CalEPPC
News
A quarterly
publication
of the California
Exotic Pest Plant Council
Volume 5 Number 3
Summer 1997
IN THIS ISSUE
Presidents Message
by Ann Howald ……………
p. 3
Killing the Beast
by Eric Stein and
Valerie Vartanian …………
A New Threat to
California Pines
by Richard Hawley ……….
p. 4
p. 7
A Working Paper on
Ailanthus by Jo Kitz ….. p. 9
Letters to the Editor . p.10
California Conservation Corps crew cutting Arundo in Prado Basin, Orange County
Photo by Valerie Vartanian.
CalEPPC News
Who We Are
CalEPPC NEWS is published quarterly
by the California Exotic Pest Plant
Council, a non-profit organization. The
objects of the organization are to:
j provide a focus for issues and
concerns regarding exotic pest
plants in California;
j facilitate communication and the
exchange of information regarding
all aspects of exotic pest plant
control and management;
j provide a forum where all interested
parties may participate in meetings
and share in the benefits from the
information generated by this
council;
Officers
1997 CalEPPC Officers and
Board Members
President
Ann Howald
Vice-president
Mike Kelly
Secretary
John Randall
Treasurer
Mike Pitcairn
Past-president
Carla Bossard
Board Members whose terms expire December 31, 1997
Editor
j promote public understanding
regarding exotic pest plants and
their control;
j serve as an advisory council regarding funding, research, management
and control of exotic pest plants;
Sally Davis
31872 Joshua Dr., No. 25D, Trabuco Canyon, CA
92679; 714.888.8541; email: sallydavis@aol.com
Nelroy Jackson
400 S. Ramona Ave., No 212H, Corona, CA 91719;
909.279.7787; email: nejack@ccmail.monsanto.com
Jo Kitz
6223 Lubao Ave., Woodland Hills, CA 91367;
818.346.9675; email: mtnsrt@aol.com
Jeff Lovich
USGS Biological Resources Div., 63500 Garnet
Ave., No. Palm Springs, CA 2258;619.251.4719;
email: jeffrey_lovich@nbs.gov
Brenda Ouwerkerk SLO County Dept. of Agriculture, 2156 Sierra Way,
Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; 805.781.5910
Board Members whose terms expire December 31, 1998
j facilitate action campaigns to
monitor and control exotic pest
plants in California; and
Greg Archbald
Joe Balciunas
j review incipient and potential pest
plant management problems and
activities and provide relevant
information to interested parties.
Carl Bell
Joe DiTomaso
Steve Harris
Working Group Chairpersons
Database
Nursery growers/landscape
architects liaison
Slide Collection
Species Management & Control:
Biocontrol
Arundo
Brooms
German ivy/hoary cress
Please Note:
The California Exotic Pest Plant Council is a
California 501(c)3 non-profit, public benefit
corporation organized to provide a focus for issues
and concerns regarding exotic pest plants in
California, and is recognized under federal and state
tax laws a qualified donee for tax deducible
charitable contributions.
Page 2 Summer 1997
210 Chestnut Ave., Sonoma, CA 95476;
707.939.0775; email:
102062.170@compuserve.com
11875 River Rim Rd., San Diego, CA 92126;
619.566.6489; email: mkellysd@aol.com
TNC Wildland Weeds Mgmt., UC Section of Plant
Biology, Davis, CA 95616; 916.754.8890; email:
jarandall@ucdavis.edu
CDFA, 3288 Meadowview Road,Sacramento, CA
95832; 916.262.2049; email:
mpitcairn@smpt1.dfa.ca.gov
St. Marys College, Dept. of Biology, P.O. Box 4507,
Moraga, CA 94575; 916.758.1602
Lepidium
Pampas grass
Yellow starthistle
Tamarisk
Volunteers
CalEPPCs web site:
GGNPA, Fort Mason, Bldg. 201, San Francisco, CA
94123; 415.673.4067, Ext. 25;
email: greg_archbald@ggnpa.org
USDA Biocontrol, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA
94710; 510.559.5975; email: joebalci@pw.usda.gov
UC Coop Ext., 1050 E. Holton Rd., Holtville, CA
92250; 760.352.9474; email: cebell@ucdavis.edu
UC Weed Science Prog., 210 Robbins Hall, Davis,
CA 95616; 916.754.8715; email:
ditomaso@vegmail.ucdavis.edu
P.O. Box 341, Arcata, CA 95518-0341;
707.443.6943; email: sharris@igc.org
Steve Harris
707.443.6943
Dan Songster
Tony Bomkamp
714.895.8161
714.837.0404
Mike Pitcairn
Nelroy Jackson
Need chairperson
Dave Chipping
and Greg Archbald
Joel Trumbo
Joe DiTomaso
Mike Pitcairn
Bill Neill
and Jeff Lovich
Mike Kelly
and Jo Kitz
916.262.2049
909.279.7787
805.528.0362
415.673.4067, Ext.25
916.355.0128
916.754.8715
916.262.2049
281.287.5246
909.787.4719
619.566.6489
818.346.9675
http://www.igc.apc.org/ceppc/index.html
CalEPPC News
Presidents Message
Ann Howald, President
A
h, the joys of summer -barbecues, tomatoes from
the garden, beach days and
vacations! Time to get away from our
everyday routine, enjoy the immense
natural beauty of our state, gather
our energies and even have time to
reflect on things that normally are
pushed aside by more immediate
concerns. For CalEPPC members, it
goes without saying that we want to
protect the wildlands we love to
camp and hike in from all perturbations, but especially from the ravages
of invasive exotic plants. Summer
can be a time to appreciate the
restorative powers of nature, but it is
also a time to ask, is there more I
could do to help preserve those wild
places that mean so much to me?
Of course, the answer is always
yes. Recognizing that all of us seem
to have ever-increasing workloads
and mounting responsibilities, Id like
to offer a few suggestions for how
CalEPPC members might do a little
bit more to free Californias wildlands
from the strangle-hold of invasive
exotic plants.
For those of us who are teachers, either by profession or by personality, educating our students,
friends and relatives about exotic pest
plants — how to recognize them,
what problems they cause, how to
get rid of them — increases the
workforce against weeds tremendously. Imagine the impact if each
one of Californias 32 million people
eliminated just one individual weed
plant per day! To assist us in our
education project, we can look
forward to the publication of Wildland Weeds of California in 1998.
Written for the general public, this
book will provide up-to-date information on recognizing and controlling
Californias worst wildland weeds.
For those who love to be outside
and enjoy invigorating exercise in the
company of dedicated, lively people,
let me recommend weekend weed
whacking. Active, organized volunteer groups can be found throughout
much of the state. The best way to
find one near you is to contact a
CalEPPC board member (addresses,
phones and email on page 2 of this
newsletter), or contact a representative of your local chapter of the
California Native Plant Society. (Call
the Sacramento headquarters of
CNPS at (916) 447-2677 to find out
about your local chapter.) If there
isnt a volunteer group in your area,
start one!
If you work for a public agency
that deals in some way with natural
resources, keep the impacts of weeds
in mind when you are making
decisions about natural resource
management. Highway construction,
fire prevention, management of
water resources — these and many
other activities of public agencies can
affect the distribution of exotic pest
plants. Promote restoration and
revegetation with native species
whenever possible and do what you
can to direct funds toward exotics
control.
For those who have absolutely
no time, but other resources, there is
the M word to consider. Personal
action is wonderful, but money is
often a necessity as well. If you dont
have time to volunteer yourself,
consider making a contribution to your
local volunteer group for weed removal supplies and other necessities.
If you have recently joined
CalEPPC or have recently become
aware of Californias exotic pest
plant problems, and would like to be
more involved but havent decided
how to do it, let me encourage you
to come to CalEPPC Symposium
97, Reaching Out and Keeping
Out, to be held October 10-12, at
the Sheraton Concord, in Concord,
California. Our symposium will be
entertaining, informative, and will
bring together hundreds of likeminded people from all over the
state. You will be sure to find something to intrigue you.
Personal
action
is wonderful,
but money
is often a
necessity
as well.
And lastly, let me encourage all
of you to consider a more active role
in our organization, CalEPPC. In just
six years we have grown from four
people with an idea to a respected
state-wide group of over 560 members. Many of you have contributed
your unique talents and ideas to
create the organization we have
today. But there is much more to do
and there is room for anyone who
wants to participate. Consider joining
an existing working group or starting
a new one, initiating a special project
that interests you, or running for a
position on our board. The diversity,
creativity and energy of our members
is our most valuable resource. See
what you can do! j
Have a great summer,
everyone! See you
in
Concord in
October!
Summer 1997 Page 3
CalEPPC News
Killing the Beast: A Cooperative Approach for Control of
Arundo donax in the Santa Ana River Watershed
Eric D. Stein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
Valerie Vartanian, The Nature Conservancy
E
ffective management of
aquatic invasive weeds re
quires watershed-scale efforts,
with weed control beginning in
headwaters areas and proceeding
downstream to minimize
reinfestation of previously treated
areas. Such large-scale efforts are
often beyond the resources of
individual organizations and require
coordinated interagency approaches.
In 1992, a collection of federal,
state, local, and private organizations formed Team Arundo to focus
on the common goal of eradicating
giant reed (Arundo donax) from the
2,450 square mile Santa Ana
Watershed, which is the largest river
system in Southern California and is
located in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. Over the
last five years Team Arundo has
realized many of their original goals
and has recently reorganized to
refocus efforts on continuing and
emerging needs.
Since 1992, Team Arundo has
been involved with increasing public
awareness by publishing documents
on problems and control strategies
associated with giant reed infestation, fostering partnerships to tackle
giant reed eradication by holding
regular team meetings and equipment demonstrations, exploring
sources of revenue for weed eradication, improving information transfer
by hosting a symposium on giant
reed control, helping to establish
other regional teams such as Team
Arundo del Norte (see Winter 1997
CalEPPC News), streamlining
regulatory processes associated with
giant reed eradication, and providing
innovative opportunities for wetland
Page 4 Summer 1997
mitigation. The latter two achievements are particularly noteworthy.
The Regulatory Branch of the
Los Angeles District Corps of
Engineers has been an active participant on Team Arundo and has been
instrumental in the issuance of a
Regional General Permit (RGP) for
invasive weed control and in the
establishment of a wetland mitigation bank based on eradication of
giant reed from the Santa Ana River.
Removal of giant reed and other
invasive weeds often necessitates
working in streams or wetlands
subject to the Corps jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Many of the worst
infestations occur in large watercourses, below headwaters, where
Nationwide Permit 26 does not
apply. Review of these projects
indicates than most are intended to
restore or enhance aquatic resources
and result in minimal individual and
cumulative effects on the environ-
ment. Therefore, the Corps issued
Regional General Permit #41 (RGP
41) to (1) reduce unnecessary
duplication and burden to the
regulated public and (2) provide an
expedited mechanism to authorize
opportunistic invasive weed control
following floods and fires, when such
efforts are particularly effective. This
general permit provides authorization under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act for the mechanized
removal of the following invasive
weeds from waters of the United
States including wetlands: giant reed
(Arundo donax), salt cedar (Tamarix
spp.), common reed (Phragmites
australis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana
glauca), castor bean (Ricinus communis), Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis), artichoke thistle (Cynara
cardunculus), thistle (Cirsium spp.),
and pampas grass (Cortaderia
selloana). This RGP is valid in Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Diego, San Bernardino, Imperial,
Ventura, Santa
Removal of Arundo by Hydro-Ax at Riverside County Parks.
CalEPPC News
Barbara, Mono, Inyo, and San Luis
Obispo counties in Southern California.
The RGP authorizes mechanized landclearing, mechanical
mulching (i.e. Hydro-Ax), mechanized removal, chipping, and excavation of living or dead invasive
plants and any associated debris.
Native riparian vegetation should be
avoided to the maximum extent
practicable. Any native riparian trees
3-inches DBH (diameter at breast
height) or larger which are removed
from fully infested stands, must be
replaced on-site at a 2:1 ratio. The
RGP also authorizes stockpiling of
invasive plants and associated debris
which have been excavated, except
during the flood season (November
15- April 15), when stockpiling is
prohibited. Stockpiles must be placed
in previously disturbed or degraded
areas, cannot be placed within 50 feet
of flowing water, and must be disposed of within 30 days of initial
creation of the stockpile by either
removal to an appropriate upland
disposal area or by burning. Construction of access roads are authorized under the RGP provided that
the width and length of the road are
the minimum necessary for access
to the exotics removal site and that
roads are restored with appropriate
native riparian or wetland vegetation
once they are no longer necessary
for site monitoring, restoration, or
maintenance. It should be clarified
that a Section 404 permit is not
always necessary to undertake an
invasive weed removal program.
Prescribed burns, herbicide application, and using hand-held tools to cut
plants do not require authorization
from the Corps of Engineers. Corps
permits are necessary when mechanized landclearing, excavation,
stockpiling, or other activities occur
which affect the substrate of an
aquatic area (e.g. rivers, lakes, wetlands).
Projects impacting watercourses
or wetlands subject to the Corps
jurisdiction are often required to
mitigate their impacts through
creation, restoration, or enhancement of aquatic resources. The Los
Angeles District of the Corps views
invasive weed control as an innovative and effective means of restoring
degraded aquatic resources, which is
appropriate for use as compensatory
mitigation. To this end, the Corps
has worked with Riverside County
Park and Open Space District to
establish a mitigation bank on a 174
acre portion of the Santa Ana River.
The goal of the Santa Ana River
Mitigation Bank (SARMB) is to
reestablish native riparian ecological
diversity and other riparian functions
through the removal of invasive
weeds. Restoration of this reach of
the Santa Ana River will be part of
an overall interagency plan to
eradicate Arundo and other invasive,
non-native vegetation from the
Santa Ana River Watershed. Recipients of Section 404 permits for
projects within the Riverside County
portion of the Santa Ana River
Watershed may be eligible to purchase credits from the SARMB to
satisfy mitigation requirements of
their Corps permit. Use of the
Mitigation Bank is contingent upon
Corps approval and subject to the
following conditions: (1) all efforts
have been made to avoid and
minimize impacts and mitigation is
only being used to compensate for
unavoidable impacts; (2) only impacts to riparian habitat may be
mitigated at the SARMB; (3) the
SARMB can only be used to compensate for minimal impacts, individually or cumulatively, such as
roadway widening, maintenance
activities, bank stabilization for erosion
or flood prevention, utility-line backfill
and bedding, or outfall structures
With the achievement of many
of the original goals of Team
Arundo, the team has reevaluated its
function and goals for the next five
years. Today, led by the Nature
Conservancy, Team Arundo has
taken on a watershed wide approach, reaching out to land owners
and managers in the upper Santa
Ana River system to promote a
more comprehensive effort towards
invasive weed control.
Team Arundo
intends to act as
the coordinating
body for invasive
plant control
projects in the
Santa Ana and
Santa Margarita
watersheds.
Team Arundo intends to act as
the coordinating body for invasive
plant control projects in the Santa
Ana and Santa Margarita watersheds. Participants will provide
information on current invasive
plant removal projects which will be
stored in a GIS data base. Each
entry will contain a map location
and text describing the project,
including beginning and ending
dates, total acres actually infested
with the invasive plant(s), and
eradication methods used. This data
base will be used to identify the most
strategic locations for new projects
and ensure that they support existing
eradication efforts. This coordination
will greatly benefit individual landowners in the watersheds, and help
ensure the long-term success of
eradication of invasive weed species
throughout the watersheds. An
example of such coordination is the
pooling and strategic disbursement
of mitigation monies to achieve
Continued on next page
Summer 1997 Page 5
CalEPPC News
Killing the Beast
(Contd)
eradication of giant reed on ecologically important, contiguous areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Army Corps of Engineers, Orange
County Water District, Santa Ana
Watershed Association of Resource
Conservation Districts, and The
Nature Conservancy have pooled
resources to restore 122 acres of
riparian habitat in the Prado Flood
Control Basin on the Santa Ana
River. This area now supports one of
the largest remaining populations of
the endangered least Bells vireo.
Additional mitigation funds from
Orange County Water District and
the Army Corps of Engineers have
allowed this restoration to be revised
to encompass a larger portion of the
watershed and help ensure longterm viability of the habitat in Prado
Basin.
An ongoing goal for Team
Arundo is to offer watershed inhabitants workshops related to riparian
corridor management. Workshop
topics include regulatory permitting
and sensitive species issues, and
landscaping with native plants or
plants that do not contribute to the
problem of invasive weed infestation.
Article concluded on page 8.
Arundo sprouting through burned root stock.
Page 6 Summer 1997
Army Corps of Engineers
Permitting Process
Sally Davis,
F
Glenn Lukos Associates, Regulatory Specialists
or those readers who are
unfamiliar with the Army
Corps of Engineers permitting
process, I would like to provide
some background information.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the disposal of dredged and/or
fill material into waters of the United
States. The term waters of the
United States includes: 1. All
navigable waters (including all waters
subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide); 2. All interstate waters and
wetlands; 3. All other waters such as
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs,
prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the
use, degradation or destruction of
which could affect interstate or
foreign commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters mentioned above;
5. All tributaries to waters mentioned above; 6. The territorial seas,
and; 7. All wetlands adjacent to
waters mentioned above.
In the absence of wetlands, the
limits of Corps jurisdiction in nontidal waters, such as intermittent
streams, extend to the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM). Wetlands are
defined as …those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support…a
prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.
Work that will require an Army
Corps of Engineers permit for the
discharge of fill or dredged material
into a freshwater stream, lake, or
adjacent wetland include: bank
protection of rip rap, gabions, etc.;
realignment of existing stream
channel; road crossings; backfill;
bridge protection; temporary stockpiling of material; landfills for future
developments; grading within stream
channels; and excavation or earth
movement within stream channels or
wetlands.
Prior to January 1997, Nationwide Permit 26 allowed work within
isolated waters or within waters
located above the headwaters. NWP
26A was issued for less than oneacre of impacts; NWP 26B was
issued for one to ten acres of impacts. Under the reissued NWP 26,
any project impacting less than onethird of an acre will be covered
under NWP 26A; NWP 26B covers
from one-third of an acre to less
than 500 linear feet. Any project
affecting 500 linear feet or more of
a drainage cannot be authorized by
NWP 26 and must be authorized
through the 9- to 12-month long
individual permit process.
The Los Angeles District of the
Corps has issued Regional General
Permit (RGP) 41 which authorizes
the mechanical removal of invasive,
exotic plants from waters of the
United States, including wetlands,
within Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino,
Imperial, Ventura, Santa Barbara,
Mono, Inyo, and San Luis Obispo
counties. The purpose of RGP 41 is
to provide a mechanism for expedited approval of invasive weed
removal projects for the purpose of
habitat recovery. j
Errata
Vol. 4 No. 3 was erroneously named.
It should have been published as
Vol. 4 Nos. 3 and 4.
CalEPPC News
A New Threat to California Pines
Richard Hawley, Executive Director of Greenspace, The Cambria Land
Trust; Member of the Pine Pitch Canker Task Force
P
ine pitch canker (Fusarium
subglutinans f. sp. pini), an
incurable fungal disease of
pines was first discovered in 1986 at
New Brighton State Beach, California in Santa Cruz County. More
than ten years have past and this
devastating disease has spread north
and south infesting 17 of
Californias 54 counties from San
Diego to Mendocino, and as far east
as San Benito County.
Many of Californias native pine
trees are susceptible to pitch canker.
Monterey pines are the most heavily
impacted. The three native
Monterey pine stands in the state,
Cambria, Monterey Peninsula and
Año Nuevo are infested and researchers predict that 85% of the
trees in these stands will be lost as a
result of this disease. Furthermore,
the probability of mortality among
ornamental plantings of Monterey
pines throughout the infested areas
is high.
Also disturbing is that the
pathogen has jumped the preferred host of pines to an ornamental planting of Douglas-fir near Santa
Cruz. What this may mean to the
Sierra Nevada and the Cascade
timber stands is unclear but the
warning signs for a statewide alert
are evident. The threats of massive
habitat losses, declines in property
values and tourism, and tree removal
and disposal cost are becoming
abundantly clear to many in the
currently infested areas. At a
Monterey Pine Symposium held in
Carmel last year, it was estimated
that tree removal costs in the
Carmel area will be a minimum of
$15,000,000 over the next 10
years.
A California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection brochure on pine pitch canker best
describes recognition of the fungal
disease. It states, Infections of
branch tips are typically quite
striking. The first symptom usually noticed is a color change in
the foliage at the ends of branches-these are called flags. Flagging
can be caused by the disease,
feeding activity of twig beetles, or
a combination of both. Needles on
infected branch tips fade from the
normal dark green to lime green,
to yellow, and finally to brown
before needle drop. Needle color
change can occur any time of the
year. If pitch canker is the cause of
the fading, closer inspection of
these branch ends will reveal pitch
flow at the transition zone between
dying and green needles. These
characteristics may be hard to see
if fading branches are high in the
tree. The infected wood under the
bark is resin-soaked and amber in
color.
The name pitch canker is
appropriate because infections are
characterized by a copious pitchy
flow. Cankers may be found on any
woody part of the tree including
cones, branches, the tree trunk, and
exposed, damaged roots. Pitch from
large branch or trunk infections may
run down the trunk for many feet or
drip onto the ground.
Where did this introduced
pathogen come from? How did it
first get to New Brighton State
Beach? How does this disease move
from one tree to another and from
one county to the next? What is
being done to slow the spread of this
fungal disease that may threaten
every native pine in California?
First noticed in the pine forests
of the southeastern United States in
1946, pine pitch canker now extends from Virginia to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas
where over 45% of the nations
pulpwood is grown. Pitch canker is
also abundant in areas of Mexico
and is now considered to be endemic
to both the southeastern United
States and Mexico. The introduction
The first
symptom noticed
is a color
change in the
foliage at
the ends
of branches…
of pitch canker to California may
have been by hitchhiking insects
brought in to the state with Christmas trees or other raw pine products
such as logs or firewood.
While the specific method of
transcontinental transport is unknown, local transmission of the
disease is not a mystery. The
disease is vectored or spread from
one tree to another by tree boring
insects. Bark, cone and twig feeding
beetles have been identified as
primary vectors of pine pitch canker.
As these insects colonize trees and
reproduce, propagules or spores of
the pitch canker fungus attach
themselves to the exiting insects
which continue their life cycle by
colonizing other twigs, branches and
Continued on next page
Summer 1997 Page 7
CalEPPC News
Pine Pitch Canker
(Contd)
stems. People are the prime longdistance vectors of this fungal
disease.
In December of 1994 the Pine
Pitch Canker Task Force was
organized through the California
Forest Pest Council. The task force
is a coalition of government, private
and non-profit groups whose
purpose is to establish management, research, and educational
priorities to slow the spread of pine
pitch canker in California. In
December of 1995 the task force
published the Pitch Canker Action
Plan which outlines the following
actions:
Management Priorities
1. Prevent transportation of
infected plant material from
infected areas to uninfected areas;
2. Establish permanent monitoring
plots and develop a Geographical Information System (GIS)
database to assess the present
and future distribution and
impacts of pitch canker in
California;
3. Incorporate what is known about
pitch canker into landscape,
resource management and conservation plans that are or will be
developed for native Monterey
Pine stands and other coastal
forest stands;
4. Use local, native seed when
regenerating Monterey Pine
within native stands.
Research Priorities
1. Determine the survival of the
pitch canker fungus and its
potential insect vectors in chips,
dead and live branches, on seed,
etc.;
2. Determine the extent and
monitor the spread of pitch
canker in California;
3. Establish permanent plots in the
Page 8 Summer 1997
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
native Monterey pine forest of
California to assess the impacts of
pitch canker on this unique and
limited ecosystem;
Determine the levels of resistance
in native Monterey pine stands to
the pitch canker pathogen and its
various strains;
Determine if seed transmission of
pine pitch canker occurs for
native conifers other than
Monterey pine and investigate
methods of preventing seed
transmission;
Evaluate the potential for pitch
canker to spread beyond its
current distribution;
Evaluate the current and potential
economic impacts of pitch canker
in California
Investigate the inheritance of
disease resistance in Monterey
pine;
Education Priorities
1. Create a database;
2. Create and distribute educational
materials including posters,
brochures, articles for the media,
videos, and press releases;
3. Present educational information at
conferences, fairs and workshops
to decision makers throughout
California;
4. Continue media relations through
press releases on recommended
guidelines for the care of
Monterey pines, disposal guidelines for infected material and
other developing news concerning
this disease;
5. Provide information to legislators
by preparing briefing papers, field
trips and other educational materials and providing analyses for best
management practices concerning
forestry related legislation;
Pitch canker will continue to
have serious environmental and
economic impacts affecting property
values and tourism and the pine tree
resources in our state. By supporting
and implementing the Pine Pitch
Task Forces Action Plan you will be
taking an important step in slowing
down this insidious disease.
For further information please
contact Dr. Donald Owen, Chair,
Pitch Canker Task Force, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 6105 Airport Road, Redding,
CA 96002. (916) 224-2445. j
Killing the Beast
(Contd)
Team Arundo provides an
example of the power of a coordinated, cooperative approach to
large-scale invasive plant control.
This collection of more than 20
federal, state, local agencies, and
private companies and landowners
have fostered a five year working
relationship to address the issues of
habitat restoration and enhancement, flood control, water quality
and water conservation, dissemination of technical information, and
identification of opportunities to
ease regulatory hurdles. There is still
much work to be done to achieve
the goal of watershed-wide control;
however, Team Arundo will provide
a non-confrontational, open forum
where the common goal is to work
together to eradicate the beast from
the Santa Ana River Watershed.
For more information on Team
Arundo and Arundo eradication
efforts in southern California,
contact Valerie Vartanian of The
Nature Conservancy at (818) 8939696 or vvartanian@tnc.org. For
more information on the Corps
general permit for invasive weed
control or the Santa Ana River
Mitigation Bank, contact Eric Stein
of the Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch at (213) 452-3415 or
estein@spl.usace.army.mil. j
CalEPPC News
A Working Paper on Ailanthus
Jo Kitz, Mountains Restoration Trust
Rules for Removal of
Ailanthus:
1. Commitment: 3 years with the
ability to return to the site a minimum of three times per year.
Ailanthus is nothing if not
persistent and programmed to
redefine itself with each threat to
its existence. It resists removal
with a vigor that can wear out an
average human. Ailanthus has
been cut, girdled, sprayed, burned
and in frustration stomped, and it
has survived. The only method it
cannot survive is diligent persistence. That said, the methodology is quite simple.
2. Timing is critical. Begin work after
the tree has bloomed and preferably late into the summer or early
fall.
3. Cut the trunk as close to the
ground as possible and make the
cut as level as possible.
4. Immediately paint the entire cut
surface with herbicide of choice
(Round-up® or Garlon®) until the
herbicide beads on the cut surface,
which is an indication that the
herbicide has gotten into the roots.
(Under-usage of the herbicide acts
like a growth hormone, or put
another way, a little herbicide is a
dangerous thing.)
5. Methods of removal: 1.) We have
left the trees where they fell
(definitely not recommended); 2.)
chipped branches and leaves
(leaves clogged chipper); 3.) piled
for habitat (and appreciated by
snakes), 4.) carted to dump (an
ecological no-no.); and the best
method, probably is to let the
leaves dry and then chip. (One
horror story, which may be an
(A Santa Monica Mountains-based Non-profit Land Trust)
urban myth, is that the chips of tree
of heaven were spread as mulch in
a newly acquired park. The chips
sprouted forming a carpet of
treelets.) Our piles of chipped
material never sprouted. Do not
expect huge piles of chips. The
tree is quite hollow and an entire
grove creates only a small pile.
6. Revisit the site before the frost.
When, not if, the area resprouts,
wait until the regrowth is at least 612″ (doesnt take long) and then
foliar spray with 2% glyphosate.
7. Revisit the site in the spring. Ailanthus leafs out late in the spring, so
an apparent kill will suddenly send
up new shoots which grow alarmingly fast. Foliar spraying in the
spring will not kill the roots but it
will kill the top growth. The upper
leaves will die, but the plant will
continue to push upwards, so
either keep foliar spraying or cut
and paint the resprouts using the
method outlined in Paragraph four
(4). Once the tree has stopped
sending its juices upwards and starts
storing the carbs, (after the season
the tree blooms), foliar spraying is
effective.
8. Repeat Paragraphs 6 and 7 until
there are no more sprouts.
We thought we had completed a
grove (there had only been two
resprouts and this was a big area). The
next year we did a recheck expecting
to walk in and out just for the exercise,
and much to our dismay we found a
dozen new shoots in an area where
there had never been trees. This led
us to believe the trees send out feeder
roots and that our herbicide just didnt
get that far. This rather simple program took us 5 years to learn, a lot of
wasted time and total confusion. One
year we would get foliar kill. The
next, top burn. One group of trees
would die from girdling performed
with a butcher knife; another survived
a girdling from a chain saw. Stumps
would die but the area around the
stump would look like a lettuce patch
from the millions of resprouts. Then
we discovered timing, and the
success rate soared as did morale.
But the success has been phenomenal. Our first area was selected
because of a number of small and
scraggly oak seedlings. Those oak
trees have grown in eight years to
15-feet tall with interlocking
branches. The grand old Quercus
lobata that was completely circled
like a wagon train under siege, has
redefined itself as a full-canopied
regal valley monarch.
Whenever there is a scraggling of
natives, the removal of the Ailanthus
seems to energize them it is like
they have been surviving against such
great odds that when the competition
is removed, they rebound with a
growth rate that far exceeds normal
expectation.
Since this is a paper-in-process,
please keep me updated on your
adventures, observations and conclusions. There may be regional
differences in the way Ailanthus
responds to herbicide. j
Jo Kitz
818-348-5910 – home
818-346-9675 – work
818-346-9676 – fax
Editors Note:
To simplify information in our publication, trade names of products have been
used. No endorsement of named
products is intended, nor is criticism
implied of similar products which are
not mentioned.
Summer 1997 Page 9
CalEPPC News
CalEPPC Corporate Sponsors
The CalEPPC Board of Directors has organized its institutional membership categories to provide more benefits to
corporate sponsors. Individuals who contribute $250.00 or more may be also considered a sponsor. Institutional
members will still continue to receive quarterly CalEPPC newsletters, be eligible to join CalEPPC working groups, be
invited to the annual symposium, and participate in selecting future board members.
Regular $100 contribution
Regular Institutional CalEPPC membership for one year. Member will be recognized in the CalEPPC News for
corporate sponsorship. One designated staff member will receive quarterly issues of the CalEPPC News.
Contributing $250 contribution
Contributing institutional CalEPPC membership for one year. All of the above, plus the Contributing Member will
become a symposium sponsor and be recognized in the symposium program and the proceedings. Plus complimentary symposium registration for one designated person.
Patron $500 contribution
Patron institutional CalEPPC membership for one year. All of the above, plus two designated staff members will
receive quarterly issues of the CalEPPC News. Plus complimentary symposium registration for two designated
persons.
Sustaining $1,000 contribution
Sustaining institutional CalEPPC membership for one year. All of the above, plus a beautiful plaque of recognition.
Letters to the
Editor
Dear Editor,
Re: Page 9, Vol 5 No. 2, Spring
1997 issue of CalEPPC News
On behalf of the CalEPPC Board of
Directors I would like to remind
everyone using herbicides to always
closely follow the directions on the
container labels for application rates
and legal uses, and to pay particular
attention to personal protective
equipment requirements (i.e., protective clothing and eye protection) to
minimize chemical exposure to the
applicator. When herbicides are used
as part of an Integrated Pest Management weed control strategy, the
health and safety of the applicator
and protection of the environment
should be given high priority. Your
local Agricultural Commissioners
office can provide copies of the
current laws and regulations for
herbicide use as well as offer
Page 10 Summer 1997
information on handling all pesticides safely and legally.
Brenda W. Ouwerkerk
CalEPPC Board Member
Deputy Agricultural Commissioner,
San Luis Obispo County Dept. of
Agriculture
FYI
I
n response to escalating
public opposition to the use
of herbicides along North
Coast highways, Caltrans District
I Director Rick Knapp said
Caltrans
has
voluntarily
discontinued herbicide spraying
in all District I cities and counties
which have taken formal action
opposing the use of herbicides.
Knapp explained that in
response to the Caltrans decision
to make herbicide use voluntary,
the Humboldt County Board of
Supervisors took formal action
on March 25 against the use of
herbicides by Caltrans on all
county property in Humboldt.
Mendocino County took a similar
action against the use of
herbicides in January of this
year, while officials in Lake
County unanimously supported
the Caltrans herbicide program
in their area of the state.
Knapp noted that Caltrans will
have much more difficulty dealing
with the Pampas grass problem
along highways now that
herbicide
spraying
is
impermissible in most areas of
Humboldt County. Knapp said
cut slopes along highways cannot
be effective bulldozed or scraped
to control Pampas production
because of erosion control
problems that would result from
such eradication efforts.
Knapp pointed out that there
are now about 700 miles of
Humboldt roadway that have no
vegetation control at this time.
Excerpt from Southern Humboldt
Life & Times, June 3, 1997 j
CalEPPC News
Calendar of Events
August 27 – 30
September 3 – 4
September 3 – 4
October 10 – 12
October 18 -26
November 17 – 20
Bridging Natural and Social Landscapes, the 24th Natural Areas Association Conference,
Portland, OR. Co-sponsored by CalEPPC and PNWEPPC. Contact: Reid Schuller,
541.388.8123; fax 541.388.5414; email:
1997 California Forest Pest Council Weed Tour, Placerville, CA. Contact: John Pricer,
707.488.3351; Scott Johnson, 209.982.4337.
Russian Olive and Tamarisk Workshop, sponsored by Colorado State University and USFWS,
Grand Junction, CO. Contact: Carol Spurrier
Reaching Out and Keeping Out, CalEPPC Symposium 97, Concord, CA. Contact: Sally
Davis, 714.888.8541; email:
Medecos VIII, International Conference on Mediterranean-type Ecosystems in a Changing
World, San Diego, CA. Contact: Patricia Wu, Dept. of Biology, SDSU, San Diego, CA
92182; internet address:
Fire in California Ecosystems; Integrating Ecology, Prevention & Management, San Diego,
CalEPPC New Members
CalEPPC would like to welcome the following people and corporate
sponsors who have joined CalEPPC in the months from May – July 1997:
Clyde Ade
Agri Chemical & Supply
Rebecca Anderson-Jones
Dave Bengston
Gordon Bennett
Ann Brice
Shirley Carrie-Brewin
Filoli Center
Guido Ciardi
Robert Clement
Stephen Cockerell
Nancy Cole
Michael Cox
Liam Davis
Kimberly Davis
Elkhorn Native Plant Nursery
Ed Finley
Bill Fischer
Deborah Friedman
Karen Gaffney
David Graber
Mariam Graham
Ken Gray
Ray Griffiths
Roger Haris
Janelle Hillman
Bud Hoekstra
Lorraine Hollingsworth
Melanie Howe
Susan Hubbard
Nathan Hulse-Stephens
Ross Hunter
Sarah Jayne
Lisa Kegarice
Brian Knott
Harry Krug
Lilburn Corporation
Lynn Lindsey
Mattole Restoration Council
Elaine Mahaffey
Tamia Marg
Arthur Morley
Clark Natwick
Robert Noll
John OBrien
Bruce Orr
Ralph Osterling
James Peugh
Dick Pitschka
Judith Poole
Riverside County Regional Parks
James Robins
Don Rose
Ted Ruffner
Chadd Santerre
Teresa Sholars
Dan Silver
Laurie Smith
Eric Stein
Shirley Suhrer
Allan Thode
John Tiszler
Stephen Underwood
Arthur & Lorraine Unger
United States Forest Service
Eleanor Vargas
David Vollmer
Janet Walker
Renee Webber
Sonja Wilcomer
Ken Zimmerman
Summer 1997 Page 11
1997 CalEPPC Membership Form
If you would like to join CalEPPC, please remit your calendar dues using the form provided below. All members will
receive the CalEPPC newsletter, be eligible to join CalEPPC working groups, be invited to the annual symposium and
participate in selecting future board members. Your personal involvement and financial support are the key to success.
Additional contributions by present members are welcomed!
q Status
Individual
Institutional
Name
q Retired/Student*
$15.00
N/A
Affiliation
q Regular
$25.00
$100.00
Address
q Contributing
$50.00
$250.00
q Sustaining
$250.00
$1000.00
q Lifetime
$1000.00
N/A
Please make your check payable to CalEPPC and
mail with this application form to:
CalEPPC Membership
c/o
Sally Davis
31872 Joshua Drive, #25D
Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679-3112
City/State/Zip
Office Phone
Home Phone
Fax
email
* Students, please include current registration and/or class schedule
Mark Your Calendars for CalEPPC
Symposium 97
Mark your calendars to reserve Columbus Day weekend, October 10-12, 1997, for CalEPPC Symposium 97 at
the Sheraton Concord Hotel in the Bay Area; Concord, California. Full day and short-day field trips will tour Bay
Area restoration sites. The invitations for CalEPPC Symposium 97 have been mailed. The symposium has been
awarded 11.0 hours of approved credits for PCA, PCO in the other category. If you did not receive an invitation, or
know of someone who requires one, please contact Sally Davis; 31872 Joshua Drive, Apt. 25D, Trabuco Canyon, CA
92679; 714.888.8347; sallydavis@aol.com
Call for Posters
Posters addressing all areas of exotic pest plant control in wildland ecosystems of California will be displayed in the
symposium break area. You and your colleagues are invited to display your poster regarding research, control methods, tools, or other related topics. Informal presentations by poster authors are invited but not required. Please call
Barbara Leitner at (510) 253-8300.
CALIFORNIA
EXOTIC
PEST PLANT
COUNCIL
31872 Joshua Drive, #25D
Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679-3112
NON-PROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TRABUCO CANYON, CA
PERMIT NO. 7