Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium Volume 9: 2005 Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the articles of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of the California Invasive Plant Council.

Copies of this proceedings are available by sending $10 to:

California Invasive Plant Council Attn: Proceedings 1442-A Walnut Street, #462 Berkeley, CA 94709

California Invasive Plant Council can be reached by writing to the address above or e-mail: [email protected].

Visit the Cal-IPC website at www.cal-ipc.org.

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Copyright © 2006 by the California Invasive Plant Council Printed in the United States of America First printing January 2006

Recommended sample citation.

Bossard, C. et. al. 2005. A test of repeat flaming as a control for poison hemlock (Conium mac- ulatum), Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) , and periwinkle (Vinca major). In, G. Skurka, (ed.). Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council Symposium. Vol. 9: 2005. pp. 29-34. Proceedings

California Invasive Plant Council Symposium Volume 9: 2005

Prevention Reinvention: Protocols, Information, and Partnerships to Stop the Spread of Invasive Plants

October 6-8, 2005 Bell Memorial Union Chico State University Chico, California

Edited by

Gina Skurka California Invasive Plant Council Contents Papers Presented at the Cal-IPC 2005 Symposium Session 1: Protocols and Practices for Stoppping Weed Movement

Prevention of weed spread on site-disturbing projects: Working with landowners, contractors and local agencies Wendy West, UC Cooperative Extension, El Dorado County 1

Communicating the need for prevention Jerry Asher, BLM - retired 3

Protecting public lands: Progress in incorporating prevention practices into agency policy Athena Demetry, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks; Brent Johnson, Yosemite National Park 3

Preventing weed spread via contaminated hay and straw Joanna Clines, Sierra National Forrest 4

Session 2-A: IPM Laws and Regulations

Efficacy and safety of new herbicides on the horizon Joseph M. DiTomaso, UC Davis 7

Regulatory concerns with herbicide use in invasive plant projects Richard Price, Butte County Agricultural Commissioner 7

Control of invasive plants through biological mitigation for transportation projects Bruce April, Caltrans, San Diego 8

Balancing pest management needs and water quality Parry Klassen, Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship 8

i California’s new NPDES permit for aquatic herbicide use Mike Blankinship, Blankinship and Associates, Inc. 9

Session 2-B: Riparian and Wetland Invasives

Are we creating the ideal conditions for Arundo donax invasion in California? Gretchen Coffman, UC Los Angeles; Tom Dudley, UC Santa Barbara; Phil Rundel, UCLA; and Richard Ambrose, UCLA 9

Control of water primrose (Ludwigia hexapetala) in a freshwater wetland Julian Meisler, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation 9

Comparison of removal methods for Spartina densiflora in Humboldt Bay Ellen Tatum, Patti Clifford, Andrea Pickart, and Andrea Craig, Humboldt Bay NWR 10

Dry Creek Watershed red sesbania control project - Initial successes and challenges Loran May and Shannon Lucas, May & Associates; Eric Evans, Resto- ration Resources; Peter Buck, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 12

Suppressing exotic weeds on restoration projects using an aggressive herbaceous understory Tamara Sperber and F.T. Griggs, River Partners 12

Session 5-A: Comparing Control Methods

A test of repeat flaming as a control for poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Cape ivy (Delairea odorata), and periwinkle (Vinca major) Carla Bossard, St. Mary’s College of CA; Ken Moore, Wildlands Restora- tion Team; Cameron Chabre and Andrea Woolfolk, Elkhorn Slough Na- tional Estaurine Reserach Reserve; Jorden King, St. Mary’s College of CA; Dana Johanek, CSU Monterey Bay 13

ii Large-scale pampas grass control program Jeff Powers, Peninsula Open Space Trust 15

Invasive annual grasses in a costal dune ecosystem Andrea Pickart, Patti Clifford, Ellen Tatum, and Kyle Wear, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 15

Balancing act: Managing non-native plants of historic landscapes within the natural landscapes of Channel Islands National Park Sarah Chaney, Channel Islands National Park; James Roberts, CSU Fullerton 20

Management of Domestic Olives on Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands National Park: Preventing Development of an Olive-Dominated Chaparral James R. Roberts, Environmental Studies Program, California State University, Fullerton; Sarah Chaney, Channel Islands National Park; and Ann Fossum, Student Conservation Association 20

Session 5-B: DNA to GIS: New Techniques and Ideas

Identification of cultivated pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) escaping ornamental plantings Miki Okada, Riaz Ahmad, and Marie Jasieniuk, UC Davis 21

Biodiversity risks from atmospheric nitrogen deposition in California Stuart Weiss, Creekside Center for Earth Observations 21

Status of new agents for biological conctrol of yellow starthistle and Russian thistle Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS; Massimo Cristofaro, ENEA, Italy; Rita Yu Dolgovskaya, Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia; Carlo Tronci, ENEA, Italy; Rustem Hayat, Ataturk University, Turkey 22

Reinventing the language of invasion biology Brendon Larson, UC Davis 26

iii Tracking weed population dynamics using geodatabase technology Ingrid Hogle and Joshua Viers, UC Davis 26

Session 6: Inventory and Prediction for Stopping Weed Spread

Nostradamus, palantirs, and the pros and cons of predictive modelling for invasive species management Rob Klinger, USGS and UC Davis 27

Developing predictive models of invasive plants Emma Underwood and Jim Quinn, UC Davis 27

Weed mapping in California: where are we? Steve Schoenig, California Department of Food and Agriculture 28

Designing invasive plant early detection and rapid response networks Dan Gluesenkamp, Audubon Canyon Ranch 28

Session 8-A: Safe and Effective Use of Chemical Control

Controlling European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) using prescribed burns and herbicide Tim Hyland, California Department of Parks and Recreation; Pete Hol- loran, UC Santa Cruz 29

An assessment of the hazard of a mixture of the herbicide Rodeo and the non-ionic surfactant R-11 to aquatic invertebrates and larval amphibians Joel Trumbo, California Department of Fish and Game 29

iv Aminopyralid: A new reduced-risk active ingredient for control of broadleaf invasive and noxious weeds Vanelle Carrithers, Beau Miller, Pat Burch, Bill Kline, Mob Masters, Jeff Nelson, Mary Halstvedt, John Troth, and Jamie Breuninger, Dow Agro- Sciences 30

Control of Scotch broom Scott Oneto, Joseph M. DiTomaso, Guy B. Kyser, UC Cooperative Extension, UC Davis 30

The fennel battle on MCB Camp Pendleton: Partnerships and techniques in combating the invasion Todd Easley and Deborah Bieber, MCB Camp Pendleton; Carl Bell, UC Cooperative Extension; Pete Tosovic, Recon Environmental 32

Session 8-B: Building Effective Programs and Partnerships

Montana Weed Prevention Areas: Partnerships for rangeland protection Kim Goodwin, Montana State University 35

Early Detection protocol development in the National Parks: Integrating all the pieces Bradley A. Welch, Daniel Sarr, and Penelope Latham, National Park Service 39

Ecosystem protection through watershed-level prioritization on Catalina Island Denise Knapp and John Knapp, Catalina Island Conservancy 39

Beyond the Plantae: Commonalities in combating Phytophthora ramorum, cause of Sudden Oak Death, and other plant diseases Janice Alexander, UC Cooperative Extension & California Oak Mortality Task Force 46

v Incorporating applied research into an ongoing watershed-based, programmatic approach to Arundo donax removal Karen Gaffney, Rich Hunter, Center for Ecological Restoration and Stewardship, Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. 46

Session 9: Partnerships for Early Detection and Rapid Response

Noxious weed early detection and rapid response: California’s been there and is doing just that Mary Pfeiffer, Shasta County Agricultural Commissioner 47

Early detection and rapid response - a western regional approach? Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture 47

The power of partnerships: weed program management with a limited budget Marla Knight and Anne Yost, Klamath National Forest 48

6,000 volunteer detection partners: The problem, possibilities and potential Bob Case, California Native Plant Society 48

Posters Presented at the Cal-IPC 2005 Symposium

Analysis of clonal diversity in giant reed (Arundo donax L.) using molecular markers Riaz Ahmad1*, Ivy Liow2, David F. Spencer2 and Marie Jasieniuk1 1Dept. of Plant Sciences, UC Davis, 2USDA-ARS Exotic & Invasive Weeds Research Unit, Davis, CA. 49

Resource kit for management of non-native plants in national parks Monika Alas¹, Alma Martinez ¹, Desaree Williams¹, Ian McFadden¹, Bonnie Davis¹, Mietek Kolipinski², and Sibdas Ghosh¹, ¹Dept. of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, ²National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland 49

vi Tumbleweeds of California - who, what, where, and how? Debra Ayres1, Fred Ryan2, Fred Hrusa3, Pat Akers3, 1Evolution and Ecol- ogy, One Shields Ave., UC Davis, 2USDA ARS CDPG, Parlier, CA, 3Cal- ifornia Dept. of Food and Agriculture 50

Cape ivy removal at Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Tanya Baxter, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Jim Bromberg, Point Reyes National Seashore 50

Evaluation of non-chemical control strategies for common aquatic weeds in California Michael Blankinship, Blankinship & Associates, Inc., Davis, CA 50

Perspectives of nursery professionals on invasive plants and the St. Louis Voluntary Codes of Conduct Jennifer W. Burt, Adrianna Muir, Jonah Piovia-Scott, and Kari Veblen, UC Davis 51

Noxious weed management on national forests in California: regulations, tools and tactics Chris L. Christofferson, US Forest Service, Plumas National Forest 51

Invasive plant control at California state parks in the northern Sacramento Valley Jim Dempsey, Woody Elliott, Northern Buttes District, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation 52

Invasive plants of western United States: identification and control CD-ROM Christopher W. Evans1, Charles T. Bargeron1, David J. Moorhead1, G. Keith Douce1 and Richard C. Reardon.2, 1The Bugwood Network, The University of Georgia, Tifton GA, 2Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, WV 52

Phragmites australis in the Humboldt Bay Region: biology of an invasive species and opportunities for treatment Tamara L. Gedik, Gedik BioLOGICAL Associates, Trinidad, CA 52

vii Perennial pepperweed control experiment at the Cosumnes River Preserve Ingrid B. Hogle1, Rebecca Waegell2, 1Information Center for the Environment, UC Davis, 2The Nature Conservancy, Cosumnes River Preserve 53

Which weed to whack: the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory Doug Johnson, Elizabeth Brusati, California Invasive Plant Council 53

Effects of single pass flaming on previously brush-cut Genista monspessulana Janet Klein, Shannon Fiala, Marin Municipal Water District 54

Blurring edges: a test of weed control methods used along edges of sage scrub patches to encourage shrub colonization into abandoned agricultural fields Eliza Maher, Edward Stanton, Center for Natural Lands Management, Western Riverside County Preserves 57

Phenology of Brassica tournefortii in comparison to B. nigra, B. geniculata, and native Mojave Desert annuals Robin Marushia, Jodie Holt, Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside 58

Experimental herbaceous restoration and noxious weed mitigation at the California Department of Fish and Game’s Butler Slough Ecological Reserve, eastern Tehama County Jim Pushnik1, John W. Hunt2,*, Matt Brown2, Rachelle Boul2, and David Koenig2, 1Department of Biology, California State University, Chico, 2Bidwell Environmental Institute 58

Correlation between weed control techniques, cost and habitat restoration success: two case studies Dan Ryan, Andrea Vona, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 58

viii Effect of fertilizer additions on yellow starthistle insect biological control agents D.F. Spencer1, M.J. Pitcairn2, R.I. Carruthers3, S.F. Enloe4, P.S. Liow1, W.K. Chan1, M.J. Donovan1, and G.G. Ksander.1, 1USDA-ARS Exotic & Invasive Weed Research Unit, Davis, 2CDFA, Biological Control Pro- gram, Sacramento, 3USDA-ARS Exotic & Invasive Weed Research Unit, Albany, CA, 4Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming 59

Exotic annual control and the competitive release of native forbs: an example from the northwest Sonoran Desert Robert J. Steers, Edith B. Allen, Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside 59

Role of large herbivores in spreading non-native invasive plants into natural areas John Mary Vianney¹, Kevin Hassler¹, Seiha Thorng¹, Ian McFadden¹, Bonnie Davis¹, Sibdas Ghosh¹, and Mietek Kolipinski²* ¹Dept. of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Dominican University of California, San Ra- fael, ²National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA 60

2004 Invasive Spartina Project monitoring program Katy Zaremba, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project, California Coastal Conservancy 60

ix Working Groups

Horticulture/Landscaping Alternatives 61

Mapping 67

Education/Outreach 70

Invasive Plant Inventory (AKA the “Weed List”) 72

Discussion Groups Riparian, wetland and sensitive habitats 75

Fire, fuels treatments and weeds 80

Grasses 84

Trees and Shrubs 86

Weed Alerts 2005 Weed Alerts Joseph DiTomaso, UC Davis 88

Symposium Attendees

List of Symposium Attendees 90

x Papers Presented at the 2005 Cal-IPC Symposium

Session 1: Protocols and Practices for Stoppping Weed Movement Prevention of Weed Spread on Site-Disturbing Projects: Working with Landowners, Contractors and Local Agencies Wendy West, University of California Cooperative Extension. El Dorado County Natural Resources Program Representative, 311 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667 530-621-5533, [email protected]

There are two ways to work at the local level each user. with landowners, contractors and agencies to prevent weed spread during site-disturbing Some examples of best management prevention projects: 1) utilizing “the carrot” e.g. education, guidelines to include: highlighting added value, showing how preven- tion saves money and 2) regulatory – ordinances, 1. Incorporate a strategy of integrated weed county General Plan, hydro project relicens- management into construction layout and ing, etc. In many instances, a combination of design. the two methods will yield the most effective 2. Remove or treat seed sources and other vi- campaign to encourage the use of best manage- able reproducing plant parts that could be ment practices (BMP) to prevent weed spread. spread by construction disturbance. Site-disturbing projects can include: housing 3. Avoid moving weed-infested materials (grav- developments and general construction, road el, rock and other fill materials) to weed-free construction and improvements, construction and locations. maintenance of fire breaks and fire evacuation 4. Identify existing noxious weeds along access routes, fuels reduction projects on private land, roads and control them before construction hydro project and water delivery systems and equipment moves in. planting of agricultural crops. 5. Clean off-road equipment (power or high- pressure cleaning) of all mud, dirt, and plant One of the best ways to educate landowners and parts before moving into relatively weed-free contractors is through the preparation and dis- areas. tribution of BMP guidelines for your local area. 6. Minimize the removal of vegetation during When preparing guidelines always: construction and maintenance • Remember the audience – how much knowl- 7. Use only certified weed-free straw and mulch edge do they have about the issue? Is the for erosion control projects. Consider the use educational piece clear and concise and us- of weed-free fiber roll barriers or sediment able? logs. • Always include basic information – why 8. Road maintenance programs should include should they care? monitoring and treatment for noxious weeds. • Produce separate educational pieces for land- 9. Provide training to management and work- owner, land manager, local agency or official ers on the identification of noxious weeds, to really target your audience; each piece can the importance of noxious weed control and include similar information but tailored to measures to minimize their spread.

1 10. Quickly treat individual plants or small • Gravel and materials inspections, e.g. Great- infestations before they become established, er Yellowstone Area Weed Group – sharing produce seed or are able to spread. inspection forms, Weed Management Areas working to educate materials suppliers at the Resources for other BMP guidelines that may be local level; applicable for your area: • Get invasive weed prevention language into your county General Plan; “Measures to Prevent the Spread of Noxious • Work with local agencies to develop ordi- and Invasive Weeds during Construction Activi- nances that support the prevention of weed ties” University of Nevada Reno Cooperative spread; Extension, Fact Sheet FS-03-59, www.unce.unr. • Is there an annual contractor BMP workshop edu/publications/FS03/FS0359.pdf or manual in your area? If not, working with other agencies, such as your local Resource “Invasive Plant Prevention Guidelines” – Cen- Conservation District, to put information to- ter for Invasive Plant Management September gether. Other areas to interject weed spread 2003, www.weedcenter.org/products_pub/prod_ prevention information are in erosion review pub_new.html and building permit processes; • Is there an annual landscaper or nursery “Best Management Practices for Land Manag- workshop in your area? If not, consider put- ers” Published by Long Island Weed Manage- ting one together with your County Agricul- ment Area, tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/products/wma/ ture Department (with pest exclusion, herbi- li-managers.pdf cide use and permits information, etc.)

Examples of ways to work with local agencies to Here’s an example of how the building indus- improve weed prevention information dissemi- try has engaged in promoting the prevention of nation and efforts include: weed spread:

• Weed identification training for agency of- A developer in Gardenerville, Nevada under- ficials and on-the-ground crews including stands the “added value” of stopping the spread road crews, conservation crews, water dis- of invasive weeds. The company has treated an trict crews, utility companies; good identifi- area that will be sold as “ranchettes”, to prevent cation training and tool use are the only ways further spread of diffuse knapweed. The compa- they will be able to understand BMP and ny has also offered part of the acreage as a dem- identify problem areas and weed spread; onstration site for the local Weed Management • BMP as part of the easement permit pro- Area (WMA) to conduct educational workshops. cess for local utilities (i.e. USFS permit); by understanding invasive problems through In working with landowners, it is important to the permit process a utility district may ex- include prevention information in all invasive trapolate good BMP to all the lands that they weed materials. Remember to make preven- manage and recognize that prevention saves tion guidelines very specific for each audience, money in the long term; so they know we are speaking to THEM. Use • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission phrases like: “How to stop the spread of invasive (FERC) hydro project (dam) relicensing – it weeds when….improving my road;…starting is important to get prevention guidelines into construction on my house;…making my property the licensing and long term management fire safe.” If a title jumps out to a reader as spe- processes; cific to THEM, they may read the information!

2 Consider interjecting prevention information into ing with the people who can make a difference a variety of materials and processes including in keeping relatively uninfested lands and waters erosion control and grading review processes from becoming seriously infested. and fire safe information. Always remember to emphasize that prevention can save money in the long term. Try to have reference information Protecting Public Lands: Progress in readily available for the general public includ- Incorporating Prevention Practices ing revegetation seed sources, weed-free erosion into Agency Policy control materials sources, etc. Be creative! Athena Demetry*, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Brent Johnson, Yosemite Communicating the Need for National Park, *[email protected] Prevention Jerry Asher, Bureau of Land Management California’s public land management agencies Retired/Volunteer, 541-996-9494, are formulating weed prevention policy at all [email protected] levels: individual parks and forests, regional, and agency-wide. In 2004, the superintendent Wildland weed workers need effective tech- of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks niques for communicating the importance of issued a directive to prevent the introduction of weed prevention to a wide range of audiences. weeds into the park, and the spread of weeds Once people understand that prevention is worth from infested front-country areas to weed-free the extra time, labor, and money; that it is an backcountry areas. In 2005, Yosemite National integral part of any weed management program, Park began work on an Invasive Plant Manage- and that healthy plant communities are the best ment Plan that will incorporate significant weed defense against invasive plants, they often be- prevention practices. The Pacific West Region of come more supportive and willing to participate the National Park Service is creating an educa- in prevention efforts. People tend to be motivat- tion resource kit to assist parks with informing ed to take action when they learn why invasive the public of weed prevention practices, and plants are such a serious problem, how water- with the compliance necessary to implement a sheds commonly become permanently degraded, weed free feed policy. Finally, a national-level how rapidly weeds are spreading, and how they NPS directive is planned for issue in 2006. The are spread by and negatively impact almost all U.S. Forest Service issued a Guide to Noxious people using wildlands. This underscores the Weed Prevention Practices in 2001, and National need to tailor messages, using relevant examples, Forests are required to complete noxious weed pictures and tours, to specific audiences ensuring risk assessments for new projects. The Bureau that any particular group can see that they are not of Land Management has been a leader at the being singled out as the culprit. The challenges national and local level for years with their of motivating people to engage in invasive plant prevention emphasis. At all agencies, educating prevention will be addressed so those obstacles staff and varied user groups about weed impacts can be overcome. While it is important to con- and prevention practices is becoming a primary sider a comprehensive list of possible prevention goal. Weed prevention practices also address fire strategies, efforts usually need to be focused on management, construction, maintenance activi- those prevention activities that will be most ef- ties, landscaping, grazing and pack stock use, fective for the specific area needing protection. recreation, and agency-specific special uses. The While invasive plant priorities, rules and require- challenges of implementing these policies will ments are essential, perhaps success will be best be discussed. achieved through the personal approach of work-

3 Preventing Weed Spread via Contaminated Hay and Straw Joanna Clines, USDA Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Hay or straw that is grown, baled, or stored in 1. Scientific studies specifically focused on areas infested with noxious or invasive weeds hay and straw as vectors. There is a paucity can contribute to the proliferation of weeds when of studies on this topic. However, the National contaminated bales are transported to clean ar- Park Service and the Dominican University eas. In most western states, some type of pro- of California are currently collaborating on a gram or process exists to certify hay and mulch literature search focused on non-native, invasive and to regulate its movement. Often, these plants found in field grown forage products, programs are initiated by public agencies prohib- straw, and mulch; as well as pathways of spread. iting feed or mulch that has not been certified as Draft documents for peer-review are expected by noxious-weed free. In California, key agencies the end of 2005. have been working together to coordinate a cer- tification process, but have faced several hurdles. In addition, a set of empirical experiments began A current renewal of the California effort in- in 2005 to ascertain the presence of viable weed volves the US Forest Service, National Park seeds in manure collected from pastures and Service, Bureau of Land Management, State stables in the San Francisco Bay Area. Prelimi- of California, and County Agricultural Com- nary results are displayed in a poster presented missioners collaborating on a Memorandum of at this symposium by the National Park Service Understanding formalizing their intent to move and Dominican University of California (Ghosh, toward the goal of having a process to readily 2005). Further research is planned on a larger certify weed free feed and mulch products. This scale in California National Park Service Units. effort will involve stakeholders such as equestri- ans, growers, balers, and many others. Recently 2. Documented instances where hay or straw a new set of inspection procedures was approved contained weeds that started new infestations by the counties and the State, and several land (observational and anecdotal evidence). management agencies are preparing closure or- Pest Detection Records maintained by the Cali- ders. Agencies will begin closing their lands to fornia Department of Food and Agriculture - Pest entry of non-certified products in phases to allow Exclusion Branch reveal that contaminated hay the market to adjust to demand once the orders is a source of regular introduction of noxious are in place. Education of the public, stakehold- weeds into California. Russian knapweed (Acro- ers, and agency personnel will be crucial to the ptilon repens) is the most frequently detected success of this effort. weed found in hay entering the State (Hrusa, 2005). This B-rated weed is extremely difficult EVIDENCE FOR WEED SPREAD VIA HAY to eradicate once established due to the exten- AND STRAW sive, deep, root system. Hoary cress (Cardaria A critical component of a successful prevention chalepensis and C. draba) are B-rated weeds program is having a clear basis for imposing new that can devastate wetlands and other wildlands, rules and requirements on people. The issue these species are also detected periodically in of whether or not hay and mulch truly spread hay entering California from Nevada. It is a weeds has been brought up repeatedly by certain valid assumption that some contaminated hay stakeholders. For weed biologists, it is intuitive, escapes detection, and is sold and transported in but it is useful to consider the evidence for weed California. spread via hay and straw in three categories:

4 Table 1. Examples of hay or straw as the vector for introduction of invasive weeds.

Weed Species Circumstances Locality Observer Lens-podded hoary cress Less than ¼ acre discovered at Sierra National Forest, Joanna Clines, Sierra (Cardaria chalepensis) Dinkey Creek Pack Station Fresno County. National Forest. Yellow starthistle Observed growing in and Near Highway 140, Brent Johnson, Yo- (Centaurea solstitialis) adjacent to a field of freshly Merced County. semite National Park. baled hay in June 2005. Hay was being sold soon thereafter. Yellow starthistle Appeared in bales of straw County Road 222, Joanna Clines, Sierra (Centaurea solstitialis) used for erosion control along Madera County. National Forest a county road near Bass Lake. Dyer’s woad Apparently introduced by hay Klamath National For- Marla Knight, Ann (Isatis tinctoria) at pack stations, has spread to est, Humboldt County. Yost, Klamath Na- surrounding lands. tional Forest Canada thistle Appeared directly after mulch- Six-Rivers National Fred Hrusa, Califor- (Cirsium arvense) ing with straw along Highway Forest, Humboldt nia Department of 36 in Humboldt County. County Food and Agriculture

The experiences of field personnel in land manage- ing the transport of feed, hay, straw, or mulch which ment agencies are a valuable source of information. is not declared as weed-free, as provided in 36 CFR A sampling of botanists from federal land man- 261.50(a) and 261.58(t). agement agencies were queried prior to the 2005 Cal-IPC symposium, requesting reports of instances The Forest Service issued a set of prevention prac- where they knew that hay or straw was clearly im- tices entitled “USDA Forest Service Guide to Nox- plicated in the introduction of a new noxious weed ious Weed Prevention Practices” (Version 1.0, Dated infestation. Table 1 shows a sampling of these cases. July 5, 2001). One such practice follows:

3. Logical inference. Knowing that hay and straw • Practice 16. … Use certified weed-free or weed- fields are sometimes infested, and that contaminated seed-free hay or straw where certified materials are hay does enter California, it is logical to assume that required and/or are reasonably available. Always weed seeds are moved to new sites via this material. use certified materials in areas closed by administra- E.g., see Figure 1. tive order; refer to Appendix 3 for a sample closure order. (The entire text of the Guide including the ex- AGENCY POLICY AND REGULATIONS ample closure order can be viewed at: www.fs.fed. All major land-management agencies in California us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNox- have national policy directing or strongly suggest- WeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf) ing that hay or straw that is not certified as weed free be prohibited. An example is the following excerpt The North American Weed Management Association from US Forest Service National Policy: (NAWMA) has a uniform process for certifying hay and straw as free of noxious weeds. A wealth of in- • Make every effort to ensure that all seed, formation is available at www.nawma.org, under the feed, hay, and straw used on National Forest System heading of “weed free forage”. The list of noxious lands is free of noxious weed seeds (Forest Service weeds agreed upon by NAWMA to meet minimum Manual 2080). acceptable standards does not include all of Cali- fornia’s noxious weeds, thus at this point California • Where States have enacted legislation and has not signed on to the NAWMA Weed Free Forage have an active program to make weed-free forage Memorandum of Understanding. available, Forest Officers shall issue orders restrict- 5 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CALIFORNIA • Allow a 3-year phase-in period to allow the The effort that began in 1998 to institute require- market to adjust. ments for weed free hay and straw on public lands has been slowed by attempts to resolve Role of California Agricultural Commission- problems such as: details of certification (field ers and Sealers: vs. bale inspections), who should perform the inspections and certify the products, how the Encourage agricultural commissioners to inspect products will be identified (e.g., twine, tags), and and certify products as weed free. A Certificate concerns over availability and cost. In 2005, of Quarantine Compliance will be issued to major agencies involved in the weed free forage document bales or shipments of hay or straw that and mulch issue drafted up a new Memorandum have been certified. Copies of the CQC must ac- of Understanding among the following entities: company portions of shipments as necessary. Bureau of Land Management, California Agri- cultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, California Department of Food and Agricul- California Department of Food and Agriculture, ture’s Role: National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service, Region 5. Develop and distribute procedures for certifica- tion of weed free products in compliance with The MOU is still undergoing changes, but the California law and regulation. (Q.C. Circular general commitments will be as follows: 210, dated 2-22-05).

The role of the US Forest Service, Bureau of CONCLUSIONS Land Management, and National Park Ser- The objective of preventing or minimizing weed vice will be to: spread via hay and straw is an ambitious, but ultimately worthwhile one. California is a popu- • Implement a program and formal policies lous state with complex demographics relative to prohibit or restrict possession, storage, and to states like Montana or Colorado where weed movement of non-weed free certified products free forage requirements have been in place for on their lands. years. To bring about a sustainable program in California that prevents weed spread without • Work together in a coordinated manner so that causing undue inconvenience or cost increases to there is consistency in the requirements each end users and producers will require persistence agency develops for possession, storage, and and flexibility on all sides. movement of certified weed free products.

• Move together in a coordinated manner to implement such programs.

• Share information as needed and necessary for development of environmental documents, regulations and rules.

• Accept the certification procedures developed by the California Department of Food and Agri- culture. Figure 1. Yellow starthistle growing throughout field of freshly baled hay in Merced County, 2005. Photo by Brent Johnson.

6 Session 2-A: IPM Laws and Regulations

Efficacy and Safety of New Herbicides the herbicide binds to plant litter, which makes on the Horizon it difficult to know the correct rate to apply. Joseph M. DiTomaso, UC Davis. The third compound is aminopyralid, which is [email protected] closely related to clopyralid (Transline®) and has the same growth regulator mode of action. Within the next year or two, California is ex- However, aminopyralid appear to be about three pected to register two new herbicides and expand times more active than clopyralid on Centaurea the label on a third herbicide for use against solstitialis and is much more effective at con- invasive plants. These new registrations include trolling other noxious thistles and some other imazapyr (Habitat®), imazapic (Plateau®) and problematic invasive perennials than currently aminopyralid (trade name pending). All of these available products. It will be registered for use compounds have an excellent environmental and on rangeland, permanent grass pastures, Conser- toxicology profile and will carry a Caution label, vation Reserve Program (CRP) acres, non-crop- which is the least toxic category for herbicides. land areas, natural areas, and grazed areas. Trials Habitat® is an expansion of the imazapyr label, so far show that this product will have an excel- currently registered in the state as Arsenal®, lent fit in many invasive weed control programs Chopper®, and Stalker®. This product expan- within the state. sion will allow control of emergent and floating aquatic vegetation in and around standing or flowing water, including estuarine and marine Regulatory Concerns with Herbicide sites. With this compound, applications can be Use in Invasive Plant Projects made to wetland, riparian, and terrestrial vegeta- Richard Price, Butte County Agricultural tion growing in and around surface water. This Commissioner will offer an excellent opportunity to manage such species as Phragmites australis, Tamarix With the attention being paid to the use of her- spp., Spartina spp., Conium maculatum, Elaeag- bicides today, it behooves us all to ensure that nus angustifolius, Polygonum cuspidatum, herbicides are being used properly, according Lythrum salicaria, Cardaria spp., and Lepidium to the regulations, and with the least impact on latifolium. Plateau® will be registered for range- the environment. Despite the improvements lands, pastures and non-crop areas. It has the in pesticide safety and an increase in pesticide same mode of action as imazapyr (amino acid regulatory oversight, more and more jurisdic- inhibitor) and has been targeted for release and tions and not just the agriculture departments establishment of native perennial grasses and are restricting the use of herbicides or outright members of the legume and sunflower family. banning the use of synthetic pesticides on their The main species it controls include noxious an- property. What are the impacts of local policy nual grasses, such as Bromus spp., Taeniatherum on your compliance with the California Code of caput-medusae, and Aegilops triuncialis. It has Regulations or Food and Agriculture Code? also been shown to be effective on Linaria spp. and Cynoglossum officinale. The two drawbacks Misuse or overuse of herbicides can have im- we have seen with this compound are that it has pacts to the weed control industry beyond the a narrow window of selectivity on native pe- impact to the non-compliant pest control busi- rennial grasses, such that injury can occur with ness. True integrated pest management tech- rates just slightly above recommended. Also, nique benefits by having the tools, chemical and

7 non-chemical, available as options to prevent sociation of Governments (SANDAG), in co- resistance, protect the environment, protect the ordination with Caltrans, the resource agencies public health, and increase efficacy. Misuse of and local environmental groups. The goal of the herbicides will only reduce the alternatives when EMP is to provide streamlined project approv- backlash results from the damage that could als through advanced mitigation. The EMP will potentially be caused. How can you best ensure fund acquisition, maintenance and monitoring, that you are using pesticides properly? in addition to helping implement the Region’s Habitat Conservation Programs. The EMP will It isn’t easy being green. Or is it? Your relation- be a major factor in the control and removal of ship with regulatory agencies doesn’t have to be invasive plant species in San Diego County. adversarial. Regulatory agencies need to enforce the rules and yet still be accessible. How can you ensure that your communication with the ag- Balancing Pest Management Needs and riculture department remains open and amicable? Water Quality Parry Klassen, Coalition for Urban/Rural Envi- Control of Invasive Plants Through ronmental Stewardship (CURES) Biological Mitigation for Throughout California, detections of farm inputs Transportation Projects in surface waters, especially of pesticides, have Bruce April, California Dept. of Transportation, prompted the adoption of regulatory programs. San Diego, [email protected] Pesticide users are faced with the challenge of balancing pest management realities while The California Department of Transportation responding to public and regulatory pressure to (Caltrans), through the development of biologi- protect public health and the environment. cal mitigation, has contributed to the control and removal of invasive plant species in San Diego The regulatory approaches taken to solve these and Imperial Counties. Over the past twenty problems have the potential to impact how years, Caltrans has implemented over fifty miti- pests are managed across vast areas of the state, gation sites in these counties, totaling more than including where impacts are non-existent or 5,200 acres, at a cost of more than $130,000,000. impacted areas are remote. These mitigation sites include salt marsh, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, vernal pools, Can regulations be fine tuned to respond to the riparian woodland, alkali marsh, and freshwater current or potential environmental impacts with- marsh, and combine preservation in place, res- out burdening all pesticide users with wasteful toration and creation. At many of the sites, the or unneeded regulations that add costs but might major effort was directed towards the removal negligibly improve water quality? Programs and control of invasive species on the Cal-IPC such as the Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver A&B list, as well as the establishment of native are being implemented to meet this challenge plant communities in their place. that pesticide users in all segments of pest management must face. The agricultural coali- In November 2004, San Diego County voters tions formed as a result of waiver requirements approved a forty-year, one-half cent sales tax and have been tracking the identification and extension for local transportation projects. This mitigation of problems in surface water. Work- tax measure has $880,000,000 dedicated for the ing together we can reduce the impact of weed “Environmental Mitigation Program” (EMP). management tools on the environment. The EMP was developed by the San Diego As-

8 California’s New NPDES Permit for Aquatic Herbicide Use spite of data suggesting that no adverse impact Michael Blankinship, has been caused by these uses, aquatic weed spe- Blankinship & Associates, Inc. cialists working for drinking water, flood control, irrigation interests continue to be regulated under After the 2001 Talent decision, California began a new permit created in 2004. The presentation regulating the use of aquatic pesticides in virtu- covered the significant changes since the last ally all waters in the state. During the initial permit, compliance requirements, and the unique emergency permit put in place in 2002, and in issues related to the use of copper and acrolein.

Session 2-B: Riparian and Wetland Invasives

Are We Creating the Ideal Conditions the competitive ability of A. donax. In 2002, a for Arundo donax Invasion in large-scale field experiment was established on California? the riparian terrace of the Santa Clara River to Gretchen C. Coffman*, Dept. of Environmental test this hypothesis. This experiment investi- Health Sciences, UCLA; Tom Dudley, Marine gates the effects of nutrient additions, amount of Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara; Phil W. light, and quantity of water on growth and com- Rundel, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary petition between A. donax and three dominant Biology, UCLA; Richard F. Ambrose, Dept. of native riparian plants: red willow (Salix laeviga- Environmental Health Sciences, Environmen- ta), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. tal Science and Engineering Program, UCLA; trichocarpa), and mule fat (Bacharris salicifo- *[email protected] lia). Results indicate that A. donax outcompetes all three species under most conditions tested The rapid invasion of the nonindigenous plant except under a simulated mature riparian for- giant reed (Arundo donax) has been well docu- est canopy with the highest soil moisture. This mented in riparian ecosystems in Mediterra- finding indicates that mature riparian forests may nean-climate regions. Millions of dollars have be important for control of giant reed and loss of been spent over the past 10 years in attempts to these habitats encourages A. donax invasion. In remove this noxious plant from rivers systems addition, increased water availability in riparian in California. Although successful in removing ecosystems in Mediterranean-climate regions is small areas of this weed, we still know very little also promoting invasion of A. donax. about the ecological conditions that promote continued growth and invasion of A. donax. Ever expanding development in watersheds of Control of Water Primrose (Ludwigia coastal California has led to increased water hexapetala) in a Freshwater Wetland import and discharge into rivers from water Julian A. Meisler, Laguna de Santa Rosa treatment facilities and urban runoff; decreased Foundation. [email protected] in-stream and groundwater water quality from adjacent land use; and loss of healthy, mature ri- The aquatic weed Ludwigia hexapetala is an parian forests. We hypothesize in this study that increasing threat in California’s freshwater factors such as quantity of water, nutrients, and wetlands. Its ability to spread rapidly and pro- light currently abundant in riparian ecosystems duce thick mats of woody perennial stems may of mediterranean-type climate regions increase have cascading effects on wetland ecosystems.

9 Among these are reduced biodiversity, depressed modifications, increased nutrient and sediment dissolved oxygen levels and changes to flooding loads, and removal of riparian vegetation. The regimes. Because the dense mats sharply inhibit Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation has set a long- mosquito control efforts, L. hexapetala also term goal of restoring these ecosystem compo- presents a public health threat related to West nents to make the Laguna more resilient to inva- Nile Virus. Despite these issues, little is known sion. In the short term, however, the immediate about its basic ecology and there are few well threats have prompted a three-year L. hexapetala documented control efforts. In Sonoma County, control plan that targets the worst infested areas L. hexapetala has invaded significant portions using a combination of herbicide and mechani- of the Laguna de Santa Rosa, the second largest cal removal. I discuss the challenges faced by freshwater wetland in coastal California. The the Laguna Foundation, logistical planning, and invasion is symptomatic of large scale perturba- initial results of control. tions throughout the watershed including channel

Comparison of Removal Methods for Spartina densiflora in Humboldt Bay Ellen R. Tatum*, Patti Clifford, Andrea J. Pickart, Andréa Craig Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arcata, California * [email protected] Introduction Invasive Spartina densiflora (dense-flowered ing to invade the remaining 6% of uninvaded cordgrass) is the dominant salt marsh plant in salt marsh, and to increase in density in the 38% Humboldt Bay, covering 330 ha (814 ac), or of invaded salt marsh where it is still sparse to 94%, of the current salt marsh. It is believed to moderate in cover. The spread of Spartina den- have been introduced from Chile in the 1850s siflora poses a major threat to the biodiversity of in ship ballast during the active lumber trade. Humboldt Bay. Dense-flowered cordgrass is a perennial that reproduces both by seed and by vegetative Experimental Design and Methods spread via underground tillers. Dense-flowered In 2004 an experiment was designed to examine cordgrass out-competes native salt marsh plants the effectiveness of mowing and digging meth- in several ways: unlike native plants, it lacks a ods for removing localized dense-flowered cord- complete dormancy period in the winter, thus grass from high-elevation salt marsh on Hum- producing tillers throughout the year, it quickly boldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (HBNWR), colonizes bare ground, and it produces large and to determine the scale of feasibility for these quantities of wrack (dead stems), which smoth- removal methods. Cover of dense-flowered cord- ers natives (Kittelson and Boyd 1997). Original- grass was mapped on a 1.6-ha (4-ac) island in ly thought to be restricted to mid-elevation salt Mad River Slough, and stratified into six cover marsh, recent research has shown it to be spread- classes: High 75-95%, Medium-High 50-74%, ing into the high-elevation salt marsh (Pickart Medium 25-49%, Medium-Low 5-24%, Low 2001). The high-elevation salt marsh is the most 1-4%, and Not Present 0%. Within each stratum diverse of the salt marsh vegetation types, with (except Not Present) eight treatment and eight 22 plant species including 2 rare plants, Hum- control plots were established (see Figure 1). In boldt Bay owl’s clover (Castilleja ambigua spp. July 2004, prior to any treatment, the plots were humboldtiensis) and Point Reyes bird’s beak monitored for density of dense-flowered cord- (Cordylanthus maritimus spp. palustris) (Eicher grass culms and cover of native species. Moni- 1997). Dense-flowered cordgrass is threaten- toring was conducted again in July 2005, and

10 will be repeated in July 2006. Mowing with a 2 hits, however it is very time consuming (ap- weed eater was conducted in the High, Medium- proximately 0.6m2 treated/person hour). In order High, and Medium plots, and hand-digging with to maintain this treatment on HBNWR property, a trowel was conducted in the Medium-Low and hired crew or volunteer efforts would be needed. Low plots. A 0.25 m2 buffer was treated the same Considered over the long term, however, the as the plot. The mowing treatment was initially digging treatment may be more efficient, given applied in August 2004 (mowing the plot to the that it only needs 1 to 2 hits to be effective. The ground), and was repeated monthly March-Octo- experiment is scheduled to continue until July ber and every other month in the winter. 2006.

For Medium-High and Medium plots the retreat- Literature Cited ment mowing is only done to the level of the Eicher, A.L. 1987. Salt marsh vascular plant distribution in relation to tidal elevation, Humboldt Bay, California. M.A. native vegetation, so the natives avoid remow- Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. ing. The digging treatment was also first applied in August 2004 (removing all dense-flowered Kittelson, P.M. and Boyd, M. 1997. Mechanisms of ex- cordgrass plants by digging them out individu- pansion for an introduced species of cordgrass, Spartina ally, including the relatively short rhizomes), and densiflora, in Humboldt Bay, California. Estuaries 20:770- 778. was repeated monthly March-October and every other month in the winter. Pickart, A.J. 2001. The distribution of Spartina densiflora and two rare salt marsh plants in Humboldt Bay, 1998- Results 1999. Unpublished document, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt bay National Widlife Refuge, Arcata, California. Effectiveness of Removal Methods Preliminary, qualitative results show that density of dense-flowered cordgrass is lower in the treatment plots compared to control plots. In the High, Medium-High, and Me- dium plots, dense-flowered cordgrass density is about half that of the control plots, while in the Medium-Low and Low treatment plots there is now almost no dense-flowered cordgrass. Native plants are recovering more quickly than dense-flowered cordgrass in the treatment plots, including the two rare plants, Humboldt Bay owl’s clover and Point Reyes bird’s beak.

Feasibility of Scale The mowing treatment is effective at reducing the density of dense-flowered cordgrass after multiple hits, and is relatively time efficient (approximately 6m2 treated/person hour). For high-elevation salt marsh on HBNWR property, the mowing treatment could prob- ably be maintained by staff. The hand-digging treatment is highly effective after only 1 to Figure 1. Cover classes and experimental plots.

11 Dry Creek Watershed Red Sesbania and surveying will be critical to guaranteeing Control Project - Initial Successes and the success of this watershed-wide eradication Challenges project. Loran May*, Shannon Lucas, May & Associates, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Eric Evans, Restoration Resources, Rocklin, CA; and Peter Buck, Sacra- Suppressing Exotic Weeds on mento Area Flood Control Agency, Sacramento, Restoration Projects Using an CA. *[email protected] Aggressive Herbaceous Understory Tamara Sperber* and F.T. Griggs, River Partners, The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 806 14th Street, Modesto, CA 95354 (SAFCA) is conducting a three-year project to *[email protected] remove the invasive riparian weed red sesbania (Sesbania punicea, a Cal-IPC “red alert” species) River Partners is using a combination of weed from Dry Creek and its tributaries in Placer and control, herbaceous native understory species, Sacramento Counties. This project is funded by and adaptive management to control invasives, the California Department of Water Resources including perennial pepperweed (Lepidium Flood Protection Corridor Program. Of approxi- latifolium) and yellow starthistle (Centaurea mately 44 linear miles of creek, 26 linear miles solstitialis), and improve wildlife habitat on over (60%) of creek bank were infested with sparse 800 acres of restored riparian vegetation on the to dense areas of red sesbania. During Year 1 San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. In (2004), 80 percent of mature red sesbania plants December 2003, River Partners planted about 53 were removed. The “cut-and-paint” method acres each of mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) proved most successful, which involved cutting and gumplant (Grindelia camporum var. cam- the shrub near the base and immediately painting porum) throughout 2-year-old restored fields as the stump with herbicide (generally Aquamas- a measure of weed control. Cover of gumplant ter™). In Year 2 (2005), the remaining mature remained stable from August 2004 (40-50%; plants were removed and follow-up treatments mature) to March 2005 (30 to 50%; just bolting) were initiated for resprouting stumps and emerg- and cover of mugwort increased (16-43% to 37- ing seedlings. The primary treatment method 66%). Weed cover in gumplant areas remained for resprouts and seedlings has been herbicide relatively stable while it dramatically decreased application (generally Aquamaster™), with from 70% in 2004 to 22% 2005 in mugwort ar- initial success observed at treatment locations. A eas. We expect native species cover to continue trial treatment of “flaming” (i.e. applying heat to to increase and weed cover to decrease as these burn or boil the new growth) had mixed results. perennials become more established. The con- Flamed seedlings responded well, while flamed cept of replacing non-native species with aggres- resprouting stumps subsequently resprouted, but sive native species shows promise for the field of mostly in areas with a higher water table. restoration and long-term land management.

The largest initial challenge to successful eradi- cation is treatment timing, which is necessary in several phases, since cut stumps begin resprout- ing in late spring, while seedlings emerge along the waterline as soon as water levels drop. These seedlings can grow to more than 6 feet tall and produce flowers and young seed pods within 2-3 months. Post-project maintenance, monitoring,

12 Session 5-A: Comparing Control Methods A test of repeat flaming as a control for poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Cape ivy (Delairia odorata), and periwinkle (Vinca major)

Carla Bossard* and Ken Moore #, Cammy Chabre3, Andrea Woolfolk3, Jorden King1, and Dana Johanek4, 1Biology Department, Saint Mary’s College of California 2Wildlands Restoration Team, Director 3Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve 4California State University, Monterey Bay *[email protected] or #[email protected]

Introduction Green flaming is a technique in which a heat and summer when flaming was not advisable, source (typically a propane torch) is passed the target plants would re-supply their starch quickly over the top of plants, changing the reserves. plants color to a slightly darker green and causing the above ground plant tissue to wilt Procedures within a day. Green flaming, has been used in Three random block design experiments were set agriculture as an alternative to herbicides for up; poison hemlock and periwinkle sites were some years. It was recently found effective at Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research for eradication of French broom (Genista Reserve and the Cape ivy site at Sunset Beach monspessulana) seedlings in wildlands (Moore, State Park. The poison hemlock and periwinkle Bossard and Fillipini, Cal-IPC Symposium experiments each consisted of eight, five meter 2004). In this experiment we wanted to by five meter blocks, four randomly designated examine the effectiveness of green flaming as for treatments and four as controls. Within a method of control for adult invasive weed each block were four, one meter by one meter species. We chose three invasive plant species, randomly designated plots which were harvested poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Cape at the end of the experiment to assess dry weight ivy (Delairia odorata) and periwinkle (Vinca biomass. major), that use their capacity for underground starch storage as a mechanism to enable re- The Cape ivy site consisted of ten blocks that growth after herbicide applications or manual were four meters by four meters. Five were removal of above ground biomass. Since randomly designated treatment blocks and five flaming is done only in the rainy season which were control blocks. Two of the blocks were is also the seasonally lowest sunlight season heavily shaded by tree canopy and three of the in California we hypothesized that repeated blocks had access to direct sunlight at least one flaming would cause the adult plants to deplete third of every day. Within each block were four, their starch reserves because they would have to one meter by one meter randomly designated repeatedly re-grow shoot mass. Once the starch plots which were harvested at the beginning of reserves were depleted, one more green flaming the experiment and four which were harvested treatment, we theorized, would eradicate the at the end of the experiment to assess the dry pest species from the area. If eradication was weight biomass of the treated and control blocks. unable to be accomplished in one rainy season we realized this technique would not work as Initial sampling of the blocks revealed no a control method because over the late spring significant differences between treatment and

13 control blocks for any of the species: poison (F= 113.86, p<0.0001). However, this removal hemlock, F= 1.01; periwinkle, F=0.67; Cape ivy, technique was more effective on Cape ivy in F=0.89]. A 750,000 BTU Manchester Powerjet shaded or partially shaded, treated blocks than torch was used for this experiment. Harvested in sunny, treated blocks. There was eradication biomass was dried in an agricultural oven for of Cape ivy in all three plots of the most five days then weighed. Initial treatments were shaded block and two plots of the other heavily done November 21, 2004, final treatment May shaded block. In treated blocks that had direct 12, 2005. The poison hemlock and periwinkle sunlight at much of the day the Cape ivy was plots were harvested in June 12, 2005 and Cape not eradicated by the end of the flaming season, ivy plots were harvested July 19, 2005. Initial although it was much reduced in density. treatments on blocks took 25 to 30 minutes. Re- treatments took about five minutes per 5 m x 5 Conclusions m block and were reapplied when re-growing Repeated green flaming of poison hemlock plants had leaves at least 80% of full size, was effective in eradicating this species locally. typically about every 3-5 weeks depending on Poison hemlock seeds undoubtedly remain in the the species. Poison hemlock was treated a total seedbank and will have to be treated when they of six times, periwinkle five times and Cape ivy germinate next rainy season. We did not start six times. An F test was done for each species treating the poison hemlock until it was about 40 on the final harvest dry weight biomass to assess cm high. This meant we had to spend far more statistical significance of the results (Zar, 1986). time in the initial treatment than we would have if we would have started the treatment when the Results plants were approximately 15 cm in height, the Repeat green flaming proved very successful typical height of the vegetation at re-treatment. in eradicating the poison hemlock from the treatment blocks with only two small <15 cm) Since periwinkle density was reduced but the poison hemlock seedlings remaining at time plants were not eradicated in any of the blocks in of harvest, while the control blocks contained one season, we do not recommend repeat green 100% cover of 7-8 foot tall poison hemlock flaming for control of periwinkle. plants. The treatment blocks and plots were very significantly different from the controls (F=149.7 In areas with little or no direct sunlight exposure, p<.0001). Seedlings stopped germinating flaming can be used for eradicating this Cape ivy. in early May so the last treatment killed the Where adequate direct sunlight was available, seedlings that had germinated in the spring of we were unable to eradicate this species locally 2005. in one season. Since many Cape ivy infestations have sufficient direct sunlight, repeat green This technique was not as effective in removing flaming may have limited efficacy for removal periwinkle. It reduced the periwinkle density of this species. An experiment this coming about 40% on treated compared to control rainy season will examine if hand removing as blocks. The treatment blocks were significantly much above ground biomass as possible and different from controls (F=31.28, p< 0.001). then flaming any re-growth, would reduce the However, the periwinkle was not eradicated from number of flaming treatments required to achieve the treated blocks. eradication.

Results of repeat green flaming on Cape ivy were mixed. Overall there was a significant difference between the treated and control blocks

14 Large Scale Pampas Grass Control Program nizer of disturbed areas that can spread rapidly Jeff Powers, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Menlo into native grasslands, out-competing native Park, CA, [email protected] vegetation and dramatically degrading wildlife habitat. Infestations are especially dense near the The Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) is a not ocean where the coastal micro-climate helps the for profit land trust operating on the San Francis- plants thrive and spread. Since 2002, POST has co Peninsula for over 25 years. POST purchased used volunteers and contractors testing a vari- the 6,400-acre Cloverdale Coastal Ranches in ety of methods to control pampas grass on the San Mateo County in 1997, which includes over 2,500 acres of grasslands. POST worked with 2,500 acres of grasslands. Some of the most de- UC Davis and weed-management consultants to structive invasive species identified were pampas develop appropriate strategies for this project. grass (Cortaderia selloana) and jubata grass The Coastal Conservancy and Bella Vista Foun- (Cortaderia jubata), two closely related plants dation have funded the on-going control efforts that are commonly grouped together under the and at the end of 2005 over 1.4 million plants single name “pampas grass.” (For presentation will have been treated. The results of this multi- purposes, both species are referred to as pampas year program will be presented with information grass). Pampas grass is an opportunistic colo- regarding different treatment methods.

Invasive Annual Grasses in a Coastal Dune Ecosystem Patti Clifford, Andrea J. Pickart, Ellen Tatum, and Kyle Wear Lanphere Dunes Unit, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 6800 Lanphere Road, Arcata, CA 95521

Coastal dune ecosystems are susceptible to native to Europe, and Mediterranean beardgrass invasions due to their open vegetation, natural (Polypogon maritimus), native to Europe and the disturbance regimes, and human-influenced dis- Mediterranean, were invading seasonally flooded turbances. Historically, Ammophila arenaria, Lu- swales. Ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), native pinus arboreus, and Carpobrotus spp. have been to Europe, and quaking grass (Briza maxima), planted to stabilize the dune systems. On the native to southern Europe, were noticed invading north coast of California these species have be- upland dunes in which the invasive, nitrogen fix- come invasive and much of the dune restoration ing Lupinus arboreaus was present or had been efforts have centered on their removal. How- removed. ever, over the past several decades exotic annual grasses have become increasingly invasive in the Yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreaus) is a coastal California dunes systems. bushy shrub, native to California south of So- noma County. It is an invasive species in the On the North Spit of the Humboldt Bay Dunes, northern California coastal sand dunes. Lupinus land managers began to notice invasions of ex- was introduced to the north spit of Humboldt otic annual grasses in the 1980s. Initially, the an- Bay in the early 1900s. Initially the Lupinus oc- nual grasses were limited to stable mesic areas or currences were in the southern part of the North sites already invaded by yellow bush lupine. Yel- Spit. By the 1980s there were dense occurrences low hair grass (Aira praecox), native to south- of Lupinus throughout the spit (Fig. 1). Lupinus ern Europe, was noted in transitional swales. facilitates the invasion of exotic annual grasses Rabbit-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), through nitrogen enrichment of the soil (Maron

15 and Connors 1996; Pickart et al. 1998). Unit and using a treatment of handpulling Bro- mus followed by the flaming of Vulpia and Aira. In the 1990s land managers observed Bromus An experiment was designed in 2003 to test the diandrus, Briza maxima, and brome fescue, effects of flaming on native and invasive species (Vulpia Bromoides) spreading into previously at a large scale and to determine the most ef- undisturbed upland dune areas. fective time for flaming for each species. Sub- sequently the handpulling followed by flaming In 1996 an experimental removal of Briza was treatment was expanded over a larger area (Fig begun at the Lanphere Dunes Unit, Humboldt 3a & b). This method has been very successful Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Plants were hand in reducing all upland species of invasive annual pulled by the roots, before they set seed, and grasses and restoring native vegetation. removed in garbage bags. There was a marked reduction in the population after three years of However, flaming of annual grasses cannot be the treatment (USFWS 1999). used near the forested dunes and swales due to the risk of the fire carrying. In addition, this In 1998 annual grasses were inventoried spit- treatment has unintended impacts to cryptogamic wide to determine the extent of the invasion (US- mat and invertebrates (of particular concern FWS unpublished data). Five species occurred are ground-nesting solitary bees critical to the over 221 ha in various densities (Aira, 162 ha, maintenance of native vegetation). While the Bromus 154 ha, Vulpia 138 ha, Briza 74 ha, and role of cryptogamic mat in the succession of Polypogon monspeliensis 8 ha) (Fig. 2). coastal dune ecosystems is not fully understood, the availability of cryptogamic mat is one of the Also in 1998, an experimental trial was initiated most common factors limiting the population to test four methods of annual grass removal at and distribution of bee species (Gordon 1984). the Lanphere and Manila Dunes: hand pulling, Changes in the distribution and health of crypto- weed-eating, “black flaming” (incinerating target gamic mats within dune systems are of concern. species), and duff removal (USFWS Unpub- lished data). All four methods were effective In 2005 we established a new series of experi- after two years of treatment, resulting in signifi- mental plots designed to compare the use of the cant reductions in the densities of the grasses. propane flamer to a radiant heater (for which the There was no significant difference in the cover risk of igniting a fire is negligible) in terms of of native species except for a decrease in the effectiveness on removing Aira and Vulpia and weed-eating plots. The treatments did not dif- impacts on cryptogamic species. The radiant fer significantly in effectiveness. However the heater uses infrared radiation, reaching tempera- duff removal was the most labor intensive, while tures up to 1000° C, penetrating 1-2 mm into the flaming and weed-eating were much less labor soil. In 2007, we will compare the results of the intensive. We concluded there is not a single first year’s treatments. best treatment for removing annual grass on the North Spit. The presence of endangered plant Next year, a graduate student at Humboldt State species, the density of the grass occurrence, and University will begin a thesis on the effects of the proximity to the coastal dune forest should flaming and radiant heat on solitary bees. Until dictate the treatment type. these studies are completed, we are restricting our flaming to areas without cryptogams and In 2002 a management strategy was developed outside of bee nesting habitat. Previous studies that called for mapping the percent cover of the have demonstrated a strong correlation between invasive annual grasses at the Lanphere Dunes bee nesting, cryptogams, and the non-native Aira

16 Figure 1. Spread of Lupinus arboreus on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay.

praecox. More research is needed to understand tive components of the ecosystem. the synergistic roles of these native and non-na-

Literature cited Pickart, A. J., L. M. Miller, and T. E. Duebendorfer. 1998. Gordon, D. M. 1984. Ecology of bees from coastal dunes, Yellow bush lupine invaion in Northern California Humboldt County, California. M. A. thesis. Humboldt coastal dunes I. Ecological impacts and manual restoration State University. Arcata, California USA. 213pp. techniques. Restoration Ecology (6) 1:59-68.

Maron, J. L. and P. G. Connors. 1996. A native nitrogen- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Experimental control fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion. Oecologia 105:302- of rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima) Year 3 progress report. 312. Unpublished document. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Arcata, California.

17 Figure 2. Invasive annual grass distribution.

18 Figure 3a. Before any treatment.

Figure 3b. After two years pulling and flaming.

19 Balancing Act: Managing Non-Native Management of Domestic Olives on Plants of Historic Landscapes within Santa Cruz Island in the Channel the Natural Landscapes of Channel Islands National Park: Preventing Islands National Park Development of an Olive-Dominated Sarah Chaney*, U.S. National Park Service, Chaparral Channel Islands National Park, and James R. James R. Roberts*, Environmental Studies Roberts, Environmental Studies Program, Cali- Program, California State University, Fullerton; fornia State University, Fullerton; Sarah Chaney, Channel Islands National Park; *[email protected] and Ann Fossum, Student Conservation Association; *[email protected] Many species of non-native trees were intro- duced to the California Channel islands in the The ecological conditions on east Santa Cruz late 1800s through the mid 1900s, for wood or Island are conducive to the spread of domestic fruit production, wind shelter, and aesthetics. olive, Olea europea, originating from grove We are in the process of comparatively evaluat- plantings circa 1900. Their distribution and ing each species’ demonstrated and potential population demography, and the progress of invasiveness and ecosystem effects. While some eradicating feral olive populations, have been species appear to be benign or readily control- documented utilizing a varied set of field meth- lable, several others have proven to be highly ods and instrumentation. In collaboration with invasive, expanding their ranges and numbers the National Park Service, and Santa Cruz Island exponentially, with potentially enormous det- Native Plant Restoration Project, we surveyed rimental ecosystem effects. The National Park approximately 6500 acres of the island, primar- Service’s dual mission includes preservation ily on the east end, and eradicated at least 7000 of both cultural and natural features of parks. juvenile and mature feral olive trees. Control Therefore, this Park is seeking to restore native techniques included both hand digging and ecosystems while maintaining- in some areas - a herbicide cut-stump treatments depending on landscape reminiscent of the 19th – early 20th the size of plants. Data collected for all plants/ Century ranching era. In attempting to accom- populations included GPS locations, photo-docu- plish these seemingly conflicting missions, we mentation, burl diameter and total stem height, are seeking a middle ground somewhere between and herbicide amounts and concentrations. Data the two extremes of committing large scale, and were analyzed using GIS techniques and de- under current climates, perhaps unattainable lineated into categories that provide evidence resources to contain the more invasive species in for rate of spread, probable parent plants, seed their current numbers and locations, or to re- bank properties, size/age distribution of popula- move them entirely to protect native ecosystems. tions, and probable vectors for seed dispersal. Our recent work on Santa Cruz Island on control Project results include data on characteristics of of feral domestic olive (Olea europaea) will be all treated plants, and maps showing size/age presented as an example of seeking this difficult classes, density and location of populations. but potentially rewarding balance. From this information we hope to predict both rate and direction of further spread of olive, and to forecast the long-term cost of maintaining this historic grove in the landscape.

20 Session 5-B: DNA to GIS: New Techniques and Ideas

Identification of Cultivated Pampas Biodiversity Risks from Atmospheric Grass (Cortaderia selloana) Escaping Nitrogen Deposition in California Ornamental Plantings Stuart B. Weiss, Creekside Center for Earth Miki Okada*, Riaz Ahmad and Marie A. Jasieni- Observations, 27 Bishop Lane, Menlo Park, CA uk. Dept. of Plant Sciences, UC Davis. 94025, [email protected] *[email protected] Atmospheric nitrogen deposition is an insidi- Molecular markers (microsatellites) were used ous, cumulative process that alters ecosystems. to identify cultivars or genotypes of ornamental A GIS-based N-deposition risk screening for pampas grass that escaped cultivation and invad- California included: 1) a 36 x 36 km map of total ed wildlands of California. DNA was obtained N-deposition for 2002, from the CMAQ model; from leaf tissue and each plant was genotyped at 2) identification of sensitive habitat types; 3) 10 microsatellite loci for 33 wild populations, 25 overlay of the FRAP vegetation map; 4) overlay named cutivars, and 108 unnamed, or unidenti- of the CNDDB; and 5) life-history and habitat fied, plants from nurseries, botanical gardens, for each species. and landscape plantings. Three major groups were identified among the cultivated pampas 55,000 km2 of California (total area 405,205 grass based on microsatellite data. One of these km2) are exposed to >5 kg-N ha-1 year-1 and cultivated groups accounted for 86 % of the gene 10,000 km2 are exposed to >10 kg-N ha-1 year- pool of the wild plants sampled in California. 1. Deposition hotspots include coastal urban Three out of the 25 named cultivars were found areas, the Central Valley, and Sierra Nevada foot- in this group. Landscape plantings were a major hills. N-deposition increases growth of invasive component of this group as 95 % of landscape annual grasses in low biomass ecosystems, such plantings that we sampled in California belonged as coastal sage scrub, serpentine grassland, to this cultivated group. Further, this cultivated desert scrub, and vernal pools. Of 225 listed group was the only one to contain pampas grass “Threatened” and “Endangered” plant taxa, 101 sold as unnamed, generic pampas grass from are exposed on average to >5 kg-N ha-1 year-1. nurseries Whether the identified cultivar group Of 1022 plant taxa considered “rare,” 288 are is genetically superior over other genotypes in exposed to >5 kg-N ha-1 year-1. Many of these the ability to escape cultivation needs further taxa are associated with sensitive habitat types. study. Alternatively, plantings might have fos- This initial, broad-scale screening provides a tered the establishment of escapes in California. basis for finer-scale analyses using a new 4 x 4 km CMAQ deposition map, more complete local data on species occurrences, and connections to weed invasions beyond annual grasses.

21 Status of New Agents for Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle and Russian Thistle Lincoln Smith 1*, Massimo Cristofaro 2, Rita Yu. Dolgovskaya 3, Carlo Tronci 2, and Rüstem Hayat 4 1 Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Albany 2 ENEA C.R. Casaccia, S. Maria di Galeria, Italy, 3 Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia 4 Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey *[email protected]

Yellow starthistle scientists are collaborating to determine when Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis, Astera- and how best to release the agent and to measure ceae, YST) is an invasive alien weed, originat- its impact on YST. ing from the Mediterranean Region, that is the target of classical biological control (Turner et During the past five years, we have discovered al. 1995, Pitcairn et al. 2004). Six species of many new prospective arthropod biological insects attack flower heads of yellow starthistle control agents that are likely to complement the in California, and most of these are now wide- effects of the flower head insects and the rust. spread (Balciunas and Villegas 2001, Pitcairn We have focussed on discovering agents that at- et al. 2003). Two of these: the hairy weevil tack the leaves roots and stems of the immature (Eustenopus villosus) and the false peacock fly plant during the spring. Of these, we have begun (Chaetorellia succinea) are very abundant at to evaluate the safety and potential effectiveness many sites. During the past ten years, the den- of five species, often in collaboration with other sity of yellow starthistle has decreased substan- foreign scientists (Table 1, Smith 2004). The tially at two out of three long-term study sites root-crown weevil (Ceratapion basicorne) is monitored by California Department of Food the next agent likely to be approved for release. and Agriculture (CDFA) scientists (Woods et al. This insect is found throughout the range of YST 2004, Pitcairn et al. 2005). Yellow starthistle has in Eurasia and attacks a high percentage of plants also decreased in many parts of Oregon, espe- in Greece and Turkey. Adults begin to lay eggs cially where there is good competition with other in the early spring, larvae develop in the roots vegetation (E. Coombs, personal communica- and can cause extensive damage. Adults emerge tion). This is heartening news in light of the 35 from the plants in late May to early June and years that have passed since the first introduction then hide until the following spring. Host speci- of a biological control agent. Nevertheless, it ficity tests conducted in the USDA-ARS quar- appears that additional agents will be needed to antine laboratory in Albany, CA indicate that the provide adequate control of the weed throughout insect is highly host-specific and does not attack its geographic range. native North American Cardueae species (this- tles) nor commercial species such as artichoke. The rust pathogen, Puccinia jaceae var. solsti- Field experiments conducted near Erzurum, tialis, was approved for release in California in Turkey confirmed that this insect does not attack 2003 and was released at sites in 20 counties in safflower. Bachelor’s button (Centaurea cya- 2004 (Woods and Villegas 2005). CDFA scien- nus), appears to be the only nontarget plant that tists and cooperators are continuing to multiply may be at risk of being attacked by this insect. and release this agent; however, it is not yet Although Bachelor’s button is an ornamental known how much impact this rust will have on plant, it is invasive in the western U.S. (Whitson YST populations in the field. CDFA and ARS et al. 2000). A petition is being submitted to

22 Table 1. Status of prospective biological control agents for yellow starthistle. Taxonomic name Common name Current Information Aceria solstitialis blister mite The mite attacks developing flowers. Basic life history (Acari: Eriophyidae) and ecological studies are being conducted in Italy by E. DeLillo. Ceratapion basi- root-crown Larvae attack root crown of rosettes. Host specificity corne (Coleoptera: weevil studies in laboratory and field have been completed. Peti- Apionidae) tion to release is being submitted to APHIS. Larinus filiformis seedhead weevil Larvae attack the seedheads. The insect if very abundant (Coleoptera: Curcu- in eastern Turkey. Competition studies were conducted by lionidae) L. Gultekin in Turkey to determine possible interference with Eustenopus villosus. Psylliodes nr. chal- flea beetle Larvae attack leaves and developing stems in spring. comera (Coleoptera: Individuals that attack YST are genetically distinct from Chrysomelidae) those that attack Scotch thistle or musk thistle. Host specificity testing conducted in Russia, Italy and Albany is nearly complete. Tingis grisea (Heter- lacebug Adults and larvae feed on plant sap during the summer. optera: Tingidae) Life history and initial host specificity tests are being conducted in Italy the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) which is a very host specific. review committee with representatives from all the U.S. federal departments, Canada and Mexi- These two beetles greatly improve the likelihood co. If TAG recommends approval, then a permit of achieving successful biological control of this request will be submitted to USDA-APHIS, weed. The other prospective agents being evalu- which must write an Environmental Assessment ated will provide additional tools, should they (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact be needed, to help ensure control of the weed (FONSI) before the agent can be released. Each throughout its range in North America. state must also approve before the agent can be released within its territory. Russian thistle Russian thistle (tumbleweed, Salsola tragus, The next agent most likely to be approved is the Chenopodiaceae) is an invasive alien weed, flea beetle (Psylliodes nr. chalcomera). This originating from Central Asia, that is the tar- insect also attacks YST in the spring, but larvae get of classical biological control (Goeden and tunnel in the leaves and stems, causing extensive Pemberton 1995, Pitcairn 2004). This plant has damage. This species was previously known to also been called S. australis, S. iberica, S. kali, attack musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and was and S. pestifer (Mosyakin 1996). Similar species introduced to the eastern and central U.S. in include S. paulsenii and S. collina. Two spe- 1997 (Andres and Rees 1995, Littlefield et al. cies of moths (Coleophora klimeschiella and C. 2004). However, discovery of a population on parthenica) were introduced in the 1970s. These YST in southern Russia suggested the existence became widespread, but predators and parasites of a host-specific subspecies or biotype (Cris- prevent them from being abundant enough to tofaro et al. 2004). Further experiments by our control the weed. Foreign exploration in the team have shown that the Russian population is Mediterranean Region led to the discovery of

23 Table 2. Status of prospective biological control agents of Russian thistle. Taxonomic name Common name Current Information Evaluated Species Aceria salsolae blister mite The mite attacks developing tips. Petition approved by (Acari: Eriophyidae) TAG, permit submitted to APHIS. Gymnancyla canella seed and stem Caterpillar feeds on seeds and young branch tips. Host (Lepidoptera: Pyrali- moth specificity testing almost completed. dae) Lixus incanescens stem weevil Adults feed on many plants in choice test at Montpellier, [=salsolae] (Coleop- France (Sobhian et al. 2003). Rejected. tera: Curculionidae) Piesma salsolae plant bug Develops on beets in no choice lab test at Montpellier, (Hemiptera: Piesma- France (R, Sobhian pers. com.). Rejected. tidae) Colletotrichum rust More damaging to Russian thistle type A than to type B gloeosporioides (Bruckart et al. 2004). Being evaluated by W. Bruckart USDA-ARS, Maryland. Uromyces salsolae rust Damages Russian thistle type A (Hasan et al. 2001). Be- ing evaluated by W. Bruckart USDA-ARS, Maryland. New Species Anthypurinus biim- jumping weevil Found in Tunisia in 2004. Larvae and adults feed on pressus (Col.: Curcu- leaves. Biology is unknown. lionidae) Baris przewalskyi weevil Abundant on Salsola in Kazakhstan in 2004. Biology is (Col.: Curculionidae) unknown. Salsolia morgei weevil Found in Kazakhstan in 2004. Reported to be monopha- (Col.: Curculionidae) gous.

several prospective new biological control agents A petition was submitted to TAG in Dec. 2004 (Table 2). Evaluations conducted by R. Sob- (Smith 2005), and TAG recommended approval hian (USDA-ARS, European Biological Control of release in Aug. 2005. A permit to release has Laboratory) demonstrated that two of these are been submitted to USDA-APHIS. specific enough to warrant further evaluation, and that two should be eliminated from further Larvae of the moth, Gymnancyla canella, feed consideration. on developing seeds and stems, causing exten- sive damage. Host specificity tests are being The blister mite destroys young growing tips, conducted in the Albany quarantine laboratory stunting the plant and preventing development and are expected to be finished in another year. of flowers. The blister mite has been evaluated Foreign cooperators have begun travelling to for host plant specificity and its ability to dam- Central Asia and have discovered many species age the plant in quarantine experiments at the of beetles attacking Russian thistle. Several of USDA-ARS quarantine laboratory in Albany, these are thought likely to be host-specific (Table CA. These studies demonstrated that the mite 2). Initial experiments to evaluate host plant attacks only a few closely related species of specificity are beginning conducted by coop- Salsola, all of which are invasive alien weeds. erators in Russia. Access to this region greatly

24 improves our chances of finding safe, effective Littlefield, J. L. and W. L. Bruckart. 2004. Musk biological control agents. thistle, pp. 4352-378. In E.M. Coombs, J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. (eds.). Biologi- Literature cited cal Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press. Andres, L. A. and N. E. Rees. 1995. Musk thistle, pp. 248-251. In J.R. Nechols, L.A. Andres, J.W. Mosyakin, S. L. 1996. A taxonomic synopsis of the Beardsley, R.D. Goeden and C.G. Jackson (editors), genus Salsola L. (Chenopodiaceae) in North Ameri- Biological Control in the Western United States: ca. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 83: 387-395. Accomplishments and benefits of regional research project W-84, 1964-1989. University of California, Pitcairn, M. J. 2004. Russian thistle, pp. 304-310. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oak- In E.M. Coombs, J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Co- land. Publ. 3361. francesco, Jr. (eds.). Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Oregon State University Balciunas, J. K. and B. Villegas. 2001. Unintention- Press. ally released Chaetorellia succinea (Diptera: Teph- ritidae): Is this natural enemy of yellow starthistle a Pitcairn, M. J., G. L. Piper and E. M. Coombs. 2004. threat to safflower growers? Environ. Entomol. 30: Yellow starthistle, pp. 421-435. In E.M. Coombs, 953-963. J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. (eds.), Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Bruckart, W., Cavin, C., Vajna, L., Schwarczinger, I., United States. Oregon State University Press. and Ryan, F. J. 2004. Differential susceptibility of Russian thistle accessions to Colletotrichum gloeo- Pitcairn, M. J., D. M. Woods and V. Popescu. 2005. sporoides. Biological Control. 30: 306-311. Update on the long-term monitoring of the com- bined impact of biological control insects on yellow Cristofaro, M., M. Yu. Dolgovskaya, A. Konstanti- starthistle, pp. 27-30. In D.M. Woods (ed.), Biologi- nov, F. Lecce, S. Ya. Reznik, L. Smith, C. Tronci, and cal Control Program Annual Summary, 2004. Cali- M. G. Volkovitsh. 2004. Psylliodes chalcomerus fornia Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Illiger (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae), a Health and Pest Prevention Services, Sacramento, flea beetle candidate for biological control of yellow California. starthistle Centaurea solstitialis, pp. 75-80. In J.M. Cullen, D.T. Briese, D.J. Kriticos, W.M. Lonsdale, Pitcairn, M. J., B. Villegas, D. Woods, G. Wilber, A. L. Morin and J.K. Scott (eds.), Proceedings of the XI Duffy and M. El-Bawdri. 2003. Statewide survey International Symposium on Biological Control of of yellow starthistle biological control agents, pp. Weeds). CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, Australia. 45-49. In D.M. Woods (ed.), Biological Control Program Annual Summary, 2002. California Depart- Goeden, R. D. and R. W. Pemberton. 1995. Russian ment of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest thistle, pp. 276-280. In J.R. Nechols, L.A. Andres, Prevention Services, Sacramento, California. J.W. Beardsley, R.D. Goeden and C.G. Jackson (editors), Biological Control in the Western United Sobhian, R., Fumanal, B., And Pitcairn, M. 2003. States: Accomplishments and benefits of regional Observations on the host specificity and biology of research project W-84, 1964-1989. University of Lixus salsolae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a po- California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Re- tential biological control agent of Russian thistle, sources, Oakland. Publ. 3361. Salsola tragus (Chenopodiaceae) in North America. J. of Appl. Entomol. 127: 322-324. Hasan, S., R. Sobhian and F. Herard. 2001. Biology, impact and preliminary host-specificity testing of the Smith, L. 2004. Prospective New Agents for Bio- rust fungus, Uromyces salsolae, a potential biological logical Control of Yellow Starthistle. Proceedings control agent for Salsola kali in the USA. Biocontrol California Weed Science Society, 12-14 January, Science and Technology 11: 677-689. 2004, Sacramento, CA. pp. 136-138.

25 Smith, L. 2005. Host plant specificity and potential and ethical dimensions of their language. In impact of Aceria salsolae (Acari: Eriophyidae), an particular, is current language likely to promote agent proposed for biological control of Russian this- social cohesion and consequently, effective and tle (Salsola tragus). Biological Control 34: 83-92. appropriate action towards invasive species? I review recent discussions of these issues, focus- Turner, C. E., J. B. Johnson and J. P. McCaffrey. ing on prevalent militaristic metaphors within 1995. Yellow starthistle, pp. 270-275. In J.R. Nechols, L.A. Andres, J.W. Beardsley, R.D. Goeden invasion biology. I argue that these metaphors and C.G. Jackson (eds.), Biological Control in the are problematic because (i) they lead to a mis- Western United States: Accomplishments and ben- leading perception of invasive species; (ii) they efits of regional research project W-84, 1964-1989. contribute to social misunderstanding, charges of University of California, Division of Agriculture and xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility; and Natural Resources, Oakland. Publ. 3361. (iii) they reinforce militaristic patterns of thought that are counter-productive for conservation. Whitson, T. D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cud- Consequently, while these metaphors may have ney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee, R. Parker. 2000. Weeds been effective in motivating conservation ac- of the West, 9th edn. The Western Society of Weed tion in the short-term, this may not translate into Science in cooperation with the Western United long-term efficacy. Militaristic language may be States Land Grant Universities Cooperative Exten- sion Services and the University of Wyoming. Grand warranted in some instances, but I conclude with Teton Lithography, Jackson, Wyoming. alternatives that better promote management and conservation goals in a multicultural context. Woods, D. M. and B. Villegas. 2005. Field releases of the rust Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis in Cali- Please see Larson, B.M.H. 2005. The war of the fornia, pp. 25-26. In D.M. Woods (ed.), Biological roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers Control Program Annual Summary, 2004. California in Ecology and Environment. 3:495-500 Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, Sacramento, California.

Woods, D. M., D. B. Joley, M. J. Pitcairn and V. Tracking Weed Population Dynamics Popescu. 2004. Impact of biological control agents Using Geodatabase Technology on yellow starthistle at one site in Yolo County, pp. Ingrid B. Hogle* and Joshua H. Viers, Informa- 35-37. In D.M. Woods (ed.), Biological Control tion Center for the Environment, UC Davis, Program Annual Summary, 2003. California Depart- *[email protected] ment of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, Sacramento, California. Discussion among weed mappers at Cal-IPC meetings frequently focuses on the difficulty of Reinventing the Language of Invasion tracking weed patches over time. The difficulty Biology arises from the fact that patches can grow, shrink, Brendon M. H. Larson. IGERT Program on Bio- merge, divide or disappear. Such changes create a logical Invasions, Center for Population Biology, major challenge if one attempts to track numbered UC Davis. [email protected] patches as permanent entities. As initial entities merge and dissolve, formerly distinct patches lose This presentation examines the language that in- their definition. We have developed an ArcGIS 9.0 vasion biologists use to refer to invasive species. geodatabase which stores patch location and as- Since invasion biologists have to communicate sociated field data, and allows assessment of patch the problem of invasive species to others, includ- dynamics over time using a spatial approach rather ing both non-biologists and non-scientists, they than a numeric patch ID to track patch behavior need to continuously reflect upon the rhetorical over time. Our approach relies on identification

26 of patches by polygon location, as determined in tracking of changes in creation, disappearance, ex- the field. Analysis of patch dynamics from year to pansion and contraction of vegetation patches over year takes place in a GIS environment, which al- multiple years. Analyses of these population data lows use of topology rules for data quality control are performed both within ArcGIS and through and patch reclassification. These methods enable export of data to statistical programs. Session 6: Inventory and Prediction for Stopping Weed Spread

Nostradamus, Palantirs, and the Pros and resolution of the predictor variables used in and Cons of Predictive Modelling for model development; (3) single-species versus Invasive Species Management multiple-species models; (4) the use of data col- Rob Klinger, Biological Resources Division- lected at one point in time versus data collected U.S. Geological Survey and Section of Evolution over several years; (5) how models are validated; and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA and (6) how long the ecological context of both 95616. [email protected] the model and real system it represents can be expected to persist. These issues are not unique The importance of developing predictive models to the invasive species field but are held in com- that aid in the management of invasive species mon with modelling efforts from other branches and sites vulnerable to invasion has long been in ecology and conservation. Several case stud- recognized. However, early attempts by invasion ies are briefly examined to highlight the impli- biologists to develop models predicting which cations of these issues and to offer suggestions species were most likely to become invasive on how they can be worked with or mitigated. were not very successful. This resulted in sus- Ultimately, the effectiveness of predictive mod- picion of just how much confidence could be elling will depend on three factors: (1) a specific placed in model predictions. Although these sus- definition of which part of the invasion process picions still persist, there has been notable prog- is being modeled; (2) the degree to which any ress over the last decade in our understanding given the model can adequately integrate and of characteristics that contribute to higher rates represent site characteristics with species dis- of invasiveness in some species and factors that tribution and abundance patterns; and (3) the contribute to increased invasiveness into sites. resources available to validate and monitor the There has also been substantial development models performance. of statistical methods and GIS technology that can be integrated to develop spatially explicit models. These advances have resulted in greater Developing Predictive Models of success with predictive modelling efforts, and Invasive Plants there is little doubt that the application of these Emma Underwood and Jim Quinn. models will only continue to increase. While Environmental Science and Policy, UC Davis this trend has many potential scientific and management benefits, there are also a number of A central challenge to invasive species manage- issues that can impede the effectiveness of pre- ment is to identify locations that are most likely dictive modelling. Some of the more significant to have undetected populations of particular ones include: (1) an emphasis on the statistical invaders, as well as the unoccupied sites that and technological parts of the models at the cost are at most risk of invasion. One approach is of the ecological parts; (2) the appropriateness to develop predictive models that use data from

27 documented occurrence and absence locations ship at the local and statwide levels. We must to infer a statistical “environmental envelope” actively pursue this effort because successful for the species, then examine the rest the land- weed control, and especiall prevention, relies on scape for other locations falling within the same a solid understanding the geospatial distribution envelope. A variety of statistical tools, includ- of these invasive plants. ing regressions, decision trees, neural nets, and co-Kriging have been advanced for this purpose, however an understanding of how well compet- Designing Invasive Plant Early Detec- ing models perform under real-world conditions tion and Rapid Response Networks and what data is required to generate useful pre- Daniel Gluesenkamp, Audubon Canyon Ranch. dictions, is still developing. We review recent PO Box 1195, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 developments in modeling tools. Validated mod- 707-935-8417, [email protected] els would be valuable to managers for inferring populations in unsurveyed locations, directing In the management of harmful invasive plants, a field crews to locations where infestations are stitch in time saves nine. By proactively treating most likely to become established and spread, incipient weed populations before they grow to and to estimate the risk of new invasions. become intractable we dramatically reduce the cost of treatment, are able to eradicate weeds be- fore they develop persistent seedbanks, and can Weed Mapping in California - prevent damage to the sensitive natural systems Where Are We? we steward. This realization has driven a large Steve Schoenig, California Department of Food body of research that seeks to predict which and Agriculture. [email protected] plant species are likely to become invasive. This work has identified several approaches that can California is home to appoximately 1200 es- successfully predict invasibility, ranging from tablished naturalized plants. Of this group life history modeling, climate matching, and around 250 have been prioritized as particular- expert assessment. However, these methods ily invasive, noxious and harmful. In sharp require resources, expertise, and funding that are contrast, the list of invasive plants that we have not available to land managers, and so have not comprehensive, statewide geographic data for seen application to the pragmatic identification is extremely small. For most species, published of likely sleeper weeds. data exists only at the coarsest level of presence/ absence over large ecoregions and this data is In this talk, I present a new method for identify- based on incomplete sampling and spotty herbar- ing sleeper weeds that applies a principle well- ium records. The development of GIS technol- supported by the literature: the best predictor of ogy and internet databases provides promising whether a plant will become invasive is whether avenues for collecting, sharing and presenting it has invaded elsewhere. I demonstrate this location data, however the underlying lack of technique by analyzing occurrence data for non- systematic field surveys and reporting will limit native plants within the Marin-Sonoma Weed the usefulness of any electronic delivery system Management Area. My technique successfully that is developed. The successful path out of identifies sleeper weeds by analyzing aggregate this situaltion is systematic field surveys and data derived from worldwide invasive plant lists coordinated on-the-ground mapping campaigns. (readily available off the World Wide Web), and This will demand funding, coordination, priori- correlating taxon-specific citation rankings with tization, training of volunteers and profesionals, easily obtained local incidence values. This ap- further development of technology, and leader- proach is simple and requires very little time or

28 expertise. More importantly, it offers a power- plant taxa already sparsely present at a given site ful technique by which any land manager with that are likely to become tomorrow’s widespread access to the internet can identify the introduced harmful invaders.

Session 8-A: Safe and Effective Use of Chemical Control

Controlling European Beachgrass An Assessment of the Hazard of a (Ammophila arenaria) Using Prescribed Mixture of the Herbicide Rodeo® and Burns and Herbicide the Non-Ionic Surfactant R-11® to Tim Hyland1* and Pete Holloran2, 1California Aquatic Invertebrates and Larval 2 Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Environmental Amphibians Studies Dept., UC Santa Cruz, Joel Trumbo, California Dept. of Fish and Game. *[email protected] Pesticide Investigations Unit, Rancho Cordova. [email protected] Experiments on European beachgrass during the last decade have demonstrated successful control This study was conducted to determine whether using manual or mechanical methods, but such the aquatic herbicide Rodeo® (active ingredient: methods remain relatively costly on a per-acre glyphosate) and the non-ionic surfactant R-11® basis. At Sunset State Beach, where European (active ingredient nonylphenol polyethoxylate or beachgrass is dominant in the foredunes, serious NPE) adversely affect aquatic species including funding constraints led the California Depart- invertebrates and larval amphibians. A Rodeo®/ ment of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to experi- R-11® mixture was applied directly to the sur- ment with less costly methods. DPR staff relied face of a pond in a manner that would produce on its in-house expertise with prescribed burning atypically high concentrations of these com- and herbicide use to substantially reduce control pounds in water. Water samples were collected costs. Recognizing that fire reduces thatch and from the treated pond for chemical analyses stimulates regrowth, DPR staff conducted pre- and toxicity tests with the aquatic invertebrate scribed burns in the fall, allowed native annuals Ceriodaphnia dubia. A toxicity test with the to grow and set seed, and then treated the re- Rodeo®/R-11® mixture was also conducted to sprouting European beachgrass with glyphosate determine the LC50 value for the larval life stage several times, beginning approximately 1 year of the northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens. Wa- after the burn. Volunteers also dug up resprouts ter samples collected one hour after application by hand, particularly in areas where native plants contained the following mean concentrations: rapidly reclaimed the foredune habitat. In certain glyphosate, 1.83 mg/L; NPE, 1.10 mg/L; and conditions—easy site access, in-house expertise 0.02 mg/L of the NPE breakdown product non- with prescribed burns and herbicide use, and ylphenol (NP). Concentrations of glyphosate’s remnant native plant communities or seedbanks primary breakdown product, amino methyl phos- to facilitate regeneration—this integrated ap- phonic acid (AMPA), were below the laboratory proach may be an effective way to substantially detection limit of 0.020 mg/L. Water samples reduce the per-acre cost of European beachgrass collected from the treated pond were not acutely control. lethal to Ceriodaphnia dubia. The 96-h toxicity

29 test with the Rodeo®/R-11® mixture using Rana bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), henbit (Lamium pipiens produced LC50 values of 6.5 mg/L for amplexicaule), Matricaria inodora, bulbous glyphosate and 1.7 mg/L for NPE, indicating that buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), curly dock the mixture is moderately toxic to the amphibian. (Rumex crispus), horsenettle (Solanum carolin- A comparison of toxic units for the herbicide and ense), Solanum viarum, and common cocklebur surfactant in the mixture indicated that the toxic- (Xanthium strumarium). ity to larval frogs was likely due to R-11® and not Rodeo®. Most warm- and cool-season rangeland and pas- ture grasses are tolerant of aminopyralid applica- tions at proposed rates. Research continues to Aminopyralid: A New Reduced Risk determine the efficacy of aminopyralid on other Active Ingredient for Control of key invasive weeds and on the role of aminopy- Broadleaf Invasive and Noxious Weeds ralid in facilitating plant community improve- ment in land management programs. Vanelle Carrithers*, Beau Miller, Pat. Burch, Bill Kline, Bob Masters, Jeff Nelson, Mary Halst- vedt, John Troth, and Jamie Breuninger Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN Control of Scotch Broom *[email protected] (Cytisus scoparius) Scott Oneto1*, Joseph M. DiTomaso2, Aminopyralid is a new systemic herbicide de- Guy B. Kyser2, 1University of California veloped by Dow AgroSciences specifically for Cooperative Extension, 2Department of Plant use on rangeland, pasture, rights-of-way, such as Sciences, University of California, Davis, roadsides for vegetation management, Conserva- *[email protected] tion Reserve Program acres, non-cropland, and natural areas in the United States and Canada. Scotch broom is a native of Central and Southern The herbicide is formulated as a liquid contain- Europe and North Africa. It is a deciduous shrub, ing, 2 lb ae/gallon of aminopyralid as a salt. The 1-3 meters high with bright yellow flowers from herbicide has postemergence activity on estab- April to June. Scotch broom was introduced into lished broadleaf plants and provides residual California in the 1850’s as an ornamental and for control of germinating seeds of susceptible roadside erosion control. It is highly competitive plants. Field research has shown aminopyralid to with natives and forms dense monotypic stands be effective at rates between 0.05 and 0.1 lb ae/ that are inaccessible and unpalatable to wildlife. A, which is about 1/4 to 1/20 less than use rates As the plants age, the inner stems dieback in- of currently registered rangeland and pasture creasing fuel loads. In fall 2003 and spring 2004 herbicides with the same mode of action includ- two identical trials were established in El Dorado ing, clopyralid, 2,4-D, dicamba, picloram, and County, California, to test mechanical techniques triclopyr. Aminopyralid controls over 40 spe- and several herbicides using different application cies of annual, biennial, and perennial broadleaf techniques. The herbicides tested were Chop- weeds including Russian knapweed (Acroptilon per® (imazapyr), Garlon 4® (triclopyr ester), repens), absinth wormwood (Artemisia absin- and Roundup Max® (glyphosate). Application thium), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), methods included foliar, drizzle, and cut stump. musk thistle (Carduus nutans), diffuse knapweed The two mechanical treatments included a weed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Cen- wrench and lopping. Each treatment was rep- taurea maculosa), yellow starthistle (Centau- licated 10 times in a randomized block design rea solstitialis), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum with an individual shrub serving as a replicate. leucantheum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Results showed that Roundup Max®, and Gar-

30 lon 4®, both gave excellent control as a foliar Garlon 4® was most effective in the spring. In spray or drizzle application in the fall or spring, the mechanical treatments, the weed wrench whereas Chopper® was most effective in the was very effective as a fall or spring treatment, fall. As a cut stump application, both Chopper® whereas the lopping was most effective in the and Garlon 4® were effective in the fall, whereas spring.

31 The Fennel Battle on MCB Camp Pendleton: Partnerships and Techniques in Combating the Invasion Todd Easley1*, Deborah Bieber1, Carl Bell2, and Pete Tomsovic3, 1AC/S, Land Management Branch, MCB Camp Pendleton, 2University of California Cooperative Extension, 3Recon Environmental, San Diego, *[email protected]

Abstract MCB Camp Pendleton (Base) has been treating The Base has since developed an upland invasive Foeniculum vulgare (fennel) since the 1990s and weed control program. For fennel, “Control” has collaborated with various partners to provide means, as appropriate, the suppression, reduc- efficient and effective techniques. Since then, tion, or management of invasive species popula- over 1,000 acres of fennel-infested areas have tions; the prevention of invasive species intro- been treated on Base. Yet, fennel is dominat- ductions and their spread from already infested ing many more acres of grassland; often form- areas (Executive Order 13112). ing monotypic stands, and has even moved into areas of coastal scrub. Several different treat- There have been collaborative efforts in treat- ment techniques have been used for different ing fennel, artichoke thistle and other upland areas on base through the late 1990’s and early weeds. Partnering with researchers has proven 2000’s. Some areas had different types of ter- to be important when determining cost-effec- rain and vegetation, which affected the cost per tiveness in weed control strategies. Large-scale acre. UC Cooperative Extension research on weed control can also require expertise from fennel control began in 2004 on Base and will different disciplines including wildlife biologists continue into 2006. Techniques, which included (e.g., bird monitor). Artichoke thistle treatments broadcast versus spot spraying in addition to began in 1984, and now can be considered under 1-2% of glyphosate and triclopyr were applied control throughout most of the Base. Today, fen- in different combinations to fennel dominated nel appears to be the most treatable widespread plots. Results indicate a mixture of glyphosate weed on Base. Over 18,000 acres of fennel oc- and triclopyr to be the most effective herbicide cupied habitat was mapped on Base from 2004- treatment when compared to using these two 2005. This survey did not include most impact/ active ingredients alone. This paper focuses on live fire or dude-producing areas. It is estimated past and current techniques used to treat upland that over 25,000 acres of fennel occupied areas weeds, primarily fennel. occur on the Base. This paper will discuss some of the research, partnerships, fennel biology, and Introduction / Background control techniques on Base. With the increased movement of humans, exotic invasive plants have spread throughout southern Biology / Ecology California’s natural landscapes including Marine Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) is a perennial herb Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Base). Invasive in the Apiaceae family from southern Europe and non-native plant species have been documented the Mediterranean. It was introduced to the west to cause direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for its edible root and seeds for cooking. The to natural vegetation communities (Bossard et. California Invasive Plant Council determined al. 2000). Impacts to the ecosystem include alter- fennel to have a high ecological impact and an ing ecosystem processes and displacement of expansive distribution. In the United States, fen- native species. Upland weeds have appeared to nel occurs in 38 states, including much of Cali- impact the integrity of the ecosystems on Base. fornia (USDA 2005). Fennel has the capability

32 to reproduce by rhizome or seed, allowing many replications of nine different treatments and one dispersal strategies including, but not limited to: untreated control were set up in plots of 15’x2’. water transport, wind, traffic, and wildlife. Dis- Results indicated that Triclopyr and a mix of turbance (e.g., vehicles) can encourage dispersal Glyphosate/Triclopyr were more effective on and establishment. Additionally, germinating fennel than Glyphosate alone at 1 & 2 lbs/A. potential and the number of individuals may The percent cover and biomass for the Glypho- increase during high rainfall years. Yet, research sate/Triclopyr (1+2 lbs/A) treatment was 0. It in areas such as population biology is needed on was also found that Triclopyr did not appear to fennel. “Data on germination rates, seed produc- affect purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra). tion, survival, longevity, density, and viability This may depend on the time of year that the of the seedbank would be useful for developing treatment took place, which was in March, but management programs” (Bossard et al. 2000). also gives hope that native perennial grasses can recover and flourish in areas that are now domi- Baseline research nated by fennel on Base. The first major publications came from stud- ies performed by Brenton, Klinger, Dash and Fennel Projects & Techniques Gleissman at Santa Cruz Island in 1994. Results Research findings were generally used through- indicated that wet season herbicide applications out upland weed and fennel control projects were significantly more effective than dry season on Base since the late 1990s. Herbicides were applications (Brenton and Klinger 2002, 1994). usually applied in the wet season or spring Triclopyr (Garlon) applied in early spring had through early summer, depending on the year a 95-100% effectiveness, where as Glyphosate (i.e., weather), location and funding available. A (Roundup) applied in early spring had a 75- mix of Glyphosate and Triclopyr applied at 1+2 80% effectiveness (Dash and Gliessman 1994 lbs/Acre was used on fennel this year and has in Bossard et al. 2000). The Base funded study appeared to be very effective. A combination of by SDSU showed that fennel density and height boom, backpack, and hose sprayers were used was significantly lower in annually burned vs. depending on terrain and vegetation type/den- unburned areas before treatment, but there was sity. Mowing occurred in flatter areas with high not a significant difference between burned and fennel cover, and was treated after 1-month of unburned areas 1 year after treatment. This re-growth. Some of the equipment used includ- indicates that herbicide (i.e., Garlon) treatments ed: SP1 backpack, 100-foot hose, and six-foot on fennel are more effective than burning alone. boom sprayers, 4x4 ATV. Multiple year treat- Yet, this does not discount that burning or mow- ments have later become the standard (e.g., three ing is effective before herbicide treatments. years), as well as documenting the methods and Burning or mowing will remove the dead fennel other relevant efforts annually. biomass to allow efficient herbicide translocation into the rhizomes. Brenton and Klinger found Fennel treatment methods (e.g., spraying or the timing of these fennel treatment methods to mowing and spraying in combination) have been be very important. conducted at many different sites on Base which include: Mass 3, Romeo 2/Tango, Case Springs, The University of California Cooperative Ex- Juliett, 41 Area, 22 Area, Pio Pico, Bravo 1 and tension has been studying fennel on Base since ASP site. The current upland weed manage- 2004 to determine if Glyphosate, Triclopyr ment contracts treat fennel and other associated or some combination of both is more effec- invasive upland weeds for three years. The tive. This study, led by Carl Bell, has also used 2004-2007 contract for $199,591 is treating different types of herbicide application. Four 193.5 acres for three years, which includes 123.5

33 acres of medium to low density and 70 acres of term monitoring and data is needed to determine high density fennel. The 2005-2008 contract for the success of the treatments or native succession $155,884 will treat 163 acres of fennel domi- and to standardize a management plan. nated habitat (i.e., high density) for three years. The main factors affecting the cost/acre are Conclusions usually the type of habitat and terrain. Prioritiz- Cooperation and vast efforts are required for large- ing areas for treatment depends on a variety of scale weed control, such as for fennel control factors including (but not limited to): cost, ease on Base. It will typically take monitoring over of access, habitat type, federally listed species time (five years +) to gather adequate data and to and land use. determine the success of the ecosystem recovery in each area of treatment. Short-term results will A variety of upland weed control efforts have oc- be apparent (i.e., fennel decline), but it is uncertain curred on Base in the past, including treatments if native vegetation will become established over following fires. The majority of these treatments time. There is current research available through were performed by Agrichemical and Supply. In the Base and other organizations treating and 2004, weed control efforts began in the Cock- performing research on fennel (e.g., UC exten- lebur Mesa Sensitive Area and will continue sion). There is also online, published and helpful through 2007. For control of exotic annual grass- unpublished literature available. Partnerships and es and fennel treatment, efforts included mowing, keeping open communication are very important hand pulling, and herbicide treatment. A re- to large-scale weed control. In conclusion, it has treatment occurred in Cocklebur in the spring of taken adaptive management through partnering 2005. Treatments following a fire are occurring with other firms and organizations, and adjusting in Chappo (22 area) from 2004-2006. All weed to the best treatment techniques to take control of treatment will have on-going monitoring. fennel one area at a time on Base.

Management Implications Literature Cited Large-scale weed treatment strategies and Bossard et al. 2000. Invasive Plants of California Wild- management implications stem from research. lands, UC Press, Berkeley, CA. Base-wide weed mapping is a basic requirement Brenton K. R. and Klinger C. R. 1994. Modeling the for developing a large-scale treatment strategy. expansion and control of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) on Mapping is also necessary in understanding the the Channel Islands. The Fourth California Islands Sympo- extent and density of the infestation because it sium: Update on the Status of Resources. Edited by W.L. will give data on weed species and their distri- Halvorson and G.J. Maender, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. bution on Base. An upland weed geodatabase, which is pending completion by 2006, has Brenton K. R. and Klinger C. R. 2002. Factors influencing the helped to standardize data collection methods control of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Miller) using triclopyr and management. Mapping and research will on Santa Cruz Island, CA. Natural Areas Journal 22:135-147. also allow the base to prioritize areas for treat- Dash and Gliessman 1994 in Bossard et al. 2000. Invasive ment using a ranking system and GIS modeling. Plants of California Wildlands, UC Press, Berkeley, CA. Factors such as ease of access, habitat type, wild- life occuring and land use can go into the rank- Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999, Invasive ing system to determine the highest priority areas species, [Online available: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ to treat. The long-term goals are to keep fennel eos/eo13112.html, November 1, 2005. and other invasive upland weeds under control, USDA 2005. plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=plant_ while allowing the natives to become re-estab- profile.cgi&symbol=FOVU, November 1, 2005. lished and flourish. For fennel, additional long-

34 Session 8-B: Building Effective Programs and Partnerships Montana Weed Prevention Areas: Partnerships for Rangeland Protection Kim Goodwin, Dept. of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. [email protected] Introduction Invasive weeds are considered the single greatest and comprised of unified stakeholders that share threat to rangeland ecosystem health and stabil- common goals to protect native plant resources ity (USDI 1996) and one of the most serious and livelihoods from weed invasion and as- problems facing western region land managers. sociated impacts. Weed prevention areas work Invasive weeds alter wildlife habitat suitability as coordinated, local-level, early detection and (Trammell and Butler 1995), threaten native rapid response mechanisms that are necessary biodiversity (Wilcove 1998), and permanently to permit timely response to invasions (USGAO damage the structure and function of biological 2001). communities and ecosystems (Kolar and Lodge 2001). Invasive weeds can have devastating Objectives economic impacts. Weeds in rangeland reduce Our first objective is to promote the urgency of forage yield and quality and increase the costs early weed control, which is not widely under- of producing livestock. This causes an estimated stood (USDI 1996), and the tools available to loss of $2 billion annually in the United States curb spread and restrict ecologic and economic (Quimby et al. 1991). impacts (Mack et al. 2000). This is attained through regional and local-level awareness cam- Invasive weeds continue to invade natural com- paigns and programs using a social marketing munities up to 14 percent annually (USGAO approach. Collective implementation of rancher- 2001). The rapid spread of invasive weeds designed plans promotes the adoption of pre- occurs in spite of management efforts (USDI ventative measures through a “learn by doing” 1996). Existing approaches to the challenges approach. presented by species invasions are typically reac- tive in nature (Peterson and Vieglais 2001). A Our second objective is to identify and delineate proactive approach focused on the protection of highest priority areas (USDI 1996) and prioritize healthy ecosystems from weed spread would be protection from weed spread through WPA de- cost-effective and highly improved over the ex- velopment. County weed leadership and key pro- isting reactive approach (Hobbs and Humphries ducers identify and prioritize areas and formulate 1995). The Office of Technology Assessment site-specific strategies for protection from weed (1993) reports targeted expenditures on preven- spread to meet this objective. Weed prevention tion and early control provide solid economic areas facilitate protection of healthy rangeland returns where, on average, every dollar spent on ecosystems predominately comprised of north- early intervention prevented $17 in later expens- ern mixed-grass prairie [Bluebunch wheatgrass es. We aim to maximize efforts and resources – western wheatgrass mixedgrass (Pseudoroeg- by protecting healthy rangeland ecosystems and neria spicata – Pascopyrum smithii herbaceous critical zones in eastern Montana from weed vegetation)]. spread through the widespread development of weed prevention areas (WPAs). These special Our third objective is to maintain the current management areas are effectively weed-free healthy, weed-free ecologic state of the WPA

35 through collective rancher implementation of Canine detection has been recognized as an WPA-specific, integrated plans of ecosystem effective method to cover more area than by hu- management, prevention, and early interven- man searches (Lorenzo et al. 2003) and domestic tion. Plans are formulated through a “knowledge dogs (Canis familiaris L.) may be effective at network” approach (Jordan et al. 2003) where locating invasive weeds in low density because quality collective inquiry of ranchers is gathered of their high sensitivity to a target (Waggoner et for an effective plan. Proper ecosystem manage- al. 1998). Experts have provided formal support ment maximizes the persistence of native species for the usefulness of canines as an effective de- and reduces weed invasion. This is accomplished tection technology (Williams and Johnston 2002) with proper cattle grazing techniques (Sheley et based on advantages in sampling efficiency, sen- al. 1999) and discussions related to the reintro- sitivity, target noise discrimination, and gradient duction of natural disturbance regimes, such as detection (Waggoner et al. 1998). fire, to slow or prevent invasions (Stohlgren et al. 1999). Prevention strategies are considered Investigation of a novel method to detect an the first line of defense. Strategies are specific to invasive weed using specially-trained canines each WPA to minimize weed movement into the Spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii DC.) WPA, especially where humans are the spread currently infests over 1.6 million ha in Montana. vector. Early detection and rapid response strate- This weed impacts the livestock industry and gies are considered the second line of defense. has been associated with increased soil ero- Mapping strategies using GPS technology sup- sion and changes in wildlife habitat suitability. port systematic sampling methods across WPAs Spotted knapweed has the ability to invade and where monitoring frequency is based on invasion dominate a variety of healthy and relatively probability. Seasonal range riders / weed scouts undisturbed plant communities (Rutledge and and Montana Conservation Corps crews provide McLendon 1998), increasing the probability it monitoring assistance to ranchers, confirm and will continue to spread. Effective early detection map weed-free status across WPAs, and eradi- of spotted knapweed is crucial to preclude spread cate new invasions. Rapid management response throughout Montana and the western region. to small populations is crucial to preclude The purpose of this study, as an early detection spread. Rapid response efforts, however, have component to improve rapid response in WPAs, been significantly hindered by the lack of effec- was to evaluate the potential of canine detection tive early detection systems (USGAO 2001). as a novel sampling method to locate new inva- Ground inventories remain the best method to sions of spotted knapweed across rangelands. detect new weeds when periodically repeated at Our objective was to quantify and compare the the highest level of detection confidence practi- accuracy, search duration, and detection distance cable, but are not always reasonable based on the of canines and human surveyors to detect spot- challenge and expense in finding new invasions ted knapweed incursions through a series of field across large areas when density is very low. trials. Complete ground inventories performed strategi- cally and with adequate frequency and improved Methods efficacy will improve the detection of new weeds Three canines with previous experience in field to increase the chances of eradication success, setting detection work were selected to partici- prevent reinvasion, and stop spread. Such inven- pate in this study. Two German shepherds and tories may become practical when augmented one Rocky Mountain shepherd were trained to with the use of specially trained, invasive weed detect spotted knapweed based on standard nar- detector dogs. cotics detection training protocol and techniques frequently used in tracking. Three humans were

36 selected based on strong to humans) and site (P = experience in surveying 0.0666) suggests canines plant communities for may be more accurate spotted knapweed. at detecting targets that are difficult for humans We conducted field tri- to visually discriminate. als during September The two sites driving 2005 in Gallatin County, this interaction con- Montana. Seven, 0.5- tained targets as juve- ha field trial sites were nile and obscure adult delineated in a grazed plants. Mean accuracy dryland pasture domi- of canines across these nated by crested wheat- two sites was calculated grass [Agropyron crista- as 66.7 percent (SD 0) tum (L.) Gaertn.]. Total and mean accuracy of search area was calcu- humans was calculated lated as 3.5 ha. Thirteen as 16.7 percent (SD spotted knapweed tar- 23.5). Canines searched gets were available for the sites faster compared detection across the sites to humans (P = 0.011). as isolated plants or small patches. Mean density Mean search duration of canines was calculated of targets was calculated as 1.9 targets per site as 30.2 minutes (SD 8.81) and mean search dura- (SD 0.69). Canine / handler teams and human tion of human surveyors was calculated as 38.1 surveyors performed an open grid search across minutes (SD 11.1). Canines detected targets from each field trial to ensure each site was covered greater distances compared to humans, but re- evenly. Accuracy was calculated as the num- sults were not significant (P = 0.157). Mean de- ber of targets located out of the total number of tection distance of canines was calculated as 8.1 targets present across each trial. Search duration meters (SD 13.2) and mean detection distance of was calculated as the difference between the start humans was calculated as 4.1 meters (SD 6.58). and end time of each trial. Detection distances of each target were calculated as the distance from Discussion the target to the canine or surveyor upon detec- Our findings demonstrate canines are significantly tion. All statistical analyses were carried out more accurate in detecting early spotted knapweed using ANOVA (SAS Version 9.1; SAS Institute, invasions compared to human surveyors. Our find- Cary NC, USA). The model included replication ings also demonstrate canines are able to search (3), survey treatment (canine or human), and site sites faster and with possibly greater detection (7). distances compared to humans. The strategic use of highly effective invasive weed detector dog teams Results may work to improve ground inventories and fill Compared across sites, canines were more ac- broad survey needs, such as to cover large areas, curate in detecting spotted knapweed targets increase sampling accuracy and thoroughness, compared to humans (P = 0.0007). Mean accu- decrease search time and expense, and locate early racy of canines was calculated as 85.7 percent age class and early season weed targets. Detector (SD 23.1) and mean accuracy of humans was dog teams may work to stop spread at population calculated as 63.5 percent (SD 38.2). The inter- fronts and increase the chances of eradication suc- action of survey method (i.e., canines compared cess, potentially affecting ecological and economic

37 savings. The development of improved early detec- bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. BioScience 51(5): 363 tion methods using detector dogs may increase rapid response efforts in prioritized ecosystems Quimby, P.C., Jr., W.L. Bruckart, C.J. DeLoach, L. Knutson, and M. H. Ralphs. 1991. Biological control of and address the recognized need for more early rangeland weeds. Pages 84-102 in L. F. James, J.O. Evans, detection systems (USGAO 2001). Non-infested M.H. Ralphs, and R.D. Child, eds. Noxious Range Weeds. rangeland ecosystems are prioritized for preven- San Francisco: Westview Press. tion in Montana through the development of weed prevention areas. These special management areas Rutledge, C.R. and T. McLendon. 1998. An assessment of exotic plant species of Rocky Mountain National Park. maximize efforts and resources by preventing the Department of Rangeland Ecosystem Science, Colorado development of complex and costly weed problems State University. 97 pp. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research through exclusion, detection, and eradication. Weed Center Home Page. Available from: www.npwrc.usgs.gov prevention areas protect non-infested rangelands [Version 15 Dec 98]. from weed spread through collective, local-level Sheley, R.L., M. Manoukian, and G. Marks. 1999. Pre- efforts that are designed and implemented by venting noxious weed invasion. Pages 69-72 in R.L. ranchers. Since 2003, over 1.8 million ha have Sheley and J.K. Petroff, eds. Biology and Management of been protected through WPA development across Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR.: Oregon State 11 eastern Montana counties. This project was University Press. funded by the Center for Invasive Plant Manage- Stohlgren, T.J., D. Binkley, G.W. Chong, M.A Kalkhan, ment and USDA – Natural Resources Conserva- L.D. Schell, D.A. Bull, Y. Otsuki, G. Newman, M. Bash- tion Service. kin, and Y. Son. 1999. Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecological Monographs Literature 69(1): 25-46. Hobbs, R.J., and S.E. Humphries. 1995. An integrated ap- proach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Trammell, M.A., and J.L. Butler. 1995. Effects of exotic Conservation Biology 9(4): 761-770. plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59: 808-816. Jordan, N., R. Becker, J. Gunsolus, S. White, and S. Damme. 2003. Knowledge networks: An avenue to eco- U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1996. Partners logical management of invasive weeds. Weed Science 51: Against Weeds – An action plan for the Bureau of Land 271-277. Management. Bureau of Land Management.

Kolar, C.S., and D.M. Lodge. 2001. Progress in invasion U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO). 2001. Invasive biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evo- species – Obstacles hinder federal rapid response to grow- lution 16(4): 199-204. ing threat. (GAO-01-724). Washington, D.C.

Lorenzo, N., T. Wan, R. Harper, Y. Hsu, M. Chow, S. Rose, Waggoner, L.P., M. Jones, M. Williams, J.M. Johnston, and K. Furton. 2003. Laboratory and field experiments C. Edge, and J.A. Petrousky. 1998. Effects of extraneous used to identify Canis lupus var. familiaris active odor odors on canine detection. Proceedings of the 2nd annual signature chemicals from drugs, explosives, and humans. conference on Enforcement and Security Technologies. Anal Bioanal Chem 376: 1212-1224. Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic Invasions: Causes, Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. epidemiology, global consequences and control. Issues in Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in Ecology 5. the United States. BioScience 48(8): 607-615.

Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress Williams, M., and J.M. Johnston. 2002. Training and main- (OTA). 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the taining the performance of dogs (Canis familiaris) on an United States. Washington, D.C. increasing number of odor discriminations in a controlled setting. Applied Animal Behavior Science 78:55-65. Peterson, A.T., and D.A. Vieglais. 2001. Predicting species inva- sions using ecological niche modeling: New approaches from Zamora, D.L., D.C. Thill, and R.E. Eplee. 1989. An eradi- cation plan for plant invasions. Weed Technology 3: 2-12.

38 Early Detection Protocol Development in the National Parks: Integrating All that control is not economically or logistically the Pieces feasible. At this early stage, predictive capabili- Bradley A. Welch1,* Daniel Sarr2, and Penelope ties and monitoring strategies that efficiently Latham3, 1National Park Service, Inventory cover large areas are necessary. Natural resource and Monitoring Program and the Invasive Spe- managers require species prioritization tools, cies Branch, Fort Collins, CO, 2National Park spatially-explicit models, non-spatial models, Service, Inventory and Monitoring Program, risk analyses, adaptive sampling designs, and Klamath Network, Ashland, OR, 3National Park incidental reporting to accomplish these tasks. Service, Inventory and Monitoring Program, Many of these components have been applied in Pacific West Regional Office, Seattle, WA other contexts or exist in isolation, but no effort *[email protected] has been made to combine these components into a comprehensive protocol for early detec- Invasive plant species management is a national tion of invasive plants. We discuss NPS-USGS priority for the National Park Service (NPS). collaborative efforts to integrate these diverse The NPS and other land management agencies approaches and apply them in National Parks. have limited resources available for invasive Our goal is to produce a tool for natural resource plant control and, therefore, must optimize managers that has broad application yet is suf- control efforts. Following the introduction of ficiently detailed to be practical. An overview of invasive plants, the most effective management the individual and collective efforts, their status, strategy is to detect and respond to invasive and opportunities for sharing these products also species before they become so well established will be discussed.

Ecosystem Protection through Watershed-Level Prioritization on Catalina Island Denise A. Knapp and John J. Knapp, Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon, CA [email protected], [email protected] Introduction

Successful management of wildlands requires site management (Owen 1998). Thus far, the a thorough knowledge of the resources being Conservancy has utilized the species manage- protected as well as the forces that threaten ment approach, by identifying 76 of the most them. Like doctors, it is our job as land manag- invasive plant species, mapping over 37,000 ers to treat the patient (the land) and not just the populations of those species by conducting ex- disease (invasive plants). The Catalina Island tensive transects throughout the island, and rank- Conservancy, which owns and manages 88% of a ing them for priority of control (J. Knapp 2003). 19,425 ha. (48,000 acre) island, has developed a Many highly invasive species of limited abun- watershed-level ranking system utilizing exten- dance have been identified for eradication on sive rare plant, animal, and habitat data. Each the island through this process. But with almost watershed throughout the entire island ecosystem 17,000 ha. (42,000 acres) to manage, it is dif- is treated as a Habitat Management Unit (HMU) ficult to determine where to focus management and ranked for priority of protection based on the efforts for those invasive plants which are so natural resources found within it. widespread on the island that eradication is not an option. This paper focuses on the site-man- There are two general approaches to managing agement portion of our comprehensive invasive invasive plant species: species management and plant management plan.

39 Site Description Rare Plants

Catalina Island is the third largest of the eight Four elements were chosen for the rare plant California Channel Islands, and lies approxi- ranking component: endemism, listed status, mately 20 miles south of the Los Angeles Coun- frequency on the island, and frequency trend. ty Coast. It has at least 22 endemic taxa which Catalina is fortunate enough to have two histori- are found only on Catalina. Catalina is the only cal floras for the island (Millspaugh & Nuttall Channel Island with an incorporated city; a year- 1923, Thorne 1967, 1969) and a future volume around population of 5,500 increases to over for which the fieldwork has been completed. 10,000 during the summer months. Since the From a list of over 460 native species, those spe- late 1800s, Catalina has been a popular tourist cies and subspecies were highlighted which are: destination, and currently receives approximately a) restricted to Catalina, the California Channel 1 million visitors each year. Due to Catalina’s Islands, or the California Islands including Baja, high visitation, it has long endured the impact California, b) listed by the U.S. Fish and Wild- of humans, including numerous invasive plant life Service, California Department of Fish and and animal species introductions. These inva- Game, NatureServe, California Native Plant So- sions have contributed to 98 taxa being listed as ciety, or the Jepson Manual, or c) assigned a fre- natural heritage species in need of protection. In quency of rare (found in three or fewer locations recent years the Conservancy has accomplished on the island) in Thorne’s flora. This resulted in the eradication of feral goats (Capra hircus) and a list of over 200 taxa. Population numbers from pigs (Sus scrofa) while reducing bison (Bison the 1923 and 1967 floras were then examined, bison) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemonius) and those species and subspecies which have populations. With the release of grazing and exhibited a downward trend in frequency were browsing pressures, it is a crucial time to sub- identified. One to three points were awarded stantially increase efforts toward the eradication for these components in the first iteration of the and control of invasive plants on Catalina Island. ranking (where a species was listed by multiple organizations, only the highest score was used). Methods Species totaling fewer than three points were then eliminated from the list. In order to develop a site-based management plan, we first divided the island into Habitat Manage- Location data for the selected taxa was then ment Units (HMUs). HMUs are generally defined compiled. Nine years worth of field notes begin- by watershed boundaries, with very large water- ning in 1995 were obtained from Steve Junak, sheds subdivided using features such as ridges and the lead author of the upcoming Catalina Island roads in order to make them a more manageable flora. The notes were searched for any mention size (for the purposes of this paper, they will all be of the selected species. A data layer of location referred to as watersheds). The mean size of the points was created in our Geographic Informa- resulting 76 HMUs is 255 ha. (631 acres, Figure tion System (GIS) using a combination of the 1). The HMUs were given names for easy recog- recorded road mileage, elevation, aspect, and nition using historical island maps as a reference. UTM bearings. Interestingly, the UTM bearings, which were not differentially corrected, proved A ranking system was then developed to priori- to be the least accurate of those four sources. tize those units. The ranking of the HMUs in- This process resulted in 868 additional plant lo- corporates data for three components: rare plant cations in the Conservancy’s existing GIS layer, taxa, island habitats, and rare animal taxa; each is for a total of 1,843 rare plant locations. discussed below.

40 Using this new layer, the number of existing given points under the category of endemism. populations for each species was calculated and However, while some habitats are not considered a new frequency rating assigned. Plants within rare or endemic at the community level, they are one quarter mile of each other were considered dominated by rare and endemic plants and will one population (Bittman 2001). Trend in fre- undoubtedly be recognized as a unique plant quency was re-assessed using the new popula- assemblage at the alliance level once properly tion numbers. Some species were more frequent described. To capture this uniqueness, points than previously thought, and were dropped from given to any of the dominant species in the rare the list; this resulted in a final tally of 179 spe- plants component of this ranking were tallied; cies and subspecies included in the watershed those totals were divided into three groups for prioritization. which points were awarded.

Island Habitats Riparian habitat supports a greater variety of wildlife, particularly avian species, than any A vegetation map produced from aerial photo- other California habitat type (Smith 1980). The graphs taken in the year 2000 was used for the final element, special importance to wildlife, was habitat ranking component (D. Knapp 2005). A designed with riparian habitat in mind, although minimum mapping unit of 0.04 ha. (0.1 acre) and this category could be enhanced as more wild- average polygon size of 3.6 ha. (9 acres) pro- life habitat data becomes available. Riparian vides a level of detail which is relevant to wild- woodland was given more points than riparian life use and able to capture both remnant habitats scrub, herbaceous, or bare streambed for its more and limited communities such as coastal marsh highly developed and complex structure, as well and dunes. Island habitats were classified and as its greater available water. mapped at the community level, which is based on the physiognomy of the dominant plants, Rare Wildlife species composition, and other habitat charac- teristics. One community, island woodland, was Although the Conservancy maintains resident also mapped at the floristic level (alliance) due to mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian lists, few the rare status of each of those alliances and their of these species except the rarest have been as- dominant species. A total of 16 native habitat signed a frequency for the island. In addition, types were evaluated in the ranking effort. Six the majority of the wildlife surveys conducted on elements were chosen to rank each of these habi- the island have been distributed primarily along tats for protection priority: % of the island, listed roadsides in the interest of time and accessibil- status, geographic limit, endemism, total rank- ity. This uneven coverage of the island proved ing of dominant species, and special importance to be a complication when assessing the faunal to wildlife. These are discussed below. One to resources within each of the island watersheds. three points were given for each element in the first iteration of the ranking. First, a list was compiled of those species and subspecies in three categories: a) endemic to Percentage of the island reflects the rarity of the Catalina or the Channel Islands, b) listed by habitat on the island itself, while listed status the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California reflects rarity in the state and/or nation. Geo- Department of Fish and Game, and NatureServe, graphic limit refers to those habitats for which or c) rare on the island. This resulted in a list of Catalina represents the farthest extent of its 21 taxa, for which one to three points were (in range. Where a plant community is only found the first iteration) given for each category. Loca- on Catalina or the other California Islands, it is tion information for the selected taxa was then

41 compiled using data from land bird, pitfall, fox, rush-rose (Helianthemum greenei). The Catalina bat, butterfly, and shrew survey and monitor- Island mountain-mahogany, which is endemic to ing projects conducted primarily within the last Catalina and found in only one naturally occur- seven years, rounding this out with observation ring population on the island, is of particularly data (from the authors) when necessary. special importance to the Conservancy. Al- though these three species received some of the Synthesis highest rankings of all of the rare plants, their scores were not enough when combined with the For each HMU, occurrences of rare plants, island rest of the data to elevate this watershed to the habitats, and rare animals were assessed and the top tier. corresponding points awarded for each. HMUs were given points for plant and animal species The relatively low ranking of an important and island habitats on a presence/absence sys- watershed such as Wild Boar Gully was help- tem; regardless of how many populations of a ful in pointing out several shortcomings of the rare plant or animal species or how much of a first ranking iteration. Firstly, because there habitat is found within that watershed, points are so many rare plant taxa, the points for rar- were awarded once for that element. This sim- ity dwarfed those points given for endemism plified the process and saved time. or listed status when combined in a watershed. To rectify this, the point system was raised for Because each of the three ranking components listed status and lowered for plants with three or contributes unique ecological values, we chose fewer populations on the island (but remained to weigh rare plants, island habitats, and rare the same for endemism and trend). Endangered wildlife equally. To accomplish this, we calcu- and Threatened points were raised significantly, lated the mean watershed score for each of the to 20 and 10, respectively; the remaining list- three elements, and applied a correction factor ing categories were unchanged. Points given to to those with lower means (e.g. wildlife scores species with a frequency of rare were lowered were all multiplied by 4.5) to make the means to 1; this gave more separation between those equal. The total points for each watershed were (relatively few) species which are endemic or then tallied, and the HMUs ranked. The final listed as well as rare on the island, and those model is a comprehensive index of rarity and (many) species which are rare on the island but biodiversity. more common elsewhere. The listed portion of the wildlife ranking system was then adjusted to Results and Adjustments more closely match that of the rare plant system. The final three ranking systems are presented in The five highest ranking watersheds came as no Tables 1-3. surprise. They include the two wettest drainages on the island (upper and lower Cottonwood and It became apparent that the southern watersheds Middle Canyons), and an area of exceptional of the island were underrepresented for wildlife diversity in all three categories (Toyon Canyon). data due to their steep terrain, remoteness, and What was surprising, however, was the low rank- lack of access during wet months. Several com- ing of the Wild Boar Gully watershed, an area on mon species, such as the Santa Catalina Island the south side of the island which contains two deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus catalinae) Federally Endangered plant species (Catalina and Santa Catalina Island fox (Urocyon littoralis Island mountain-mahogany [Cercocarpus traski- catalinae), appear to be found throughout the ae] and Santa Cruz Island rock cress [Sibara island, yet data is biased by the selection of road- filifolia]) and the Federally Threatened Island side plots in more accessible areas of the island.

42 For such species, we gave points to all water- Because the watersheds range between 19 and sheds of the island to more accurately reflect 1,060 ha. (46 and 2,618 acres), we speculated their distribution. that biodiversity would be overrepresented in the larger HMUs. To address this perceived These adjustments raised Wild Boar Gully to the problem, the total score for each watershed was twelfth ranked watershed on the island. Because divided by the watershed acreage. The result, of its limited habitat composition and lack of the however, favored small watersheds and did not more rare wildlife species, it rightfully did not appear to reflect biodiversity as well as the origi- emerge at the very top of the list. The rest of the nal ranking. Noting that the rare resources tend watershed ranking did not change appreciably. to occur in clusters apparently unrelated to the size of the HMUs, we chose to keep the original scores.

Table 1 Rare Plant Ranking System Element Categories and Points Endemism Catalina = 3 Channel Islands = 2 California & Baja Islands = 1 Listing1 USFWS or CDFG Endangered = 20 USFWS or CDFG Threatened (or candidate for) = 10 NatureServe G1/T1, CNPS 1A = 3 CDFG Species of Special Concern, NatureServe G2/T2, CNPS 1B, Jepson RARE = 2 Other (NatureServe G3/T3, CNPS List 2) = 1 Frequency on Island2 Very Rare, Rare = 1 Trend Declining = 1

Table 1. 1Listing Key

NatureServe (2005): G1= Critically Imperiled G2= Imperiled G3= Vulnerable T1-3 = Status of subspecies or variety

California Native Plant Society (2005): 1A = Presumed extinct in California. Not seen or collected within California for many years. 1B = Considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere in their range. 2 = Considered b CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common else- where.

Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993): RARE = generally, those taxa included in or proposed for inclusion on CNPS List 1B; however, flux in taxonomic assessments and legal statuses, concurrent publication dates, and contrasting views led to some discrepancies between designations in the Jepson Manual and the CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2005).

43 Table 2 Island Habitats Ranking System Element Categories and Points % of Island <1% = 3 1-18% = 2 18+% = 1 Listed Status: NatureServe Series G1 or CNDDB Rare = 3 Types1 / CNDDB Rare Habitat G2, G3 or CNDDB Partial Rank = 2 Recognized, Not Yet Ranked = 1 At Limit of Geographic Range Yes = 1 (non-endemic)? No = 0 Endemic Habitats Catalina = 2 Channel Islands = 1 Total Ranking of Dominants 30+ = 3 11-30 = 2 0-10 = 1 Special Importance to Wildlife Riparian woodland = 2 (Riparian) Riparian scrub, herbaceous, or bare = 1

Table 2. 1 NatureServe Series Type Listing (NatureServe 2005) G1=Critically imperiled G2=Imperiled G3=Vulnerable GNR=Not yet ranked

Table 3 Rare Wildlife Ranking System Element Categories and Points Endemism Catalina = 3 Channel Islands = 2 California & Baja Islands = 1 Listing1 USFWS or CDFG Endangered (or candidate for) = 20 USFWS or CDFG Threatened = 10 NatureServe G1/T1 = 3 CDFG Species of Special Concern, NatureServe G2/T2 = 2 Other (NatureServe G3) = 1 Frequency on Island2 Very Rare, Rare = 1 Trend Rare = 3 Infrequent = 2

Table 3. 1Listing Key

NatureServe (2005): G1= Critically Imperiled G2= Imperiled G3= Vulnerable T1-3 = Status of subspecies or variety

44 The uses of this project do not stop at invasive Discussion plant management. The ranking described here will provide a biological basis for sound decision This is the Conservancy’s first attempt at orga- making by the Conservancy in all of its prac- nizing a large amount of data into a ranking sys- tices. Additional resource values, such as ar- tem; it will continue to be refined and improved chaeological and historical sites, as well as other as new information is gathered. Possibilities for disturbance factors, such as roads, waterways, refinement are discussed below. recreation, wildfire, fence lines, utilities, and urban development, should be incorporated into As discussed previously, points for each taxon the model to make it more robust and useful for or habitat were awarded to a watershed based additional management levels. on presence/absence rather than incorporating multiple occurrences, area occupied, or densities. Summary and Conclusions A system where the latter features are recognized may better represent each watershed’s true biodi- In order to protect its natural resources through versity, however this approach would be signifi- site-based invasive plant management, the Cata- cantly more resource- and time-intensive. lina Island Conservancy has developed a ranking system for island watersheds utilizing extensive For this first attempt at watershed ranking, we rare plant, animal, and habitat data. Points allo- treated each category (rare plants, rare animals, cated to rare species for endemism, listed status, island habitats) as equal. However, with addi- and rarity on the island were refined in order to tional data and knowledge we may decide that reflect the Conservancy’s conservation values. one or the other element should be weighted Prioritizing management areas enables a more more heavily. In addition, our arithmetic treat- systematic approach to controlling widespread ment of the points’ calculations may need further invasive plant species. A site-based manage- refinement upon examination by a statistician; ment plan is also an invaluable tool for deci- suggestions and comments from readers are sion making, when seeking program support, or welcomed. when communicating with other partners and the public. An important benefit of this ranking exercise is that, in the systematic review of an area’s natu- Acknowledgements ral resources, gaps in knowledge become more apparent. In this case, wildlife data emerged as We are very grateful to Steve Junak for gracious- the weakest link in the Conservancy’s database. ly allowing us to access his extensive field notes, This exercise will help us to prioritize future without which this ranking would be incomplete. research projects and improve their designs, con- Frank Starkey assisted greatly with the nam- sequently enhancing this portion of the ranking. ing of the HMUs. We would also like to thank Carlos de la Rosa, Jenny McCune, Jon Fox, and The point system that was developed was cus- Darcee Guttilla for providing helpful comments tomized to Catalina Island based on its natural and edits to this paper. resources and the Conservancy’s conservation values of biodiversity, rarity, and endemism. Although this process could be repeated for any References other geographical area, refinements in the points Bittman, R. 2001. The California natural diversity system would undoubtedly need to be made. database: a natural heritage program for rare species and

45 vegetation. Fremontia 29: 57-62. Beyond the Plantae: Commonalities

California Native Plant Society. 2005. Inventory of rare in Combating Phytophthora ramorum, and endangered vascular plants of California [web applica- Cause of Sudden Oak Death, and tion]. Sacramento, California. Available http://cnps.org Other Plant Diseases (Accessed: October 31, 2005). Janice Alexander, UC Cooperative Exten- Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher sion & California Oak Mortality Task Force. plants of California. University of California Press, Berke- [email protected] ley, CA. The recent appearance of a devastating and exot- Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilken, and D. Young. 1995. A flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara Botanic ic pathogen in California’s forests has prompted Garden, Santa Barbara CA. enormous public interest, as well as regulatory and educational efforts to limit its distribution. Knapp, D.A. 2005. Vegetation community mapping on The similarities in addressing the invasions of Santa Catalina Island using orthorectification and GIS. wildland weeds and of Phytophthora ramorum, Pp. 193-203 In: Garcelon, D.K. and C.A. Schwemm, eds. Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium. cause of Sudden Oak Death and other plant National Park Service Technical Publication CHIS-05-01. diseases, are great. In regards to P. ramorum, as Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, California. with many weeds, State and federal regulations attempt to limit spread; educational programs Knapp, J.J. 2003. Invasive plant infestation assessment focus on personal responsibility and proper sani- on Catalina Island: determination of mapping sample size and accuracy (abstract). p. 16.In: C. Pirosko (ed.). Pro- tation; and coordination and cooperation with the ceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council Sympo- nursery industry has become crucial. The overlap sium, Vol. 7. in tactics and techniques when dealing with this pathogen and other invasive species highlights Millspaugh, C.F. and L.W. Nuttall. 1923. Flora of Santa an opportunity to join forces in educating regula- Catalina Island (California). Field Museum of Natural His- tory, Chicago, IL. tors, the nursery industry, and the general public of the hazards of global movement of species. NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe explorer: an online en- The California Oak Mortality Task Force is ex- cyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.6. Nature- cited about the prospect of working with Cal-IPC Serve, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.nature- to stop the spread of both plants and pathogens serve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 31, 2005). damaging to California’s wildlands and would Owen, S.J. 1998. Department of Conservation strategic like to open a dialogue about how best to work plan for managing invasive weeds. Department of Conser- together. vation, Wellington, New Zealand. 87 pp.

Smith, F. 1980. A short review of the status of riparian forests in California. In: Sands, A., ed. Riparian forests Incorporating Applied Research into of California: their ecology and conservation, pp. 1-2. Re- an Ongoing Watershed-Based, gents of the University of California, Berkeley, California. Programmatic Approach to Arundo Thorne, R.F. 1967. A flora of Santa Catalina Island, Cali- donax Removal fornia. Aliso 6(3). Karen Gaffney, Rich Hunter, Center for Ecologi- cal Restoration and Stewardship, Circuit Rider Thorne, R.F. 1969. A supplement to the floras of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands, Los Angeles County, Productions, Inc., [email protected] California. Aliso 7(1). Since 1997, we have engaged in a programmatic approach to Arundo donax eradication in the Russian River watershed – one that integrates

46 ongoing invasive species mapping, GIS devel- evaluations of Arundo physiology, and com- opment, giant reed removal, riparian vegetation munity-level impacts. Future research includes restoration, landowner outreach, community landscape scale modeling of Arundo population education, volunteer opportunities, and applied expansion, site-specific responses to removal and research. Using a question-driven approach to habitat restoration, and evaluation of ecosystem Arundo removal and the restoration of invaded level effects of Arundo invasion. Our research sites, we have focused on a range of research program is iterative - developing new questions needs with our program. Current research el- in response to the needs of local and regional ef- ements include descriptive assessments of forts to remove Arundo and restore invaded sites. landscape-level characteristics, experimental

Session 9: Partnerships for Early Detection and Rapid Response

Noxious Weed Early Detection & greater challenges ranging from inadequate Rapid Response: California’s Been funding to regulatory barriers. But there has also There and is Doing Just That been a wider recognition than ever before of the Mary Pfeiffer, Shasta County Agricultural serious threat posed by noxious and invasive Commissioner weeds, a development which is creating broader support for the county and state programs as well Recently the terms “Early Detection” & “Rapid as other community based programs. Response” have appeared with greater frequency in organizational mission statements, in news ar- ticles, and in power point presentations through- Early Detection & Rapid Response: a out the state. The terms describe what should be Western Regional Approach? done to prevent and/or address the continuous Eric Lane, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture invasion of problematic plants into California and the rest of the nation. Local, watershed, and statewide efforts are un- derway throughout the West to detect and eradi- What may not be well understood is that Cali- cate recent invasions of selected noxious weed fornia has had an “Early Detection & Rapid species. Examples are many of local efforts to Response” team in place for decades. County raise awareness of targeted species, improve agriculture departments statewide and the Cali- communication among weed management pro- fornia Department of Food and Agriculture have fessionals, and coordinate effective responses to worked together to implement the state’s Pest discovered populations. However, these efforts Prevention System. The system is designed rarely exceed state boundaries, leaving commu- to detect pests early, and then, if necessary, to nities near their boundaries exposed to rapid in- implement eradication or management programs. vasion with little forewarning. The development The system, even with its limitations, has pro- of a western regional, cooperative effort to raise vided the state with a well-established line of awareness and coordinate eradication efforts tar- defense. geting common species across a larger landscape offers greater opportunities for success and more In recent years that line of defense has faced cost-effective solutions to shared problems.

47 The Power of Partnerships: Weed noxious weeds have been cut. Increased travel Program Management with a Limited and the internet have opened new pathways for Budget introduction of exotic seed and plant material. Marla Knight* and Anne Yost, US Forest Ser- The net result is fewer eyes in the field, fewer vice, Klamath National Forest, Fort Jones, CA detection surveys, and more undetected invaders. *[email protected] As part of a Weed Summit a state “Weed Plan” Funding for noxious weed programs has histori- was developed to deal with invasive plants. One cally been scarce for National Forests in the of the cornerstones of the new California State California Region (Region 5). While a compre- Weed Plan is “Early Detection and Rapid Re- hensive noxious weed program ideally includes sponse”. This is the most effective and economi- prevention, education, cooperation, planning cal way to deal with invasive plants. To accom- and treatment; funding has been tied strictly to plish this we need more trained observers in the the number of acres treated per year. This has field. limited available funds and created a situation where innovation, collaboration and commit- How can we meet this need? There is a vast ment at the field level is how much of the nox- untapped resource waiting to help. Government ious weed work is accomplished. The Klamath employees that are in the field, land stewards, National Forest and partners in the Siskiyou park rangers, and utility district employees can County Weed Management Area have been be trained to be effective “Detection Partners.” creative and aggressive when it comes to ac- University and college staff, students, Coopera- complishing noxious weed work. Limited funds tive extension volunteers and Master Gardeners have been leveraged with partnerships, grants are potential “Detection Partners”. Non-gov- and agreements, contributing labor from multiple ernmental organizations such as the California resource functions such as fire and recreation and Native Plant Society, Audubon Society, Sierra a strong community of volunteers to successfully Club can help. Ranchers and land owners that fight the ongoing battle against invasive weeds. can also be trained. At the far northern end of California, Siskyou County is a critical pathway for weed introduc- The California Invasive Weed Awareness Coali- tion and spread into the state. This presentation tion (CALIWAC) and The California Interagency will highlight the different groups that the Klam- Noxious Weed Coordinating Committee (CIN- ath National Forest weed program has partnered WCC) can network with member agencies and with to fight weeds. organizations to recruit partners. Cal-IPC can coordinate training workshops. Pilot programs have already shown success. Training materials have been developed and trainers are waiting. 6000 Volunteer Detection Partners: The A system of positive reinforcement and modest Problem, Possibilities, and Potential rewards can create “6000 Detection Volunteers.” Bob Case, California Native Plant Society, [email protected]

Budget cuts and staff reductions at The Califor- nia Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and county agricultural commissioners means fewer trained detection professionals in the field. “Weed Tours” for field indentification of rated

48 Posters Presented at the 2005 Cal-IPC Symposium Analysis of Clonal Diversity in Giant Resource Kit for Management of Reed (Arundo donax L.) Using Non-native Plants in National Parks Molecular Markers Monika Alas¹, Alma Martinez ¹, Desaree Riaz Ahmad1*, Ivy Liow2, David F. Williams¹, Ian McFadden¹, Bonnie Davis¹, Spencer2 and Marie Jasieniuk1 1Dept. of Plant Mietek Kolipinski², and Sibdas Ghosh¹*, ¹Dept. Sciences, UC Davis, 2USDA-ARS Exotic & of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Invasive Weeds Research Unit, Davis, CA. Dominican University of California, San Rafael, *[email protected] CA 94901,²National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA 94607. Giant reed (Arundo donax) is an exotic perennial *[email protected] grass that has invaded riparian areas throughout California and many other regions of the world. Introduction of non-native plants is detrimental Its success as an invasive species is at least to ecosystems. Once established, invasive exotic partly attributable to its rapid clonal spread by plants alter native habitats and populations of in- rhizome extension and flood dispersal of plant digenous species. Eradication is costly and often fragments, since viable seed does not appear to impossible. Thus, it is best to prevent invasions. be produced in the United States. To measure Dominican University of California (DU of C) genetic diversity in this clonally propagated spe- and National Park Service (NPS), along with cies, we genotyped 144 leaf samples of Arundo other partners, have formed a team to investigate collected from California, Texas, Mississippi, sources and dispersal methods of non-native Florida and France. For maximum genome cov- plants into new habitats. The project team is syn- erage, we used two molecular marker systems: thesizing vast amounts of information available (1) ten SRAP (Sequence Related Amplification about the developing California Weed Free Feed Polymorphism) markers, a gene-targeted marker and Mulch Program. As education is integral to system, and (2) fifteen transposon-based molecu- this project, DU of C faculty and students are lar markers, which primarily amplified non-cod- developing a resources kit for use in California’s ing regions of the genome. Our results indicate National Parks. The kit will serve as a basis for that, with the exception of a few minor differenc- educating NPS employees and concessionaires es, all tested samples are represented by a single as well as the public about use of best manage- clone despite the extreme geographical distance ment practices to prevent invasion and spread among the accessions. The lack of genotypic of non-native species. Components of the kit diversity in giant reed suggests biological control will include: information about the NPS Units, of the species could be successful. a list of non-native plants for each park, and an explanation of how weeds spread and nega- tively impact natural habitats and landscapes. In addition effective practices and procedures to prevent infestations will be illustrated. The goal is to change existing practices, associated with stock feed, mulches, soils, and by human activi- ties within and around California NPS Units that inadvertently result in establishment of non-na- tive plants.

49 Tumbleweeds of California - Who, Between 2004 and 2006 Golden Gate National What, Where, and How? Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Sea- Debra Ayres1*, Fred Ryan2, Fred Hrusa3, Pat Ak- shore are working to remove its most invasive ers3, 1Evolution and Ecology, One Shields Ave., plant, Delairea odorata (Cape Ivy). Under a UC Davis, CA 95616, 2USDA ARS CDPG, federal grant, park staff are in the second year 9611 South Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93648, of eradicating the choking vine from riparian, 3California Dept. of Food and Agriculture. coastal scrub and oak wood forests. Cape Ivy *[email protected] causes significant reduction in native plant spe- cies richness and reduces the abundance of in- Salsola tragus has spread widely throughout the sects in riparian habitat. This brittle vine spreads U. S. since its introduction in the 1800s. Salsola by readily breaking at the node to re-sprout new paulsenii has been known for decades from the individual sprigs. The first phase of “initial” transmontane regions. A third Salsola species, removal is conducted in the fall, outside the bird referred to here as ‘B’, was recently recognized nesting season, and involves limbing and cut- as occurring widely throughout low elevation ting back native vegetation to access and remove cismontane California. Two additional Salsola, the infestation. Sites are raked to mineral soil to termed ‘C’ and ‘lax’, were found in the southern expose the shallow cape ivy roots and fragments. San Joaquin Valley and western Mojave Des- Cut vegetative material is covered in landscape ert. Our goals were to develop keys to identify fabric and left at the site for decomposition. The these five taxa, to determine whether the groups “follow-up” phase is the most time intensive were genetically distinct using DNA markers, to process, involving hand picking re-sprouting map the distribution of the four taxa that occur cape ivy fragments 3 weeks after initial removal north of the Tehachapi, and to determine the and subsequent visits over several years. The relationships among the taxa using microsatellite effort involves contracted restoration crews, DNA markers. A principle components analysis Americorps members, interns, volunteers, and based on morphological traits distinguished the NPS and Park Partner staff. Removing cape ivy five taxa. Both RAPD and ISSR DNA markers in contiguous watersheds has been successful. clearly separated the 5 groups genetically. S. tra- In 2004, the first year of the grant, Golden Gate gus and ‘B’ were widespread in the central valley NRA removed its target goal of 7.5 acres and and coast ranges, while ‘lax’ and ‘C’ were found Point Reyes NS removed 8.3 acres of Cape ivy primarily around Bakersfield and in the western infestations. Mojave. Microsatellite analyses suggested that ‘C’ is an interspecific hybrid between S. tragus and ’B’, and that ‘lax’ is a complex hybrid in- Evaluation of Non-Chemical Control volving S. tragus, ‘B’, and S. paulsenii. Strategies for Common Aquatic Weeds in California Michael Blankinship, Blankinship & Associates, Cape Ivy Removal at Golden Gate Inc., Davis, CA National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Little of no quantitative data exists for the aquat- Tanya Baxter, Golden Gate National Recreation ic weed management professional to compare Area, [email protected], non-chemical control techniques to the use of Jim Bromberg, Point Reyes National Seashore. aquatic pesticides. The efficacy, cost-effective- [email protected] ness and impacts to water quality when non- chemical control techniques are employed was

50 studied and documented on aquatic emergent, of invasive plants. Although very few survey floating and terrestrial weeds. Techniques evalu- respondents had ever heard of the St. Louis ated were goats, mechanical removal, chemical Codes of Conduct (7%), approximately 28% of treatment followed by mechanical removal, and respondents said they have carried out a major- manual removal by labor crews using power ity of activities suggested by the Codes. Our equipment. Water quality impacts including the results provide insight into nursery professionals’ presence of coliform and E. coli were noted. perceptions that may facilitate the creation of Significant differences in cost per acre treated partnerships to curb invasive plant introductions and efficacy were noted in the study and may be via the horticulture trade. useful for the practitioner evaluating the rela- tive merits of chemical vs. non-chemical control techniques. Noxious Weed Management on National Forests in California: Regulations, Tools and Tactics Perspectives of Nursery Professionals Chris L. Christofferson, US Forest Service, Plu- on Invasive Plants and the St. Louis mas National Forest. [email protected] Voluntary Codes of Conduct Jennifer W. Burt1*, Adrianna Muir2*, Jonah The US Forest Service has declared nonnative, Piovia-Scott2, and Kari Veblen1 (in alphabetical invasive species a key threat to National For- order). 1Department of Plant Sciences, Univer- ests. Invading weeds can alter species diversity, sity of California, Davis, 2Dept. of Evolution hydrology, nutrient cycling, and natural distur- and Ecology, UC Davis. *[email protected], bance patterns such as frequency and intensity *[email protected] of wildfires. Changing these patterns can lead to displacement of native plant species, eventually The St. Louis Voluntary Codes of Conduct have impacting wildlife and plant habitat, indigenous received much attention and optimism as a po- use, recreational opportunities, forage produc- tentially effective tool to curb continued intro- tion and scenic beauty. The Forest Service has duction of invasive plants via the horticulture developed an integrated management strategy to trade. These Codes, drafted in 2001, emphasize address the problems associated with the intro- industry cooperation and modification of nursery duction and spread of invasive plant species, practices. We chose to examine the awareness, noxious weeds. California National Forests total behavior, and attitudes of nursery professionals approximately 20 million acres. These areas regarding invasive species and their willingness provide drinking water and support a wealth of to change nursery practices to reduce invasive plant and animal diversity. They also support plant introductions. We conducted a telephone recreational activities and timber production. survey of nursery professionals from retail and Fire exclusion and logging have created environ- wholesale nurseries and growers in the San mental conditions which favor replacing wild- Francisco Bay Area. Our survey results indicate fires and subsequent weed invasion. As a result, that a very high level of awareness exists among land managers of these National Forests face nursery professionals regarding invasive plants a unique challenge to manage noxious weeds. and of the horticulture trade’s role in invasive Tools used to combat noxious weeds include: plant introductions. Furthermore, survey respon- prevention of new introductions, mapping and dents indicated the nursery trade should be more identification, and treatment of sites with an ar- responsible than non-industry groups (includ- ray of techniques. ing consumers, government, policy makers, and scientists) for preventing the introduction

51 Invasive Plant Control at California ROM (FHTET-2003-08) has encouraged us to State Parks in the Northern initiate a similar project for the Western United Sacramento Valley States. The Invasive Plants of Eastern United Jim Dempsey* and Woody Elliott, Northern States CD has proven to be a useful tool for land Buttes District, California Dept. of Parks and managers, educators, researchers, private citi- Recreation. *[email protected] zens, or others dealing with the issue of invasive weed species. Over 15,000 copies of the Eastern Along the lower Sacramento River, Woodson CD-ROM have been pressed and distributed at Bridge State Recreation Area (SRA), Bidwell- no cost by the US Forest Service, Forest Health Sacramento River State Park, and Colusa-Sac- Technology Enterprise Team (USFS-FHTET). ramento River SRA have become refuges for In collaboration with the USFS FHTET, USDA- ornamental and agricultural exotics that thrive APHIS PPQ and others, together with the expe- where summer water is not limited. These rience gained from developing the Eastern CD, exotics include Ailanthus altissima (tree of the Bugwood Network is initiating the “Invasive heaven), Arundo donax, Catalpa sp., Celtis sp. Plants of the Western United States CD-ROM” (hackberry), Ficus carica (edible fig), Juglans project. sp. (walnut), Morus sp. (mulberry), Prunus sp. (prune rootstock), Rubus discolor (Himalayan The focus of this new CD-ROM will be provid- blackberry), Vinca major (periwinkle), and ing identification, ecology, and control informa- others. Field experience over several years has tion for the worst invasive plants in the Western resulted in successful use of mechanical control United States, including the Midwestern prairies methods, as well as frill-and-squirt, drill-injec- and forests, Great Plains, western mountain tion, basal spray, and foliar spray techniques ranges, deserts, and the Pacific coast. It will be with glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr. Where available at no cost through the USFS-FHTET. control of exotics creates openings for reinva- sion, site-appropriate natives are planted and If you and your organization have publications, cultivated including Carex barbarae (white-root photographs and other information that would be sedge), Platanus occidentalis (California syca- useful to include in this upcoming CD-ROM and more), Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood), web information, please contact us. Quercus lobata (Valley oak), Salix sp (willow), and native grasses. Phragmites australis in the Humboldt Bay Region: Biology of an Invasive Invasive Plants of Western United Species and Opportunities for States: Identification and Control Treatment CD-ROM Tamara L. Gedik, Gedik BioLOGICAL Christopher W. Evans1*, Charles T. Bargeron1, Associates, Trinidad CA David J. Moorhead1, G. Keith Douce1 and Rich- ard C. Reardon.2, 1The Bugwood Network, The Phragmites australis (common reed) is a per- University of Georgia, Tifton GA, 2Forest Health nicious invasive exotic that is widespread in Technology Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Ser- distribution throughout the United States, and vice, Morgantown, WV, *[email protected] occurs in a handful of unique habitat types in the Humboldt Bay region. Although native forms The success of the Invasive Plants of the Eastern of the species do occur, morphological analy- United States: Identification and Control CD- ses of Humboldt County plants has confirmed that local occurrences are exotic. The variety

52 of habitat types in the region supporting Phrag- • Passive Restoration Monitoring mites include 1) Palustrine emergent wetland • Vegetation monitoring pre- and post-treat- (freshwater drainage ditch); 2) Estuarine emer- ment gent intertidal (bay island); 3) Estuarine emer- • Seedbank analysis gent with freshwater and muted tidal influences (marsh complex); and 4) Isolated Palustrine The results of these experiments will be used emergent wetland with relict saline soils. Due to to develop site-specific adaptive management various management limitations, each site poses guidelines for control of perennial pepperweed a different opportunity for method of treatment at the Cosumnes River Preserve. These guide- and analysis of treatment success. Treatment lines and the research results on which they are and eradication of Phragmites at these locations based will be shared with the entire conservation can be a first step towards site enhancement and community so as to better inform weed control habitat restoration. efforts on similar lands throughout the CALFED Bay-Delta area and beyond.

Perennial Pepperweed Control Experi- ment at the Cosumnes River Preserve Which Weed to Whack?:The Cal-IPC Ingrid B. Hogle1*, Rebecca Waegell2 1 Invasive Plant Inventory Information Center for the Environment, UC Doug Johnson and Elizabeth Brusati, California 2 Davis, The Nature Conservancy, Cosumnes Invasive Plant Council, [email protected], River Preserve *[email protected] [email protected]

We are using a full-scale experimental design to Land managers, often faced with an overwhelm- determine what method of perennial pepperweed ing number of invasive species, need to know control is most appropriate based on site condi- where to focus their control efforts. The Califor- tions including existing vegetation, soil charac- nia Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)’s Invasive teristics, and flooding regime. The Cosumnes Plant Inventory (commonly called the “weed River Preserve Perennial Pepperweed Control list”) addresses this need in several ways. It pro- Project, a three-year, CALFED-funded project vides a tool to help land managers choose prior- which began this summer, investigates weed ity species for control, alerts restoration workers control in seasonal floodplain habitats in Sac- to new problem species, identifies research gaps, ramento county. Our study contains the follow and aids in commenting on environmental docu- research components: ments. It also serves as a resource for working with the horticultural community to identify Control Experiment problem plants still on the market. • Herbicide (Telar, Aquamaster, Garlon) versus 2-year tarping treatment The 2005 list updates and expands the 1999 • Cut stem versus mow + broadcast spray her- version, which was based primarily on the bicide application knowledge and judgment of an expert panel. The • Mow versus mow + disk tarp pre-treatment 2005 list uses a new criteria system and includes • Soil Characterization detailed documentation on approximately 300 • Soil physical & chemical parameters tested non-native species that invade wildlands in Cali- for correlation with weed control/restoration fornia. It is the most comprehensive summary success available on these plants. Each species was cat- • Bioassay testing to assess herbicide soil resi- egorized using a Plant Assessment Form (PAF) due levels with 13 criteria divided into three sections:

53 ecological impacts, potential invasiveness, and and the full criteria are available on the Cal-IPC habitats invaded. Scores from each section were website (www.cal-ipc.org). combined into a total rating of High, Moderate, Limited, or Considered But Not Listed. Rat- In early 2006, the full list of ratings will be pub- ings represent the level of statewide ecological lished in a summary that will include habitats of concern for that plant. Species with high scores concern and geographic regions invaded (based on impacts, but limited current distribution, were on the Jepson Manual). Future plans include de- designated “Alert” plants, indicating their high veloping an on-line system where land managers potential for spread. Plant Assessment Forms can submit and view data on new invasions.

Effects of Single Pass Flaming on Previously Brush-cut Genista monspessulana Janet Klein and Shannon Fiala, Marin Municipal Water District, 220 Nellen Avenue, P.O. Box 994, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0994. (415) 945-1192

Abstract this is a direct result of our intentional selection Propane flaming has been shown to be an effec- of very large resprouts for inclusion in the trial. tive tool in managing Genista monspessulana seedlings. The Marin Municipal Water District Background (MMWD), in conjunction with the Marin Con- The Marin Municipal Water District owns and servation Corps (MCC) /Americorps Program, manages approximately 18,500 acres of water- tested the efficacy of single-pass propane flaming shed lands in the Mt. Tamalpais region of Marin on resprouting G. monspessulana plants that had County. While only 3% (700 acres) of district been repeatedly mowed. We compared the mor- lands are infested with G. monspessulana, this tality rates of single-pass flaming of resprouting invasive species poses a significant challenge. G. monspessulana with that of a control treat- Because district policies prohibit the use of ment--brushcutting. We also examined the im- herbicide applications in close proximity to the pact of stump size on survivorship. We found a reservoirs and upstream creeks, the District’s statistically significant difference in the effects of approach to G. monspessulana management has propane flaming versus brushcutting, with pro- been that of containment. Extensive stands of G. pane flaming resulting in higher mortality rates monspessulana are mowed annually to prevent and greater decreases in both percent cover and seed production and reduce fuel loading. This overall G. monspessulana growth post-treatment. method does not result in high levels of broom Propane flaming resulted in a mortality rate of mortality and does not address the long-term 80%, while the control treatment of brushcutting maintenance costs or habitat degradation posed resulted in a 2% increase in the mean number of by G. monspessulana resprouts. Sites that have live stems per plot. Size had a statistically sig- been previously treated by mowing are consid- nificant impact on survivorship (p-value < 0.01). ered unsuitable for handpulling due to the high Mean root crown diameter of surviving plants density of resprouting shrubs with extensive, was 13.6 cm while the mean root crown diameter hard-to-pull root masses. Handpulling, a lethal of killed plants was 7.8 cm. The largest indi- method that promotes the long-term recovery of vidual to be killed by flaming had a root crown invaded sites and over time reduces maintenance diameter of 31.5 centimeter. It should also be costs, is therefore restricted to unmowed sites. noted that the G. monspessulana mortality rate in the size effect trial was only 54%; we believe

54 MMWD recently adopted the use of propane diameter of each plant was recorded in four cross flaming to kill G. monspessulana seedlings that sections, according to cardinal directions. The emerge after handpulling or broadcast burn- mean diameter size of treated G. monspessulana ing. In this study, we examine the potential of stumps was 10 cm (+/- 2). The individuals were propane flaming to treat previously mowed, flamed until they appeared charred. After three resprouting G. monspessulana. months, data was collected on the survivorship of the individuals. The data were analyzed using Site description: The study site is located at Pine one-tailed t-tests. Point on the Bon Tempe Lake shoreline in the Mount Tamalpais Watershed in Marin County, Results California. The site was quarried during the Treatment Effects construction of Bon Tempe Dam and is highly The treatment of brushcutting previously mowed disturbed. Stem density in the area is approxi- G. monspessulana followed by propane flaming mately 71,000 stems per acre. G. monspessulana resulted in statistically significant decreases in is well established on the remaining subsoil. For live G. monspessulana stems per plot (p < 0.001) the past fifteen years, the site has been mowed at while the control of brushcutting alone resulted least annually. The site was burned in the sum- in no statistically significant change in live G. mer of 2001 as part of a larger habitat restora- monspessulana stems per plot (p = 0.44). Treat- tion project. The study was conducted between ment plots also experienced a statistically sig- March and June 2005. Unseasonably late rains nificant decrease in percent cover of G. monspes- occurred multiple times following the initial sulana (p < 0.002) with mean percent cover per treatment. plot dropping from 4.4% to 1.4%. Control plots experience a statistically significant increase in Methods percent cover of G. monspessulana (p < 0.002) In March 2005, all G. monspessulana in the site with a mean percent cover per plot increasing received the annual treatment of brushcutting from 5% to 51.6%. Propane flaming decreased to a height of 10 cm. For the treatment efficacy the mean stem height per plot from 9.4 cm to 6.8 experiment, eight plots were set up for control cm, although this was not statistically significant and received no additional management. Six- (p < 0.15). In control plots, the increase in mean teen plots were set up for treatment and were stem height from 10 cm to 56.7 cm was statisti- flamed until individuals became charred using cally significant (p< 0.001). a liquid-withdrawal torch propane system (Red Dragon Liquid torch kit: liquid torch 750,000 Size Effects BTU). Flaming time varied with the size of The size of G. monspessulana individuals sub- individual plants with flame applied for as long jected to propane flaming was correlated with as was required for all above-ground parts of survivorship. There was a statistically significant target plants to appear charred. Treatment and difference in the mean root crown diameter of control plots were ½ m by ½ m separated by 1 m individuals that survived 3 months following buffers. Plot location was randomized to prevent treatment (p < 0.005), with surviving individu- topographical biases. Data were collected on als having a mean root crown diameter of 13.6 stem height, number of resprouts and seedlings and dead individuals having a mean root crown and percent cover. Data were collected immedi- diameter of 7.8. Large individuals did succumb ately before flaming and again in June, 2005. For to treatment however; the largest plant to die fol- the size correlation experiment, fifty plants (25 lowing propane flaming was 31.5 centimeters in larger individuals and 25 smaller individuals) in diameter. close proximity to each other were tagged. The

55 Treatment Efficacy Data (Stem Count)

Treatment Efficacy Data (Stem Height)

Discussion and Conclusions very large individuals, but we believe the torch Propane flaming is an effective method for operator applied flame to these individuals for killing previously brushcut G. monspessulana, longer periods of time than to smaller plants. although the size and age of the individual plants targeted for treatment impacts survivorship. We Our two trials, treatment effect and size effect, believe greater size results in greater survivor- resulted in mortality rates of 80% and 54% ship because individual plants with larger root respectively. We believe the difference in these crown diameters have correspondingly higher mortality rates reflects the effect of size on survi- nutrient reserves stored in their roots and are vorship. In choosing individuals for the size ef- better able to recover from a flaming treatment. fect trial, we intentionally included individuals at Propane flaming resulted in the death of some the high end of the overall size distribution of G. monspessulana in the project area, thus selecting

56 Size Correlation Data

Average diameter size classes (cm) a disproportionate number of likely survivors. viduals. The method is slow and the equipment Propane flaming appears to be a viable option somewhat cumbersome, particularly on steep for killing previously brushcut G. monspessu- slopes. Its safe use is limited to the rainy season. lana. As expected, it is most efficient when used Nonetheless, it offers a non-chemical alternative on younger, smaller G. monspessulana indi- for effective G. monspessulana management.

Blurring Edges: A Test of Weed To achieve our objective of increasing the total Control Methods Used Along Edges acres of RSS within the Preserve, we are testing of Sage Scrub Patches to Encourage three combinations of weed management tech- niques within NNG along sharply defined edges Shrub Colonization into Abandoned of RSS. Our goal is to determine what mix of Agricultural Fields chemical (grass specific herbicide, FusiladeII) Eliza Maher* and Edward Stanton, Center for and mechanical (mowing) treatments is most Natural Lands Management, Western Riverside cost-effective in converting NNG to RSS near County Preserves, *[email protected] the interface between the two plant communities. We discuss our experimental design, treatment Applying techniques to encourage native plants procedure, and vegetation monitoring method. to colonize disturbed areas may be an effec- After three to five years of treatment application tive alternative when time is less limiting than and data collection, we will apply our results by funds. Johnson Ranch is a 1,400 acre Ecologi- implementing the most effective weed manage- cal Preserve in Southwestern Riverside County ment technique on all ecotonal areas within the consisting of remnant patches of Riversidian preserve. sage scrub (RSS) in a matrix of abandoned agricultural fields. The agricultural fields are now converted to non-native annual grasslands (NNG) dominated by Avena barbatus, Bromus spp., Brassica geniculata, and Raphanus sativus.

57 Phenology of Brassica tournefortii in versity, Chico, 2Bidwell Environmental Institute. Comparison to B. nigra, B. geniculata, [email protected] and Native Mojave Desert Annuals Robin Marushia* and Jodie Holt, Dept. of Bota- Experimental herbaceous restoration and nox- ny and Plant Sciences, University of California, ious weed mitigation is being conducted at the Riverside, *[email protected] California Department of Fish and Game’s But- ler Slough Ecological Reserve (BSER) in eastern Brassica tournefortii, or Sahara mustard, is an Tehama County. The BSER consists of 54-acres exotic invasive mustard increasing in dominance of former plum orchards and remnant riparian throughout the southwestern deserts. It is rapidly forest located between shallow rangeland soils to invading the Mojave desert where only Schismus the east and deeper orchard soils to the west. spp. and Erodium cicutarium were previously known to invade. Although it has been assumed The main components of this project are (1) seed that B. tournefortii is able to invade the Mojave collection and greenhouse propagation of a suite because of its early germination and rapid devel- of native perennial grasses and forbs; (2) on-site opment, the phenology of B. tournefortii has not reduction of noxious species with an emphasis been studied or measured against comparable na- on medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) tive and exotic annuals. Furthermore, B. tourne- using mechanical and chemical means; and (3) fortii is relatively new to the Mojave and selec- direct seeding of perennial grasses and forbs in tion may have played a role in its expansion. experimental plots under four seeding condi- This study was conducted with two goals: first, tions: grasses only, forbs only, grasses and forbs, to determine the phenological characteristics of and weed reduction only (controls). desert and non-desert populations of B. tourne- fortii and compare this phenology with other The objectives of the BSER project are to ex- invasive mustards not present in the Mojave. amine methods for on site reduction of invasive Second, this research compared the phenology winter annuals such as medusahead while in- of B. tournefortii with native annual species and creasing the species scope in herbaceous restora- observed the impacts of B. tournefortii density tion. Propagation of a suite of herbaceous spe- on native annual diversity, dominance, survival, cies is currently lending insight into the potential and fecundity. Preliminary greenhouse results use of these species in grassland restoration and show that B. tournefortii has a faster develop- noxious weed mitigation projects. ment than B. nigra or B. geniculata. Preliminary results from the field suggest that sites beneficial for native annuals may also be most beneficial Correlation Between Weed Control for B. tournefortii. Techniques, Cost and Habitat Restoration Success: Two Case Studies Dan Ryan and Andrea Vona. Palos Verdes Penin- Experimental Herbaceous Restoration sula Land Conservancy, [email protected] and Noxious Weed Mitigation at the California Department of Fish and The majority of undeveloped open space in Southern California contains degraded habitat Game’s Butler Slough Ecological and is commonly inundated with non-native Reserve, Eastern Tehama County weeds. The growing discipline of habitat res- 1 2 2 Jim Pushnik , John W. Hunt ,*, Matt Brown , toration attempts to reverse this decline in the 2 2 Rachelle Boul , and David Koenig quality of habitat and to reestablish the flora that 1 Department of Biology, California State Uni- supports the ecology of the region. The primary

58 goal of restoration is to contain and eventu- growing season. Plots that received N additions ally diminish the weed population, providing at Putah Creek had higher numbers of Chaetorel- resources required to establish native habitat, lia succinea, but not Urophora sirunaseva and generally through out-planting or seeding. To ad- Eustenopus villosus. At Cache Creek, only the dress this goal, various methods of weed control abundance of the Eustenopus villosus increased can be used. These techniques differ on many with N addition. The overall rate at which flower levels; equipment, cost of labor, methodology, heads were attacked increased with N addition at and managerial oversight are all components that Putah Creek. Although the mechanism underly- require attention in the development of a restora- ing these increases is not known, these results tion project and budget planning. Two separate indicate that it may be possible to enhance local restoration projects on the Palos Verdes Penin- densities of biological control agents and the sula consisting of coastal sage scrub and riparian rates at which yellow starthistle flower heads are habitat will be analyzed. A comparison of weed attacked in some but not all habitats by adding N control techniques, cost of implementation, and to the soil. success of habitat restoration will be conducted for two sample areas within each habitat type. An analysis of the results will reveal recom- Exotic Annual Control and the mendations for weed control methods/restoration Competitive Release of Native Forbs: techniques in relationship with cost of the project An Example from the Northwest in order to ensure success. Sonoran Desert Robert J. Steers* and Edith B. Allen, Dept. of Effect of Fertilizer Additions on Botany and Plant Sciences, University of Cali- fornia, Riverside *[email protected] Yellow Starthistle Insect Biological Control Agents Exotic annual grasses and forbs have become D. F. Spencer1, M. J. Pitcairn2, R. I. Carruthers3, increasingly dominant components of the Mo- S. F. Enloe4, P. S. Liow1, W. K. Chan1, M. J. jave and Sonoran Deserts. The purpose of this Donovan1, and G. G. Ksander.1, 1USDA-ARS study was to evaluate the response of native Exotic & Invasive Weed Research Unit, Davis, forb species to the removal of exotic grasses and CA , 2CDFA, Biological Control Program, Sac- forbs. This experiment took place in a creosote ramento, CA, 3USDA-ARS Exotic & Invasive bush scrub community located in the Coachella Weed Research Unit, Albany, CA, 4Department Valley, California. The exotic grasses Schis- of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, mus barbatus and S. arabicus were removed Laramie, WY from experimental plots using the grass-specific herbicide Fusilade II®. The exotic forb Erodium A number of studies indicate that adding fertil- cicutarium was removed by hand pulling. Three izer to plants influences growth, reproduction, treatments that included a control, herbicide, and grazing by herbivores. We tested the hypoth- and herbicide plus hand-pulling of E. cicutarium esis that adding fertilizer to yellow starthistle were implemented in interspace and understory plants would increase population densities of habitat. Removal of exotic grass species re- insect biological control agents by adding com- sulted in the increase of native forb % cover and binations of N and P + S to grassland plots at biomass in both habitats. In interspace habitat, two sites in northern California. We monitored % cover of native forb species was only signifi- insect abundance by direct counts, using sticky cantly greater in herbicide plus hand pulling of traps, and dissecting yellow starthistle flower E. cicutarium plots, suggesting that exotic forbs heads collected at various times throughout the can be strong competitors with native forbs.

59 These results also demonstrate that the control of 2004 Invasive Spartina Project both exotic grass and forb functional types may Monitoring Program be necessary for optimal competitive release of Katy Zaremba, San Francisco Estuary Invasive native desert forbs. Spartina Project, California Coastal Conservan- cy, (510) 548-2461, [email protected], www.spartina.org Role of Large Herbivores in Spreading The purpose of the 2004 survey was (1) to assess Non-native Invasive Plants into the current distribution of introduced Spartina Natural Areas species in the San Francisco Estuary, (2) to John Mary Vianney¹, Kevin Hassler¹, Seiha quantify net acreage for each of four non-native Thorng¹, Ian McFadden¹, Bonnie Davis¹, Sib- Spartina species, (3) to determine the spread das Ghosh¹, and Mietek Kolipinski²* ¹Dept. of since the 2001 Estuary-wide inventory, and (4) Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Dominican determine the control efficacy at sites treated in University of California, San Rafael, CA 94901, 2003. The mapping project was a field-based ²National Park Service, Pacific West Regional effort, utilizing GPS units to collect location Office, Oakland, CA 94607 and ecological data for each found population of *[email protected] invasive Spartina. In addition to detailed field mapping, aerial photos and ground truthing were Invasion of non-native plant species is a uni- utilized to map highly infested marshes. Genetic versal issue and of concern to land manage- testing was conducted to confirm identification ment agencies. Exotic plants alter ecological of S. alterniflora hybrids. In 2003, the Spartina processes and lead to loss of biodiversity in invasion at a subset of 28 sites, stratified across protected areas. We looked into the role of large the Estuary by latitude and marsh type, was herbivores in spreading weeds into California’s examined. In 2003, the average percent increase National Parks. Literature review indicated in area since 2001 for S. alterniflora hybrids was horses and other herbivores are associated with 329%. According to average percent increase invasions of non-native plants. Evidence exists across the sampling sites of 2003, the net acreage in USA and other countries that weeds spread of S. alterniflora hybrids bay-wide was estimated by passage of seeds through the horse gut and to be 2,012 acres. The more labor-intensive estu- subsequent sprouting from manure. Also, the ary-wide inventory of 2004 will be compared literature points to numerous noxious plants aris- to the estimates calculated from the stratified ing from uncertified horse hay, including yellow sampling methods used in 2003. starthistle, medusahead, perennial pepperweed, broom, and fennel. Further, weeds are intro- duced through use of animal feed, such as hay and alfalfa, containing seeds. A synthesis report on this topic is in preparation. Additionally, as part of this project the research team at Domini- can University of California and the National Park Service are conducting a study to determine what plants grow from horse manure sampled at a variety of locations in California, including national parks. Findings from this project will be shared with park employees and concessionaires, and with the public.

60 Working and Discussion Group Notes

Horticulture/Landscaping Alternatives Working Group

Leader: Mark Newhouser Facilitator: Kate Symonds Notetaker: Christy Brigham

Attendees

Name Organization E-mail Kathy Nolan NWA and Associates [email protected] Terri Kempton Sustainable Conservation [email protected] Shannon Fiala Marin Municipal Water District s_fi[email protected] Denise DellaSantina Yosemite National Park [email protected] Martha Berthelsen The Watershed Project [email protected] Adam Erickson SCA at Redwoods [email protected] David Allen SCA at Redwoods [email protected] Bobbi Simpson NPS – EPMT [email protected] Drew Ready LASGRWC [email protected] M.L. Carle CNPS Sonoma Co. [email protected] Mario A. Abreu Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens [email protected] Adrianna Muir UC Davis [email protected] Jennifer Burt UC Davis [email protected] Renee Spenst UC Davis [email protected] Stephen Jones Alameda Co. Public Works [email protected] Bertha McKinley CNPS EB [email protected] Dan Songster CNPS OC [email protected] Elaine P. Jackson CNPS-EB [email protected] Christy Brigham NPS [email protected] Linda Hill CNPS – GGNRA [email protected] Sue Fritske NPS – GGNRA [email protected] Susan Mason Friends of Bidwell Park [email protected] Charlie Williams Shelterbelt Builders [email protected] Mark Newhouser Sonoma Ecology Center [email protected] Kate Symonds NRCS [email protected] Tanya Meyer CLBL [email protected] Kelly Rose Ballona Wetlands [email protected]

61 Terri Kempton and Mark Newhouser provided Mark Newhouser also gave a brief tour of the an introduction to the project of removing Cal-IPC webpage and the Don’t Plant a Pest invasive species from nurseries highlighting: brochures. • Work with the horticulture industry to reduce use of invasive plants in Kate Symonds (facilitator) asked how many horticulture people in attendance had experience working • Goal of removing invasive plants from with the nursery industry on the invasive species sale issue. • Goal of addressing a certain number of plants (not all species) Nine people indicated past work with nursery • Using Cal-IPC criteria for selecting industry. People described the following plants to focus on experiences: • 22 people are on the steering committee for the project including representatives Sue Fritske (Golden Gate National Recreation from: Area) commented on seeing over 20 nurseries . landscape architects in Marin county selling invasive plants near the . Home Depot GGNRA. She had the following suggestions: . Growers • Get listings of local nurseries . John Randall (TNC) • Assign people to work with local . Sarah Reichart (University nurseries in each area of Washington) • Avoid duplication of contact • Goal of transparent collaborative process • Discuss having displays at nurseries • Communicate results of project back to . Provide brochures at constituencies for consensus nurseries with alternatives • Achieve change from within the industry available for purchase on the spot Terri Kempton also mentioned that: . Help nurseries avoid being • Sustainable Conservation has a quarterly hit with an economic loss newsletter by promoting alternatives • The plant list of focus species has been . Avoid the need for the identified consumer to search for • A toolkit and outreach materials are being alternatives developed for each species focusing on separate information for producers and Kate Symonds added that we should help consumers nurseries with a seamless transition away from • They hope to have the toolkits completed invasives with no economic loss. within a year • They are currently working with Sunset Sustainable Conservation is discussing nursery magazine on an article displays and approaches. • In 2007 they will be working on predictive measures to use on potential Sustainable Conservation is discussing new landscape plants to predict invasive certification for landscapers with invasive potential species training. • The door opened to working with the nursery industry at the last symposium Mark Newhouser passed around a regional where Monrovia was represented contact list for the Don’t Plant a Pest brochures.

62 Linda Hillman described her personal disclaimer about some species but no symbol for interactions with nurseries (at Home Depot and invasive. elsewhere). There is a local nursery in Berkeley that sells a lot of native plants but also sells Jennifer Burt mentioned that UC Davis IGERT iceplant. When Linda questioned them about have made contact with the editors of the the iceplant they made excuses and justified their Western Garden Book and are looking into this actions. Linda suggested that CNPS might be a issue. good contact group for nurseries. Elaine Jackson is concerned about potential Terri Kempton mentioned designing promotional economic impacts to nurseries. One way to information for nurseries about the program and offset economic impacts would be to link also for nurseries to provide to consumers. In alternatives to fire safe landscaping and market addition, she mentioned developing the idea of the list to nurseries and consumers living near sending pledge letters to nurseries – if they get open spaces prone to fire. rid of invasives and carry alternatives instead; we pledge to purchase the alternatives from that Several lists could be developed- an allergy- specific nursery. free list, a fries safe list, a drought tolerant list. Right now the Fire Safe Council’s list of fire safe Mark Newhouser mentioned that we would make plants is full of invasive plants. information about this project and Sustainable Conservation available on the Cal-IPC webpage. Mark Newhouser mentioned that it is important to get comments in early during the development Mark Newhouser commented that resale outlets of these plant lists so that they can be removed must demand the invasive alternatives from the prior to printing. The Marin-Sonoma WMA wholesalers. lobbied for changes when their local fire safe list was being revised. We should approach Horticulture and Landscape architecture departments in all colleges as a form Daniel Songster mentioned that it is great to have of outreach. nurseries at the table. He mentioned previous CNPS efforts with Jake Sigg to approach Sam commented that there are lots of old school nurseries. Local people working with local Horticulture teachers out there. It is vital to get nurseries had great success when the people invasive species issues into the curriculum. involved had good outreach skills.

Susan Mason mentioned addressing the issue Daniel Songster – CNPS has an up and running of demand for these plants by contacting Horticulture committee. Peggy Duvall is the newspapers and garden editors and having them contact. Daniel is on the committee. We need to write articles addressing the garden escape issue. strengthen the tie between CNPS and Cal-IPC.

Sam also commented that the brochure is an Kate Symonds mentioned the need to make extra thing to pick up, what about incorporating contact with Master Gardeners. issues of invasive plants into the Western Garden Book? Bertha McKinley described approaching big chain stores and being bucked up the chain of There was a brief discussion on what is currently command. The sales staff is often on board with in the Western Garden Book – currently a small not selling invasives but doesn’t have any ability

63 to do anything. and the St. Louis Voluntary Codes of Conduct. They interviewed retailers, wholesalers, and Sue Fritske mentioned the need to approach not growers in the Bay Area and asked to speak with just growers but also seed companies. GGNRA people who had purchasing power (purchasing was selling “native California wildflowers” in agent, manager, owner, etc). They asked about their visitor center that was full of non-natives awareness and implementation of preventative and genetically inappropriate plants. measures regarding invasive species. They found that very few nursery-people were aware of the Terri Kempton mentioned that staff training is a St. Louis codes. They have a poster at the Cal- big concern for nurseries. IPC conference. • 100% of people contacted had heard Terri Kempton – Home Depot has a single buyer something about the invasive species who purchases plants for all the Home Depots issue. in the western half of the country. This buyer is • 81% were aware of the role that the very receptive to invasive plant concerns. nursery industry plays in introducing invasive plants. Jennifer Burt mentioned that plant purchasing • 28% had engaged in the majority of can be at the level of the individual at small preventative measures that are listed in nurseries and grassroots efforts at education have the St. Louis codes. their place. • The 28% taking action were more likely to be involved with some sort of nursery Stephen Jones inspected plant materials coming trade association and want to project a in for the county Agricultural Commissioners green business image. office. He sees the impacts of invasive species • All respondents cited ‘lack of on roadsides and flood control channels. He is information’ as the greatest obstacle also working on mitigation projects and sees to engaging in The Codes. They need consultants recommending inappropriate plants. detailed information on the day to day implementation of preventative measures. Stephen Jones mentioned contacting the Other discouraging factors cited by California Association of Nurserymen, C.L.C.A. ‘inactive nurseries’ were lack of funds (Landscapers), PAPA (a pesticide training and lack of personnel. group), and designers of large building projects • Many people (41% of respondents) were (condos, etc.). He also mentioned the up and willing to engage in The Codes. coming problem of water gardens. • There is a great potential for increasing involvement. Mark Newhouser asked Stephen about regulating • 31% said they have not and would not shipments. engage in preventative measures. • There was no correlation between Stephen said regulation was easy – they could cooperation and large versus small destroy or return it to the place of origin – but nursery. only for listed noxious pests. Kate Symonds mentioned that this study could Jennifer Burt and Adrianna Muir, along with be used to structure efforts for a nursery outreach other UC Davis graduate students, did a project program. surveying nursery professionals in the Bay Area about their awareness of invasive species Jennifer and Adrianna said they will pass on

64 their information to Sustainable Conservation Kate Symonds asked about constructive and Cal-IPC. measures being implemented in specific areas.

The project was a side project. They hope to Mario Abreu, who works at the Mendocino pass on the results and publish a journal article Botanic Gardens, talked about the history at the on the project. garden of planting of non-native flora. Then visitors come and see these non-native plants Jennifer and Adrianna also asked the nursery- and want to grow them at home. They assume people what reference they used and do they that all plants that they see at the garden are make their own plant labels. Sunset Western approved/sanctioned by the garden as being Garden Book was the most commonly used good plants. reference. Mario Abreu brought the the St. Louis Codes Jennifer is interested in doing an internship with to the garden for discussion. The garden has a Sunset. They invited the garden editor to UC retail nursery. They need a committee to review Davis through the UCD News Service. The the invasive species list and compare it to what editor is very interested in their project. In the they are selling in their nursery. They need site past, other people have contacted Sunset and specific invasion risks for their area. They also gotten nowhere. Jennifer is waiting to hear back need guidance for future plantings in the garden from them. She thinks that we should use the and interpretation for visitors. existing pathways of information such as Sunset. Mario also mentioned that there has been a great Bobbi Simpson has seen the survey results and deal of resistance to these ideas at the garden. sent them on to Cal-IPC. The resistance may be due to aesthetic concerns. Mario is responsible for the natural areas at the There was then a short discussion of Jennifer and garden. Adrianna’s actual dissertation research and the IGERT program at UCD. Four other students Mark Newhouser mentioned the Chicago garden did a study on the aquarium trade where they and St. Louis Missouri Botanic Garden have inventoried stores and looked at the biological protocols. requirements of the fish being sold with an eye to identifying potential invasive species. Mario Abreu mentioned that the Mendocino Botanic Gardens retail nursery is not funded Kelly Rose from Ballona Wetlands in L.A. has by anyone and needs to make money. In prior contact with many thousands of people every years, many invasive plants have been sold year. She wants to know what she can do in including Jubata grass and brooms. Many her contacts to educate and inspire people about species still not on the Cal-IPC list are invasive this issue. We need local activism and local in the Mendocino area. ordinance. Maybe we could repeat the Bay Area • Should they not sell plants that are not on study in Southern California. the list but are invasive in their area? • They need to talk about invasive qualities Drew Ready mentioned the L.A. W.M.A. not just rely on the list. project to create a wallet-sized version of the • Focus on educating the public using DPP brochure modeled after the Monterey Bay gardening knowledge – does the plant seafood card. reproduce quickly and migrate out of the planted area in your yard? Do you

65 have to do a lot of weeding to prevent it mention to nurseries that their names would spreading? be mentioned to the Cal-IPC membership if • Focus on reproduction and local spread they remove invasives and offer alternatives. qualities. More info. about this program can be found at • If the retail nursery isn’t aren’t willing Bayfriendly.org. to remove species, perhaps the nursery could develop a disclaimer. Educating volunteers who do weed work is • Mario also asked about outreaching to also an outreach tool. These volunteers are bookstores. consumers and see invasive plants being sold. We need to get information out to volunteers. Drew Ready mentioned that the L.A. and San Gabriel watershed council has focused on Kate Symonds mentioned that NRCS as an landscaping issues and are starting outreach agency has spread weeds but now has a new efforts to nurseries. They are looking forward group, Resource Conservation and Development to partnering with Cal-IPC, they are getting that is looking for projects. They are going to regional reports together. They want the St. do a nursery outreach program in Marin and Louis codes to be promulgated. They are Sonoma. Kate is in the information gathering worried about the nursery industry being self- stage. There is a lot of interest in trying to regulating since growers supposedly at the address the invasive species issue. table are marketing and promoting plants that They are considering contacting larger nurseries “naturalize well” and “invade wild places”. with the DPP brochures. See Monrovia’s website entry for Cytisus x spachianus. Drew Ready asked if anyone is working with CDFA to get more wildland pests listed so we Martha Berthelsen described a Bay Friendly have regulatory power. gardening outreach to nurseries. They started with a group of four nurseries and asked them Mark Newhouser - Although this issue is being to post a list of Bay Area friendly plants. The worked on, it will never be enough due to the plants were non-invasive and water conserving. political nature of the process. It took years They combined multiple messages into one list to list 8 plants. It is a time consuming, long, so people don’t have to juggle lists. painful process but should be on-going. • Nurseries are interested in doing what is right. Stephen Jones – There is also the issue of • They need incentives insufficient funding for enforcement. • For bay friendly list the incentive is paid ads that promote bay friendly plants and Kate Symonds asked what we can do as citizens list the four nurseries as places that they and professors to address this issue. can be purchased. • They are also doing nursery staff Stephen Jones suggested linking the issue to trainings. agricultural applications to increase funding. He • The staff like it but cites lack of contact also suggested linking the Cal-IPC and CDFA time with customers as a constraint. websites. • They hold free workshops for the public and mention the four nurseries by name. Mark Newhouser mentioned the Marin-Sonoma WMA outreach to all listed nurseries and Martha Berthelsen suggested that we could landscapers. They included a combined list

66 of bad plants in their mailing (combined from a preventative process with collaboration. A CNPS, Cal-IPC, and CDFA). There was no collaborative process can address new threats on feedback mechanism so they don’t know how the horizon. effective the mailing was. Mark Newhouser wrapped up the session by Terri Kempton agreed that we need regulations, thanking people for coming and hopes that we but it is a long, difficult, reactive process; not all continue to interact.

Mapping Working Group Leader: Steve Schoenig Facilitator: Deanne DiPietro Notetaker: Jon Hall

Attendees

Name Organization E-mail Steve Schoenig CDFA [email protected] Sara Grove NPS - Yosemite [email protected] Daniel Boughter NPS - Point Reyes [email protected] Erin McDermott Sycamore Associates LLC [email protected] Kasey Allen NPS - Point Reyes [email protected] Ryan Tietjen SCA Redwood [email protected] Andrea Williams NPS - RNSP [email protected] Paul Heiple CNPS - Santa Clara Valley [email protected] Noreen Cabanting Ventura County RCD [email protected] Jason Casanova LA & SG Rivers Watershed Council [email protected] Cheryl Beyer USFS Modoc NF [email protected] Dan Ryan Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Cons. [email protected] LeeAnne Mila El Dorado/Alpine Dept. of Ag. [email protected] Liana Lopez Upper Merced River Watershed Council [email protected] Holly Warner Upper Merced River Watershed Council [email protected] Sharon Frankler NPS - Pinnacles [email protected] Lynn Overtree Monterey Peninsula Reg. Park District [email protected] John Ekhoff California Dept. of Fish and Game [email protected] Jason Allen City of S.D. Park/Rec [email protected] Frank Wallace CNPS - Sacramento County Weed Warriors [email protected] Pat Gilbert Cal State Parks [email protected] Barbara Castro California Dept. of Water Resources [email protected] Gretchen Coffman UCLA [email protected] Katy Zaremba Invasive Spartina Project [email protected] Ramona Robison UC Davis [email protected] Mandy Tu The Nature Conservancy [email protected] Kyla Dahlin GGNPC [email protected]

67 Maria Alvarez NPS GGNRA [email protected] Marc Lea Slo County WMA [email protected] Trish Smith Nature Conservancy [email protected] Matt Brown USDA Forest Service Linnea Hanson Plumas National Forest [email protected] Richard Sweet Friends of the Santa Clara River [email protected] Larry Klaasen Sierra Club [email protected] Judy Johnson CRCD; Eastern Madera County Daniel Burmester CDFG [email protected] Samuel Valdez Consultant sam@officialtripreport.com Joyce Sisson San Elijo Lagoon Cons. [email protected] Mark Oulton DeAngelo Brothers INC [email protected] Scott Oneto UCCE Amador Co. [email protected] Greg Fisher Circuit Rider Productions gfi[email protected] Scott Loosley UC Santa Cruz, Site Stewardship [email protected] Carolyn Gibbs BLM / Lassen SWAT [email protected] Lottie Hufford BLM - Surprise Field Office [email protected] Abigail Gwinn Watershed Institute - CSUMB [email protected] Kristin Asmus Sycamore Associates [email protected] Dale Smith GGNRA - HRT Tara Athan Mendocino Coast WMA [email protected] Laura Julian RNSP [email protected] Patti Clifford USFWS [email protected] Eric Wylde Santa Clara Co. CAC [email protected] Ingrid Hogle ICE, UCDavis [email protected] Todd Easleg Camp Pendleton; Anteon Corp [email protected] Jonathan Hall Catalina Island Conservancy [email protected]

Previous Weed Mapping Working Groups California Weed Data Collaborative and focused on the need for mapping, mapping Information System – We are the “California techniques, and the importance of using Weed Data Collaborative”, a community of standard forms of data collection. This year people interested in sharing data, co-developing the working group focused on how we are the data products we need to enhance our going to share and access our data by setting weed work and cooperating to solve problems up a “California Weed Data Collaborative and remove the barriers to data sharing and and Information System”. The working group development. We will accomplish this through discussion consisted of: our Cal-IPC Weed Information System. This • Presentation of the plan for a California system has three components. Weed Data Collaborative and 1. Communication services – This is how we Information System. organize our communications (ex. Listservs • An update on Team Arundo Del Norte’s with archives, Bulletin boards, News and new NSDI grant. event postings, a virtual meeting place for • How to contribute spatial data. our information community). • A brainstorming session about what we 2. Digital library – This is where we contribute want and need out of our “information and access our data. Think of it as a digital system” version of a conventional library where all

68 the data relates to weeds! system. 3. Map services – These are our map servers, • Have a listing of known keywords used facilitating the interface of how we want our in listing data. data displayed, searched and shared. • Have links to other databases • If generating metadata already be able to Update on NSDI grant – Team Arundo contribute data with this metadata and not Del Norte received an NSDI grant to get the have to fill out CERES form for metadata “California Weed Data Collaborative” started. again. The NSDI grant was specifically meant for • Make bulk loading of large GIS datasets building datasharing communities. This grant possible. will help us create a framework to build our • Assistance to weed programs that don’t Weed Information System around. Cal-IPC staff have GIS, a way to collect what they will provide Web design and programming. Cal- know. IPC Mapping Committee, UC Davis and CERES • There’s lots of data out there already, will provide guidance. There are many other why isn’t it incorporated in this system? grants we can go after to work on our network Answer: Because the Weed Data once we design it. Everybody working on Collaborative needs to decide which weed related issues in California are urged system we want to use so we can start to join this “Weed Data Collaborative” and dumping data in there. help us build and design our own information • We need to dispel the “Build it and they sharing network! will come” myth. We need a campaign to go along with it. We have to couple Contributing Data – We can start sharing data a sales and enticement component so now! We have a Cal-IPC Weed Data Catalog on people will use it. Must have someone to CERES. To contribute data go to ceres.ca.gov/ spend time calling people and collecting catalog and select ‘Contribute Entries’ from the data. left hand column. Our catalog name is ‘Cal- • WMAs (Weed Management Areas) IPC Weed Data Catalog’ and our password is would be a good venue for tracking down ‘deth2weedz’. We can also use CERES to search local data and funneling it to the network. for data by subject. • We need a system to overlay historical data so we can see rate of spread. Brainstorming session – In the brainstorming • Incorporate an observation capture session everybody had a chance to contribute system. ideas for the Information Sharing Network. It was emphasized that the information shared The working group concluded with the thought is not restricted to spatial data. Suggestions from Deanne: Programming is expensive, if all included; our energy goes into one product we are steps • An automated Red Alert system ahead. If we all adopt a system we will be able • ASPNET was suggested for the to have a large user community and be able to programming language used. This would contribute and access data easily. help with the future viability of the

69 Education/Outreach Working Group

Leader: Wendy West Facilitator: Dan Gluesenkamp Note taker: David Chang

Attendees

Name E-mail Wendy West [email protected] Barbara Pollock [email protected] Karen Lowerison [email protected] Aaron Morehouse [email protected] Athena Demetry [email protected] Greg Wolford [email protected] Pete Holloran [email protected] Jackie Gonzalez [email protected] Emily Walter [email protected] Christina Sloop [email protected] Bethellyn Blade [email protected] Mietek Kolipinski [email protected] Daniel Gluesenkamp [email protected] Becky Waegell [email protected] Peter Brastow [email protected] Bree Richardson [email protected] Charles Blair [email protected] Rick Parry [email protected] Brent Johnson [email protected] Bob Case [email protected] Shgero Isoda [email protected] David Chang [email protected] Tanya Baxter [email protected] Kelly Rose [email protected]

Cal-IPC’s outreach and education activities and people were interested in public outreach? (most); committees were summarized: government outreach? (some); Speaker’s Bureau/ • Educating legislators – National Invasive volunteer? (some) Weeds Awareness Week; California Invasive Weeds Awareness Week; Invasive Weeds Day Speaker’s Bureau: at the Capitol. A suggestion was made to create regional • Educating the public – web development, coordinators for a Cal-IPC Speaker’s Bureau. It events, conferences, field courses, Speaker’s was noted that quality control is important since Bureau, publications Cal-IPC has a reputation to maintain. The Nature Conservancy has a PowerPoint presentation A show of hands was conducted on how many available; Wendy West will check and see how

70 the implementation and utilization has gone and if Weed Week outreach: lessons have been learned. Participants encouraged • They are making lists of all local restoration Cal-IPC to get the general PowerPoint presentation volunteer groups. out and available as soon as possible and not wait • WMA will do press releases for all groups with to make it “perfect”. events that week to local media. • Invite elected officials to attend these volunteer Who is the target? General public, gardeners, events. landscapers, contractors, architects, academics/ • A participant from every district in their WMA students elementary to university level. Separate will be asked to visit their supervisors at budget presentations will be available to target each time and ask for funding for the WMA. specific audience Where is the audience? Homeowner’s associations, Lion’s Clubs, It was noted that California Trail Days has a garden clubs, schools, etc. There is a huge need successful “Day at the Capitol” event and could be for educational materials (video, handouts, used as a model to expand our event. PowerPoint, etc.) for contractors, landscapers, builders and “on-the-ground” crews. Presentations Other Education/Outreach Needs and Discussion: at pest control continuing education seminars are • Conferences/events that Cal-IPC should another good educational opportunity. have a presence at: Botany Society of America – California Conference 2006 How to get invasive weed education into schools: (per Charles Blair), California Rare Fruit Ways to reach out to educators include contact Growers (per Bethelyn Blade), California the teacher’s union, use email, contact education Garden Clubs, Inc., wine grape growers coalitions. It was suggested to conduct a pre- conferences, statewide mountain bike conference workshop for teachers. Teachers are association (– do they have a conference?), often busy. Teacher interest may be a problem. special districts associations statewide If a program is complete, teachers will be more conferences. receptive. Support by work group attendees for • Press releases should be increased; Cal-IPC student gardens was mixed. Getting kids out of the should create news items for broad release class is attractive to teachers. Teacher training can and feed to local groups to distribute build capacity. Provide manuals, computer based to local media; e.g. publicize volunteer materials. Link with current groups already doing opportunities; create a briefing statement environmental education including local coalitions. with financial info for legislators; CSPAN Any courses developed for schools would need to website with a list of all media outlets; be linked to California state curriculum standards. National Public Radio – audience may be Need to look at getting invasive weed training into more involved than general radio audience; environmental education programs that are utilized consider press releases and information to to educate new teachers while in college. The regional/local group newsletters (i.e. Sierra bottom line question is --- are teachers ready to Club, garden clubs). teach about invasive plants? Are they aware of the • Conduct a mail campaign. Action item: problem or do we need to do more basic education Christina Sloop volunteered her assistance to get them there? on a mail campaign; she has connections with the direct mail industry. Expanding California Invasive Weeds Day • Legislator outreach/education: Local at the Capitol (March) and Awareness Week content can be especially compelling to (July): legislators. Dan Gluesenkamp and Pete Dan Gluesenkamp discussed his area’s coordinated Holloran volunteered to put together a

71 list of other (non-monetary) items to ask progress. legislators to act on. • Cal-IPC was suggested as a repository for • It was suggested to create a video and/or content, such as photos and success stories. public service announcement. The Nature Jerry Asher’s photos and stories were good; Conversancy has a web based presentation ask him to contribute. Action item: Pete that the public is allowed to use. Action Holloran and Wendy West volunteered to item: Mietek Kalipinsky volunteered to gather success stories and get compiled into contact Jerry Ashton about the presentation. a professional format. Action item: Dan • It was suggested that some websites will Gluesenkamp volunteered to research an pay for continuing education programs, upload site for pictures and stories. with fees paid to the organization (i.e. Cal- • The internet was acknowledged as IPC) providing curriculum. an important resource. Items that • Find out what other groups are doing. could be placed on a website include: Build on experience, do not reinvent the photo clearinghouse (high quality for wheel! reproduction); info clearinghouse; • A suggestion was made to create digital library of publications available; ambassadors for Cal-IPC outreach. bibliography; speaking points; fast • “Leave No Trace” organization was facts; should integrate strongly with info pointed out as a target audience. Currently that is already out there; no dead links; without a stance on invasive species but early detection notices with photos; are working on it. Action item: Aaron documentation of actual costs of weed Morehouse volunteered to keep track of control; Best Management Practices (BMP)

Invasive Plant Inventory (“Weed List”) Working Group Leader: Joe DiTomaso Facilitator: Alison Stanton Notetaker: Elizabeth Brusati

Attendees Name Organization E-mail Joe DiTomaso UC Davis [email protected] Alison Stanton BMP Ecosciences [email protected] Elizabeth Brusati Cal-IPC [email protected] Forest Gauna USFS – Modoc NF [email protected] Dave Moorhead University of Georgia [email protected] Cynthia Roye CA State Parks [email protected] Marla Knight USFS – Klamath NF [email protected] Emma Underwood UC Davis [email protected] Susan Erwin USFS Shasta-Trinity NF [email protected] Ann Howald Garcia and Associates [email protected] Peter Warner CA State Parks [email protected] Sarah Chaney NPS – Channel Islands [email protected] Bruce Delgado BLM – Fort Ord [email protected] Samantha Hillaire USFS – Plumas, Mt. Lassen CNPS [email protected] Lincoln Smith USDA-ARS [email protected]

72 Joe and Alison explained the process for the new Discussion: weed list, using the Cal-IPC website to show Joe: High, Moderate, Low categories debated. how to find PAFs and the summary spreadsheet People think low means “no problem”, which as well as the full criteria (www.cal-ipc.org). isn’t true. Low species can be regionally problematic. Outline of process: Ann Howald: Doesn’t like H, M, L. No matter The criteria file contains full explanation for how you define the terms, supervisors will each question, for instance, what severe vs. misinterpret them. Old list used “A-1”, “B”, etc. moderate impacts mean. There is a strong List needs to say it doesn’t tell you how to map, hierarchical weighting in Section 1, so that high survey, etc. Don’t want to make people ignore impacts in that section will cause the overall the lows. Low and Mediums might be more score to be high. The score received depends on appropriate for management because they’re literature available, or observations available. easy to work on. Some questions: for example, is Carpobrotus Peter: Need better definition of each category chilensis a native? Received a B in impacts. and what they mean, especially Low. Need to specify that Low means little documentation for • A few species were not reviewed due to some species. lack of information. Marla K.: Liked the old (1999 Weed List) system • Documentation comes from all over, because made regional more specific. not just California. The committee had Peter: Don’t want to overpopulate High (or old to make a judgment call on impact A-1) list because could lose credibility. Trying information, because it varies so much to address the concerns of broad audience, from by climate. If systems were similar, we practitioners to policy makers. definitely used the information. Sara Chaney: Could we get rid of judgmental • One weakness in the list is the way it words, and instead add comments on where it’s a deals with plants that have different problem and whether it’s widespread and really effects in different regions of California. strong impacts, or not? For example, Eucalyptus is a big problem Emma U.: Did we discuss local/regional H, M, on the coast, but not Central Valley. Need L? to include that in comments somehow. Joe: We hope WMAs can make own list based Species distributions are problematic. on our criteria, regionally high, etc. It was a problem in writing the criteria Example: scarlet pimpernel widespread but low to apply to CA, AZ, and NV. The three impacts, so shouldn’t be a priority compared states agreed not to change criteria to other species. Maybe the Low list should without consulting the others. be split into low - lacking info and low - lesser • Is a statewide list useful for land impacts. managers that have to convince their local supervisor to spend money on a One possibility would be to create a double particular plant? Statewide list does rating for everything. Part 1 - statewide. Part 2 have value for overlap with CDFA, but - regional. Second high is significant impacts on regional is more appropriate for on the a local level. For example, E. globulus mod-high ground management. Weed Management would mean moderate impacts on a statewide Area scale would be good. level, but high impacts regionally on the coast. Keep all highs just high. Others could be mod- high, or mod-mod, low-high, etc. Other examples - Gorse: bad north of Monterey,

73 iceplant, Ammophila - high-low (only a problem official purposes, more accepted by the state? on foredunes). But the problem is quantifying it and making it transparent. The point of this Ann H.: Keeping everything on one list makes criteria is to keep the process transparent rather it more usable, keeps credible. What about than relying on a few people sitting in a room. indicating local differences in a comments column or print in bold, etc.? For example, look at the ecological types table (question 3.2) for E. globulus Extra designation needs to be very obvious, not We know how bad things are in specific habitats. buried in comments.

These changes may be made on a future list. Joe Peter: What about using quantitative scores from is worried about having list destroy management each section rather than H, M, L. programs because of L, M, H designations. Comment: Using Jepson regions overlaid with Who in the working group volunteers to develop counties as a map with different colors… Some the regional list for their area? (No answer) day. One person commented that something from Cal-IPC has more authority than a list from a CNPS has two lists: high and low. But still local group. (Notetaker’s comment: Cal-IPC is works. 1000 members, including those who know about the impacts of specific species in their local area. Ann: Many of these species are not in Jepson. We can’t do everything from Berkeley.) Should this be indicated in comments?

Peter agrees that H, M, L needs to be changed. Notetaker’s comments: The weed list committee Alphabetized list with other information can will finish the updated Invasive Plant Inventory include everything without the subjective at the end of 2005, at which time it will be interpretation. Could encourage people to give published. We are working on improving the information. Cal-IPC website to make the plant assessment Joe: Would that be more helpful for managers? forms more user friendly and to add photographs (No answer from participants.) and a method for weed workers to submit new observations, particularly for species that lack Question: What if this becomes more citable for published documentation.

74 Riparian, Wetland and Sensitive Habitats Discussion Group

Leader: Joel Trumbo Facilitator: Jason Giessow Notetaker: Jan Boudart

Attendees

Name Organization Email Joel Trumbo CA Dept Fish & Game [email protected] Jason Giessow Dendra Inc, Mission RCD [email protected] Ricardo Trejo Parks & Rec, San Mateo [email protected] Terry Miller USDA Forest Service [email protected] Gage Dayton Moss Landing Marine Lab [email protected] James Moller Western Shasta RCD [email protected] Alice Abela SRS Technologies [email protected] Sheri Asgari Glenn Lukos Associates [email protected] Lynn Boyd Sycamore Associates [email protected] Amanda Weinbery Psomas [email protected] Bill Bradberry Orange County Water District [email protected] Jim Belsher-Howe Plumas National Forest [email protected] Denise Knapp Catalina Island Conservancy [email protected] Ben Hildenbrand Los Angeles Dept Water & Power Lia McLaughlin USFWS/CalFed NIS [email protected] Mark Skinner Land Conservancy SLO [email protected] Yvette Redler USDA Aphis PPQ [email protected] Woody Elliott CA Parks & Rec [email protected] Tom Moorhouse Clean Lakes, Inc. [email protected] Jen Codianne Santa Clara Valley Water [email protected] Chris Winchell Sierra NF/Fresno State [email protected] Onkar Singh Sierra NF [email protected] Ken Poerner Solano Land Trust [email protected] John Watson Cache Creek Conservancy (53) 661-1070 Bruce McArthur Sonoma Co Ag. Comm [email protected] Julian Meisler Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation [email protected] Loran May May & Rose Associates [email protected] Marty Acree Natl Park Service, Yosemite [email protected] Kris Vagos Presidio NPS [email protected] Allison Roth Presidio NPS [email protected] Greg Archer NPS, Yosemite Mahala Young Environmental Science Assoc [email protected] Michelle Cox NPS [email protected]

75 Rich Thiel Sequoia/Kings Cyn NP [email protected] Drew Kerr Invasive Spartina Project [email protected] Dennis Kanthack Ventura Co Watershed Prot District [email protected] Rick Austin Santa Clara Valley Water [email protected] John Gouvaia Alameda County Agriculture Dept [email protected] Siram Shelterbelt [email protected] Daniel Hill Santa Clara Valley Water [email protected] Riley Swift Restoration Resources [email protected] Carri Pirosko CA Dept Food & Ag [email protected] Sam Leininger UC Davis [email protected] Jessie Olson Sonoma Ecology Center [email protected] Jonathan Humphrey Sequoia/Kings Cyn NP [email protected] Russell Jones Circuit Rider Productions [email protected] Jennifer Tiehm NPS Pinnacles National Monument [email protected] Christina Crooker GGNP Conservancy [email protected] Sara Sweet Restoration Resources [email protected] John Pritchard Watsonville Wetland Watch [email protected] Tim Croissant Yosemite/Death Valley NPS [email protected] Jessica Umbright Foothill Associates [email protected] Rob Evans Circuit Rider Productions [email protected] Rachel Hurt USFWS [email protected] Erik Grijalva Invasive Spartina Project [email protected] Jennifer Drewitz Yolo County RCD [email protected] Doug Gibson San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy [email protected] Mark Tucker Wildlands,Inc. [email protected] Suzanne Thomas Yosemite National Park [email protected] Mark Girard Habitat Restoration Sciences [email protected] Jan Boudart GGNRA-HRT [email protected] Roger Cole Butte County RCD [email protected]

The initial discussion revolved around how without asking the regulatory agency how the to educate regulatory agencies and the public buffer distance was established. Determine if regarding the safety of the herbicides used to the restriction applies to foliar use only or if it control invasive species and the necessity to use applies to low volume or low drift methods (i.e., them economically and without unnecessary cut stump). Applicators need to remember that regulatory restrictions. they can’t violate label restrictions that prevent use in water, but that the hazard posed by use A. Buffer Zones for Herbicide Use Adjacent adjacent to water depends on the herbicide, to Waterways: application method and weather. Applicators should also become familiar with the current Comment: A contractor reported she was scientific literature on the toxicology and required to follow a 2500 ft. setback on salmonid environmental fate of the herbicides they intend streams. to use. A good source of this information is the EXTOXNET website extoxnet.orst.edu Responses: Applicators should be careful about maintained by UC Davis and other universities. accepting guidelines that seem unreasonable

76 Comment: NOAA allows no herbicide of any hyacinth control program has quite a bit of concentration on the Russian River when the environmental monitoring data in published salmon are running. reports.

Response: It’s important to verify exactly what C. Surfactants. (R-11, Activator 90, restrictions the Agency is referring to. Does the Competitor, Cygnet, LI-77, Agridex, Silguard, restriction refer only to uses in water or adjacent No-Foam A, Liberate) uses as well? Does the restriction involve use or detectable concentrations in the water? This Comment: Much of the recent concern has to do is an important distinction. Many application with surfactants used with herbicides and not the methods may not result in detectable residues in herbicides themselves. People often confuse this water even when used in close proximity (i.e, cut issue. Ventura County allows no use of R-11. stump, basal bark, wick application). Sometimes the applicator needs to educate the regulators Response: Some surfactants are more toxic in in the many different application methods that aquatic settings than the herbicides they are might be employed at any one site. used with, but this is not always the case. Not all surfactants are the same. Even when the Comment: The requirements for water quality surfactant has higher toxicity, its concentration testing and reporting are more expensive than and/or its persistence in water may not be the herbicide use itself. sufficient to cause any measurable impact to non-target aquatic organisms. For example a Responses: This is often the case. However, recent CA Dept of Fish and Game study showed there may situations where existing that concentrations of both the glyphosate environmental fate and toxicology information herbicide Rodeo® and the surfactant R-11® may may be used to support the environmental be initially high but drop down significantly appropriateness of your proposed herbicide after the first 24 hours. The CA Dept of Fish use. Here again, don’t just except regulatory and Game Pesticide Investigations Unit has no requirements out of hand without asking record of any fish or aquatic organism kills due questions. to the use of Roundup.

B. The Necessity of Using Herbicides on D. Perennial Pepperweed Some Weed Species. Comments: When pepperweed is near water the Comment: There is a dire need to use herbicides new imazapyr herbicide Habitat® can be used on some difficult to control species such as in place of the chlorsulfuron herbicide Telar®. perennial pepperweed and spartina. (Telar® can’t be applied to water). On upper side of San Pablo Bay Caltrans wants to try Response: Yes, some species have proven to be Habitat®. They need advice from contractors difficult to control with non-chemical methods. as far as when they should switch from Telar® to Some of these herbicides are legal for use on Habitat®. What are some of the guidelines about water (i.e, the recently approved imazapyr when and where? herbicide Habitat® and various glyphosate and triclopyr formulations). The question is, how Responses: Chlorsulfuron has very low toxicity can we re-educate the public that has concerns. to fish. However, the herbicide is very soluble and active at very low concentrations and can The CA Dept of Boating and Waterways water travel a long way in water. The worst situation

77 would be to have chlorsulfuron residues in water solution. Other management activities need to that will be used to irrigate crops…especially be discovered to discourage future infestations broad leaf crops. Remember that Telar is used and to maintain a stable native vegetation in water at a concentration of about 2oz in component. 100 gals of water. This is very little use of the product and is safe if water is not going to be Goats were tried in a comprehensive study; but used for irrigation. The Telar® label does have a the pepperweed came back. Mugwort can’t prohibition on use in tidal basins and estuaries. compete with pepperweed nor can most other This probably has more to do with data gaps native species. in environmental fate data in these types of sites rather than any toxicological issue. Right Salting works and it’s cheap, but is it now, Telar® is the only thing that works on environmentally appropriate? pepperweed. Also remember that the best current info available suggests that the ecological risk the weed poses to the habitat is much E. Parrotfeather greater than the toxicological risk presented by herbicide. Parrotfeather will out-compete water primrose. Renovate® is effective but must be used at a low Comment: In Sebastopol, Sonoma County, tank mix concentration. If the concentration citizens decided to get rid of pepperweed without is too high it will produce only top-kill and herbicide. This involved using machetes around no translocation. With this species it’s very little kids and trampling down the surrounding important to be vigilant and get an early start on vegetations. 200 people came out. This should control efforts. be a good test to see the effectiveness of non- chemical attempts at control for this species. F. Arundo or Giant Cane. Convincing people that herbicides use for these purposes in ecologically appropriate Comments: There was a discussion re: the merits takes patience and good, credible information. of cut stump and foliar applications. Attempting hand removal of Pepperweed can be a very bitter experience. Responses: Glyphosate can be effective. Many believe that non-cutting methods work best. Responses: Get documentation on control Leaving the foliage intact will allow more measures whether they are chemical or non- herbicide to be translocated to the rhizomes. chemical. Cal-IPC is very interested in this type One person commented that most failed sites are of information. cut stump sites.

Experiments with Pepperweed showed that Bill Bradbury likes “cut stump.” If you want his a small rhizome piece sprouts readily (and methods, send him e-mail and he will tell you by in the dark)! Pepperweed control requires return mail. In Ventura the willows and Arundo something that will translocate to the rhizomes. were cut to the ground and the Arundo sprayed. Left unchecked, pepperweed produces a huge The willows came back within 3 years. He said amount of biomass that is a significant resource you can’t kill willow with Roundup. drain and the quantity of biomass quickly outstrips resources. The goal is to reduce it F. What About Soil Organisms? to a manageable amount. However, herbicide is generally not thought of as a long-term Responses: There are several studies on

78 glyphosate impacts on soil microbes. This has not proven to be a legitimate issue. (Busse, H. Preventing Drift. Matt and R. F. Powers. 2000. Progress Report on “Effects of repeated use of glyphosate on Mechanical ways: trimming native, pushing functional diversity and key processes of soil and trimming, 10 trimmers to 1 sprayer, large organisms”. USDA Forest Service, Pacific garbage bags to create a shield, blow sprayer Southwest Research Station.) with the wind, basal treatments, wicking, can’t come back and foliar treat seeded sites, hockey G. Anticipating Problems: stick wick (use on mustard), CSS mustard – wicking when mustard is 6 in. tall, Pepperweed Comments: A highly experienced person may when bolting. take a lax attitude about herbicide use. This can be transferred to less experienced workers I. When Construction Spreads Weeds. and can result in bad practices. If workers see a careful supervisor, they’ll be careful. Try to build weed protection into specs. Make them sign off on it. Clean equipment and fill Good tools may have unexpected consequences, is cheap next to cleaning up spreading weeds. but this doesn’t mean they should not be Have an inspections schedule – check! It’s used. Some pesticides break down into toxic important to find infestations early. Star Thistle components. These should be matched against comes in on equipment, rip rap. Put the onus on known toxicity values. Different chemicals in the construction company. The contractor’s guilt the same space may interact. These problems may be obvious if they brought in contaminated should be watched for, but they shouldn’t fill or spread mulch on erosion sites. Don’t let prevent the use of a good tool. them move into the next phase of contract if specs not met. Onionweed in San Diego area. A 10 acre stand on San Marcos UC preserve was treated with Suggestions: Aquamaster, which worked really well. Cal-IPC should work at regulatory level to educate regulators about the necessity and environmental appropriateness of herbicide use to control invasive weed species.

79 Fire, Fuels Treatments and Weeds Discussion Group

Leader: Joanna Clines Facilitator: Janet Klein Notetaker: Mischon Marin

Attendees

Name Organization Email Jose Areualo ULL [email protected] Denali Beard California State Parks [email protected] Jim Dempsey California State Parks [email protected] Nancy Brownfield East Bay Regional Parks nbrownfi[email protected] Chris Christofferson Plumas National Forest [email protected] Joanna Clines Sierra National Forest [email protected] Bonnie Davis www.weedfreefeed.com [email protected] Joanna Gehrig Student Conservation Association [email protected] Andrew Georgedes Habitat Restoration Team-GGNRA [email protected] Portia Halbert California State Parks [email protected] Jim Hanson Caltrans, Bay Area Jim [email protected] Valerie Hubbartt Los Padres National Forest [email protected] Janet Klein Marin Municipal Water District [email protected] Dawn Lawson Southwest Div. Navy [email protected] Eliza Maher Center for Natural Lands Management [email protected] Mischon Martin Marin County Open Space District [email protected] Rolland Mathers Shelterbelt Builders [email protected] Loran May May & Associates, Inc [email protected] Sarah McCullough Lassen Volcanic National Park [email protected] Kyle Merriam USGS Sequoia Kings Canyon [email protected] Kathy Moody Resource Management [email protected] Christopher Oelsch Dudek and Associates [email protected] Tim Reilly California State Parks reillyt@pacificu.edu Allison Sanger Lassen National Forest [email protected] Dale Schmidt City of Los Angeles [email protected] Jeremy Sison Dudek and Associates [email protected] Aileen Theile East Bay Regional Parks [email protected] Rob Thompson Santa Lucia Conservancy [email protected] Lynn Webb Jackson State Forest Lynn.Webb@fire.ca.gov

80 The session opened with people briefly plan for extreme fire conditions. introducing themselves and stating their general area of interest. Two topics surfaced as being of Joanna Clines: Central Sierra fuels crew actually greatest interest: 1) fuelbreaks/fuel treatments as work with her and want to know what vegetation sources of weed spread; and 2)fire as a tool for she (botanist) wants in her fuelbreaks. Vegetation weed management. one of the characteristics considered when designing fuelbreak. Joanna reviewed the major themes that emerged from last year’s fire working group: Rob Klinger: Helpful to break this issue into WUI and wildland situations. Some literature • Fuelbreaks and the potential for spread about planting in fuelbreaks is available in Forest of invasive plants Service documents. A lot of anecdotal informal • Invasions caused or exacerbated by fire available as well. • How to use fire to reduce invasives. Bonnie Davis: erosion control straw can be an Discussion Then Continued as Follows: ignition source. Caltrans projects worrisome.

Rolland Mathers of Shelterbelt Builders, Jim Dempsey of Caltrans (note: this should be Berkeley, wanted strategies for battling with either Jim Dempsey of state parks or Jim Hanson local fire departments over the definition of of Caltrans): fuel management drives work in fuelbreaks and fuelbreak designs; i.e. was it right of ways. How low can you mow without always necessary to go down to mineral soil or wiping out native populations? Interested in a could unmowed, standing annual grass be left in planned fuel break. pockets. Dale Schmidt: El Portal. Isn’t enough literature Similar concerns in San Diego where private to help you plan your fuelbreak system. So land owners are getting vegetation information he focuses on highest flammable plants under from fire departments and are even threaten with normal fire conditions. You need to get on-the- fines if landscaping/grounds maintenance does ground fire guys to help you make fuelbreak not meet fire department specifications. decisions.

Someone mentioned Maria Alvarez of Golden Various opinions expressed by group as to value Gate National Recreation Area found perennial of fire department vegetation knowledge. Agreed grass weed invasion into fuelbreaks was less fire guys know what burns under what conditions severe where fire crews trimmed coastal sage but are less knowledgeable about what comes in brush to 8 cm, not all the way to the ground. after fire or fuelbreak construction.

East Bay Regional Parks Comment: Not all Fire Departments buy into the same Repercussion from Oakland Hills Fire was the beliefs. In many counties bare mineral soil is creation of assessment districts to reduce fuels the preferred option because of Type I and II and set species targets. Fuel reduction is the # 1 Engines (city vehicles) limitations. priority so only after this need is met can they take new and different steps. Rob Klinger: large issue of trade offs: to what extent do you want to emphasize weeds vs. One difficulty is current Wildland Urban homes. Interface (WUI) fuelbreak design that doesn’t

81 Rob Klinger: Write down these bigger issues and • coastal scrub/fire interval information is post them on a listserve so folks can continue the available in the literature. discussion. • frequent fire return intervals easily convert this habitat type to weedy Fuelbreaks as weed vectors vs. necessity of grasslands. fuelbreaks. Can you protect communities while • past history is important to know before still dealing with invasive species? Issues differ embarking on fire management of in WUI and forest systems. existing community. might inform what to expect from seedbank. Does anyone know of a video for homeowners • literature suggestion: Walter Wessman on why scotch broom is bad around their homes? and John Oleery. coastal Sage Scrub with footage of flaming broom? Or literature that structures and fire Impacts. compares fire performance of natives vs invasive species? Question: Prescribed burning: Is it worth it to Manage Grasslands? Bill Baxter—gorse photos or fire footage? • Janet Klein: for managing woody weeds in savannah/woodlands, handcrews/ Fire Safe councils provide landscaping info for herbicides gave better results than homeowners. Should include information on prescribed burning; invasive species. • know the historic fire regime before embarking on burn program; Dale Schmidt: Fire fuel modeling problematic • have clear goals and objectives: what are when dealing with invasives because existing you trying to accomplish? models don’t include weed species. El Portal is • define terms correctly: prescribed also trying to get video footage of fire in “under burning/broadcast burning/ etc. represented” fuel types. Question: can you manage Phalaris aquatica PSW Redding—modeling masticated fuels with fire? • Denali Beard at State Parks has some Perhaps Cal-IPC can disseminate more info information. regarding weeds and fuelbreaks. • 1 agency has burned it and sprayed the resprouts. Only in the 1st year so no Maintenance of fuelbreaks is a critical results yet. component of success. Rob Klinger: Cal-IPC could establish a database Need to promote weed issues to fire departments on what people are finding when they burn and Firesafe Councils. weeds. Quantitative data would be great but even qualitative data would be good to know. How do different species respond in different Topic Shifted to Fire as A Management Tool/ area? Fire for Weed Control • database vs listserve? most people agreed they are already on too many listserves. Question: after burning coastal scrub last fall, would prefer to go to database at their vicia and Holcus lanatus invaded. What should own convenience. we do next? Closing thought from Kyle Merriam: using

82 fire to control invasives often promotes weed • Establish a database for quantitative invasion. studies and observational reports of weed species response to fire and Next big topic that should be discussed within fuelbreak system performance. Put Cal-IPC: using fire as a site prep for restoration. on Cal-IPC website.

Should have Integrated Vegetation Management, Post-script not just Integrated Pest Management. Rob Klinger is pursuing the database idea with Flip Chart Notes input from Steve Schoenig. In a recent email, • Fuelbreaks Potential to Spreak Steve made the following suggestion: Weeds o Urban Interface “I think compiling data on post-burn invasives o Forested Systems response is a great idea. One simple way to utilize existing infrastructure is to have these fire • Need better information on reports put into the NRPI/CalWEED database at what natives can be planted into UCD-ICE and then make sure they are tagged as fuelbreaks and where. a group to allow a restricted display and search • Collaborate with Fire Safe Councils on a Cal-IPC webpage/portal. • More Information needed for public • Great to have video of scotch broom Another way more powerful way to procede is burning and threatening homes/ a new database hosted on the Cal-IPC website. • Encourage fuel modeling for more Probably could be done with a small but not common invasive species. insignificant amount of programming effort and • Need to underscore the importance the effort of someone knowledgable to set things of fuelbreak maintenance. up from a program side.”

83 Grasses Discussion Group Leader: Chris Rose Facilitator: Cynthia Harrington

Attendees

Name Organization Email John Anderson Hedgerow Farms/Audubon CA [email protected] Claire Beyer The Watershed Project [email protected] Cindy Burrascano CNPS-San Diego [email protected] Dan Clark Santa Clara County Parks [email protected] Tamara Gedik Gedik Biological Associates [email protected] Cynthia Harrington Ficenec California Native Grasslands Assoc. [email protected] Eric Hoff Redwoods National Park [email protected] Beau Howard Bureau of Land Management Susan Hubbard Bureau of Land Management [email protected] Laura Kummerer Watsonville Wetlands Watch [email protected] Jean-Phillippe “JP” Marie UC Davis [email protected] Tanya Meyer Center for Land-Based Learning [email protected] Jon O’Brien UC Davis [email protected] Jeff Powers Peninsula Open Space Trust [email protected] Kellie Rey Moss Landing Marine Lab [email protected] Chris Rose California Native Grasslands Assoc. [email protected] Jake Sigg California Native Plant Society [email protected] Robert Steers UC Riverside [email protected] Lew Stringer Golden Gate NRA [email protected] Ellen Tatum USFWS/Humboldt State [email protected] Mike Taylor Eldorado National Forest [email protected] Sally Walters CA State Parks [email protected] Stuart Weiss [email protected] Chuck Williams CNPS-Ukiah [email protected] Margaret Willits Stanislaus National Forest [email protected] Sheli Wingo-Tussing CSU Chico [email protected] Eric Wrubel San Francisco State University [email protected] Jennifer Campbell Young PSOMAS [email protected]

Goat grass control: hand pulling and tarping. • Two successive fires in May/June recommended, but not conclusive. Can you seed perennial grasses post-fire? No. • Feral pigs dug up grasses. Seeded Danthonia Vulpia and Bromus control on coastal dunes at californica. Danthonia seeded into 1” hoe lines. Moss Landing: • 5 acre project. Brachypodium control: • Planted Mockheather. • Mid-Peninsula Open Space used Round-up, • Hand weeded grasses.

84 • Mockheather eventually shaded out new Medusahead control: seedlings. • Low-dose Round-up on Medusahead within 15 days of germination/rain. Tarping: • Leave on for a few years. Stu Weiss is pulling together observations of • Can change soil structure. annual grasses moving into new places. Due to • Seed with native forbs to prevent new weeds atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Cannot simply from invading. look at levels in the soil to determine availability. • Can tarp for 6 weeks around August; pull off Currently creating maps of 4x4 km plots to see in October. Annual weed dieback is good; deposition levels. Is the addition of carbon a perennials may come back. viable option? Sugar can be added; microbes will • Need stronger tarping if it will be on for a tie-up nitrogen. However, too much is needed longer amount of time. Recommends landfill to make it useful. Possibly valuable on a small quality plastic. scale. Woodchips or sawdust may make a good, • Can be used as greenhouse to germinate longer-lasting carbon source. Corn gluten can seeds. Must use clear plastic. be used as a suppressant, but it expensive and • Can remove tarp to germinate seedlings washes away. Regional precipitation plays a role and flush out annual seed bank, and then on carbon options. replace tarp. Has been successful with Oxalis removal. Mowing, swathing and haying can be used • Lew Stringer and Stuart Weiss volunteered to control grasses and remove seed sources. to compile a history of tarping projects and Caltrans currently using it. advise on study design for collaborative research. Annual grass seed bank is not always short- lived, but does have a stronger tendency to rot. Lolium control: Example: wild oats have a long seed viability. • Fire. • Grazing. Cattle recommended. Resources: • Selective herbicide use. Hoelon is effective, CNGA offers good resources for establishing but not yet registered? grasslands, www.cnga.org. • No biological controls known. Bring Farm Edges Back to Life. Published by the Herbicides: Yolo County RCD. • Puma. Used for Lolium control. Looking into getting a local need permit. Velvet grass: • Hoelon is not effective on Lolium. • Exploded in 1998, as it moved from dry to • Round-up is not effective on perennial wet sites. Lolium. • Recently only seen in small populations. • Currently moving into poor sites as ammonia • Why the change? What steps should be is pulled from the atmosphere? taken? • Can manage at a level at which it will not smother other species. Grazing is effective for this.

85 Trees and Shrubs Discussion Group Leader: Mark Heath Facilitator: Ken Moore Note taker: Petra Unger

Attendees

Name Organization Email Autumn Meisel TRA [email protected] John Leonard NPS Yosemite [email protected] David Bakke USFS – RO [email protected] Brian Cashore Inyo Countu [email protected] Alynn Kjeldsen Sonoma County a_monkeyfl[email protected] Greg Reza Marin County Open Space [email protected] Katherine Holmes UC Davis [email protected] Jim Loghdon City of Chico Park Dept. [email protected] Cara Clark Moss Landing Marine Lab [email protected] Bill Neill CNPS Orange County [email protected] Linda Brodman CNPS Santa Cruz County [email protected]

Which trees/shrub problems would you like to wood hardens over time see addressed? • Good for ficus, Acacia so it won’t cause re- • Ailanthus (3) sprouting; • Black locust • Makes it difficult to retreat in subsequent years; • French and Portuguese broom (3) • Vehicle removal causes compaction, changes • Gorse soil; • Eucalyptus • Ailanthus won’t fall fast if left standing; • Monterey Pine • Castor bean can stay in place and does not • Tamarisk (4) cause access problem; • Russian Olive • Scotts broom expands at level of person treat- • Fig, pokeweed ing; • Acacia • Flaming of Scotch broom resprouts worked • Hackberry (Joanne Clines Poster); cost of planning com- • Fruitless mulberry parable to herbicide labor is more intense • Cotoneaster • pyracantha Herbicide Use How many in group CANNOT use herbicide: 2 What specific issues are of concern to you? How many are limited to select herbicides? 3+ • Biomass leftover/slash management Who decides this? Regulators, pressure from con- • Educational purposes/how to manage volun- stituents; teers New formulation of Imazipyr very effective on • How to mange data Ailanthus per Jo di Tomaso’s talk; long half life – remains viable after treatment until roots breach What to do with all the debris? down; will leak into soil, could be picked up by • Stem treatment and leave tree in place. other plants; depends on root levels of adjacent • Will cost more if you change your mind later as plants.

86 Public sentiment about Imazipyr: people are more - make piles where you can burn them later; comfortable with herbicides that are widely sold • Burn where seedlings are coming up will trig- and have been around, i.e., glyphosate ger seedbank around perimeter; • If burns are planned, do linear piles and cover Is it necessary to use herbicide on tamarisk? let dry up 1 year and leave in place, cover small • Have to dig up root crown; area with tarp so it can stay dry and light up • Cut stump and cover with black tarp ; when ready to burn. • Tap root may go down too; • If you get the main stem you have done the job. Privet – how to deal with ones you can’t remove? -beyond brush height requires annual pruning. Eucalyptus – problem of scale. i.e., large scale removal. How to treat gorse? • Pathfinder – Garlon 4 would be good or Garlon 4 - high concentration on cut stump plus Roundup 100%; low on seedlings; add acidifier pH has big influence • Cut stump treatment works IF applied within 1 on how chemicals work. minute; If you have herbicide questions confer with Joe • Is it possible to replant among eucalyptus; recent DiTomaso. studies of eucalyptus forest show that understory of eucalyptus forest is more diverse than thought Other sources of information once duff removed it should be fine; Other weed managers are good resources too • Notify stakeholder, i.e., through CEQA people – contact list in Cal-IPC package. are upset about aesthetic impacts; Have Cal-IPC website list emails if people willing to • Phasing might be a good option, i.e., remove “double” expertise – be willing to share knowledge. hazards first; • Publicly announce danger; Help on weed removal projects • Disposal. Volunteers: break down into smaller projects; prison crews can be good labor to help weed re- What to do with debris? moval; important to explain meaning of project to • Give away as firewood (might be liability issue crew; and important to any contractor as well. if people cut their own); • If can’t be near road for access, just pile them Success with Mulberry? somewhere; 2% Garlon ester on leaves is successful; • Traditionally preference is to leave in place as Girdling and Garlon 4 does not work well; minerals/biomass belongs on site; Girdling – can’t see cambium because chainsaw is • Leave piles for wildlife habitat; narrow - if you miss a spot tree will survive; Basal bark only works well on species less than 10” Where do you put piles and how do you manage diameter; figs can be bigger; them? Frilling may work on mulberry – works well on Acacia; • Best place on bare ground of areas you just Have to get down all the way to the root crown; cleaned, i.e., bare on unvegetated; Chipping – have to cut root and not get soil; • Reduce volume by cutting up limps and leave If you drag plants into clipper you get stones – high isles to go in and retreat; maintenance; • If no room, find other off-site clear areas; Watch for seed content and materials can take root, • If you want material to decompose quickly, put i.e., cape ivy pieces, palms; Machine is dangerous; in moister areas (but do not tamanisk); Materials have to be green, don’t chip dry stuff; • Broom – coming up through piled up stacks CalTrans will take chips if made to specification.

87 2005 Cal-IPC Weed Alerts

New Invasions, Recent Expansions, and a Few Others to be on the Look-Out For…

Joseph M. DiTomaso Department of Plant Sciences, Weed Science Program, Robbins Hall, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 jmditomaso@ ucdavis.edu

Weed Alerts represent either plants that are known Rapid action on a new invader can potentially save to be invasive, but appear to be on the increase, millions of dollars with preventative control or or are potentially new species that appear to be even eradication. escaping from cultivation and are becoming invasive in some areas of the state. It is critical that New reports should be made to the main office of Cal-IPC members report potentially significant Cal-IPC. This information will then be transferred invasions of plants new to an area. Not only does to the individual presenting the Weed Alerts talk at this provide the society with an initial time frame the following symposium. The visual presentation for the invasion, but also alerts land managers in of the talk will be included on the Cal-IPC website other regions of the state to the potential threat. (www.cal-ipc.org) for future reference.

The 2005 Weed Alerts include: • Piptatherum miliaceum (smilograss) • Saccharum ravennae (ravennagrass) • Parentucellia viscosa (yellow glandweed) • Centaurea debeauxii (=Centaurea x pratensis) (meadow knapweed) • Allium triquetrum (three-corner leek) • Geranium robertianum (herb-robert) • Geranium lucidum (shining geranium) • Scabiosa atropurpurea (pincushion flower or mourningbride) • Nelumbo lutea (American lotus) • Nassella tenuissima (Mexican feathergrass) • Polygonum aubertii (Chinese fleecevine, silverlace vine).

Piptatherum miliaceum (smilograss) is a but has recently been rapidly expanding its range widespread perennial bunchgrass in California. in northern California along Cache Creek in the Although it is mainly found on the coast, it can Capay Valley between Clear Lake and Woodland. also survive inland. Smilograss appears to be It may actually be even more widespread, but rapidly expanding its range in southern CA and in perhaps has not been reported because of its the Bay Area. It produces many viable seeds and is similar appearance to the much more widely fairly drought resistant. Ideal climatic conditions in invasive species Arundo donax. It inhabits some years may account for rapid expansion. disturbed areas near creeks but has also moved into relatively undisturbed riparian areas, occupying Saccharum ravennae (ravennagrass) has been much of the same habitat as both Arundo donax known to escape cultivation in southern California, and Tamarix parviflora.

88 Parentucellia viscosa (yellow glandweed) is Nelumbo lutea (American lotus) has taken over widespread throughout the coastal areas of central much of a 30-acre lake in Tehama County and has and northern California, but reports indicate that the potential to spread to other areas. It is invasive it is spreading and becoming more of a threat in in the tropics and the seeds are very long lived, Humboldt County, and perhaps Del Norte County. reportedly up to 400 years. This is the first report of this species having escaped in the state. Centaurea debeauxii ssp. thuillierii (=Centaurea x pratensis) (meadow knapweed) is a hybrid Nassella tenuissima (Mexican feathergrass), also between C. jacea and C. nigra. It is more invasive called Stipa tenuissima, finestream tussockgrass, in the western portions of Oregon and Washington, or ponytails, is a fine textured clumping perennial and was previously only sporadically found in grass native from Texas to New Mexico south northern California. However, it appears to be through Central America to Chile. It is considered rapidly expanding its range in the northwestern drought resistant and cold hardy. As a result, it corner of the state. Meadow knapweed was has been widely planted throughout California as recently listed as an A-rated noxious weed by the a landscape ornamental. Employees of various California Department of Food and Agriculture. botanical gardens have anecdotally indicated that the plant quickly spreads within their gardens. Allium triquestrum (three-corner leek) has only They have predicted that it has the potential to occasionally escaped outside of urban areas, but is move into wildland areas, although there are no becoming more prevalent along the northern coast, reports of this yet in California. It has, however, particularly in Humboldt County. escaped cultivation in urban environments in both Arizona and California and was placed on the Geranium robertianum (herb-robert) is a California Department of Food and Agriculture widespread garden escapee in the Bay Area, just Q-rated list in January 2004. Outside the United beginning to establish itself away from urban States, Nassella tenuissima has invaded Australia areas. and New Zealand. The Auckland Regional Council considers Nassella tenuissima to have Geranium lucidum (shining geranium) was the same potential to invade pastures and has recently reported to be invasive in Eugene, OR, prohibited the sale, propagation and distribution by the Bureau of Land Management. It was found of the plant. In California, this species should escaping in oak woodlands in mesic/shaded areas, be watched carefully and any reports of its generally under the oaks and in monotypic stands. establishment in wildlands should be reported The Bureau of Land Management attempted to immediately. use handpulling to control it, but as a result the problem became worse. In California, it has not Polygonum aubertii (Chinese fleecevine, been reported to occur outside of the vicinity of silverlace vine) is a perennial vine native to China. the Berkeley Botanical Gardens, where it has It is not widely grown as an ornamental, but is commonly escaped cultivation, but appears to have still available. It grows rapidly and forms dense the potential to move into adjacent wildlands. cover—the Sunset Western Garden Book states that it can grow 100 square feet per season. It has Scabiosa atropurpurea (pincushion flower or become established in at least four locations on mourningbride) is a very common cultivar. It the banks of San Francisquito Creek in San Mateo began to escape into wildlands four to five years and Santa Clara counties and appears to move ago and form near- monotypic stands in San Bruno downstream when the stream bank collapses due to grasslands. It is spreading along trails and fire high flow conditions. It produces a large number of roads between Claremont Canyon and Strawberry seeds that also facilitate rapid spread. Canyon in Berkeley.

89 Symposium Attendees

Abreu, Mario A. - Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens, Albion CA, 707.964.4352, [email protected] Acree, Marty - Yosemite National Park, El Portal CA, 209.379.1012, [email protected] Adams , Lucie - Roseville CA, (916) 781-2582, [email protected] Ahmad, Riaz - Dept. of Plant Sciences, UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.752.0508, [email protected] Akers, Patrick - CDFA Biocontrol Program, Sacramento CA, 916.262.2054, [email protected] Alas, Monica - Dominican University of California, Alexander, Janice - UC Cooperative Extension, San Francisco CA, 415.499.4204, [email protected] Allen, David - Student Conservation Association, Orick CA, 407.242.6079, [email protected] Allen, Jason William - City of San Diego Parks and Recreation, San Diego CA, 619.235.5262, [email protected] Allen, Kasey - National Park Service, Point Reyes Station CA, 415.464.5290, [email protected] Alvarez, Maria - GGNRA, Sausalito CA, 415.331.0732, [email protected] Anderson, John - Hedgerow Farms, Winters CA, 530.662.4570, [email protected] Anderson, John P. - Fort Funston Green Team, San Francisco CA, 650.877.7422, john. [email protected] Angle, Ted - Bureau of Land Management, Reno NV, 775.861.6401, [email protected] April, Bruce - CalTrans District 11, Environmental Div., San Diego CA, 858.616.6614, bruce_ [email protected] Archbald, Greg - Nevada City CA, 530.265.5474, [email protected] Archer, Greg - Yosemite National Park , El Portal CA, 209.379.1015 Asgari, Sheri - Glenn Lukos Associates, Irvine CA, 949.633.6867, [email protected] Asher, Jerry - BLM (retired), Lincoln City CA Aslan, Clare - Davis CA, [email protected] Asmus, Kristin - Sycamore Associates, Walnut Creek CA, 925.279-0701, [email protected] Athan, Tara - Mendocino Coast WMA, Redwood Valley CA, [email protected] Austin, Rick - Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose CA, 408.265.2607, [email protected] Ayres, Debra - UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.752.6852, [email protected] Bakke, David - USDA Forest Service, Vallejo CA, 707.562.8916, [email protected] Baxter, Tanya - GGNRA, Sausalito CA, 415.331.0732, [email protected] Belsher-Howe, Jim - Plumas National Forest, Quincy CA, 530.283.7657, [email protected] Berthelsen, Martha - Watershed Project, Richmond CA, 510.665.3689, [email protected] Beyer, Cheryl - USFS Modoc National Forest, Alturas CA, 530.233.8827, [email protected] Beyer, Claire - Watershed Project, Richmond CA, 510.665.3645, claire@thewatershed project Biscieglia, Mike - DeAngelo Brothers, Inc., Chino CA, 909.590.1529, [email protected] Black, Bethallyn - UC Cooperative Extension, Pleasant Hill CA, 925-646-6130, [email protected] Blair, Charles - CNPS, Lompoc CA, [email protected] Blankinship, Michael - Blankinship and Assoc., Davis CA, 530.757.0941, [email protected] Bossard, Carla - St. Mary’s College of CA, Davis CA, 925.631.4032, [email protected] Boudart, Jan - GGRNA - HRT, Sausalito CA, 415.332.6869, [email protected] Boughter, Daniel - California Exotic Plant Management Team, Point Reyes Station CA, 415.464.5288, [email protected] Boyd, Lynn - Sycamore Associates, Walnut Creek CA, 925.279.0264, [email protected] Bradberry, Bill - Orange County Water District, Fountain Valley CA, 951.757.0732, [email protected] Brodman, Linda - CNPS, Santa Cruz CA, [email protected]

90 Bromberg, Jim - Point Reyes National Seashore, Pt. Reyes Station CA, 415.464.5216, james_ [email protected] Browfield, Nancy - East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland CA, 510.544.2343, nbrownfi[email protected] Brown, Matthew - Plumas National Forest, Oroville CA, 530.532.7472 Brusati, Elizabeth - Cal-IPC, Buck, Jennifer - The Nature Conservancy, Davis CA, 916.683.1744, [email protected] Bull, Sarah - California State Parks, Morro Bay CA, 805.235.6322, [email protected] Burmester, Daniel - CDFG, Sacramento CA, 916.445.0486, [email protected] Burrascano, Cindy - CNPS, Chula Vista CA, 858.404.9366, [email protected] Burt, Jennifer Williamson - UC Davis, Sacramento CA, 916.444.3734, [email protected] Butala, Regina - SRS Technologies, Lompoc CA, 805.740.0779, [email protected] Cabada, Ingrid - GGNRA, San Francisco CA, [email protected] Cabanting, Noreen - Ventura County RCD, Somis CA, 805-386-4685, [email protected] Cadman, Denise - City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa CA, 707.543.3408, [email protected] Campo, Jon - SF Natural Areas Program, San Francisco CA, 415.753.7267, [email protected] Carle, M.L. - Milo Baker Chapter, CNPA, Penngrove CA, 707.792.1823, [email protected] Carpenter, Mike - USFWS Sacramento NWR Complex, Willows CA, 530.934.2801, mike_ [email protected] Carrigan, Mike - BASF, Windsor CO, 970.674.9147, [email protected] Case, Robert - Alameda/Contra Costa WMA, Concord CA, [email protected] Cashore, Brian - County of Inyo Water Department, Bishop CA, 760.872.1168, [email protected] Chaney, Sarah - Channel Islands Nat’l Park, Ventura CA CA, 805.658.5778, [email protected] Chang, David - Ag Comm - Santa Barbara Co, Santa Barbara CA, 805.681.5600, [email protected] barbara.ca.us Chavez, Bernardo - BLM, Santa Fe NM, 505.438.7668, [email protected] Chavez, Francisco - California Native Plants, LLC, Menifee CA, 951.301.8075, francisco@calnative plants.com Christofferson, Chris - USFS Plumas National Forest, Oroville CA, 530.532.7473, [email protected] Clark, Cara - Moss Landing Marine Lab, Santa Cruz CA, 831.332.2009, [email protected] Clark, Daniel - Santa Clara County Parks, Los Gatos CA, 408.355.2244, [email protected] Clifford, Patti - USFWS Lanphere Dunes, Arcata CA, 707.822.6371, [email protected] Clines, Joanna - USDA Forest Service Sierra National Forest, North Fork CA, 559.877.2218 x3150, [email protected] Codianne, Jennifer - SCVWD, Aptos CA, 408.265.2607 x 3876, [email protected] Coffman, Gretchen - UCLA, San Francisco CA, 310.600.1901, [email protected] Cooper, Kim - Point Reyes National Seashore, Pt. Reyes Station CA, 415.464.5196, kim_ [email protected] Cordova, Dan - SRS Technologies, Lompoc CA, 805.740.079, [email protected] Cotter, Karen - Santa Clara County Parks, Los Gatos CA, 415.516.3143, [email protected] Cowan, Clark - Santa Barbara CA Cox, Michelle - Lassen Volcanic National Park, Mineral CA Croissant, Tim - Death Valley NP, Death Valley CA, 760.786.3239, [email protected] Crooker, Christina - NPS, San Francisco CA, 415.561.7315, [email protected]

91 Cunningham, Lane - Presidio Park Stewards Dahlin, Kyla - GGNPC Site Stewardship Program, San Francisco CA, 415.561.3074, [email protected] Davis, Bonnie - Dominican University of California, Fremont CA, 510.657.5239 Dayton, Gage - Moss Landing Marine Lab, Moss Landing CA, 831.771.4428, [email protected] state.edu Delgado, Bruce - BLM - Fort Ord, Marina CA, 831.277.7690, [email protected] Della Santina, Denise - Yosemite NP, El Portal CA, 209.379.1207 Demetry, Athena - NPS - Sequoia / Kings Canyon, Sequoia NP CA, 559.565.4479, athena_ [email protected] Dempsey, James - CA Dept Parks & Recreation, Oroville CA, 530.538.2240, [email protected] DiTomaso, Joe - UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.754.8715, [email protected] Dodero, Mark - RECON Environmental Consultants, San Diego CA, 619-308-9333, [email protected] Drewitz, Jennifer - Yolo County RCD, Woodland CA, 530.7956.0875, [email protected] Durighello, Joy - GGNRA, San Francisco CA, 415.584.1828 Easley, Todd - MCD Camp Pendelton CA, 760.763.5850, [email protected] Ekhoff, John - CDFG, Long Beach CA, 858-467-4205, [email protected] Elliott, Woody - CA Dept Parks & Recreation, Oroville CA, 530.538.2212, [email protected] Erickson, Adam - Student Conservation Association, Orick CA, 618.559.1301, erickson_ [email protected] Erskine Ogden, Jennifer - UC Davis, San Francisco CA, 415.812.3417, [email protected] Erwin, Susan - Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Weaverville CA, 530.623.1753, [email protected] Evans, Rob - Circuit Rider Prod., Windsor CA, 707.838.6641 x224, [email protected] Farley, Kathleen - TNC, Monterey CA, 831.241.1236, [email protected] Finley, Ed - CDFA, Redding CA, 530.224.2425, efi[email protected] Fisher, Greg - Circuit Rider Prod., Windsor CA, 707.838.6641, gfi[email protected] Forbert, Mike - West Coast Wildlands, Pacifica CA, 650.291.9071, [email protected] Fox, Jon - Morro Bay CA, [email protected] Franklet, Sharon - Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines CA, 831.389.4485 x 259, sharon_ [email protected] Fritzke, Sue - NPS- Golden Gate Nat’l Recreation Area, San Francisco CA, 415.331.0743, sue_ [email protected] Gaffney, Karen - Circuit Rider Prod., Windsor CA, 707.838.6641, [email protected] Gamberg, Linda - Los Angeles Conservation Corps., , [email protected] Garcia, Janet - UC Riverside, Moreno Valley CA, 951.206.2695, [email protected] Gardner, Sue - GGNPA, San Francisco CA, 415.561.3034 x3427, [email protected] Gedik, Tamara - Gedik Biological Associates, Trinidad CA, 707.677.9073, [email protected] Gehrig, Joanna - Student Conservation Association, Orick CA, 407.242.6079 Georgedes, Andrew - GGNRA - Habitat Restoration Team, Montara CA, 650.728.5781, [email protected] Gerlach, John - HT Harvey and Associates, Fair Oaks CA, 916.961.1264 , [email protected] Ghosh, Sibdas - Dominican University of California, San Rafael CA, 415.482.3583, [email protected] Gibbs, Carolyn - BLM - Lassen SWAT, Susanville CA, 5302525325, [email protected] Gibson, Doug - San Elijo Conservancy, Encinitas CA, 760.436.3944, [email protected]

92 Gibson, Richard - Marin County Open Space District, El Verano CA, 415.499.6232, rgibson@co. marin.ca.us Giessow, Jesse & Jason - Dendra, Inc., Encinitas CA, 760.943.6924, [email protected] Gilbert, Pat - California State Parks, Shasta CA, 530.225.2065, [email protected] Girard, Mark - Dudek & Associates, Gluesenkamp, Daniel - Audubon Canyon Ranch, Glen Ellen CA, 707.935.8417, [email protected] Gonzalez, Jackie - City of Chico Parks, Chico CA, 530.896.7820 Goodwin, Kim - Montana State University-Bozeman, Bozeman MT, 406.994.6749, [email protected] Gouvaia, John - Ag Dept - Alameda Co, Hayward CA, 925.245.0853, [email protected] Gray, Stuart - Western Shasta RCD, Redding CA, 530.949.1858, [email protected] Greenwald, Sara - Ft. Funston Green Team, San Francisco CA, 415.923.1786, [email protected] Grewell, Brenda - USDA-ARS Invasive Weeds Research Unit, Davis CA, 530.752.0166, [email protected] Grijalva, Erik - Invasive Spartina Project, Berkeley CA, 510.548.2461, [email protected] Grove, Sara - NPS, Yosemite NP, El Portal CA, 209.379.1302, [email protected] Gwinn, Abigail - Watershed Institute - CSU Monterey Bay, Seaside CA, 831.582.3689, abigail. [email protected] Halbert, Portia - California State Parks, Felton CA, 831.335.6386, [email protected] Hanson, Bruce - RECON Environmental Consultants, San Diego CA, [email protected] Hanson, Jim - CA Dept. Transportation, Oakland CA, 510.286.1275, [email protected] Hanson, Linnea - Plumas National Forest, Chico CA, 530.532.7425, [email protected] Hardy, Jack - Monsanto Company, Battle Ground WA, 360.608.7073, [email protected] Harrington Ficenec, Cynthia - CNGA, Santa Cruz CA, 831.460.9453, [email protected] Heath, Mark - Shelterbelt Builders, Inc., Berkeley CA, 510.841.0911, [email protected] Heiple, Paul - CNPS, Portola Valley CA, 650.854.7125, [email protected] Hill, Daniel - Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose CA, 408.690.0369, [email protected] Hillaire, Samantha - Plumas National Forest, Oroville CA, 530.532.7423, [email protected] Hoff, Eric - Student Conservation Association, Orick CA, 970.371.3314 Hogle, Ingrid - Information Center for the Environment, UC Davis, Davis CA, [email protected] Holmes, Katherine - UC Davis, Davis CA, (530) 753-5592, [email protected] Hooper, Stan - Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Howald, Ann - Garcia and Associates, Sonoma CA, [email protected] Howard, Beau - Bureau of Land Management, Hollister CA, 831.394.8314, [email protected] Hubbard, Susan - BLM, Hollister CA, 831.394.8314, [email protected] Hubbartt, Valerie Kay - USFS - Los Padres NF, Santa Barbara CA, 805.967.3481, [email protected] Humphrey, Jonathan - NPS - Sequoia / Kings Canyon, Three Rivers CA, 559.565.3720, jonathan_ [email protected] Hunt, John - CSU Chico Research Fndn/Bidwell Environmental Inst., Chico CA, 530.228.7594, [email protected] Hurst, Gigi - Habitat West, Inc., Escondido CA, 760.735.9378, [email protected] Hyland, Tim - California State Parks, Felton CA, 831.335.6384, [email protected] Jackson, Elaine - CNPS, Friends of Alhambra Creek, Jackson, Nelroy - Monsanto Company, Corona CA, 909.279.7787, [email protected] Jasieniuk, Marie - UC Davis - Veg Crops, Davis CA, 530.752.8166, [email protected]

93 Johnson, Brent - NPS, Yosemite NP, Midpines CA, 209.379.1207, [email protected] Johnson, Doug - Cal-IPC, Berkeley CA, 510.525.1502, [email protected] Johnson, Judy - Coarsegold Resource Conservation District, Bass Lake CA, 559.642.3310 Johnson, Scott - Wilbur-Ellis Co., Sacramento CA, 916.752.0499, [email protected] Jones, Russell - Circuit Rider Prod., Sebastopol CA, 415.464.5291, [email protected] Jones, Stephen - Alameda Co. Public Works, Fremont CA, 510.670.5534, [email protected] Julian, Laura - Blue Lake CA, 707.668.4088, [email protected] Kanthack, Dennis - Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Ventura CA, 805.650.4083, den- [email protected] Kempton, Terri - Sustainable Conservation, San Francisco CA, 415.977.0380 ext. 312, [email protected] Kerr, Drew - Invasive Spartina Project, El Sobrante Ca, 510.292.8406, [email protected] Kjeldsen, Alynn - County of Sonoma, Sebastopol CA, 707.565.8357, a_monkeyfl[email protected] Klaasen, Larry - Sierra Club, San Diego CA, 619-545-9762, [email protected] Klein, Janet - Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera CA, 415.945.1192, [email protected] Klinger, Rob - UC Davis, [email protected] Knapp, Daniel - Los Angeles Conservation Corps., Los Angeles CA, 213.747.1872 x313, [email protected] Knapp, Denise - Santa Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon CA, 310-510-1299, dknapp@catalinaco nservancy.org Knapp, John - Santa Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon CA, 310.510.2821, jknapp@catalinaconse rvancy.org Knight, Marla - US Forest Service, Fort Jones CA, 530.468.1238, [email protected] Kolipinski, Mietek - NPS, Oakland CA, 510.817.1430, [email protected] Kroeze, Roy - Don Pedro Recreation Agency, La Grange CA, 209.852.2396 ext. 14 Lambrechtsen, Benjamin - Intelli-Spray, Inc., Ventura CA, 805.650.7201, [email protected] Lane, Erik - Colorado Dept. of Agriculture, Lakewood CO, 303.239.4182, [email protected] Larson, Brendon - Center for Population Bio., UC Davis, Davis CA 95616, [email protected] Lea, Marc - Ag Dept - San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo CA, 805.781.5907, [email protected] Leanne, Hendy - Dow Agrosciences, Live Oak CA, 530.624.7059, [email protected] Leininger, Samuel - UC Davis, Sacramento CA, 530.752.1041, [email protected] Leonard, John - Yosemite National Park - Restoration, Mariposa CA, 209.379.1012, [email protected] Livingston, Amy - Lassen Volcanic National Park, Mineral CA, 530.595.4444 ext. 5175, amy_ [email protected] Logsdon, Jimi - City of Chico Parks, Chico CA, 530.896.7820 Loosley, Scott - UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, 831.459.2197, [email protected] Lopez, Liana - Upper Merced Watershed Council, Mariposa ca, 209.966.2221, [email protected] Lowerison, Karen - San Luis Obispo Co. Dept. of Agriculture, Paso Robles CA, 805.237.3190, [email protected] Lowrey, Jan - Cache Creek Conservancy, Woodland CA, 530.661.1070, [email protected] Lowry, Judith - Larner Seeds, Bolinas CA, 415.868.9407 Maher, Eliza - Center for Natural Lands Mgmt, Riverside CA, 951.276.1688, [email protected] Malmberg, Michael - HRT-GGNRA, Sausalito CA, 415.332.1079, [email protected] Marchant, Tito - EcoSystems Restoration Assoc., 619.291.1475, [email protected] Marie, Jean-Philippe - UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.304.3251, [email protected]

94 Marrone, Anthony - Calfed Non-native Invasive Species Program, Stockton CA, 209.946.6400 x345, [email protected] Martin, Mischon - Marin County Open Space District, San Rafael CA, 415.507.2056, [email protected] Martyn, Kevin - Shasta County Dept. of Agriculture, Redding CA, 530.224.4949, [email protected] Marushia, Robin - Botany and Plant Sciences, UC Riverside, Riverside CA, 951.827.2541, [email protected] Mason, Susan - Friends of Bidwell Park, Chico CA, 530.892.1666, [email protected] Mathers, Rolland - Shelterbelt Builders, Inc., Berkeley CA, 510.841.0911, [email protected] May, Loran - May & Associates, Inc., San Francisco CA, (415) 391-1000, loranmay@mayandassoci atesinc.com McArthur, Bruce - Ag Dept - Sonoma, Sebastapol CA, 707.565.2371, [email protected] McCullough, Sarah - Lassen Volcanic National Park, Mineral CA, 530.595.4444 ext. 5175, sarah_ [email protected] McDermott, Erin - Sycamore Associates, Berkeley CA, 510.701.2890, [email protected] McKinley, Bertha - CNPS, El Cerrito CA, 510.525.4671, [email protected] McKinney, Erin - RECON Environmental Consultants, San Diego CA McLaughlin, Lia - USFWS, Stockton CA, 209.946.6400 x337, [email protected] Mcoy, Jim - Don Pedro Recreation Agency, La Grange CA, 209.852.2396 ext. 14 Meisel, Autumn - Thomas Reid Associates, Menlo Park CA, 650.463.1686, [email protected] Meisler, Julian - Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Santa Rosa CA, 707.527.9277, [email protected] Menig, Eric - Menig Weed Control, Chichago Park CA, 530.274.8324, [email protected] Merriam, Kyle - USGS-BRD, Sequoia-Kings Canyon Field Stn, Three Rivers CA, 559.565.4266, [email protected] Merz, John - Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Chico CA, 530.345.1865, [email protected] Meyer , Tanya - Hedgerow Farms, Chico CA, 530.897.6370 x208, [email protected] Mila, LeeAnne - El Dorado Co. Dept. of Agriculture, Placerville CA, 530.621.7403, leeanne. [email protected] Miller, Beau - Dow AgroScience, Elk Grove CA, 916.525.2633, [email protected] Miller, Rick - Dow Agrosciences, Folsom CA, 916.212.8598 Moller, James - Western Shasta RCD, Anderson CA, 530.365.7332 x209, [email protected] Molter, Joe - BLM, Redding CA, 530.224.2100, [email protected] Moody, Kathleen - Resource Management, Fort Jones CA, 530.468.2888, [email protected] Moore, Ken - Wildlands Restoration Team, Santa Cruz CA, 831.464.2329, [email protected] Moorhead, David - Warnell School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton GA, 229.386.3298, [email protected] Moorhouse, Tom - Clean Lakes, Inc., Westlake Village CA, 818.889/8691, [email protected] Morehouse, Aaron - Catalina Island Conservancy, Avalon CA, [email protected] Muir, Adrianna - UC Davis, Dept. of Evolution & Ecology, Davis CA, 530.752.8416, [email protected] Neill, Bill - Riparian Repairs, Anaheim CA, [email protected] Nelson, Stewart - All Seasons Weed Control, Grass Valley CA, 530.273.2323, [email protected] Newhouser, Mark - Sonoma Ecology Center, Eldridge CA, 707.996.0712, [email protected] Nolan, Kathleen - Nolan, Walmsley & Assoc., Inc., Ojai CA, 805.646.8384, [email protected], [email protected]

95 O’Brien, Jon - UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.759.9329, [email protected] Oelsch, Christopher - Dudek & Associates, Encinitas CA, 760.479.4268, [email protected] Okada, Miki - UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.752.8166, [email protected] Olson, Jessie - Sonoma Ecology Center, Petaluma CA, 510.734.0335, [email protected] Omori, Gary - Agri Chemical & Supply, Oceanside CA, 760.757.1840, [email protected] Omori, Greg - Agri Chemical & Supply, Oceanside CA, 760.757.1840, [email protected] Omori, Ray - Agri Chemical & Supply, Oceanside CA, 760.757.1840, [email protected] Omori, Yoko - Agri Chemical & Supply, Oceanside CA, 760.757.1840, [email protected] Oneto, Scott - UC Cooperative Extension, Jackson CA, 209.223.6837, [email protected] Ordorica, Raquel - RECON Environmental Consultants, San Diego CA, 619.308.9333, [email protected] Oulton, Mark - DeAngelo Brothers, Inc., Katy TX, 281.391.1885, [email protected] Overtree, Lynn - Wildland Management Services, Royal Oaks CA, 831.224.5059, [email protected] Page, Val - Mojave Desert RCD, Apple Valley CA, 760.900.2363, [email protected] Parry, Richard - MidPen Regional OSD, Los Altos CA, 6530-691-2165 Peterson, Bonnie - Merkel and Associates Inc., San Diego CA, 858.560.5465, [email protected] Pfeiffer, Mary - Ag Dept - Shasta Co, Redding CA, 530.224.4949, [email protected] Pham, Huy - Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose CA, 408.205.5903, [email protected] Pickart, Andrea - USFWS, Arcata CA, [email protected] Pirosko, Carri - CDFA, Burney CA, 916.654.0768, [email protected] Pirosko, Chris - Pit River Tribe & Fall River RCD, Burney CA, 530.604.6686, [email protected] Poerner, Ken - Solano Land Trust, Fairfield CA, 707.580.6277, [email protected] Pollock, Barbara - Caltrans, Stockton CA, 209.948.7462, [email protected] Ponzini, Liz - GGNRA, Sausalito CA, 415.331.0732, [email protected] Powers, Jeff - Peninsula Open Space Trust, Pescadero CA, 650.879.3284, [email protected] Powers, Mike - Mendocino Redwood Company, Fort Bragg CA, 707.962.2806, [email protected] Pritchard, John - Watsonville CA, 831.768.8039, [email protected] Ready, Drew - Los Angeles & San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Los Angeles CA, 213.229.9951, [email protected] Redler, Yvette - USDA-APHIS, Sacramento CA, 916.930.5535, [email protected] Reilly, Tim - CA State Parks, Capitola CA, 831.465.1386, reillytr@pacificu.edu Rey, Kellie - Moss Landing Marine Lab, Moss Landing CA, 831.419.4363, [email protected] Reza , Greg - Marin County Open Space District, San Rafael CA, 415.507.2816, [email protected] Richardson, Brianna - Acterra, Mountain View CA, 650.210.9453, [email protected] Ridley, Caroline - UC Riverside, Riverside CA, 951.827.5009, [email protected] Roberts , James - The Student Conservation Association, Apple Valley CA, 805.658.5778, [email protected] Robison, Ramona - UC Davis, Sacramento CA, 916.442.5074, [email protected] Rola, Jeff - Caprine Restoration Services, Bend OR, 541.410.6707, [email protected] Rose, Kelly - Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Playa del Rey CA, 310.739.8613 Roth, Allison - Presidio Park Stewards, San Francisco CA, 617.620.7142, [email protected] Roye, Cynthia - CA Dept Parks & Recreation, Sacramento CA, 916.653.9083, [email protected] Ryan, Dan - Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, Rolling Hills Estates CA, 310.541.7613, [email protected]

96 Sanger, Allison - USFS Lassen National Forest, Susanville CA, [email protected] Schierenbeck, Kristina - CSU Chico, Chico CA, 530.898.6410, [email protected] Schoenig, Steve - CDFA, Sacramento CA, 916.654.0768, [email protected] Schwartz, Susan - Friends of Five Creeks, Berkeley CA, 510.848.9358, [email protected] Setty, Asha - Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy - Native Nursery, San Francisco CA, 415.239.4247, [email protected] Sigg, Jake - CNPS, San Francisco CA, [email protected] Silveira, Joseph - Sacramento River NWR, Simpson, Bobbi - NPS, Point Reyes CA, 415.464.5294, [email protected] Singh, Onkar - USDA Forest Service - Sierra NF, Clovis CA, 559.289.2981, [email protected] Siram - Shelterbelt Builders, Inc., Oakland Ca, 510.684.4073 Sison, Jerem - Dudek & Associates, CA Sisson, Joyce - San Elijo Conservancy, Encinitas CA, 760.436.3944, [email protected] Skinner, Mark - Land Conservancy of SLO, San Luis Obispo CA, 805.544.9096, [email protected] Skurka, Gina - CDFA, Sacramento CA, 916.654.0768 Smith, Dale - GGNRA - Habitat Restoration Team, Berkeley CA, [email protected] Smith, John - BASF Corporation, OR, 503.391.5644, [email protected] Smith, Lincoln - USDA ARS, Albany CA, 510.559.6185, [email protected] Smith, Trish - TNC, Irvine CA, 714.832.5435, [email protected] Snyder, Robert - City of Davis, Winters CA, 530.757.5626 x7347, [email protected] Songster, Daniel - CNPS, El Toro CA, [email protected] Spencer, David - USDA-ARS, Davis CA, 530.752.1096, [email protected] Spenst, Renee - UC Davis, Davis CA, 530.752.1041, [email protected] Sperber, Tamara - River Partners, Modesto CA, 209.521.1700 ext. 1, [email protected] Stanton, Alison - South Lake Tahoe CA, 415 990 2269, [email protected] Steers, Robert - UC Riverside, Riverside CA, [email protected] Stringer, Lew - GGNRA, San Francisco CA, 415.561.4856, [email protected] Sweet, Richard - Friends of the Santa Clara River, Ventura CA, 805.644.2802, [email protected] Swift, Kathy - Restoration Resources, Lincoln CA, 916.645.0386, [email protected] Swift, Riley - Sheridan Mitigation Corp., Lincoln CA, 916.645.0386 Symonds, Kate - Natural Resources Conservation Service, Santa Rosa CA, 707.318.3183, [email protected] Tatum, Ellen - USFWS, Arcata CA, 707.822.8805, [email protected] Taylor, Mike - USFS El Dorado National Forest, Placerville CA, 530.621.5219, [email protected] Thiel, Richard - NPS - Sequoia / Kings Canyon, Sequoia NP CA, 559.565.4479, [email protected] Thiele, Aileen - East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland CA, 510.544.2352, [email protected] Thomas, Fred - CERUS Consulting, Chico CA, 530.891.6958, [email protected] Thomas, Suzanne - Yosemite NP, El Portal CA, 209.379.1207, [email protected] Thompson, Rob - Santa Lucia Conservancy, Carmel CA, 831.626.8595, [email protected] Tiehm, Jenn - Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines CA, 831.389.4485 x 259, [email protected] Tiejen, Ryan - Student Conservation Association, Orick CA, 757.647.8745, [email protected] Tomsovic, Peter J - RECON Environmental Consultants, San Diego CA, 619.308.9333, [email protected] Trejo, Ricardo - San Mateo County Parks & Recreation, Redwood City CA, 650.368.6283, [email protected]

97 Trumbo, Joel - CDFG, Rancho Cordova CA, 916-358-2952, [email protected] Tu, Mandy - The Nature Conservancy - Oregon Field Office, Portland OR, 503.230.1221, [email protected] Tucker, Mark - Wildlands, Inc., San Diego CA, 619-497-2507 , [email protected] Tuitele-Lewis, Jamison - USDA Forest Service/ Sierra NF, Prather CA, 559.855.5355 ext.3352, [email protected] Uchida, Alan - BLM Surprise Field Office, Cedarville CA, 530.279.6101, [email protected] Umbright, Jessica - Foothill Associates, Chico CA, 530.893.6700, [email protected] Underwood, Emma - UC Davis, Unger, Petra - EDAW, Sacramento CA, 916-414-5800, [email protected] Vagos, Kris - Presidio Park Stewards, San Francisco CA, [email protected] Valdez, Samuel - Official Trip Reports, San Francisco CA, 415.775.3407, calipc@officialtripreports.com Vaughn, Karen - NPS, Yosemite NP, El Portal CA, 209.379.1304, [email protected] Waegell, Rebecca - The Nature Conservancy, Galt CA, 916.683.1741, [email protected] Wallace, Frank - Sacramento Weed Warriors, Sacramento CA, 916.213.4682, [email protected] Walsh, Paul - Dudek & Associates, Encinitas CA, 760.942.5147, [email protected] Walter, Emily - Humboldt State University, Arcata CA, 707.826.7451, [email protected] Warner, Holly - Upper Merced Watershed Council, Mariposa CA, 209.966.2221, [email protected] Warner, Peter - CA State Parks, Little River CA, (707) 937-9172, [email protected] Watson, John - Cache Creek Conservancy, Woodland CA, 530.661.1070 Weaser, Judi - Yosemite NP, El Portal CA, 209.379.1110, [email protected] Webb, Lynn - CDFFP, Fort Bragg CA, 707.964.5674, lynn.webb@fire.ca.gov Weiss, Stuart - Creekside Center for Earth Observations, Menlo Park CA, 650.854.9732, [email protected] Welch, Bradley - NPS/ Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO, 970.267.2113, brad_ [email protected] West, Wendy - UCCE - El Dorado County, Placerville CA, 530.621.5520, [email protected] Williams, Andrea - Redwood National State Parks, Orick CA, 707.464.6101 x5281, andrea_ [email protected] Williams, Charles - Redwood Valley Rancheria, Redwood Valley CA, 707.485.0361, rvrfi[email protected] Williams, Charlie - Shelterbelt Builders, Inc., Oakland CA, 510.684.4073 Williams, Desiree - Dominican University of California, San Rafael CA, 619.251.6974, desaree. [email protected] Willits, Margaret - USDA Forest Service Stanislaus NF, Sonora CA, 209.586.3234 x624`, [email protected] Winans, Bill - San Diego County Watershed Mgmt, San Diego CA, 858.694.2777, bill. [email protected] Winchell, Christopher - USDA Forest Service - Sierra NF, Clovis CA, 559.288.9544, [email protected] Wingo-Tussing, Sheli - CSU Chico, Chico CA, 530.528. 2560, [email protected] Wolford, Greg - CNPS, East Bay Chapter, Berkeley CA, 510.848.6489, [email protected] Yantes, Amanda - Bureau of Land Management, Hollister CA, 831.394.8314 Yost, Anne - USDA Forest Service, Ft. Jones CA, 530.468-1226, [email protected] Young, Mahala - Environmental Science Assoc. , Sacramento CA, 916.564.4500, [email protected] Zaremba, Katy - Invasive Spartina Project, Berkeley CA, 510.548.2461, [email protected]

98