (Greenbrae), Carr
oll B
Carol
Carroll
Brrentano
w (Cal Poly, SLO, Arroyo Grande), Cher
yl
(Berkeley), Celeste Whitlo
Whitlow
Cheryl
Ingersoll (Corvallis, OR), Cheryl Miller (Amphion, Oakland), Chip Bouril
(Yountville), Chris K. Kjeldsen (Santa Rosa), Chris Todd (Garden Escapes
by Chris, Sunnyvale), Christopher C. Brant (CNPS, Eureka), Christopher
Campbell (Natural Areas Program, San Francisco), Collete Zemetis (Dept.
unoz (Los Angeles), Daud SSenzai
enzai
of Water Resources, Davis), Daniel T. M
Munoz
14 Cal-IPC News Winter 2004
Jennifer E. Tillman (La Jolla)
Alan M. Vigeant (CNPS, San Mancos)
Andr
Andree w Werner (Santa Cruz)
William & Wilma Follette (Sausalito)
Barbara Malloch Leitner (Leitner Biological Consulting, Orinda)
Bertha McKinley (CNPS, El Cerrito)
Susan Schwartz (Friends of Five Creeks, Berkeley)
Lessly Ann Wikle (Berkeley)
James T. D
uncan (Ashland, OR)
Duncan
Steve Gaiser (Sierra Madre)
Jean Starkweather (Marin Conservation League, San Rafael)
Sarah Jayne (Irvine)
Family Members
Tom B
arr
en (Berkeley)
Brrougham & B
Barr
arryy Warr
arren
Keith & Gail Lester (Audubon Canyon Ranch, San Rafael)
David & P
ar
ticia M
elcher
Par
articia
Melcher
elchertt (Stroudwater Design Group, Mill Valley)
Catherine S. Linden (Chico)
Franklin & Jean Olmsted (Foothills Park, Palo Alto)
John & H
ermi H
iatt (Red Rock Audubon Society, Las Vegas, NV)
Hermi
Hiatt
John Osborne & Abe Doherty (Oakland)
Kathleen Coogan & SStev
tev
herman (Cal. Landscape Technologies, Cardiff )
tevee SSherman
Michael & Jerre White (Conservation Biology Institute, Encinitas)
Edna & D
avid Vollmer (Santa Cruz)
David
John & Nancy Harris (Huntington Beach)
D.B. & Nancy Cameron (Nevada City)
Bur
andra M
ey
er (CNPS Yerba Buena Chapter, San Francisco)
urtt & SSandra
Mey
eyer
James & Nancy Harris (CNPS, Huntington Beach)
Don & Kelley Brandeau (Brandeau Associates, Sunnyvale)
Arlene Kallen (Sebastaopol)
Charity Kenyon (Galt)
George & Helene Strauss (Berkeley)
David W impfheimer (Point Reyes)
Rocky & Fakhria Mussadi (Los Gatos)
Duke M
cP
herson (McPherson Tree Care, Santa Barbara)
McP
cPherson
Institutional Members
DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. (Chino)
S & S Seeds (Carpinteria)
CA State Parks and Recreation (Sacramento)
The N
atur
Natur
aturee Conser
Conservvancy (Tucson, AZ)
Bureau of Land Management (Folsom)
El Cerrito Garden Club (Albany)
Cache C
Crreek Conser
Conservvancy (Woodland)
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (Sacramento)
City of Boulder/OSMP (Boulder, CO)
Filoli Center (Woodside)
U.C. Berkeley Botanical Garden (Berkeley)
Ventura County R
esour
ce Conser
istrict (Somis)
Resour
esource
Conservvation D
District
Tower IIndoor
ndoor G
ar
den (Fresno)
Gar
arden
Helen C
ussell Librar
tr
ybing Arbor
etum (San Francisco)
Crrocker R
Russell
Libraryy, SStr
trybing
Arboretum
(CDFA, Lemon Grove), David Allen (Carpinteria), David C. Long (Mill
elley (K&AES, Inc., Davis), David Loeb (Bay Nature
Valley), D avid K
Kelley
Magazine, Berkeley), David S. Hollombe (Los Angeles), Dawn Cope
ens (NH Invasive
(Monterey), D ean W. Llo
Lloyyd (Grass Valley), D eborah Liev
Lievens
ora R. H
er
tz (Laguna Beach),
Species Commission, Londonberry, NH), D ev
evora
Her
ertz
Dianne Lake (CNPS, Pinole), Dimples Belyer (Meadow Vista), Douglas
Fischer (Santa Barbara), Douglas Kirb
eborah J. Coon
Kirbyy (Topanga), Dr. D
Deborah
d F
(NWF Habitat Steward, San Diego), E dwar
dward
F.. Tuttle (UCLA, Los Angeles),
E dwar
d M
unyak (Los Altos), E laine I. Woodriff (Petaluma), Elaine P
dward
Munyak
P..
Wor
thington JJackson
ackson (CNPS East Bay Chapter, Martinez), E li Asarian
orthington
(Arcata), Elizabeth Carlton (Oakland), Elizabeth Schwartz (Los Angeles),
Elizabeth Warne (Sacramento), Frank D
amgaar
d (Carmel Valley), G alen SSapp
app
Damgaar
amgaard
oor
(CNPS, San Francisco), G erald L. M
Moor
ooree (Petaluma), Gilber
ilbertt R. (Ray) Van
D e Water (CNPS, Gualala), G loria E
iv
en
Eiv
ivee (CNPS, San Leandro), Gw
Gwen
Heistand (Audubon Canyon Ranch, Stinson Beach), H. Martin Pancoast
ijkstra (Mountian
(Meadow Vista), H all N
Nee wbegin (Berkeley), Helen T. D
Dijkstra
View), Holly Warner (Upper Merced River Watershed, Midpines), Hugh
Safford (USFS, Davis), James A. Martin (Environmental Collaborative,
ontgomer
ames P
ommier (Pacifica), Jean
Emeryville), James M
Montgomer
ontgomeryy (San Diego), JJames
Pommier
D. Holden (CNPS, Sonoma), Jean Swanson (Arvense Horticultural Consultor
ur
khar
ing, Los Altos), Jean Vandev
andevor
ortt (Felton), Jeff B
Bur
urkhar
khartt (University of La
dler (Shelterbelt Builders, Oakland), Jill F
lor
es
Verne, La Verne), Jennifer A
Adler
Flor
lores
(Santa Ana), Jim Sherar (Wilton), Jinji Wimalasena (Davis), Joan Curry
(CNPS, Mendocino), Joe Donaldson (ASLA, San Luis Obispo), Joel
Myerson (Berkeley), John Canaday (Dept. of Homeland Security, San
Francisco), John Coy (Jones & Stokes, Bakersfield), John Messina (San
Diego), John Richards (Pacific Restoration Group, Corona), John Stebbins
ate
wood (Oakland), Jon SShilling
hilling and P
eter Boffey
atewood
Peter
(Clovis), John V. G
Gate
(Pacific Coast Seed, Livermore), Judith Gielow (Costa Mesa), Judy Bendix
(Mosaic Associates, Pinole), Kate Kramer (Kramer Native Seed Co., Redlands),
Kathi Backus (CNPS, Audubon, Santa Barbara), Kathleen Greenberg
(Mediterranean Garden Society Lafayette), Kathleen L
Lyyons (Biotic Resources
Group, Soquel), Kelley & Linda Skeff (Palo Alto), Ken Dursa (Salinas), Ken
Niessen (CNPS, Ojai), Ken P
oerner (Solano Land Trust Fairfield), Kit B
atten
Poerner
Batten
allar
d
(UC Davis Dept. of Land, Air & Water Resources), Larr
Larryy B
Ballar
allard
(Carpinteria), Laura S. Julian (Blue Lake), Leona Ruegg (San Carlos), Licia
DeMeo (Natural Areas Program, San Francisco), Linda Aberborn (LSA
Environmental Consultant, Benicia), Linda Owens (Half Moon Bay), Lindsay
E. P
asar
ow (Banning), Lisa SSer
er
fini (Sacramento City College, Davis), Lynn
Pasar
asaro
erfini
Vavra (Long Beach), Lynn Webb (Cal. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection,
ee Althouse (Paso Robles), M. SSteele
teele (Laguna Niguel), M.P
Willits), LynnD
ynnDee
M.P..
Murphy (Ornamental Horticulturist, Garden Valley), Machiel Van D
am
Dam
(Beverly Hills), Marcus H. Bole (Wheatland), Mark Bibbo (UC Davis),
Mar
k F
ritzke (Jacoby Creek Land Trust, Bayside), Mar
k Lawless (Poway),
ark
Fritzke
ark
Martha Manion (Emerald Hills), Mary E. Hintz (Santa Maria), Mary Kaye
(Mary Kaye Landscape Design, Los Altos), Mary McClanahan (California
ooney (Los Osos), Mer
yl A. F
aulkner
Water Institute, Fresno), Melissa M
Mooney
eryl
Faulkner
Cal-IPC stuff…
(Project Wildlife, La Jolla), Michael Bostwick (San Diego Zoo, San Diego),
arangio (El Cerrito), Michael
Marangio
Michael Klinkenberg (Weldon), M ichael M
Nettles (Berkeley), Michael O’Halloran (San Jose), Mike Sovich (Glendale),
Mr
alieri (Glendale), Ms. G
eorgie Waugh (Dans), Nancy
Mr.. & Mrs. Louis Cav
Cavalieri
Georgie
edeff
Br uce (Springville), Nancy F
arr
ell (CRMS, Paso Robles), Nicole N
Nedeff
Farr
arrell
err
on (The Barricia Vineyard, Sonoma), Patrick
(Carmel Valley), Patricia H
Herr
erron
kain
Schlemmer (San Francisco Naturalist Society, San Francisco), Patrick SSkain
(San Francisco), Paul Biehler (Kelseyville), Paul Grunland (CNPS, Berkeley),
Paul Hansch (Paul Hansch Landscaping, Sutter Creek), Paul Ostler (Mariack (Santa Cruz), P
eigi D
uv
all (InDig Design, Woodside),
posa), Paula M
Mack
Peigi
Duv
uvall
Peter B
ay
mith (Monterey), Poppy D
avis
Bay
ayee (Annapolis), Philomene R. SSmith
Davis
ohn Little (Sycamore
(USDA Risk Management Agency, Guinda), R. JJohn
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Sacramento), R.W
R.W.. Van Alstyne (Fort
Bragg), Randy Philips (National Park Service, Newbury Park), Rebecca Hufft
iller (H.T. Harvey & Associates,
(UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz), Regine M
Miller
addo
Fresno), Rick M
Maddo
addoxx (Maddox Consulting, Santa Rosa), Rober
obertt P
P.. Leach
(Sacramento), Robert Soost (Inverness), Robin Thompson (El Dorado
entr
Hills), Robin Wall (CSU Sacramento, Pacifica), Russell G
Gentr
entryy (Placerville),
Sharon Komarow (Palo Alto), Sheila Lagios (Tiburon), Stan Iversen
(Aptos), Stanley R. Maus (UC Davis Arboretum), Stephen Batchelder
(Consulting Arborist, Crockett), Steve Ahles (Ahles Landscape Architecture,
Cardiff by the Sea), Steve Matson (Crystal Bay), Sue Britting (Coloma),
Susan B
ainbridge (Jepson Herbarium, Berkeley), Susan H
opkins (A.V. Unity
Bainbridge
Hopkins
ca (Suzanne Arca Landscaping,
Club Garden Society, Boonville), Suzanne Ar
Arca
uin (Thousand Oaks), Tara A
than (Redwood Valley),
Albany), Tanya Q
Quin
Athan
Thomas D. Bostrom (Bostrom and Associates, Ojai), Thomas J. Belzer
(Pasadena City College, Pasadena), Timothy A. Evans (Canoga Park), Virginia
Baker (Santa Barbara), Wendy Wahlund (A&L Feed and Garden,
eJ
ager (Castro Valley), W illiam L. Teufel (San
McKinleyville), W illam R. D
DeJ
eJager
arlo
w (El
Geronimo), Z elda B
Brronstein (CNPS, Berkeley), Zo ya V. Akulo
Akulovv a-B
a-Barlo
arlow
Cerrito)
All proceeds from the sale of Cal-IPC merchandise go directly to the
work we do to protect California’s wildlands from invasive plants.
Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. 2003.
Joseph M. DiTomaso and Evelyn A. Healy.
Published by University of California Press. 442
pages, more than 550 color photos. Each species
description provides detailed iinformation on the
distribution, habitat, propagation, phenology,
management considerations, and characteristics that
allow distinguishing between similar or related species.
$48.30 includes tax and shipping
Inv
asiv
lants of California
nvasiv
asivee P
Plants
California’’s Wildlands. 2000. Edited
by Carla Bossard, John M. Randall, and Marc C.
Hoshovsky.. Published by University of California
Press. 360 pages, 133 color photographs, includes
distribution maps and control information.
$31.88 includes tax and
shipping
Landscaping Alternatives brochure
The product of an extensive collaborative process,
this 14-panel brochure presents the connection
between landscaping and wildland weed problems,
and gives safe alternatives for a dozen invasive
plants sold in the San Francisco Bay Area. Target
species include iceplant, vinca, English ivy, brooms
and pampasgrass. See pdf file at
for more detail.
$30.00
$30.00/hundred brochures requested donation
Logo water bottle
These quart-size Nalgenes are
perfect for a hike, a day at the
desk or a day in the field.
Comes in dark blue, violet,
turquise, sage green, and bright
green.
$18.00 includes tax and
shipping
T-S
hir
ts
-Shir
hirts
Help spread the word, not the
weeds! Our new high-quality
cotton tees have the Cal-IPC logo
on the front, and “Save California’s
Landscape! Stop the Invasion of
Wildland Weeds” on the back. Shirt
colors: Navy, Grey, White. Shirt
sizes: YM, YL, S, M, L, XL.
$18.00 includes tax and shipping
Visit
or color
phot
os and or
der fforms
orms
o place an
photos
order
orms.. T
To
or
der
10) 525-15
02.
order
der,, call (5
(51
525-1502.
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2004
15
Cal-IPC Membership Form
We’re wor
king to pr
otect California
om inv
asiv
working
protect
California’’s wildlands fr
from
invasiv
asivee plants—join us!
Cal-IPC’s effectiveness comes from a strong membership, including scientists, land managers, policy makers, and concerned citizens. Please
photocopy the form below, complete, and mail with your payment. Additional donations are always welcome to support our projects; we are a
501(c)3 nonprofit organization, and donations beyond regular membership rates are tax deductible.
Individual
Student/low income
$15
Regular
$30
Family
$40
Contributing
$50
Sustaining
$100
Life
$1,000
Institutional
Regular
$100
Contributing
$250
Patron
$500
Sustaining
$1,000
Name
Affiliation
Address
Additional donations for:
Nursery outreach and education
International Broom Initiative
Cape ivy biocontrols research
Cal-IPC News and operating costs
$
$
$
$
Ways to sign up:
Mail: send this form with check (made out to “Cal-IPC”) or credit card
info to Cal-IPC, 1442-A Walnut Street #462, Berkeley, CA 94709
Fax: fax form with credit card info to 510/217-3500
Email: send contact and credit card info to dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org
Phone: call us at 510/525-1502 and provide contact and credit card info
California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
A fuzzy vibrant wildflower, threatened by human expansion—
are we talking about the same yellow starthistle?! Page 13
City, State & Zip
Work Phone
Home Phone
Fax
Credit Card No.
Exp. Date
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Berkeley, CA
Permit No. 1435