Newsletter Vol 12 Issue 1, 2004 – California Invasive Plant Council

Cal-IPC News
Protecting California’s Natural Areas
fr
om Wildland W
eeds
from
Weeds

Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 2004

Quarterly newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council

Scottish Scourge

Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium),

once used by Scottish nobility to protect castles from invaders,
has become an invader itself in far northern California (feature story p. 4). Agricultural Commissioner Joe Moreo stands
in fr
ont of a Scotch thistle infestation in M
odoc County
front
Modoc
County..
Photo courtesy Carri Pirosko, CDFA

Inside:
New Tools: Flaming
Bladder senna project in Chico
California Conservation Corps
Genetically modified weeds?

From the Director’s Desk

The politics of weeds

1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 843-3902
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
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
Spring 2004 – Volume 12, Number 1
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.

Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Spring is an active time of year, and not just in nature. Lawmakers get busy with budgets
and legislation, and weed workers advocate for increased support. Our California delegation
joined other states’ representatives at the National Invasive Weed Awareness Week in
February. Then, in March,
groups in California
organized Invasive Weed
Day at the Capitol, which
brought attendees to
Sacramento for visits with
agency representatives and
legislators.
What are we after?
Resources, for one. The
tremendous amount of
work accomplished by
Weed Management Areas
in the last several years was
energized by the availability
of seed money. Though
grants were not large, they
leveraged extensive local
Washington D.C. in F
ebr
uar
Febr
ebruar
uaryy. The perfect time to get
participation in many
legislators thinking about spring…and invasive plants.
counties. Coordination is a
second goal. The WMAs
have illustrated the effectiveness with which agencies and land managers can collaborate at
the local level. We need similar action at the regional, state, and federal levels. Responsiveness
is a third, related goal. When new infestations are identified, it is key that we be able to
respond quickly—the resources must be in place and the relationships must already be
coordinated.
Recent state legislation introduced by Assemblymember Lois Wolk of Davis seeks to address
some of these problems. AB 2631 is designed to create a California Invasive Species Council
made up of representatives from eight state agencies, as well as an advisory committee that
would help the council develop statewide plans for action. The Nature Conservancy has
taken the lead on developing the legislation, with input from a range of stakeholders. Wolk
sponsored the legislation after being disappointed in the lack of resources and coordination
shown in response to the discovery of the invasive New Zealand mud snail in her district.
Whether such a council will improve matters remains to be seen, but it is certainly a step
forward in getting official recognition of the severity of the invasive species problem. We
thank The Nature Conservancy, as well as the many stakeholders that have worked with
them. If the council is created, we will actively lend our support to the mission of increasing
resources and coordination.
Tired of politics? Well, that’s OK, because we’re here to follow the developments for you and
let you know when it’s important to act. In the meantime, this issue of Cal-IPC News
features new info on flaming as a tool, the California Conservation Corps, a successful
eradication project in Chico, glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass, and more.
Have a great weed season out there!

Photo by Brianna Richardson

California
Invasive Plant
Council

Wildland Weed N
News
News
News
News
Neews
wsN
wsN
wsN
wsN
On February 24 the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR-2707
HR-2707, the “Saltcedar and
Russian Olive Control, Assessment, and
Demonstration Act.” This bill authorizes $6
million to assess the extent of the saltcedar
and Russian olive infestation in western states,
and $125 million through 2010 for
demonstration control projects. The companion bill S-1516 is on the Senate calendar.
Legislation text available at
SePRO’s herbicide Renovate (triclopyr) will
be registered for use in California in April,
2004. This aquatic herbicide targets
parrotfeather, water primrose, Eurasian
watermilfoil, and purple loosestrife. For more
information contact Scott Shuler at

top
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “S
“Stop
Aquatic Hitchhikers!” program has enjoyed
success in its first year, including: 54 formal
partners, an email news service with more
than 700 subscribers, generation of local and
national news coverage, and leveraging
approximately $1.8 million in direct and in-

Save the Date!

2004 Cal-IPC Symposium
October 7-9 in Ventura
Invasive Plants
and the Wildland/Urban Interface
kind support for outreach activities.

cer IIsland,
sland, Washington
Voters in Mer
ercer
defeated a ballot proposal that would have
increased property taxes to raise $12.5 million
over 10 years for fighting English ivy and
other invasive plants in the city’s forests and
open spaces.
A draft Alternative Consultation Agreement has been proposed between the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The agreement will
increase the EPA’s responsibilities for assessing
effects on threatened and endangered species

as part of their evaluation and re-evaluation of
herbicides. All EPA determinations will no
longer be reviewed by the services; instead
they will only conduct “periodic reviews.” The
agreement will also require the EPA to post its
endangered species determinations on-line
and to review new research conducted by
private and university researchers. Debate
about the agreement continues between
environmentalists, pesticide companies, and
agency representatives.
Several studies have shown that California’s
weeds are getting increasingly resistant to the
popular herbicide Roundup. Weed ecologist
Tom Lanini estimates that Roundupresistant weeds now affect 5,000 acres of
California farmland.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and the
National Environmental Coalition on Invasive
Species announced the release of the Call to
Action on Invasive Species
Species. Signed by
almost 800 invasive species experts and 120
citizen’s groups, the Call to Action challenges
the federal government to take a “more
comprehensive approach to protecting our
resources.”

Photo courtesy Holly Crosson

In 2003, the Connecticut legislature created
an Invasive Plants Council
Council, which makes
recommendations to the state government
about which plants should be banned from
sale. The state’s General Assembly is expected
to review the IPC’s recommendations in the
upcoming legislative session.

Scott Taylor of the SSan
an F
rancisco Weed M
anagement Ar
ea helped staff Cal-IPC’s booth at
Francisco
Management
Area
the San Francisco Flower and Garden Show. The show was held March 17-21 at the Cow
Palace. More than 2000 visitors left with the Cal-IPC ‘Don’t Plant a Pest’ brochure, and several
joined as members. The overwhelming response to our message was one of support; “I hate
broom!” was a common refrain among visitors.

The governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle,
pledged $20 million over the next four years
to support the Hawaii Invasive Species
Council in her State of the State address.

Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Featur
e
eature

The A-rated North

A profile of the beautiful but threatened northeastern counties of California
By Brianna Richardson
The words “northern California” make most people think of the San
Francisco Bay Area, though Humboldt redwoods may occur to a few
adventurers. But California covers more territory than that, and some
of the state’s most spectacular scenery and unusual invasive plants can
be found north of Redding. If you’ve driven Interstate 5 to Oregon,
you may have “seen” northerneastern California, but you’ve missed
many of the best parts. Home to the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen,
and Modoc National Forests, this area also boasts the Warner
Mountains, Mount Lassen, and Goose Lake. There are national
wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and the best fly-fishing in California
on Fall River and Hat Creek. The high deserts, snowy mountains,
volcanic uplands, montane forests, woodlands, and valleys of Modoc,
Lassen, and Siskiyou counties still look much like they did 150 years
ago. With a combined population of just 87,688, these counties still
have lots of wide open spaces.
Unfortunately, the scenery is not the only thing unique to northeastern California. This region is also home to the highest density of Arated noxious weeds, those weeds for which the California Department of Food and Agriculture mandates eradication. Many of these
weeds aren’t found, or are found in very limited numbers, in other
parts of California. Leafy spurge, squarrose knapweed, diffuse
knapweed, spotted knapweed, Scotch thistle, dalmation toadflax,
perennial sowthistle, musk thistle,
plumeless thistle, and taurian
thistle are some of the invaders
the northeastern counties
contend with.

Cape ivy, and Arundo are all scarce. Yellow starthistle, while
present, is very limited and is in fact treated as an A-rated weed in
both Lassen and Modoc counties, because it is uncommon
enough there to be considered eradicatable.
Shared borders with Oregon and Nevada, both of which host
invasive plants not yet widespread in California, are the primary
reason so many A-rated plants are found in the northeast. Sharing
fire-fighting equipment between states also brings the seeds and
plant parts of these invaders into the area. And because so much
of the land is undeveloped—rangeland, forestland, wildland—it
is particularly susceptible to invasion.
Many of the weeds in the northeast are well-suited to invading
other parts of California—they just haven’t gotten there yet.
Luckily for the rest of us, northeastern California takes its weed
work seriously.

Surprisingly, many of the invasive
plants that “get all the press” are
almost absent in the northeast
counties: pampasgrass, broom,

This perennial grows to eight feet in height and more than six feet
in diameter, with stems up to four inches thick. The leaves are
covered in a dense mat of hair. The globe-shaped flowers range
from dark pink to lavender. Each plant produces as many as
30,000 seeds, which last up to 20 years in the soil.
Joe Moreo, Modoc County Agricultural Commissioner, estimates
that 99% of the energy, time, and resources of his office are spent
fighting Scotch thistle, which is widespread in Modoc county, but
scarcely known elsewhere in the state.

Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Photo courtesy Carri Pirosko, CDFA

Above: Scotch thistle flower head.
Right: Weed wor
kers rremo
emo
oung Scotch thistle with
workers
emovve a yyoung
shovels.

Leafy spurge (Euphobia esula) infests more
than five million acres in the United States and
southern Canada. The plant’s sap causes blisters
in the mouths of cattle, rendering infested
rangeland useless. Control costs in Montana, the
Dakotas, and Wyoming are estimated at $40
million a year, with indirect costs running as
high as $89 million. There are only four known
populations in California, three of which
contain fewer than 100 plants.

Agricultural Commissioner’s Offices, weed
management areas, and public agencies in the area
accept their responsibility to eradicate A-rated
weeds uncompromisingly. The county noxious
weed programs in Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou
counties include mapping, monitoring and
surveying, and prodigious amounts of on-theground control. In 2003, these county agricultural
offices logged more than 13,000 personnel hours
in on-the-ground control.

In addition to on-the-ground control,
the northeastern counties also utilize
cutting edge GIS technology and boast
several weed mapping experts. Largely
self taught, these mappers come from
an invasive plant field background and
have a good sense of what works and
what doesn’t when mapping weeds.
They’ve formed a northern weed
mappers group and have almost
completed the task of putting all the
weeds in the north onto one map. They
hope to expand the map to include
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and
Arizona. In addition, they want to
design a common legend, with symbols
for each weed, that will be freely
available on-line to anyone mapping
weeds in the west. Moreo believes they
will need approximately 200 distinct
symbols to map all the weeds west of
the Mississippi.
Recently, Carri Pirosko of the California
Department of Food and Agriculture
has established formal monitoring plots
and is collecting both quantitative and
qualitative data. Her goals are to assess
different treatment methods and to
determine how long it takes to eradicate
various weeds from a particular site.
In addition to mapping and monitoring, the northeastern counties perform
extensive surveys each year as a first line

of defense against these A-rated weeds moving
south into the Sacramento valley. Every major
highway and many minor paved and unpaved
roads are surveyed annually.
The northern county Agricultural
Commissioner’s offices partner extensively with
other agencies, neighboring counties, and
neighboring states. Moreo’s office collaborates
regularly with Nevada State Wildlife Areas and
weed management areas, and on occasion lends
spray equipment to Pershing and Washoe
counties. Turner’s office is a member of the
Lassen SWAT (Special Weed Action Team)
weed management area, which has 26
cosignatories. She does note, however, that
Nevada’s Scotch and musk thistle control
programs are not as aggressive as Lassen
county’s, “which leaves [Lassen County]
fighting.”
Moreo also talks about the challenges that
come with being on the border. The single
infestation of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
that existed in Modoc county has been
eradicated. But source populations remain just
over the borders to the north and east. He is
also concerned about aquatic weeds that may
come in from Oregon and Nevada.
Other challenges that may seem more familiar
to weed workers in the rest of the state include
shortfalls in funding, personnel, and equipment. Funding, in particular, is a concern.
North continued on p.14…

Lynne Turner, the Agricultural Biologist for the
Lassen County Department of Agriculture, says the
department begins the season with chemical
treatment of dalmatian toadflax in mid-March.
They treat spotted and squarrose knapweed and
Scotch thistle throughout the season, performing
15-20 hours of aerial spraying, followed with truck
spraying and manual removal. On average, they
treat 800 net acres of noxious weeds each year and
an additional 200 miles of roadsides.

Photo courtesy Carri Pirosko, CDFA

During the treament season, the Modoc County
Agricultural Commissioner’s office has 10 spray rigs
out on any given day, and the roadside program
hires 12 seasonal staff. According to Joe Moreo, the
county’s Agricultural Commissioner, they have an
annual budget of $300,000 for weed control and
they spend 90% of it spraying. They begin with
helicopters and follow up with truck-mounted
sprayers. Moreo sees the spray program as a way to
hold these species in check until effective
biocontrol agents are available.

CDF
A’s Carri P
ir
osko with a pile of Scotch thistle that has been manually removed.
CDFA
Pir
irosko

Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Tools

Think Heat—
Heat—An introduction to flaming as a weed
control tool in wildlands (Part 1 of 2)
by Ken Moore, Founder, Wildlands Restoration Team, Santa Cruz, CA
Editor’s Note: The second installment in Think Heat, including
results from research plots established by Ken Moore and Carla
Bossard, will be published in an upcoming edition of the Cal-IPC
News.
It was a sight to drive fear into the
heart of even an old veteran weed
warrior like me. Using volunteers, I
had begun the initial removal of
French broom in state parks in the
Santa Cruz mountains, and now a
vast green carpet of broom seedlings, triggered by removing the
cover of those parent plants, was
rising from the ground like a tidal
wave. As the number of cleared sites
mounted, I began to wonder if we
could hold the ground we had
gained. Watching workers who had
enthusiastically pulled large plants
for hours fade fast when faced with
this seemingly endless carpet of
seedlings, I knew I was in trouble. I
needed a new approach—and
if I was to prevent seed set on these
hard won sites, I needed it quickly.

Flaming has been a key component of my broom control strategy
ever since. I would not have been able to prevent seed set from reoccurring on many of my sites without it. Because I now had such
an effective follow-up tool, I had the confidence to undertake the
removal of all the remaining broom I found in my work area, which
is scattered over some 40,000
acres in six state parks in the
Santa Cruz Mountains.
I am giving flaming workshops
with increasing frequency, and
have now trained many people
in several other agencies in this
area. Many of these people are
experimenting with flaming
other species, and I am looking
forward to getting their feedback.

Photo courtesy Ken Moore

St. Mary’s College of California
professor and former Cal-IPC
president Carla Bossard has set
up research plots on some of my
sites to document the effectiveness of flaming on French
broom, and to determine how
this relatively light application of
heat produces mortality without
I had read that flaming was an old
actually burning the plant. In an
technique used to control weed
upcoming article, we will jointly
seedlings in row crops using tractor
present her conclusions with the
mounted equipment, and the idea
anecdotal information I am
of using a hand held torch to
gathering from practitioners
control invasive species in wildlands
elsewhere and my own trials,
intrigued me. I was skeptical, but I
which I am now beginning on
was also desperate. Spraying wasn’t
other species here. (If any of you
Moore ‘green flaming’ French broom seedlings.
an option with my volunteers, and
have used this technique, contact
the broom was coming up everyme soon so we can include your findings as well.)
where—and fast. Results of an initial trial with a borrowed torch
Our article will also describe the variety of flaming equipment that
were encouraging, so I researched the range of equipment being
can be used for wildland weed control, the technique, safety
made and bought my first flaming gear.
protocols, and other considerations. Based on Carla’s findings and
the information I am gathering, we will try to synthesize guidelines
I soon realized I was on to something. With only a little practice, I
on the types of plants flaming might be expected to be effective on
was getting well over 90% kill in one application. Flaming was
here in California, some which it may not be effective on, and why.
reasonably fast, and very effective. The equipment required little
maintenance and was not expensive. I soon bought more equipFor now, here is some basic information about flaming:
ment, established some safety rules, and trained a few of my best
helpers. They were enthusiastic, and they quickly learned the
‘G
laming
‘Grreen
een’’ F
Flaming
technique. Bingo. Seed set was prevented, and thousands of hours
Flaming, sometimes called boiling, wilting, or blanching, can
of previous hard work was not squandered.
probably be used to control many as yet untested broadleaf species
6 Cal-IPC News Spring 2004

when they are in the very early stages of growth,
and may present a viable alternative to spraying
in these circumstances. Since the only byproduct
is carbon dioxide, it has minimal environmental
impact.
Contrary to what the name seems to imply, this
method of flaming does not involve incinerating
the plant. Heat is applied just long enough to
produce visible wilting. Plants do not become
brown and appear dead until the next day. How
this quick application of heat kills the plant is the
subject of much theorizing, and a combination of
factors may be involved. The results of Carla’s
research on the cause of mortality will be
presented later.
Flaming provides an effective way of coping with
the huge flush of seedlings which is often
triggered by the initial removal of parent plants,
when the site is relatively free of vegetation.This
window usually lasts two to four years on my
sites, and these are the years which typically
produce the largest crops of seedlings. Flaming
becomes less efficient in succeeding years as small
broom seedlings become harder to see and treat
among native species re-establishing on the site.
Flaming creates no ground disturbance, allowing
conditions favoring invasion to be brought to an
end much sooner than with hand pulling.
While flaming is not quite as fast as spraying
herbicide, it can be applied more selectively, and
there is no wind drift of spray to jeopardize
nearby plants. And, because plants are killed
when very small, there are no residual dead stalks
in the way to hinder future follow-up efforts.

NIW
AW V
ol W
eeds
NIWA
V:: Capit
Capitol
Weeds
The fifth annual National Invasive
Weeds Awareness Week (NIWAW) was
held February 23-28 in Washington
D.C. People from all over the country
(and at least one from Canada) met in
Washington to learn what is being done
about invasive plants at the federal level,
and to meet with their representatives to
discuss invasive plant issues and legislation.
This year’s California delegation included
David Chang, Santa Barbara County
Agricultural Commissioner’s Office; Bob
Case, Contra Costa County Department
of Agriculture; Nelroy Jackson, National
Invasive Species Advisory Committee;
Steve Schoenig, California Department of
Food and Agriculture; and Brianna
Richardson, California Invasive Plant
Council.
Mornings were spent in briefings with
federal agency representatives from the
U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, who outlined
existing and future programs for dealing
with invasive weeds and invasive species
in general. We learned that: the U.S.
Geological Survey is coordinating a
network of invasive species databases to
allow for early warning on new weed
pests; the Pulling Together Initiative will

continue funding Weed Management Areas
on a competitive basis; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service supports biological control
and will expedite all requests for review; and
the U.S. Forest Service supports increasing
funds available through its competitive grant
process.
Afternoons were spent visiting legislators on
Capitol Hill. The California delegation met
with 14 California legislators to discuss the
work being done in the state, and how the
federal government can help.
One of the goals of this year’s NIWAW was to
encourage legislators in the House to adopt
and pass the language of Senate bill S-144,
also known as the Craig bill. If passed, this
bill will provide $100 million for “weed
management entities” around the country.
The bill is currently in the House Resources
Committee, and has not been brought up for
a vote.
Another key goal for the legislative visits was
to encourage support for a national early
detection/rapid response system, including a
$50 million contingency fund. The
California delegation also garnered support
for the Broom Biological Controls funding
request that is being introduced by
NIW
AW, continued on pp.9…
.9…
NIWA

Photo courtesy Brianna Richardson

Flaming must be done when the ground and
vegetation is too wet to carry fire, and in
California this coincides with the time many of
our weedy species are at the right growth stage—
late winter and early spring. I like to flame best
when it is actually raining, as it eliminates any
chance of backfire and allows me to work safely in
conditions when other control methods are at
least unpleasant, or, as in the case of spraying,
infeasible.
So is flaming the answer to all our problems?
Certainly not. As with any method, flaming has
significant limitations. Site conditions may not be
wet enough during the short time when the
seedlings are small enough for flaming to be
possible. Although the equipment has effective
built-in safety devices, improper training or
Heat, continued on p.13…

California delegation (from left): David Chang, Bob Case, Steve Schoenig, Brianna
Richardson, Nelroy Jackson.
Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Project Profile

Bladder Senna Eradication Project in Chico’s Bidwell Park

Photo courtesy Susan Mason

In April, 2003, a small group of citizens in
Chico formed a park advocacy organization,
Friends of Bidwell Park. They were starting to
discuss ways to help the 3,670 acre park,
when the Chico Park Director commented
that he was concerned about bladder senna
spreading in the park’s Cedar Grove area. This
seemed like a good first project involving two
areas of concern—invasive plants and the
need to enlist more volunteers to help the
park. At the time, we were novices regarding
invasive plant removal.

We wanted to learn
more about the plant’s
characteristics, but little
accurate, scientific
information was
available, so we had to
rely on our own
observations. Bladder
senna is a large shrub in
the pea family and is
originally from the
Mediterranean area. It
spreads only by seeds,
A botanist identified the shrub of concern as
which are large (3-4
bladder senna (Colutea arborescens) and we
mm) and hard-coated.
started looking for it in the park, eventually
It is high in tannin and
mapping 62 infestation sites up to four miles
we found little evidence
apart, ranging in size from a few plants to
Bladder senna pods. Hikers pick and pop the pods as they walk,
that any part of the
thousands. Fortunately, we started work in
plant was being used by spreading seeds throughout the area.
May, when the plant was covered with yellow wildlife for food.
blossoms, so it was easy to spot. As we
Generally, there is a single taproot, three to
setting priorities for removal based on distance
mapped, park visitors told us of other sites.
five feet long, although plants that had been
from the main infestation, the site’s isolation,
Some of the older infestations had thickets of
previously cut back also developed lateral
presence of poison oak and Himalayan
bladder senna so dense we couldn’t see any
roots. Growth rings indicated that some of the blackberry, and other factors. We kept track of
other plants growing there. The original
larger shrubs were at least 30 years old. Most
individual volunteer hours and locations
planting maps of the Cedar Grove area from
infestations were along the edges of footpaths, worked as a means of documenting the
1900 showed only one bladder senna at that
making it clear how the plant spread. Park
amount of time required to remove just one
time—at least 250,000 plants from just one
walkers obviously found the large pods
invasive plant species from the park. We were
shrub!
irresistible, picking and popping them as they
interested not only in future grant prospects,
walked along. According to Jepson, but also in convincing our local City Council
there have been three confirmed
that Bidwell Park needed more funding for
sightings in California in Butte,
maintenance.
Nevada and Los Angeles counties.
After a few early attempts to pull out plants in
The Nevada County plants are at
Cedar Grove (we later learned these particuthe Empire Mine State Park and
larly hard-to-remove shrubs had been cut to
were also planted about 100 years
the ground several times in an earlier attempt
ago. A local botanist described
to control the spread), we focused our
them as “struggling to survive.”
The higher elevation, lower winter summer and fall efforts on removing the
seedpods to reduce further population
temperatures and planting
expansion. Since a mature plant can have as
locations away from trails may
many as 1000 pods, this proved to be a timeaccount for the difference in the
consuming task. We learned that the pods
plant’s invasiveness between the
were indehiscent, meaning that they remain
two locations.
closed at maturity, which gave us a longer
Bladder senna was definitely a
time period to complete the pod removal. In
problem in our park, though, and
October, we sponsored a “Make a Difference
we decided to eliminate it rather
Day” project with 35 volunteers removing 12
than just reduce the number of
garbage bags full of pods in just a few hours.
plants. In addition to the site map, About the same time, our project got a major
we created a spreadsheet describing boost when park volunteer, Laura Nissim,
A volunteer uses a weed wrench to remove bladder
the characteristics of each site, and
senna shrubs in Bidwell Park.
who had been working five hours every day

8 Cal-IPC News Spring 2004

Photo courtesy Susan Mason

By Susan Mason, Friends of Bidwell Park

Photo courtesy Susan Mason

wrenches borrowed from the
local California Native Plant
Society, Mt. Lassen Chapter.
We also wrote to local
businesses, asking that they
buy and donate weed
wrenches to the Park
Department. While we
worked, we talked to
passersby about invasive
plants, explaining how we
could remove even more
invasives if we had more
wrenches (providing price
sheets to them, of course),
and also asked other local
environmental organizations
to help. The community
responded to our requests,
and now we own or have
access to 17 wrenches for
weekly weeding sessions.
This has also increased the
availability of these tools to
other local organizations
doing invasive plant removal
since we can share them as
the need arises.
Generally, we discarded wellwrapped seedpods in our
A trail in B
idw
ell P
ar
k before bladder senna removal (top)
Bidw
idwell
Par
ark
own trash containers, but
and after removal (bottom).
dealing with the huge
amount of vegetation produced
by pulling the mature shrubs (up to 30 feet
to remove ivy and privet decided to focus on
tall) required a different solution. When we
bladder senna instead.
realized that on-site composting was impractiLaura and other regular volunteers live in
cal due to the stiff, fibrous nature of the plant,
nearby Paradise, a community that has its own the Park Department maintenance staff
park system. Fortunately for us, when these
stepped in, hauling away many truckloads.
volunteers offered their services to the Paradise Disposal, we discovered, is an issue that
park department, they were turned down.
should be discussed and resolved in advance
Paradise’s loss is our gain as they have
of any work.
subsequently volunteered hundreds of hours
in Bidwell Park. “Working in the park as we
“ Wor
king in the par
k as w
orking
park
wee hav
havee
have been doing is the most satisfying thing I
been doing is the most satisfying
have ever done,” is Laura’s view of her work in
thing I have ever done.”
Bidwell Park.
Besides the essential volunteer cadre, an
adequate supply of the proper tools, offering
regular weekly weeding sessions, disposal of
the pulled shrubs by the Chico Park Department, and the use of email for organizing have
been essential to the project.
From experimentation, we knew that the
Weed Wrench was the only way to efficiently
remove these plants, which have a woody
stem and long taproot. We started with six

Besides publishing the weekly weeding
schedule on our website calendar, we send a
brief, weekly, email newsletter to people who
are helping or have indicated an interest in
helping. It includes our next weeding
location, an update on our progress, and
information about other upcoming local
activities that might be of interest to our
readers. So, how are we progressing on our
removal project? By the end of February

2004, we’d logged more than 1500 volunteer
hours and removed the bladder senna plants
from all of the sites. We developed a simple
monitoring plan that will require just a few
days of volunteer effort every year until we’re
sure that all of the seed-bank has germinated
and been eliminated. As the project neared
completion, our volunteer group discussed
and voted on which invasive plants to remove
next. With 82 potentially invasive plants in
the park, we have lots of choices.

For more information or to contact Susan visit
www.friendsofbidwellpark.org or email
info@friendsofbidwellpark.org.
…NIW
AW, continued fr
om pp.7
.7
…NIWA
from
northcoast Representative Mike Thompson.
Participants in NIWAW found it to be
educational, enlightening, and occasionally
discouraging. It was a chance to get a glimpse
of how politics really works. Many of the
legislators were candid with their predictions
of success or failure for the Craig bill. “It was
frustrating to see this money, which would be
a windfall for California’s weed management
areas, tied up in what looks like personal
disagreements between legislators,” says CalIPC’s Brianna Richardson. At the same time,
she learned a lot about how to talk to and
persuade legislators. “They do care; they just
may not know it yet. These are very busy
people, but when you bring an issue to them
directly, especially when you travel all the way
across the country to do so, they take you
seriously.”
Bob Case found the trip to Washington to be
a great chance to convey to the country’s
decision-makers the threat invasive plants pose
to the natural heritage of the country, and to
the ecological systems he loves. He considers
the chance to deal with this issue at the federal
level a career highpoint. “I was glad to hear
about support for invasive plant management
from federal agencies such as the Forest
Service and the National Park Service at the
highest levels. I was discouraged that the
effort and resources committed to the
problem was, as we all know, very little and
terribly late. I was glad to meet many Weed
Warriors from all over the county and hear
about problems and solutions. I want to
continue this effort and continue educating
land stewards about the threat and their
obligation to monitor and manage our public
and private lands to be free of invasive
plants.”
Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Hard Work, Low Pay, Miserable Conditions:
The California Conservation Corps pulls weeds
The motto of the California Conservation Corps (CCC) is “hard
work, low pay, and miserable conditions,” words that ring true with
many land managers around the state working to remove invasive
plants. The CCC was established in 1976 to engage young people
in “meaningful work, public service, and educational activities that
assist them in becoming more responsible citizens, while protecting
and enhancing California’s environment, human resources, and
communities.” CCC crews participate in a variety of activities
including fire fighting, trail building, low-income home improvement, restoration, and invasive plant removal. For many land
managers, finding sufficient personnel can be an obstacle to
effective weed removal. For some, the CCC may be a solution.
A typical CCC crew consists of 10-15 men and women between
the ages of 18 and 25. They are trained in the use of hand and
power tools and bring their own tools and vehicles to project sites.
Specialty crews and mini-crews can be customized to fit the needs
of special projects. Crews are based out of Chico, Sacramento,
Richmond, Fresno, Los Angeles, Pomona, San Diego, and San
Bernadino, but work all over the state.
There are a number of advantages to using the CCC for invasive
plant removal. Tim Cass, Senior Water Resources Specialist for the
San Diego County Water Authority, has found the CCC to be a
good source of cost-effective manual labor. He states that contractors
often want to use heavy equipment, which, while less expensive
than labor, can be damaging to the natural habitat surrounding a
project site. He hired the CCC to remove an acre of eucalyptus and
palm trees along Escondido creek, and was particularly happy with
the care they took when felling the trees. Using ropes, they guided
the falling trees away from desirable native vegetation.
Cass also enjoys the flexibility he gets when hiring the CCC.
Because he works for a public agency, in order to hire contractors he
has to outline detailed project specifications and solicit bids. With
the CCC, he can simply hire them for a set amount of time and
organize the project as it goes. As a bonus, if the crew finishes ahead

of schedule, they can work on other projects he has lined up,
without complicated contract changes.
Cass has worked with the CCC on several occasions and feels that
no project is too big for the crews. He is currently negotiating to
hire them for an additional 30-acre invasive plant removal project
along Escondido Creek, which he expects will take two years to
complete.
Not all land managers have been happy working with the CCC.
Typical problems that can arise include: unavailability of crews
when they are needed, often because fire-fighting takes priority over
other projects; low productivity, usually attributed to ineffective
supervision; and high turnover, both of crew members and of
whole crews.
David Boyd, of California State Parks, found that CCC crews often
arrived late, worked slowly, and occasionally didn’t finish projects
they had been hired to complete. In his experience, a mature stand
of broom was more than the CCC crew had bargained for. He
acknowledges that hiring the CCC is about more than just weed
removal—it’s a service to the crew members and the community,
but he believes that if the CCC wants to stay competitive as a
source of labor for land managers, they should charge less and hire
more effective supervisors.
Cass does advise land managers to work closely with the crews,
particularly the crew supervisor. Many sponsors indicate that the
crew supervisor is the key to a crew that does the work correctly,
efficiently, and with a good attitude. Often, sponsors deal only with
the supervisor, so making sure he or she understands the project and
can motivate the crew is essential to getting the job done right.
Jennifer Wheeler, a botanist for the Bureau of Land Management
Arcata Field Office, hires the CCC regularly and enjoys great
relationships with the supervisors she’s worked with. Since 1996,
she has used CCC crews to remove Ammophila arenaria (European
dune grass), Carpobrotus chilensis (sea fig), and Lupinus arboreus
(bush lupine) from Manila Dunes at Humboldt Bay. Last year, after
finishing the removal of 20 acres of these invasives, including
extensive follow-up, the crews planted 20,000 culms of Leymus
mollis, native dune grass, collected from an adjacent donor site.

Photo courtesy Brianna Richardson

Wheeler says that because she hires the crews so regularly, she often
gets free labor. Crew supervisors have to keep the crews working,
even when they don’t have contracts. When this happens, they will
usually call Wheeler and offer their services for free. For the Manila
Dunes project, Wheeler received a $40,000 grant from the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and an additional $43,000
in free labor from the CCC.

CCC SSan
an JJose
ose C
ee tackles an Opuntia ficus-indica infestaCrre w Thr
Three
tion at Pulgas Ridge open space, in San Mateo County.

10 Cal-IPC News Spring 2004

CCC crews are trained on general procedures in invasive plant
removal and tool use before they are hired by a sponsor. Additional
training (in plant recognition, for example) is largely left to the
sponsor or supervisor. Wheeler used to conduct trainings at Manila
Dunes, but found it to be too cumbersome due to the regular

Frechou admits that the work isn’t always fun
for the crew members, but in his experience,
even members who hate it develop an
appreciation for having done the work over
time. He emphasizes the importance of
showing the crew what they are trying to
accomplish. At Manila Dunes, crews are
shown before and after photographs of
Ammophila removal on the dunes. The
difference is remarkable, and inspires the crew

to work hard.
For land managers with more
weeds than people, the CCC can
be a flexible and useful source of
labor. “I love the program and like
to support the work they do,” says
Wheeler. Cass agrees, “They’re a
very spirited group.”
Federal, state, local, and nonprofit
agencies may contract with the
CCC on an hourly or per-project
Cactus juice made the steep slope very slippery.
basis. For more information,
contact one of the CCC’s three district
offices to find the location closest to you. A
Project Coordinator at the nearest CCC
We’ve long been involved in removing exotic
location will be able to discuss your project
species and replacing them with California
needs, crew capabilities, technical supervision, native vegetation.”
and crew availability.
CCC District Offices:
CCC State Director Wes Pratt encourages
Northern California (530) 241-3030
California agencies to consider the CCC for
Central California (916) 341-3209
upcoming efforts. “The CCC is eager to help. Southern California (909) 592-5910

Genetically Modified Weeds?
The information in this article was taken from the USDA APHIS Preliminary Risk Assessment on Agrostis stolonifera genetically modified for
resistance to Roundup. The complete document is available on-line at www.aphis.usda.gov.
The Monsanto Company and the Scotts
Company have submitted a petition to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA
APHIS) asking that Agrostis stolonifera
(creeping bentgrass) genetically modified to be
resistant to glyphosate not be regulated under
the Code of Federal Regulations: 7 CFR part
340, “Introduction of Organisms and
Products Altered or Produced Through
Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or
Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant
Pests.” This would be the first perennial, nonrow crop plant to be released with glyphosate
resistance genes.
APHIS has reviewed the 432-page petition
from Monsanto/Scotts and performed their
own Preliminary Risk Assessment, in addition
to soliciting public comment through the
Federal Register. The public comment period
ended on March 5, 2004. APHIS will now
prepare a “thorough environmental document,” which will be announced in the
Federal Register and a second public comment
period will ensue. In order for the GM
creeping bentgrass to be regulated, APHIS
must find that it will injure or damage
agricultural crops, native plants, or beneficial
insects.

A. stolonifera is a popular grass for lawns and
turf, particularly golf courses. It is a widespread perennial that establishes without
cultivation in various habitats, particularly
disturbed areas. A. stolonifera is not a noxious
weed. It is, however, found on a number of
invasive plant lists including those from
Wyoming, the Pacific Northwest, Colorado,
and the National Park Service. The grass is
considered a weed in Japan, Australia, New
Zealand, Chile, the U.K., and Canada. In the
U.S. it is considered a weed in lawns,
grasslands, riparian areas, and wetlands. The
APHIS risk assessment states that “Agrostis
stolonifera is a moderate invasive threat on the
California coast in wetlands.”
If glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass is
approved, it could create the potential for the
glyphosate-resistance trait to escape cultivated
populations and emerge in wild, weedy
populations. The APHIS risk assessment
reviewed a pollen model that predicted pollen
dispersal and gene introgression would be
limited at some sites and extensive at others,
depending on local conditions. This could
pose a significant challenge to management
and restoration activities, since glyphosatebased herbicides are a primary control tool in

riparian areas and the only available herbicides
for estuarine wetlands.
In addition, A. stolonifera can form hybrids
with at least 13 naturalized or native species of
Agrostis and Polypogon in the United States,
and the hybrids are often fertile. Many of the
naturalized grasses that hybridize with A.
stolonifera are considered weeds in parts of the
U.S. The ability to hybridize may allow
glyphosate resistance to appear in these other
grass species. The resistance could, in fact, end
up in species that don’t hybridize directly
with A. stolonifera but that hybridize with
species that do.
Despite the possibility of glyphosate resistance
spreading to weed populations of A.
stolonifera and other grasses, the APHIS
preliminary risk assessment concludes that the
information “provides evidence of no major
unintended effects from introduction of the
genetic material conferring glyphosate
tolerance into the genome of creeping
bentgrass.” Meanwhile, as Monsanto works to
develop other glyphosate resistant perennial
grasses, scientists worry that this may be only
one of many genetically modified potential
“superweeds.”
Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Photo courtesy Brianna Richardson

turnover of crews and crew members. She
now relies on the supervisors and knowledgeable crew members to instruct the crew on
which plants to pull and which to leave in
place. Bob Frechou, Project Coordinator for
the CCC Northern Coastal Service District
has supplied Wheeler with crews for several
years. He says that the turnover is intentional
in the case of Manila Dunes. He tries to rotate
crews through the project every two weeks,
because after 14 days of pulling Ammophila,
productivity can start to slide.

Sacramento Weed Day a ‘Rousing Success’

The event was sponsored by the California Invasive Weeds
Awareness Coalition (CALIWAC) and was, in the words of its
primary organizer (and Cal-IPC board member) Wendy West, a
“rousing success!”
Attendees first met with staff from Caltrans, the California
Department of Fish and Game, and the California Department of
Food and Agriculture. They then split up and visited the offices of
45 Assembly and Senate representatives, where they reminded
legislators that even during this difficult budget climate, invasive
weeds are a growing threat. Information packets about invasive
plants and statewide issues were left during each visit; packets were
also dropped off at an additional 10 representatives’ offices.

Urban legislators were
visited, and educated
about how invasive weeds
affect their districts as well
as rural districts. The
overall response of the
legislative offices was one
of interest and concern.
At the same time, a team
from CALIWAC met with
deputy secretaries of the
Governor’s office, CDFA,
and the Resource Agency.
The team was encouraged
to develop a white paper
outlining the regulatory
constraints that hinder
early detection and rapid
response actions throughout the state.

Assemblymember Tim Leslie
(right) with his Legislative
Director, Kevin O’Neill, holds a
silk weed bouquet presented to
him by CALIWAC representatives.

Photo courtesy Doug Johnson

On March 24th, land managers, landowners, agency personnel, and
concerned citizens met in Sacramento for the first annual Invasive
Weed Day at the Capitol. Modeled on National Invasive Weeds
Awareness Week in Washington D.C., Invasive Weed Day at the
Capitol was a chance for people to learn about what the state
agencies are doing about invasive plants, and to educate their
legislators about the threat posed to California by these invaders.

Paying for Volunteers
In 2001, in a change designed to help protect workers, California
expanded the definition of public works projects in the labor code
to include “construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or
repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part
out of public funds.”

At the same time, some labor unions, legislators, and environmental
groups have asked Governor Schwarzenegger to administratively
exempt watershed restoration programs. Letters have been sent to
the Governor from the California Watershed Network (CNW), the
Sierra Club, and the California Conference of Carpenters.

Based on this, the state’s Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)
interprets “public works projects” to include not only public agency
projects, but also projects that receive state-issued grants. Many
restoration and watershed projects that include invasvie plant
removal rely on such grants, and are therefore considered public
works projects. The labor code also requires public works projects to
pay all workers “prevailing wages.”

Meanwhile, grantors and grantees alike are trying to sort out their
obligations and many restoration projects scheduled for this
summer may have to be postponed or cancelled. This is generating
significant media attention, with articles appearing in the San
Francisco Chronicle, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Sonoma-Index
Tribune, San Mateo County Times, and San Francisco Examiner,
among others.

Though not the intent of the code changes, a recent case in
Redding has demonstrated serious implications for restoration work.
Restoration projects that receive state grant money and that include
any paid workers (for example contractors operating heavy
equipment or spraying herbicides) must also pay volunteers wages
comparable to those of the contractors.

Information about this issue is changing rapidly. For the most
current news, subscribe to the Watershed Volunteers list serv by
sending a blank email to: watershedvolunteers-ubscribe@topica.com.
Additional information is also available at www.aoinstitute.org/
watershedvolunteers and www.watershednetwork.org.

Only projects that use solely volunteer labor, or that request, in
writing, an exemption from the DIR at least 45 days prior to
starting the project, are exempt. Due to budget and personnel cuts,
review of these requests for exemption is expected to be slow. The
impact of this change on restoration and other groups that use
volunteers could be enormous.
Assembly member Loni Hancock has introduced legislation to
exempt environmental restoration projects from the prevailing
wages requirement, but the new law likely won’t be in effect until
2005.

12 Cal-IPC News Spring 2004

Letters
Please continue to utilize human help rather than chemicals.
Low-risk prisoners, hiking groups, support groups for
obsessive-compulsives, testosterone-ridden teens needing an
outlet for their abstinence, church service groups… Regrettably, I’m a senior with a very bad back.

Jean L. Salmon,
Santa Clara

New and Contributing Members
Thank yyou
ou for yyour
our gener
ous suppor
t! This list reflects donors and new members since the last newsletter.
generous
support!
Foundation Grants
oundation
The Tr ue N
or
th F
Nor
orth
Foundation
Generous Donations
enasquitos P
Friends of Los P
Penasquitos
Prreser
eservve
(San Diego)
Swimmer F
amily F
oundation
Family
Foundation
(Beverly Hills)
Sustaining
Tim H
yland (CR Restoration, Santa Cruz)
Hyland
Connie R
uther
for
d (Ventura)
Ruther
utherfor
ford
Sharon Franklet (Pinnacles National
Monument, Paicines)
Ellie Insley (Glen Ellen)
Noel P
err
Perr
erryy (Woodside)

Contributing
William McCoy (CNPS, Berkeley)
Jim & B
arbara P
eugh (Friends of Famosa
Barbara
Peugh
Slough, San Diego)
Donald R. Kir
k (Palo Cedro)
Kirk
Doug & Rosemary Corbin (Richmond)
Larry M. Jones (Richmond)
Family
argar
et G
raham
Margar
argaret
Graham
Walter Earle & M
(Mostly Natives Nursery, Tomales)
Katrina SStrathmann
trathmann & Tom E
lliott
Elliott
(San Francisco)
Courtney Clarkson & Roy Leggett
(San Francisco)
Lynn H
ouser (CNPS, Santa Rosa)
Houser

Institutional, Contributing
Natures Image, Inc. (Lake Forest)
Washburn G
anagement (Hemet)
Grrove M
Management
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Agri Chemical & Supply (Oceanside)
Institutional
City of P
alm D
eser
Palm
Deser
esertt
Thomas R
eid Associates (Palo Alto)
Reid
Elkhorn Native Plant Nursery
(Moss Landing)
Jones & Stokes (Sacramento & San Jose)

Individual Members
Joel A
braham (UC Berkeley), Tr udi E
ldridge (Magalia), R
ober
teers (UC Riverside), Sean M Watts (UC Santa Barbara), Edith
Abraham
Eldridge
Rober
obertt SSteers
Hor
wood (Oakland), Jean SSalmon
almon (Santa Clara), Marni Temple (Point Richmond), Andr
ea C
raig (Humboldt State University, Bayside),
orwood
Andrea
Craig
Katrine Thomas (Merritt College, Oakland), Anne P
ower (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo), Barbara M
eislin (Tiburon), Mar
k JJacobucci
acobucci (Irvine
Po
Meislin
ark
arikh (Santa Barbara), Molly M
ar
tindale (Richmond), Richar
dN
ichols
Community Development Corp., Newport Beach), Anuja P
Parikh
Mar
artindale
Richard
Nichols
ea Woolfolk (Elkhorn Slough NERR, Watsonville), Douglas M
cKinney (D & D Wildlife Habitat Restoration,
(EDAW, San Francisco), Andr
Andrea
McKinney
panglet (Cal Dept of Water Resources, Sacramento), David K Woolf (David Wolff Environmental, Los Osos), Ruth H
orn
La Mesa), Harr
arryy SSpanglet
Horn
cD
aniel (CSW/Stuber-Stroeh, Santa Rosa), Jody O
lson (Cal Army National Guard,
(Fairfax), Elena Cour
Courtt (Brisbane), Georgia M
McD
cDaniel
Olson
ontaine (Trestles Environmental Corporation, Fallbrook), Jeanne B
land (CNPS, Santa Monica), Tom E
dell (Caltrans,
Atascadero), Julie F
Fontaine
Bland
Edell
owler (Layfayette), Cynthia G
ause (Department of Boating & Waterways, Sacramento), Paul H
eiple (CNPS, Portola
Cayucos), Sydney F
Fo
Gause
Heiple
eil (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo), KW Botanicals (San Anselmo), Ste
war
elson (All Seasons Weed Control, Grass Valley),
Valley), David K
Keil
tewar
wartt N
Nelson
Diona R
oja (Fort Bragg), Lynn Ov
er
tr
ee (Wildlands Management Services, Seaside), Glen H
olstein (Zentner & Zentner, Davis), Andr
ea
Roja
Over
ertr
tree
Holstein
Andrea
Adams-M
or
den (Carpinteria Salt Marsh Friends, Carpinteria), Vanessa JJohnson
ohnson (The Land Trust of Napa County, Napa), Kar
en M
ason
dams-Mor
orden
Karen
Mason
owak (Orange County Harbors, Silverado Canyon), Cathy P
into (California Weed Science Society, Salinas),
(RECON, San Diego), Cathy N
No
Pinto
Beth Dy
er (Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose), Megan Trainer F
itch (Anteon Corp., Carlsbad), Joseph A D
onohoe (San Francisco),
Dyer
Fitch
Donohoe
Joan Marlowe (CNPS, Cupertino), Stephen Stocking (San Andreas), Clark Cowan (Santa Barbara), Sally Knost (Colfax Garden Club,
ober
eher (University of La Verne, La Verne), Linda Car
uthers (Los Gatos), Ellen E
delson (San Francisco), Mar
k
Colfax), Dr. R
Rober
obertt T. N
Neher
Caruthers
Edelson
ark
Bourne (Windsmith Design, San Carlos), Kathleen JJones
ones (Mountain View), Leslie Lian and E
dwar
d Tuttle (Woodside), Ther
ese Tuttle
Edwar
dward
Therese
ellman (Ukiah), Dick Z
embal (Orange County Water District, Fountain Valley),
(Tuttle & Van Konynenburg, L.L.P. Modesto), Paul Z
Zellman
Zembal
Anouk M
ackenzie (Watershed Institute, San Francisco), Rick Tata (San Jose).
Mackenzie
…Heat, continued from p.7
careless use can result in injury or wildfire. In
addition, the range of species on which this
method proves useful may be limited.
Flaming as presently practiced is thought to
be less effective on grasses and other monocots, and results on some broadleaf species
have not as yet been encouraging.
‘B
lack
laming
‘Black
lack’’ F
Flaming
In an attempt to determine whether flaming
can control grasses and other resistant species,
we are experimenting with an alternative
method of using the torch to actually
incinerate the plant. This must be repeated
often enough and at the right times to
exhaust the plant’s reserves. Since this

alternative method differs both in the way the
treated plant looks and in the way it produces
mortality, I’ve coined the terms ‘black flaming’
to describe this new method, and ‘green
flaming’, or wilting, to describe the more
commonly used method described above.
Because black flaming will require repeat
applications which may extend into drier
seasons, this method may not be usable in
many regions of the west. In addition, it will
require a greater expenditure of time and
resources than spraying, so its usefulness may
be limited to situations where spraying is not
an option. Species that black flaming is
currently being tried on are veldt grass, bull
thistle, English ivy, periwinkle, and hoary

cress. Many of these species are very difficult
to control any other way than with herbicides,
and even herbicides are not very effective in
controlling English ivy. Because it has the
potential to be a much needed option, I feel it
is worth spending the time to test. But I
expect it will take some time before we know
whether black flaming will prove to be a
useful tool.

Contact Ken with any flaming experiences at
ken@wildwork.org or by phone evenings at
831.464.2329.

Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

Readings &
Resources
A new version of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Noxious and Nuisance Plant
Management Information System-PMIS
has been released. The CD-ROM provides
rapid access to current information on
management and control methods for over
100 terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland plants. It
includes in-depth text information, maps,
videos, illustrations, and photographic quality
diagrams and images. The system is linked to
specific web pages that allow for quick
updates as information changes. To request a
copy visit
Australia and California have many invasive
plants in common. In Australia, the problem
is estimated to cost A$4 billion annually. A
ling Us Softly:
new 32-page booklet—Killing
Australia
talkers—
ustralia’’s G
Grreen SStalkers—
talkers—has just been

Q: What do baby
jubatagrass wear?

A: Pampas!
Joke cour
tesy B
en H
aber
thur
courtesy
Ben
Haber
aberthur
thur,, CSUMB

…North, continued from p.5
According to Moreo, the state has always been
a great partner in funding, but can no longer
help due to budget limitations. He is hoping
that the Noxious Weed Control Act (S-144)
passes at the federal level, but will wait and
judge the value of the bill by how much
money actually goes toward killing weeds and
how much gets used for administration.
Turner solved some of her funding problems
by applying for Title II funding through the
local Resource Advisory Committee. A first
time grant writer, she was initially apprehensive, but her proposal has now been funded
two years in a row.
Because of the unique weeds and challenges
facing the northeastern counties, and their
consummate dedication to controlling A-rated
weeds, there are some “weed-fighting” firsts
that have happened up north. The concept of

14 Cal-IPC News Spring 2004

published by the Collaborative Research
Center for Australian Weed Management.
The booklet lays out a comprehensive plan for
curbing the problem in Australia and is
available online in two parts at

An article entitled “Invasive Plants and the
ndustr
ndustryy,” by Robin A. Harrington,
Green IIndustr
Ronald Kujawski, and H. Dennis P. Ryan of
the University of Massachusetts appeared in
the Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 29, No. 1 in
January, 2003. The article discusses invasive
horticultural plants and current work to solve
the problem.
Predicting the potential invasive distributions of four alien plant species in North
America
America, by A. Townsend Peterson and
Monica Papes, was published in Weed
Science, Vol. 51, No. 6 in November 2003.
The authors used ecological niche modeling
to predict the geographic course of invasions
of hydrilla, Sericea lespedeza, Russian olive,
and garlic mustard in North America. They
found the method highly successful at
predicting the geographical invasion potential
of these species. The complete article is
available at
The Union of Concerned Scientists has
asion por
tfolios
produced “inv
“invasion
portfolios
tfolios”” for three
states: Texas, West Virginia, and Alaska. These
16-page booklets outline the environmental
and economic damage caused by invasive
species in each state. The reports are available
at

Weed Management Areas was born in the
north, with Lassen SWAT, established in
1994, being one of the first. Invasive weed
education and outreach also got a head-start
in the north. The “Selected Noxious Weeds of
Northeastern California” handbook was a first
of its kind and every year weed tours, county
fair displays, weed workshops, and other
events are held.
The work done in northeastern California is
extensive and essential to protect the rest of
the state from some of the worst weeds in the
country. For those interested in fighting
weeds, a trip up north is a great way to learn
about new weeds to watch for. It’s also a great
way to learn more about the beautiful state we
are trying to protect. Pirosko and your farnorth weed partners encourage you to join
them for the Knapweed Workshop, July 7th
in Adin, the Modoc Weed Tour on July 8th,

Five articles in the February 2004 edition of
the journal Conservation Biology explore
the pros and cons of biological control.
The Nevada Natural Heritage Program has
successfully mapped Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass) over 46% of Nevada at 30-meter
resolution with +/- 9 percent accuracy. The
mapping report, poster, and GIS data are
available at
Registrations are now being accepted on-line
for the National Wildlife Refuge System’s
electronic field trip entitled “Invasive
Species…America’s Least Wanted.” The field
trip is geared toward fourth through sixth
graders and will be available through June 30,
2004.
The 7th Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity was
held February 9-20, during which a decision
was made on the recommendation forwarded
by the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice with
regard to invasive alien species. The decision
will soon be available at
Equal diversity in disparate species assemblages: a comparison of native and exotic
woodlands in California, an article by Dov
Sax, examines the effect of Eucalyptus
globulus on native biota and was published
in Global Ecology & Biogeography (2002)
11.

or the Siskiyou Weed Tour in late June or early
July (date tba).

Nor
thern F
rights:
orthern
Frights:
the worst w
eeds U
p Ther
weeds
Up
Theree
Carduus acanthoides (plumeless thistle)
Carduus nutans (musk thistle)
Centaurea diffusa (diffuse knapweed)
Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle)
Centaurea stoebe L. (spotted knapweed)
Centaurea virgata (squarrose knapweed)
Chondrilla juncea (rush skeletonweed)
Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle)
Cirsium ochrocentrum (yellowspine thistle)
Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge)
Isatis tinctoria L. (dyers woad)
Lepidium latifolium (perennial pepperweed)
Linaria genistifolia (dalmation toadflax)
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)
Onopordum acanthium (Scotch thistle)
Sonchus arvensis (perennial sowthistle)
Tribulus terrestris (puncturevine)

The WILDLAND WEED CALENDAR
If you have or know of an event that you
would like to see mentioned here, please
contact .
Sudden O
ak D
eath Training
Oak
Death
April 22 & May 19
Felton, CA/San Rafael, CA
“Basic Management of Sudden Oak Death in
Woodlands and Landscapes: Recognition,
Sampling, Treatment, and Mitigation
Measures.” These workshops are free and
open to anyone.
2004 Annual Conference of the California Native Grass Association
April 22-24
Modesto, CA
“Native Grasses and Graminoids: Tools for
Protecting Water Quality.” The conference
will include three tuition-based workshops,
technical sessions, and three field trips.

10th International Conference on Mediterranean Climate Ecosystems
April 25-May 1
Rodos, Greece
“Ecology, Conservation, and Sustainable
Management of Mediterranean type Ecosystems of the World.”
Florida/S
outheast E
est P
lant
lorida/Southeast
Exxotic P
Pest
Plant
Council Joint Symposium
April 28-30
Pensacola, FL
Two of the original EPPCs are joining forces

Quotable:
“W hen I came into the California
legislature many years ago, I never
anticipated leaving as “the weed
legislator.” I’m proud of what’s
been accomplished. ”

Assemblymember Tim Leslie, in a speech to
attendees of California Weed Awareness
Day at the Capitol, March 24th in
Sacramento. Leslie has championed bills
aimed at supporting wildland weed control
efforts.

for their annual conference: “West of
Eden—Where Research, Policy, and
Practice Meet.” This two day event will
include speakers on planning, control,
impacts, and individual species, as well as a
fishing tournament.
Upper Chiquita Conservation Area
Restoration and B
ir
dwatching Tours
Bir
irdwatching
May 1
Mission Viejo, CA
This hike gives participants a peek at an area
rich with coastal sage scrub, oak woodland,
grasslands, and natural drainage habitats,
and includes a 6 a.m. bird watching tour.

Jepson Herbarium, Berkeley, CA
Workshop teaching the steps of collecting
plant material for inclusion in a herbarium.

The Ecology and Impacts of Blue Gum
Eucalyptus in Coastal California
June 3
Elkhorn Slough, CA
Targeted at environmental planners, land
managers, and regulator agencies. Regional
ecologists and local researchers join together to
discuss science-based information on Eucalyptus globulus impacts in California.

Bay-F
riendly G
ar
den Tour
ay-Friendly
Gar
arden
May 2
Alameda County, CA

Beijing International Symposium on
Biological Invasions
June 8-11
Xiangshan, Beijing, China

A self-guided tour through Alameda
County home gardens, including several
talks throughout the day.

“Species Exchanges between Eastern Asia and
North America: Threats to Environment and
Economy.”

Wor
kshop: SSpring
pring F
lora and E
cology
orkshop:
Flora
Ecology
Across Kern County
May 6 -9
Kern County, CA

California Conference on Biological
Control (CCBC IV )
July 13-15
Berkelely, CA

A course on vascular plant floristics and
ecology of dominant plant communities in
the southern Sierra.

Speakers and panels focussing on biological
control and organic agriculture, jointly
sponsored by the ANR Organic Farming
Research Workgroup.

Wor
kshop: F
ield Techniques and
orkshop:
Field
Vouchering of SSpecimens
pecimens
May 15 & 16

Chuck Haugen Conservation Picnic
July 18, 10 am-3pm
Fort Ord, CA

“In fact, ecology does not

privilege the native over the
introduced. Every species is
native somewhere…. Our
moral obligation to prevent
the extinction of native
species does not license the
persecution of introduced
species. ”

Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a vocal critic
of habitat restoration programs in
San Francisco, from a memo to the
Recreation & Parks Open Space
Advisory Committee.

Picnic will honor conservation volunteers and
staff and celebrate conservation successes
throughout the world. RSVP to
Third International Conference on
Invasive Spartina
November 8-10
San Francisco, CA
A forum for the best and latest Spartina
research from around the world. Will include
ground and helicopter tours to view the
Spartina invasion in the San Francisco
Estuary. To recieve registration and other
information email:
Cal-IPC News

Spring 2004

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
Regular
$35
Family
$60
Contributing
$75
Life
$1,000
Joint Cal-IPC/SERCAL $55
Student/Volunteer
$15

Institutional
Regular
$150
Contributing
$300
Patron
$600
Sustaining
$1,000
Small company
or Nonprofit $100

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 510/843-3902 and provide contact and credit card info

California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

City, State & Zip
Work Phone

Home Phone

Fax

E-mail

Credit Card No.

Exp. Date

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Berkeley, CA
Permit No. 1435