Newsletter Vol 18 Issue 2, 2010 – California Invasive Plant Council

Vol. 18, No. 2

Summer 2010

Cal-IPC News
Protecting California’s Natural Areas from Wildland Weeds
Quarterly Newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council

Weeding out thistles
in Nevada County
Volunteers remove musk thistle (Carduus
nutans) as part of an annual work party.
The Nevada-Placer WMA has made
treating this infestation a priority because
musk thistle is an “A” rated weed that is
being treated with herbicide on adjacent
lands.
Photo: Susi Urie, Tahoe National Forest

Inside:
Preventing weed spread in National Parks…….. 4
Nevada County Broom Bash……………………….. 6
Understanding aquatic pesticide permits………. 8
Arresting arundo………………………………………10

From the Director’s Desk

Cal-IPC
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ph (510) 843-3902 fax (510) 217-3500
www.cal-ipc.org info@cal-ipc.org
A California 501(c)3 nonprofit organization

Protecting California’s natural areas
from wildland weeds through
research, restoration, and education.
STAFF
Doug Johnson, Executive Director
Heather Brady, Outreach Program Manager
Elizabeth Brusati, Science Program Manager
Jennifer Chien, Business Manager
Ginny King, Program Assistant
Bertha McKinley, Program Assistant
Dana Morawitz, Mapping Program Manager
Cynthia Powell, Mapping & Modeling Specialist
Jen Stern, Training Program Manager
DIRECTORS (last year of term noted)
Jason Giessow, President (2010)
Santa Margarita/San Luis Rey Weed Management Area
John Knapp, Vice-President (2010)
Native Range, Inc.
Doug Gibson, Treasurer (2010)
San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy
Julie Horenstein, Secretary (2010)
California Department of Fish & Game
Edith Allen (2010)
University of California-Riverside
Peter Beesley (2011)
Pacific Gas and Electric
Jason Casanova (2010)
Los Angeles/San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
Valerie Eviner (2011)
University of California-Davis
Henry Gonzales (2010)
Ventura County Department of Agriculture
Brent Johnson (2011)
Pinnacles National Monument
Marc Lea (2010)
San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture
Jean Phillipe Marié (2011)
UC Davis Putah Creek Riparian Reserve

Weighing in on disclosure of
herbicide ingredients

al-IPC exists to serve the folks on the ground addressing invasive plants throughout California. Much of our work relates to providing information on the biology
and management of wildland weeds, through trainings, publications (like this newsletter), maps, web tools, and our annual Symposium, this year in Ventura, Oct. 14-16!
We also serve you by seeking to improve policies that affect your work. This
includes advocating for some self-evident needs, like secure funding for local Weed
Management Areas. But we are also on the lookout for other improvements to the policies that impact restoration, from efficient permitting processes, sensible horticultural
practices, and consistent listing criteria for invasive plants across state lines.
One recent issue that Cal-IPC weighed in on is the proposal by the Environmental
Protection Agency to begin requiring the public disclosure of all ingredients in pesticide formulations. Currently, only the active ingredients are disclosed to protect the
manufacturer’s proprietary information. However, so-called “inert” ingredients (such as
surfactants in herbicides) can have an environmental impact.
We strongly support this disclosure. While it poses difficulties for industry competition, it fulfills a basic “right to know” for a public increasingly concerned about the
impacts of pesticides in our environment. And natural resource managers, who select
the best tools based on factors including potential non-target effects, have a stake in
knowing as much as possible about the tools in their toolbox.
Disclosure has significant advantages. It enables further research by third parties,
including research on applications for habitat restoration. Market forces will encourage improved formulations (such as the use of safer surfactants) when consumers can
compare full product information. Both of these are likely to increase public confidence
in product safety; the current lack of transparency feeds distrust. Public support for our
work is vital, and addressing concerns over herbicide safety is an important part of earning that support.
After communicating with partners in the herbicide industry to help understand
their concerns, the Cal-IPC Board of Directors adopted this stance and submitted formal comment to the EPA. What do you think? Let us know if you have strong feelings
about this, pro or con. My email address is dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org. Meanwhile, have
a great field season and know that we are hard at work behind the scenes, aiming to
strengthen the policy environment we work in.

Shea O’Keefe (2011)
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Peter Schuyler (2011)
Ecological Consultant
Katherine Suding (2011)
University of California-Berkeley
Affiliations for identification purposes only.

Cal-IPC News

Summer 2010 – Volume 18, Number 2
Editors: Doug Johnson, Elizabeth Brusati, Heather Brady
Cal-IPC News is published quarterly by the California Invasive
Plant Council. Articles may be reprinted with permission from
the editor. Submissions are welcome. Mention of commercial
products does not imply endorsement by Cal-IPC. We reserve
the right to edit all work.

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Cal-IPC’s weed mapping team will be coming to a WMA meeting near
you! Here the Sierra-San Joaquin Noxious Weed Alliance shares expert
knowledge and data. Photo: Dana Morawitz, Cal-IPC

Wildland Weed NewsNewsNewsNewsNews
Cal-IPC Updates
We keep growing!
Cal-IPC continues to expand!
Mapping and Modeling Specialist
Cynthia Powell (right) will assist
with our statewide mapping
program and our risk assessment
projects. She is finishing a
Master’s in Geography at San
Francisco State University. Ginny
King (left) has returned as a
Program Assistant while Bertha
McKinley is recovering from
shoulder surgery. Ginny worked
for us in a temporary position
two years ago. www.cal-ipc.org/
about/staff.php
Board elections
Ballots for board elections will
be mailed soon. Please take this
opportunity to choose the people
who oversee the future of Cal-IPC.
The California Invasive Species Advisory Council (CISAC) presented a list of
invasive species to the Invasive Species
Council of California on April 21. The
full list of 1,700 species is available at
CISAC’s website. Scorecards have been
completed for 200 species; 36% of those
species are not yet in California but 51%
have a high risk for introduction into the
state. This list is the first step in developing a set of priority species on which the
state can focus its efforts for control and
prevention. www.iscc.ca.gov/species.html
A lawsuit by the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon
Society has stopped the USDA Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service’s
research and release of leaf eating beetles
(Diorhabda elongata) for biocontrol of
saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in 13 states.
The concern was that the beetle would
destroy the habitat, albeit non-native
habitat, of the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The bird can be

appreciated. Donate online
at www.cal-ipc.org/about/
membership.

Mid-year donation drive
By now you should have received a midyear donation request. Your donations
are extremely valuable for our programs
by giving us the flexibility to continue
activities that are not directly supported
by grants. Anything you can give is greatly

found nesting in saltcedar, in addition
to willow and cottonwood. Saltcedar is
an invasive, noxious tree that has ironically reduced native plant biodiversity
on some riparian shorelines. The USDA
moved to end the beetle program last
year. Releasing saltcedar leaf beetles
became subject to Endangered Species
Act violations punishable by a fine up to
$250,000 per violation after the beetles
moved further south than expected.
www.examiner.com/a-2692416~USDA_
stops_using_beetles_vs__invasive_saltcedar.
html
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
approved the expansion of geneticallyengineered eucalyptus trees. Freeze-tolerant eucalyptus trees are already planted
but were only allowed to flower at two
experimental sites. USDA’s approval will
allow them to flower at 28 sites in the
southern U.S. Biotech firm ArborGen
LLC plans to use the trees for biomass
power plants and as cellulosic biofuels.

New Grants
Thank you to the US Forest
Service’s Special Technology
Development Program for
supporting our risk assessment
and mapping projects. Thank
you to the Switzer Foundation
and the Firedoll Foundation
for funding Doug Johnson’s
work as Chair of the California
Invasive Species Council’s
Advisory Committee. The
Switzer Foundation also interviewed
Doug, a former Switzer Foundation
Fellow, for their podcast. www.
switzernetwork.org/news/podcast
(posted June 17).

One parent of ArborGen’s eucalyptus
has been classified as an invasive threat
in Florida. (E and E News, www.eenews.
net) For more information, see www.
aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/05/
ge_eucalyptus.shtml
The notorious kudzu vine is also a major source of ozone, according to a study
from the University of Virginia. Kudzu
produces the chemicals isoprene and nitric oxide, which combine with nitrogen
in the air to form ozone, an air pollutant
that causes significant health problems
for humans. Ozone also hinders the
growth of many plants, including crops.
Researchers found that the chemical reaction produced by kudzu causes a 50%
increase in the number of days in which
ozone levels are considered unhealthy, an
impact that overwhelms the reductions
in ozone due to auto pollution regulations. (Science Daily, May 18) www.
sciencedaily.com
…continued page 13

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Feature

Working together against weeds:

Workshops, materials, and Best Management Practices to prevent invasive
species spread due to land management operations
Christy Brigham, National Park Service (NPS) Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Thousand Oaks
Jay Goldsmith, NPS Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland
Sylvia Haultain, NPS Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers

nintentional spread of invasive species during management operations
is often overlooked and may be a major
driver of invasions in some management
areas. Activities such as road maintenance,
weed abatement, research activities, planting, seeding, hiking, backpacking, pack
stock, and other activities can all spread
weeds. Finding workable solutions to
these operational hazards is not
easy and takes participation
from all sectors of the organization. The Pacific West Region
of the National Park Service has
recently embarked on a multifaceted effort to raise awareness
of unintentional weed spread,
cooperatively develop best
management practices to limit
spread, and improve management operations with respect to
invasive species management.

prehensive look at how park operations
spread weeds and develop feasible best
management practices for different park
operations to limit this spread.
Although the program described here
was developed by the NPS for use in
park sites, it will have relevance to any
land manager or agency that engages in

that would raise awareness of the potential
for operational activities to unintentionally spread weeds through use of contaminated materials or equipment or importation or movement of seeds, root stocks,
or contaminated materials. This unintentional spread often involves work that is
completely unrelated to resource management work but involves vehicles, people,
stock, or equipment moving
from an infested area to an
uninfested area.
The second goal of our
program was to involve
individuals working in a
particular operational area
in the identification of weed
movement pathways and the
construction of best management practices. It was our
hypothesis that involvement
of field workers in each
operational area would result
in higher buy-in from these
constituents and best management practices that were
feasible for the targeted user
group and thus more likely
to be implemented.

There are numerous examples within the National Park
Service (NPS) of unintentional
spread of non-native invasive
A “bumper crop” of weeds. Trucks and other maintenance
plant species through park
equipment can spread invasive plants. Photo: Mike Kelly
operations. These examples
include introduction of yellow
starthistle into Yosemite Valley during
operational activities such as campground
Finally, our third goal was to gather,
road construction activities, movement
maintenance, road maintenance, resource
design, and implement best management
of perennial pepperweed to an uninfested work, research, or any other field activities practices across all management operapark site during invasive species control
that have the potential to spread weeds.
tions to reduce the unintentional weed
and restoration field work in the Santa
Many of the best management practices
spread that occurs in parks (and other
Monica Mountains National Recreation
(BMPs) that we adopted and built upon
open space areas) as a result of operational
Area and introduction of yellow starthistle for our program came from other agenactivity.
from contaminated hay during post-fire
cies and groups such as the United States
rehabilitation projects at Whiskeytown
Forest Service and regional weed manage- Park Workshops
National Recreation Area, to give just a
ment area guidelines.
A small working group of resource
few examples. These and similar incidents
managers from parks throughout the
The goals of our Working Together
prompted the Pacific West Region of the
Pacific West Region was formed in 2007
Against Weeds program were three-fold.
NPS to ask whether we could take a com- First, we wanted to develop a program
to identify possible pathways for weed

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

spread within each operation. This working group spent approximately six months
assembling materials on best management
practices for each management operation
from as many sources as possible including other agencies and non-profits. After
this material was assembled, a threeday workshop was held at Point Reyes
National Seashore. For the workshop, we
recruited staff from all park operational
groups from parks throughout the Pacific
West Region. These operational groups
included Interpretation and Education,
Law Enforcement, Building and Utilities
Maintenance, Trail Maintenance, Construction, Road Maintenance, Resource
Management, Permits, Concessions,
Horse Operations, Fire, Wilderness
Operations, and more! We identified five
outcomes for our workshop:
1. Understand why non-native invasive species are a critical concern to
park management
2. Identify how to better integrate
prevention and control activities
into operational activities
3. Enhance participants’ knowledge
of what plans, tools, programs, and
resources are available to staff and
how they can best be delivered and
used at individual parks
4. Discover ways to use our educational resources to increase awareness of and participation in weed
control and prevention programs,
and
5. Identify Best Management Practices (BMPs), roadblocks to implementation, and solutions to those
roadblocks for Pacific West Region
parks
The workshop included general background information and presentations
on why weeds are a problem for national
parks, what we know about invasive species biology and spread, examples of unintentional weed spread, and introductions
to each operational area. Following this
introduction, the group broke into working groups focusing on each operational
area. Each working group was tasked with
identifying pathways to unintentional
weed introductions stemming from their

operational
activities,
reviewing
available
BMPs that
were assembled prior
to the meeting, brainstorming
new BMPs,
identifying
potential
roadblocks to
BMP implementation,
and identifying solutions
to perceived
Field of weeds. Contaminated hay has spread yellow starthistle into
roadblocks.
national parks. Photo: Joe DiTomaso
The initial working
of developing BMPs in partnergroup took the materials generated from
ship with the staff working in these
the workshop and condensed them into a
particular operations, and
set of reference materials including all of
the assembled BMPs, introductory Pow4. Leave the park with an overview
erpoint presentations, and other reference
of some steps that they might take
materials. These materials were sent to all
to effectively combat their weed
of the parks within the region and were
problems.
also made available online.
Workshops were attended by park
The second phase of the project was
staff from all operational divisions and
initiated in 2009 and involved developing were planned as a day-long focus on weed
a one-day workshop around the materials
problems within the park. Resource mandeveloped by the earlier working group.
agement staff at the host park provided
This workshop was then offered as a serbackground material on the weeds of
vice to parks throughout the Pacific West
concern at the park hosting the workshop.
Region. During 2009, we had funding
In addition, local resource managers proto put on four workshops at Joshua Tree
vided focus for the workshop facilitators
National Park, Death Valley National
on what the largest sources of operational
Park, North Cascades National Park, and
weed spread were in that particular park.
Olympic National Park. During sumBrainstorming sessions for BMPs focused
mer and fall 2009, a team of two to three
on these areas of greatest potential weed
NPS and USGS staff traveled to these
spread.
parks and worked with the park staff to
Results and Conclusions
facilitate a workshop similar to the initial
Point Reyes workshop. The goals of these
A total of five Working Together
park-specific workshops were to:
Against Weeds workshops have been pre1. Raise the level of awareness of weed sented. There has not been sufficient time
since these workshops to evaluate how
problems within the park
many parks developed and adopted best
2. Expose park staff to existing BMPs
management practices as a result of these
for various park operations
workshops. Nor is it possible to evaluate
3. Conduct focused brainstorming
whether these workshops had significant
sessions on pathways most relevant
…continued page 12
to individual parks with the goal

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Nevada County Scotch Broom Challenge
by Lynn Lorenson, Nevada County Fire Safe Council Defensible Space Advisor

rive through Nevada County in the
spring and you will see the beautiful
and terrible contrast presented by the red
and yellow blooms of California redbud
(Cercis occidentalis) and Scotch broom
(Cytisus scoparius).

Pulling Scotch broom. Photo: Lynn Lorenson
Nevada County has unique botanical sites and is a high wildfire fire danger
area with 70% of the evacuation routes
being private roads. Most of these roads
are lined with Scotch broom. Highways
49 and 174 are also heavily infested with
Scotch broom. To add to this dire state
we found that local garden centers were
selling brooms.
In 2007 the Fire Safe Council joined
with the Resource Conservation District
to develop the Scotch Broom Challenge.
We developed cards to be left at nurseries
asking that they not sell Scotch broom.
A group of interested representatives,
including neighborhood associations, US
Forest Service, California Native Plant
Society, watershed groups, land trusts, the
California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (Cal-Fire), all county and
city fire districts, schools and churches
joined the Fire Safe Council to plan how

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Scotch broom can be brought under
control along evacuation routes and in
sensitive watershed and botanical areas.
The first control projects were implemented in the spring of 2008. A five-year
commitment of monitoring and removal
is required. We began
with four project areas
and now are up to 10.
In the first two years we
cleared over 10 acres of
broom from the landscape. Over 700 volunteers have pulled and
cut Scotch broom. The
fire districts oversee the
burning of the scotch
broom that is removed.
Weed-Wrenches
from the Fire Safe
Council and fire districts
are loaned to private
landowners to remove
broom as part of the Fire
Safe Council Defensible
Space program.
The ongoing community commitment gave the Agricultural Commissioner
the support
needed to
ban the sale,
importation
and propagation of Scotch
broom in Nevada County.

formed by an ancient volcanic mudflow
(gabbro) of shallow rocky soils containing
small vernal pools. Scotch broom growing along the roadsides was beginning
to infest this sensitive site. The Redbud
Chapter of CNPS, Wildflowers Forever,
Twin Cities Church and other property
owners are working on removing Scotch
broom from this site.
On April 3, 2010, 30 cubic yards of
broom were removed from 10 acres on the
Adam Ryan Wildlife Preserve in the Alta
Sierra area of Nevada County.
Nevada County residents of all ages,
from 8 to 80, are committed to the
long-term goal of bringing brooms under
control to preserve unique botanical sites,
restore watershed areas, and create defensible space around our homes with safe
evacuation routes in the event of a wildfire. The Nevada County Fire Safe Council and the Agricultural Commissioner are
now working with surrounding counties
on an area wide Scotch Broom Challenge
and to ban on the sale of brooms.
Contact the author at weedsalotmore@
hughs.net.

The project at Hell’s
Half Acre,
just west of
the City of
Grass Valley,
is in a unique
botanical area
where over
100 species of
Volunteers celebrate after a long day of pulling Scotch broom.
plants grow.
Photo: Lynn Lorenson
The area is

2010 Cal-IPC Symposium
“Weeds and Wildlife: Impacts and Interactions”
Ventura Beach Crowne Plaza, Ventura, CA
October 14-16, 2010, Field Course October 13

Featured Speakers
There’s an app for that: Tracking weeds with mobile technology,
Christy Brigham, Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area
BAEDN, LAEDN, SAEDN, California EDN? Can we build a
coordinated early detection network to
protect CA from new invasions?, Dan
Gluesenkamp, Audubon Canyon Ranch
Cal-IPC’s statewide weed mapping
project, Dana Morawitz, Cal-IPC

Targeted grazing for weed and wildlife
management, Morgan Doran, UC Cooperative
Extension
Impacts of California’s invasive plant species
on invertebrate fauna: A review, Denise
Knapp, UC Santa Barbara

Risk management and liability insurance
in habitat restoration and weed control,
Jeanette Heinrichs, Van Beurden Insurance

Influence of a large herbivore reintroduction
on plant invasion and community
composition in a California grassland, Brent
Johnson, Pinnacles National Monument

Wildlife protection during habitat
restoration and weed control, Natasha
Lohmus, CA Department of Fish & Game
The inspection process: What does the
Agricultural Commissioner look for?,
Rudy Martel, Ventura County Agricultural
Commissioner’s Office

Species composition changes, habitat effects and the role of
livestock grazing in improving recovery potential for Ohlone Tiger
Beetle in Santa Cruz County, John Gustafson, USDA, NRCS

Photo: Brian Murphy

Effects of Sahara mustard, Brassica tournefortii, on the biodiversity
of a desert landscape, Michelle Murphy, UC Riverside
How will tamarisk biocontrol affect wildlife?, Tom Dudley, UC
Santa Barbara

Strategic Approaches Field Course
Join Cal-IPC for our new Wildland Weed Field Course:
Strategic Approaches on Wednesday, October 13. Topics
will include developing goals and objectives, prioritizing target species, creating treatment plans, permitting
requirements, planning for monitoring, and integrating
adaptive management. Throughout the day, we will provide applicable examples to enhance your learning.

Understanding research on herbicide
impacts: Toxicology resources for today’s
habitat restoration worker, Susan Kegley,
Pesticide Research Institute
Hey, what are they doing over there? What we can learn from animal
and pathogen prevention and control projects, John Randall, TNC
Full program online, www.cal-ipc.org/symposia/index.php.
Department of Pesticide Regulation CE credits available for
licensed applicators.

Photo Contest

See information on our website and submit entries by
September 1 to breemerr@yahoo.com.

Raffle and Auction
This is a fun event and a fundraiser for Cal-IPC. Books,
wine, tools, art, and fabulous trips will be up for grabs. Do
you have something to donate? Contact raffle@cal-ipc.org.

And More…

To Register…

Discussion Groups § Sponsor Exhibits § Job Board
Student Paper & Poster Contest § Student Lunch
Social Hour § Awards Banquet § Saturday Field Trips
Strategic Approaches Field Course §

Online form at www.cal-ipc.org; you can pay online, over the
phone, or by sending a check.
Register and reserve lodging by September 21 for discounts.
Additional discounts for students and volunteers.

F u l l d e t a i l s a t w w w. c a l – i p c . o r g
Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Aquatic pesticide use, permits and injunctions:
What weed managers need to know
by Mike Blankinship, Blankinship & Associates, Davis, CA

s arundo or pampas grass in or near water on your list of species to control? Or
perhaps more mundane cattails or tules?
Maybe you have endangered or listed species in an area where vegetation management is planned. Be aware of the following regulatory topics in order for your
weed management project to succeed.

California’s Aquatic Pesticide Permit
Since 2002, intentional application
of herbicides to “Waters of the United
States” requires a permit issued by the
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). First, it is critical that you
know what constitutes “Waters of the
US”.
Be aware of the “tributary” concept.
Because many California creeks, streams
and ponds drain directly to, or are tributary to a “Water of the US”, this permit
may apply. Think “connectivity” here.
If you are hydrologically connected to a
“Water of the US”, you need to consider

NPDES permits are required for all herbicide application into “Waters of the
U.S.”, including creeks, streams, and ponds that drain directly into “Waters of the
U.S.” Photo: Mike Blankinship
this permit. Put another way, if you are
“hydrologically isolated”, this permit
probably doesn’t apply to
you.

Waters of the U.S. Include:

All interstate waters and wetlands and waters
currently, formally or potentially used in interstate
commerce;
All other waters, including intrastate waters the use,
degradation or destruction of which could affect
interstate or foreign commerce including any such
waters:
•

which are or could be used by interstate or
foreign travelers for recreational or other
purposes; or

•

from which fish or shellfish are or could be
taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

•

which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce;

Tributaries to Waters of the US; and
Wetlands adjacent to Waters of the US.

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

If you apply herbicides
to Waters of the US, the
permit you need is the
statewide general National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for the Discharge
of Aquatic Pesticides for
Aquatic Weed Control
in Waters of the US.
Although currently being
revised by SWRCB staff,
the permit is still active
and available for use.
In addition to surfactants, only 10 herbicides
are approved for aquatic
use. Special circumstances apply to the use of
acrolein and copper that
likely require California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
compliance.

Permit Benefits
What do you get out of this permit
except more paper and a hit to your budget? Simply put: Protection. The citizen
lawsuit provision of the Cleanwater Act
provides an opportunity for anyone
(read environmental advocacy groups)
to sue you if they feel you have adversely
impacted water quality. Although not
bullet-proof Teflon, the permit provides
significant defense against such a suit.
Since 2002, a variety of lawsuits have
resulted in confusion regarding the need
for the aquatic weed permit. Earlier this
year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to
hear further arguments, effectively putting
an end to the debate and once and for all
stating that a permit is, in fact, needed.

What Does the Future Hold?
Although not likely to affect us in
California, the USEPA just published a
draft of their nationwide permit intended
for use in states without an existing per-

Aquatic Pesticides Allowed
2,4-D

acrolein*

copper*

diquat

endothal

fluridone

glyphosate

imazapyr

triclopyr
sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate
non-ionic surfactants
*Special restrictions may apply
mit. Because California has had a permit
in place since 2002 and the California
permit is more stringent than the proposed EPA permit, California will likely
not adopt the EPA permit.
SWRCB staff are currently revising
the existing permit and changes are ahead.
These may include the addition of toxicity
testing and the reinstitution of regional
monitoring groups like was done in 2001.
Stay informed by joining the SWRCB
“aquatic weed control” list serve at www.

waterboards.ca.gov/resources/
email_subscriptions/swrcb_subscribe.shtml.

Be Aware of Fish and Frogs
In May, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District
of California issued an injunction that protects 11 federally
listed threatened or endangered
species, including the tidewater
goby, from 75 pesticides in eight
Bay Area counties as a result of a
suit by the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD). The injunction
requires the use of no-spray buffer zones.
www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/stipulated-injuc.
html
Similarly, in 2006, the same U.S. District Court issued an injunction related to
another CBD action. This time, buffer
zones are needed for the use of 66 pesticides in parts of 33 counties to protect the
red-legged frog. www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/redleg-frog/steps-info.htm
And last, in 2005, an injunction was
issued by the Ninth Circuit Court regard-

ing an Washington Toxics Coalition v.
EPA lawsuit related to the use of 54 pesticides near salmon-bearing water. www.
epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/index.htm
About the Author: Michael Blankinship is a Cal-IPC member, a DPR licensed
pest control advisor and a registered professional civil engineer in CA. His Davisbased consulting firm solves problems
related to permitting, compliance, water
quality and natural resource management
throughout the Western U.S. Learn more
at www.h2osci.com. Reach Mike at (530)
757-0941 or mike@h2osci.com.

California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Field Trip

n June 17, 2010, Rod Tripp, Rangeland Manager with
the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Professor Jim
Bartolome, UC Berkeley, and rancher Todd Swickard led a
field tour of EBMUD grazing lands. They shared research
and management strategies to increase native plant populations, reduce invasive species and support water quality.
The tour showcased examples of how livestock have been
managed to decrease invasive plants and increase native perennial grasses and overall species diversity. Every spring the
Coalition hosts field trips like this to facilitate communication among, researchers, land managers and ranchers.
The California Rangeland Conservation Coalition consists of ranchers, environmental groups, and resource agencies working together to preserve and enhance California’s
rangelands for biodiversity, while supporting the long-term
viability of the ranching industry. Learn more about them
at www.carangeland.org or join their bi-monthly e-update by
emailing tracy@calcattlemen.org.

Photo: Jen Stern, Cal-IPC

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Stopping the unintentional spread of arundo
by John Boland, Project Manager, Tijuana River Valley Invasive Plant Control Program

e think of arundo, Arundo donax,
as a “super invader” because it
seems to do everything well – it is large,
long-lived, competitive and persistent
(Dudley 2000). But arundo has an Achilles’ heel – it is a poor natural disperser in
smaller watersheds. Here I describe two
situations that illustrate arundo’s dispersal
behavior, and make recommendations to
slow the spread of arundo in California.

Goat Canyon and the Natural
Spread of Arundo
Goat Canyon is a new in-line sedimentation basin on one of the tributaries
leading into the Tijuana River Valley.
Each year, sediment collects in the basin
during winter and spring, and each fall
the sediment is removed along with any
plants that may have become established.
The young plant community trying to
establish in this basin is interesting. It
consists mostly of native species (e.g.,
mule-fat, Baccharis salicifolia, 385,000
plants per ha in 2009; arroyo willow, Salix
lasiolepis, 118,000 per ha), some common
invasive species (e.g., castor bean, Ricinus
communis, 6,000 per ha), but virtually
no arundo (only 1 per ha). Arundo is a
rare recruit even though it is common
elsewhere downstream or upstream? in the
valley and the conditions in the basin are
perfect for it. The huge differences in the
abundances of the native seedlings and the
arundo recruits are due to the huge differences in the reproductive and dispersal
capabilities of these species.
Most native riparian plants, like mulefat and arroyo willow, produce enormous
numbers of small seeds that are winddispersed (Faber et al. 1989); they are able
to disperse upstream, downstream and
from watershed to watershed, and spread
to sites like the Goat Canyon sedimentation basin with ease. But arundo does not
produce viable seeds in California (Johnson et al. 2006). Instead it spreads to new
sites by dispersal of large vegetative fragments, particularly fragments of rhizomes
(Boland 2008). This only happens under

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

high flood flows because rhizomes are
not easily broken from a clump (Boland
2006). I have found that, on average,
a force greater than 100 lbs. is needed
to break a rhizome from its rootstock
(average = 105 ± 35 lbs; n = 33). These
rhizomes then move only downstream in
the same watershed. Compare that to the
lightest puff of wind that disperses a thousand willow seeds in all directions and
you will appreciate that reproduction and
dispersal is an Achilles’ heel for arundo.

the banks. Bulldozers, loaders, excavators,
and other heavy equipment had inadvertently broken up the arundo, dispersed
the fragments and created new clumps
on-site. In addition, bulldozers had left
rhizome fragments in the river channel
that river flows later dispersed to areas
downstream. In 2009 I counted 450 new
arundo recruits per ha in an open area
downstream of Smuggler’s Gulch; this
density is orders of magnitude greater
than the back-ground densities of new

Arundo donax is being unintentionally spread by this backhoe. Simple measures
can be taken to prevent mechanical dispersal of arundo.

Smuggler’s Gulch and the
Unintentional Spread of Arundo
Smuggler’s Gulch is just 1 mile away
from Goat Canyon and it too is a tributary leading into the Tijuana River Valley.
But Smuggler’s Gulch goes through farmland before joining the main river channel
and the City of San Diego maintains the
800 m long channel so that the farms are
not flooded. Every two to three years
bulldozers deepen the sandy channel, and
raise the sandy banks by depositing sediment from the channel onto the banks.
In 2004 there were only three patches
of arundo growing on the banks but in
2009, after three bulldozer-maintenance
events, there were 52 discrete patches on

recruits seen in places like Goat Canyon.
The bulldozing of Smuggler’s Gulch
resulted in many new arundo clumps
becoming established at, and downstream of, the bulldozer site (see Figure).
Therefore, at Smuggler’s Gulch, humans
unknowingly helped arundo through its
reproduction/dispersal bottle-neck.

Synthesis and Recommendations
The situations at Goat Canyon and
Smuggler’s Gulch show that the reproduction and dispersal of arundo is poor under
natural conditions in small watersheds,
but that the use of bulldozers can greatly
increase arundo dispersal and reproduction. There are many other sites where

you can see similar results. Within San Diego
County many of the places where Arundo is most
abundant are sites where bulldozers are frequently
used, particularly quarries and channel maintenance
sites (Boland 2007).
In California, a tremendous amount of effort
has gone into controlling arundo, but it is still
common in most watersheds and some exasperated
researchers recently wrote,“The invasion of California riparian areas by arundo continues despite
efforts to control its spread, and there remains some
uncertainty as to how it is able to do so” (Johnson
et al. 2006). I believe that the bulldozer-facilitated
dispersal mechanism described here is an underappreciated way that arundo spreads.
Recognizing the role of bulldozers in the spread
of arundo should focus our control strategy in two
ways:
1. Stop the spread of arundo by bulldozers
– resource management agencies should
require spraying of arundo clumps before,
during, and after earthmoving activities; and
2. Target the arundo at bulldozer sites – arundo at quarries and other bulldozer hotspots
should be given the highest priority because these are the sources of new invasions
downstream.
Because arundo is a poor natural disperser
except for extreme flood and erosion events, reducing its unintentional spread by bulldozers can help
significantly reduce its overall abundance in the
long term.

Literature Cited
Boland, J.M. 2006. The importance of layering
in the rapid spread of Arundo donax (giant reed).
Madroño 53 (4): 303-312.
Boland, J.M. 2007. The break-up and dispersal of Arundo donax by bulldozers. Proceedings of
California Invasive Plant Council Symposium, San
Diego, CA. Abstract available at: www.cal-ipc.org/
symposia/archive/pdf/2007/Proceedings_2007.pdf
Boland, J.M. 2008. The roles of floods and
bulldozers in the break-up and dispersal of Arundo
donax (giant reed). Madroño 55 (3): 216-222.
Dudley, T.L. 2000. Arundo donax L. Pp. 53-58
in C. Bossard, J. Randall and M. Hoshovsky (eds.).
Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

A bulldozer disperses arundo by cutting rhizomes (black dots) from
the rootstock. Later, many new clumps become established at, and
downstream of, the bulldozer site.
Faber, P., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B. Massey. 1989. The ecology of riparian habitats of the Southern California coastal region: a community profile.
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.27). 152 pp.
Johnson, M., T. Dudley and C. Burns. 2006. Seed production in
Arundo donax? Cal-IPC News 14: 12-13.

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

California weed worker travels down under
by John Knapp, Native Range, Inc. and Cal-IPC board member

n 2001, the IUCN hosted an international conference in Auckland, New
Zealand, on the eradication of island invasives titled,“Turning the tide: The eradication of invasive species”. The conference
proceedings have inspired me throughout
my career, and so when the conference
organizers planned a follow-up conference
in February 8-12, 2010, I knew I had to
attend. After touring the North Island for
a week of southern hemisphere summer
surf, I found that I had to share what I
experienced during that time as well.
My accent must have given me away,
because I was commonly asked where
I was from and what I did for a living.
When I responded, “weed management
in California,” I wasn’t told that they had
some weeds for me to pull or given that
funny look that suggests “what have you
been smoking?” Surprisingly, I was asked,
“What species are problems in California?”
During my stay, television commercials aired advertising certifications in
invasive species management, and the
radio broadcasted stories on invasive species control to protect biodiversity. I was
awestruck by the Kiwis’ understanding of
invasive species issues, and realized that
we have a long way to go in achieving the
same level of awareness and support in
California. The scope and sheer number

of eradications presented at the conference
was impressive.
The conference began with a Maori
blessing and traditional gathering rituals. The nearly 300 attendees included
three Cal-IPC members, 10 people from
California (the majority from The Nature
Conservancy and Santa Cruz-based
Island Conservation), and 23 people from
the States. Plant eradication talks were
under-represented, with the majority of
international talks and posters focused on
vertebrate eradications; however, the strategies, extensive planning, and ecological
considerations presented could easily be
applied to plant eradications.
Several themes surfaced throughout
the talks: 1) the benefits of multi-species
eradications, 2) the need to investigate
potential outcomes/impacts of completing eradications, and 3) how to determine
when you have achieved eradication.
Interestingly, helicopters were utilized
in the majority of eradications, contingency funding was built into eradication
budgets, and projects were conducted by
teams of international personnel.
A concern expressed in several talks
was the need to retain experienced eradication contractors; because of the lag time
between eradications, contractors may
not be able to stay in business. One major
idea presented was to garner international
support and funding for invasive species

Detection dogs survey sites eradicated
of pests such as stoats, rats, cats, mice,
hedgehogs, and rabbits to ensure
project success. Photo: J. Knapp
eradications on islands by purchasing a
ship that could hold several helicopters,
which would travel throughout the globe
with species-specific eradication specialists
going from one locale to the next.
It was refreshing to be in a place
where such ideas seemed possible- an
“eradication Jacque Cousteau,” if you will,
traveling the seas on the Calypso ridding
islands of invasive species. Throughout
the 12-hour flight home I wondered if we
aim too low in the northern hemisphere.
Are we more insular in our approach to
eradications and thinking than our peers
working on islands throughout the globe?
Do we dare dream such dreams? Regardless, much as I do after attending a CalIPC symposium, I came away recharged
and inspired.
Contact the author at john@nativerange.us

…BMPs from page 5
impacts on park operations or reduced
inadvertent weed spread from park operations. However, the workshops were wellattended by a diversity of park staff, were
well-received based on workshop evaluations, and served to raise the general level
of weed awareness within each park.
Although each park we visited was
different and had unique weed problems, several patterns emerged from our
workshop visits. First, all parks appear to
be seriously under-staffed when it comes

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

to dealing with their weed problems.
Each park typically had only one to a
small handful of staff available to work on
weed problems that were threatening the
majority of ecosystem types found within
each park. Second, many parks are feeling
overwhelmed by their weed problems
and are considering “giving up” on many
problematic species. This decision about
when to “give up” on species appears to
be occurring in a vacuum of guidance or
scientifically derived criteria for when to

consider an invasive species problem a
lost cause. Third, all of the parks that we
visited appeared to be poised on the brink
of disaster with respect to weed problems.
Each had at least one if not several species that were present in the park at low
densities but had the potential to significantly modify ecosystem functioning were
they to spread beyond their initial small
infestations.
Contact the author at Christy_Brigham@
nps.gov.

Thank You for Supporting our Work!
Recent Donors

New Members

Your tax-deductible donations are
extremely valuable in supporting our
programs. Thank you!

As a Cal-IPC Member, you join a
powerful network of land managers,
researchers, volunteers, and concerned
citizens. Welcome!

Stewardship ($-$)
Jacob Sigg (San Francisco)

Patron ($500-$999)
Edith Allen (Riverside)

Champion ($250-$499)
Doug Gibson (Encinitas)
Jason Giessow (Encinitas)

Contributor ($100-$249)
Jean-Philippe Marie (Davis)
Cheryl McCormick (San Pedro)
Kate Symonds (Cotati)

Friend (up to $99)
Jannee Morley (Etna)
Chester Nelson (San Diego)
M.E. Williams (San Diego)

New Organizational Member
Organizational Members advance
Cal-IPC’s mission to protect California’s
wildlands from invasive plants.
Thank you for your support!
Claremont Canyon Conservancy

…News from page 3
Geocachers are helping track down
invasive plants in Idaho. Geocaching is a
sort of treasure hunt where recreationists
use GPS receivers to locate caches hidden
around the world, often in remote areas.
Ada County, ID, hid four containers
with information about invasive plants
infestations and control efforts in order to
spread the word about weeds. Geocachers can also submit coordinates of new
infestations they find. www.govtech.com/gt/
articles/765293

Bob Agres, Alonzo Aguilar (Oakridge
Landscape, Inc, North Hills), Eileen Alduenda
(LASGRWC, Los Angeles), Joseph Alexander
(Crop Production Services, Oxnard), Jim Alford
(Sacramento), Richard Arroyo (Metropolitan
Water District, Grenada Hills), Emily
Bergmann, Heather Byrd (BLM Redding
Field Office), David Carman (Perfect Plants
Landscape Management, Woodland Hills),
Ricardo Carrillo (City of La Puente), Thomas
Carroll (CA State Parks), Camilo Castillo
(City of Lakewood), Walter Chavez (CA State
Parks ), Margaret Colbert (Berkeley), Sara
Copp (BLM Redding Field Office), Raymond
Cross (City of Pasadena), Andrea Davis
(Ukiah Valley Trail Group, Redwood Valley),
Gregg Denson (Architerra Design Group
Inc., Rancho Cucamonga), Melissa DeSiervo,
Tom Dwyer (North East Trees), John Erbe
(Vallejo), Lauren Fety (Mother Lode Field
Office, El Dorado Hills), Cathy Fisher-Roybal
(Contra Costa County Ag Dept., Concord),
William Fong (Metropolitan Water District,
Los Angeles), Douglas Freitas (Vacaville),
Marilyn Goldhaber (Claremont Canyon
Conservancy, Berkeley), Carl Harral (City
of Redding), Chris Heintzelman (Duncans
Mills), Gary Humecke (Pierce College,
Winnetka), Scott Jacobs (City of Culver City),

Saltcedar and Russian olive may not use
as much water as previously thought.
Tamarix ramosissima and Eleagnus angustifolia are invasive trees along many
waterways in the western U.S. However,
a study by the U.S. Geological Survey
found that, contrary to what is often
thought, these trees use no more water
than native cottonwoods and willows. The
study also found that the trees provide
habitat for some wildlife species but not
specialized birds such as woodpeckers and
cavity-nesting species. (USGS Newsroom,

Andy Jahn (Ukiah Valley Trails Group), Jon
Kaufman (Claremont Canyon Conservancy,
Berkeley), Carol Kunze (Berryessa Trails and
Conservation, Napa), Louise Lacey (Growing
Native, Berkeley), Justavo Lopez (City of La
Puente), Ivette Loredo (USFWS), Daniel
Lubin (Grass Valley), Manuel Macias (City of
Pasadena), Melanie Mancuso (USFWS), Gerry
Mcchesney (USFWS, Newark), Paul McGee
(Claremont Canyon Conservancy, Berkeley),
Kathleen McQuiggan (AECOM, Los Angeles),
Holden Mills, Bryan Moscardini (County
of Los Angeles Dept of Parks and Recreation),
Kerry Musgrove (City of Lakewood), Ashika
Narayan (Oakland), Luis Navarette (Oakridge
Landscape, Inc., North Hills), Amy Nettleton
(Elemental Landscapes, South Pasadena), John
Niedhamer (Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, Duarte), Nicholas
Oliver (Sutter County Dept of Agriculture,
Yuba City), Alekz Pang (Marin County Flood
Control & Water Conservation District),
Cynthia Perrine (San Luis Obispo), Kelly
Quinn (Clearlake Oaks), Greg Richardson
(Sustainable Conservation, San Francisco),
Calvin Sahara (USFWS), Susan Savolainen
(Metropolitan Water District, Riverside), Leslie
Scott, Robyn Shea (Loomis), Meghan Skaer
(Davis), William Spangler (Santa Cruz), Aaron
Sunshine (Oakland), Anne Van Galder (Fresno
Master Gardeners), Jeannie Vierra (Clearlake
Oaks), Christy Wagner (Trinity County RCD,
Weaverville), Dave Wallace (City of Torrance
Park Services), Lorraine Weller (UC Riverside),
Brian Yamasaki (City of Los Angeles Rec &
Park), Christie Youngs

April 28) www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.
asp?ID=2451
A new invasive snail has reached the Lake
Tahoe Basin. The New Zealand mud snail
was detected on a boat at an inspection
station at the lake in May. The snails are
a concern because they outcompete invertebrates living in stream channels that
are important food sources for trout and
other fish. The fish generally do not eat
the snails. Mud snails are already present
in several rivers in California. (Tahoe Daily
Tribune, May 29)

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

Readings &
Resources

Epanchin-Neill et al. 2010. Controlling
invasive species in complex social landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. 8(4)210-216

Know of a resource that should be shared
here? Send it to edbrusati@cal-ipc.org.

Evaluating state policies
The Union of Concerned Scientists examined invasive species policies in 11 states,
including California, to evaluate their
effectiveness in preventing and eradicating
invasions. Factsheets for each state and a
summary for all 11 states are available on
their website. www.ucsusa.org/invasive_species/solutions/current-state-invasive.html

Social aspects of weed management
A recently-published study discusses how
land use changes and interactions among
land managers contribute to the outcome of invasive plant control efforts at a
regional scale. Using yellow starthistle in
the Sierra Nevada foothills as a case study,
the researchers examined how increasing
subdivision of the landscape results in
each manager having responsibility for
less land, and consequently increases the
difficulty of coordination among manager while increasing the possibility that
an infestation will not be controlled and
therefore will become a source for new
infestations.

Dogs vs. humans against knapweed
If you want to find hidden weeds, maybe
you need to hire dogs as your field assistants. Researchers in Montana trained
three dogs to find spotted knapweed by
smell and found that the dogs performed
better than their human counterparts,
with accuracy rates of 81% (dogs) vs.
59% (humans).

Goodwin, K.M., et al. 2010. Trained
dogs outperform human surveyors in the
detection of rare spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Invasive Plant Science and
Management, 3(2): 113-121. Available:
www2.allenpress.com/pdf/IPSM-3.2-113121.pdf
Invasive species follow the money
Wealth, population density, and the
consequent increase in trade are the most
important factors determining invasive
species’ spread in Europe, according to
an article to be published in Proceeding
of the National Academy of Sciences.
Other factors such as climate change and
land use were less important than expected. Identifying these factors may be
important for developing better methods
to prevent the spread of invasive species,
especially since most international trade
agreements do not address them. www.
physorg.com/news195133654.html

Book Review

The Global Migrations of Ornamental Plants:
How the world got into your garden

he Global Migrations of Ornamental Plants starts with a picture of a
typical English cottage garden, featuring
a profusion of lovely and familiar plants,
not a single one of which is actually native
to England. The book traces how European colonization led to the introduction
of hundreds of ornamental species over
the past four centuries.
Organized by the region where the
plants originated, much of the story
follows the plant hunters who sought
fame and fortune by bringing back exotic
species, along with the interpersonal and
political rivalries that affected their work.
Readers who know Latin plant names will
find the stories of how many of them were
named interesting. One of the surprising points in the book is how long ago
some of our modern garden plants were
cultivated as ornamentals. One species of
orchid was brought from the New World
as early as 1698. The book contains an

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

extensive appendix listing plants brought
into North America and England and the
main native and imported plants grown
in Early America. It also includes photographs of some of the plants and plant
hunters. My one criticism of this book
is that sometimes the lists of name after
name (both for plants and plant hunters)
can get to be too much and it becomes
difficult to keep track of them all.
Global Migrations also contains numerous pieces of trivia: Did you know that
the first professional nursery in California opened in 1849? Its owner, Colonel
J.L. Warren, lobbied the state legislature
to create horticultural and agricultural
boards and also established the California
State Fair to stimulate development of
new plants. The first botanical gardens in
Europe grew out of “physic gardens” in
medieval monasteries and were used to
teach medical students about herbs.

The Global Migrations of Ornamental
Plants: How the world got into your garden
by Judith M. Taylor, Missouri Botanical
Garden Press, 312 pp., 2009

The WILDLAND WEED CALENDAR
August
Ecological Society of America
August 1-6
Pittsburgh, PA
www.esa.org/pittsburgh
International Workshop on Invasive Plants
in Mediterranean Regions of the World
August 2-6
Trabzon, Turkey
archives.eppo.org/MEETINGS/2010_
conferences/mediterranean_ias.htm
SER International European Conference
August 23-28
Avignon, France
www.seravignon2010.org
17th Intl. Conf. on Aquatic Invasive Species
August 29-September 2
San Diego
www.icais.org

September
6th European Conference on Biological
Invasion NEOBIOTA
September 14-17
Copenhagen, Denmark
cis.danbif.dk/neobiota2010

North American Weed Management
Association
September 27-30
Pueblo, Colorado
www.nawma.org

October

2011
Weed Science Society of America
Annual Meeting
February 7-10, 2011
Portland, OR
www.wssa.net

Biological Control for Nature Conference
October 3-7
Northampton, MA
biocontrolfornature.ucr.edu

2nd International Invasive Bird Conference
March 7-9, 2011
Cape Town, South Africa
www.iibc2011.co.za

Cal-IPC 2010 Symposium
October 13-16
Ventura
www.cal-ipc.org/symposia

Western Society of Weed Science
March 7-10, 2011
Spokane, WA
www.wsweedscience.org

November
Central CA Invasive Weeds Symposium
November 12
Monterey or Santa Cruz County
For more info: StuartK@co.monterey.ca.us

December
Oregon InterAgency Noxious Weed Symp
December 7-9
Corvallis, OR
www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS

Ecological Society of America
August 7-12, 2011
Austin, TX
SER Int. Congress on Ecological Restoration
August 21-25, 2011
Merida, Yucatan, Mexico
www.ser2011.org
3rd Symposium on Environmental Weeds &
Invasive Plants
October 2-7, 2011
Ascona, Switzerland
www.ewrs.org/invasive_plants.asp

Quotable
“Pick It or Ticket.”
~Slogan for a new law in Minnesota that requires boaters to clean off aquatic weeds and drain

their boat before leaving a lake or river to reduce the spread of invasive species.

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, July 1)

“We attribute mistakes and lower accuracy to distraction by ground squirrels.”

~ Goodwin et al. (2010) Invasive Plant Science & Management
(Describing a study where trained dogs searched for invasive spotted knapweed.)

“The plant can eat through concrete…”
~ Paul Greaves (Birmingham Mail, England) discussing Japanese knotweed

Cal-IPC News Summer 2010

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

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

Join Us!
We’re working to protect California’s wildlands from invasive plants—join us!
Cal-IPC’s effectiveness comes from a strong membership that includes scientists, land managers, policy makers, and concerned citizens.
Please complete this form and mail with check or credit card number. Additional donations support our projects. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and donations beyond regular membership rates are tax deductible. Join or donate online at www.cal-ipc.org.
Membership
Regular $40
Student $20
Organization*
$150
* Receives member benefits for three individuals.
Attach contact information for add’l individuals.

Joint Memberships
SERCAL only
CNGA only
SERCAL & CNGA

add $25
add $35
add $65

Donation
Amount of gift
Friend ($1 – $99)
Contributor ($100 – $249)
Champion ($250 – $499)
Patron ($500 – $999)
Stewardship Circle ($1,000+)
I would like to consider a
legacy gift. Please send information on planned giving.

Cal-IPC Membership runs on the calendar year. Those who join after June 30 each year will
be current through the following calendar year. Joint memberships receive a $5 discount on
each organization’s normal rate and apply only to Regular Cal-IPC memberships.
Check here if you would prefer to receive the Cal-IPC News as a link to a pdf file
online rather than a paper copy.
Occasionally, we share members’ addresses with like-minded organizations. Check if
you do not want your information shared.

Mail this form with check (payable to “Cal-IPC”) or credit card info to:
Cal-IPC, 1442-A Walnut Street #462, Berkeley, CA 94709

Name
Affiliation
Address
City

State Zip

Phone
E-mail
Credit Card No.

Exp.