MEMO To: CALFED Non-Native Invasive Species Program (contact: Kim Webb) From: Team Arundo del Norte Subject: Arundo donax: Status and Management Needs in the CALFED Bay-Delta Watershed Date: August 30, 1999 This document is the response of Team Arundo del Norte (TAdN) to requests from Kim Webb of CALFED's NIS program and others, to present a brief summary of the following points: 1. Describe the Arundo donax issue for the Bay-Delta watershed. Why should CALFED fund Arundo-related projects? 2. What strategy does TAdN suggest for dealing with the Arundo problem? This summary evolved from TAdN's grant applications to CALFED in April 1999: "Arundo donax Eradication and Coordination" and "Distribution and Status of Arundo donax (Giant reed) in the Bay-Delta Watershed." Much more information is available on the topics herein. Contacts: Caitlin Cornwall or Richard Dale (707/996-9744, sec@vom.com) Tom Dudley (510/643-3021, tdudley@socrates.berkeley.edu) Deanne DiPietro (916/653-8614, deanne@ceres.ca.gov) TAdN as a whole (team_arundo@ceres.ca.gov) Outline I. The Arundo Invasion in the CALFED Region A. The Threat Posed by Arundo/Benefits of Controlling Arundo B. Level of Urgency/Importance Compared with Other NIS C. Area Affected D. Arundo Eradication II. What is Needed? A. Management Needs 1. Eradication 2. Coordination of Eradication Work 3. Coordination of Information 4. Permitting 5. Education and Prevention B. Information Needs 1. Mapping 2. Research on Geomorphic and Ecological Impacts of Arundo 3. Biocontrol Research References What is Team Arundo del Norte? -------------------------------------------------------- Arundo donax: Status and Management Needs in the CALFED Bay-Delta Watershed Team Arundo del Norte August 30, 1999 I. The Arundo Invasion in the CALFED Region IA. The Threat Posed by Arundo/Benefits of Controlling Arundo Arundo donax (giant reed) is a perennial rhizomatous grass native to India that was introduced to California in the 1800s. It has invaded extensive portions of the already threatened wetland and riparian habitats of California, particularly in the southern part of the state (Dudley 1999, Bell 1997). Arundo spreads in a downstream direction, when propagules, primarily rhizomes, are carried downstream during flood events (Else and Zedler 1996). Arundo alters the physico-chemical nature of the stream channel, degrading riparian and aquatic habitats for many CALFED target species. It forms dense stands up to 8 meters tall that displace native riparian species and create unsuitable habitat for a variety of sensitive aquatic and riparian wildlife species (Bell 1997). Arundo thickets change the quality and timing of organic litter inputs that form part of the trophic base for steelhead trout, coho salmon, and freshwater shrimp. This is a vital concern in the context of watershed protection plans to promote the recovery of a variety of listed salmonid species and subspecies. The canes provide less shade to the channel than native riparian species. Arundo thickets support much-reduced populations of insects, upon which many wildlife species depend (Herrera 1997). Arundo can dramatically change channel morphology by retaining sediments and constricting flow. Its shallow rhizomes provide little structural integrity to streambanks, resulting in undercutting, bank slumping, and sedimentation of the stream. In southern trans-montane California, Arundo dominates the riparian vegetation of numerous river systems, such that some avian taxa (such as listed Least Bell's Vireo and Willow Flycatcher, as well as sensitive species such as Yellow-Breasted Chat and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo) are forced to use these poorer resources (Arundo along with Tamarix/saltcedar) for roosting and foraging because it is the primary vegetation available (J. Greaves, pers. comm.). Threatened herptiles are likely to benefit from reducing this exotic species, including listed species (e.g. red-legged frog) and declining species (e.g.foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle). Arundo rapidly and catastrophically alters ecological processes in riparian systems, ultimately moving formerly diverse ecosystems towards pure stands of Arundo through a regime of intensified flooding and fire (Bell 1997). Because dense Arundo stands are highly flammable, they often convert riparian areas from firebreaks into fire hazards (Scott 1994, K. Gaffney, unpub. data). Arundo's flammability and the volume of its debris pose serious economic problems. In the Santa Ana River near the city of Riverside, an Arundo-fueled wildfire stopped just before burning down a bridge, only because a pilot Arundo removal project formed a fire-break. Other bridges in San Diego county have collapsed twice during high flows because of Arundo debris trapped behind the structures. Arundo's ability to quickly invade riparian sites, especially where the ground is cleared, can reduce the success of riparian restoration projects. Thus far, CALFED does not appear to have considered Arundo's threat to CALFED-funded restoration work. IB. Level of Urgency/Importance Compared with Other NIS In the evaluation of biological invasions of California wetlands Dudley and Collins (1995) identified Arundo as one of the major problem species degrading riparian areas in the state, and the California Exotic Plant Pest Council (CalEPPC) included it as one of the top 5 species of concern. Arundo infestation is, in some CALFED watersheds, possibly the greatest biological threat to dwindling riparian resources. Arundo often appears in stream reaches that also have infestations of other riparian NIS, such as Vinca and Tamarix. In the Bay-Delta watershed we have the advantage that Arundo is common, but does not yet dominate most riparian systems, so moderate control and restoration efforts may forestall the utterly devastating level of invasion that has changed the nature of rivers to the south. Many local watershed groups and land management agencies are greatly concerned by threat posed by Arundo donax, and there are many individual Arundo-related projects (eradication, research, prevention, and education) throughout the Bay-Delta watershed. There is very strong interest on the part of stake-holders of all kinds to remove Arundo from their properties, jurisdications, and watersheds, to the degree that landowners, other citizens, and local agencies will supply all or part of the labor and equipment required for many sites. In many CALFED watersheds, Arundo still constitutes a small percentage of the riparian vegetation. It is imperative that these and other watersheds receive funding to control these small infestations before they become ecological crises. Arundo spreads very rapidly. A minor colony can quickly become a major threat to fire safety, aquatic and riparian habitat quality, and water supply. Removing Arundo early is the only way to avoid expensive, disruptive large-scale eradication efforts. Lessons learned from experience with the weed in streams of Southern California, where there is estimated to be thousands of acres infested by Arundo donax (Bell 1997), indicate that early prevention of the spread of this weed is the most cost-effective approach. Once Arundo becomes heavily established and habitat value is destroyed, the problem shifts from biodiversity conservation to one of economics and public safety. IC. Area Affected Arundo occupies lower-gradient floodplain ecosystems from high in the Sacramento River watershed to the Kern River in the extreme southern San Joaquin Valley. It is present at varying densities in nearly every stream entering the Central Valley from the interior coast ranges and the Sierra Nevada. Steep reaches and areas with cold winters are somewhat immune to invasion. ID. Arundo Control Arundo eradication itself is fairly straight-forward, but labor-intensive. Besides a short-term spike in downstream fine sediment supply, there are no adverse effects of Arundo donax eradication. Where Arundo is the only vegetation on streambanks, post-eradication revegetation efforts may be critical for bank stabilization. Generally, a systemic herbicide licensed for use near water (such as RodeoÔ) must be applied to kill the root system. Several technical approaches can be successful. The best one for a particular site depends on available labor resources, size of infestion, degree of intermixing with desirable native riparian vegetation, site accessibility, and other factors. Follow-up treatments are usually necessary for one to five years after eradication. Often the lower, frequently-flooded streambanks will re-vegetate spontaneously, and upper, drier banks may need re-planting. II. What is Needed? IIA. Management Needs IIA1. On-the-Ground Eradication Because the damage and expense of Arundo eradication work increases greatly as infestations get larger, it is imperative that control efforts proceed immediately. At many sites, watershed groups or agencies stand ready to eradicate Arundo on their streams. Other areas have groups exploring control programs, or need Arundo control but lack a constituency. Projects should be particularly encouraged that: · include multiple stakeholders with significant local landowner involvement, including employing local volunteer and/or landowner labor · foster riparian zone health as a preventive measure against Arundo invasion or re-invasion · intelligently account for Arundo's downstream direction of invasion by working from the top of the watershed down, and by seeking downstream agencies or landowners affected by Arundo invasion to assist with eradication of propagule sources located upstream IIA2. Coordination of a Region-Wide Effort Hundreds of eradication projects of all sizes need to be carried out throughout the CALFED region. Centralized coordination of these projects will provide a stucture for long-term control and monitoring of this NIS, and allow for expert oversight and QA/QC. This approach is more efficient than funding many separate uncoordinated eradication efforts. It will prevent small infestations from ballooning into disasters, will consolidate project funding applications to reduce agency workloads, and will prioritize eradication sites to focus money where it will be most effective. Stakeholders can be trained to do their own eradication, and positioned to receive eradication funding. IIA3. Information Coordination Information about Arundo and its control should be easily accessible to anyone who needs it. A centralized data repository and comprehensive, searchable Internet-based database can assure that information generated by eradication partners on Arundo's distribution patterns, ecological impacts, and eradication methods will be widely and immediately useful. Such information includes project descriptions, reports of results and data, contacts for assistance, mapping methods, project planning methods, eradication techniques, monitoring protocols, results of herbicide studies, educational materials, literature searches, permitting procedures and contacts, cost estimates, and funding sources, and remote sensing techniques. Information available on the Web will be especially useful to watershed groups or landowners who, for various reasons, prefer not to work directly with regional coordinated programs. IIA4. Permitting Arundo eradication work often requires permits, sometimes several of them. They may include US COE 404 or 401, DFG 1603, county grading permit, fire district burn permit, air quality district burn permit, water district permit, and county agricultural commissioner license for herbicide application. There are no accounts of any sensitive species using Arundo, but they may live nearby or in the stream. Particularly if Endangered Species (FWS/NMFS) are involved, the permitting burden can easily stymie a watershed group's ability to remove Arundo. Nationwide or regional permits would greatly ease the burden on these local partners. Paul Jones (EPA) has approached the San Francisco and Sacramento Corps of Engineers offices about issuing a Nationwide Permit 27 similar to the San Diego office's permit for southern California Arundo eradication work. IIA5. Education and Prevention If continued re-introductions of Arundo are to be prevented, broad-based action is necessary. Individual landowners along waterways need to be aware of the plant and its dangers. Nurseries need to be prevented from selling Arundo for use along streams. At least one pulp producer is planting plantations of Arundo in California, and should be prevented from growing plantations near streams or ditches. CalEPPC and CINWCC are pursuing legislative approaches to reducing introductions of invasives. CDFG is producing educational materials with the Sonoma Ecology Center, to reach landowners, the general public, and local organizations building eradication programs. IIB. Information Needs IIB1. Mapping The precise distribution and abundance of Arundo are poorly known, especially in the greater Bay-Delta watershed, where expansion appears to be continuing at a rapid pace. Mapping the current distribution of Arundo will provide a baseline against which to compare success of region-wide eradication and prevention efforts. To manage species invasions effectively, it is necessary to accurately assess where the pest species is, how much there is, and what areas are at risk for infestation. The San Francisco Estuary Institute and Tom Dudley (UC Berkeley) have preliminary distribution information developed through interviews with resource managers in the region, and informal surveys in the Bay Area counties. It has been possible to make rational plans for control of several aquatic invasive species in the Bay and Delta, using documentation their status and distribution. This is NOT the case for riparian invasive species in the Bay-Delta watershed, such as Arundo, Tamarix spp., Delairea odorata (Cape ivy) and many others for which we have limited or very coarse resolution information on their status and habitat associations (Dudley and Collins 1995, Bossard et al. in press), despite the potential for much greater impact to native species and ecosystem function. IIB2. Research on Arundo's Geomorphic and Ecological Effects Despite increasing awareness of the Arundo problem, the mechanisms by which it invades and displaces native riparian communities are poorly known, especially in the Bay-Delta watershed where expansion appears to be progressing at a rapid pace. Numerous environmental factors need to be explored, including geomorphology, associated species, elevation, gradient, soils, land use, discharge patterns, water quality, nutrient enrichment, and depth to groundwater. (There appears to be a correlation between surface water nitrate concentration and Arundo abundance, suggesting a possible linkage between enrichment from agriculture and other sources.) It is also important to determine what factors characterize locations where it is not currently found. Such information may suggest environmental factors that could be managed to prevent or reduce infestations. We also need to understand whether and where Arundo (along with other invasive riparian plants) will interfere with riparian restoration projects and potentially overwhelm programs that are being proposed, and incorporate such information into restoration planning. Equipped with this information, managers can more effectively prioritize and direct efforts to reduce the impacts of Arundo infestation, and identify ecosystems that are not presently heavily infested but are at risk for future invasion. IIB3. Biocontrol Research Research on natural enemies of Arundo is in early stages. Ray Carruthers (USDA) is exploring Arundo's native range for host-specific organisms that may be useful in control. ----------------------------------------------------- References Bell, G P. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in southern California. P. 103-113 In: Brock, J. H., M. Wade, P. Pysek and D. Green (Eds.), Plant invasions: studies from North America and Europe. Backhuys Publ., Leiden, The Netherlands. Douthit, S. 1994. Arundo donax in the Santa Ana River Basin. Pp. 7-10 In: Jackson, N. et al. Arundo donax workshop. Dudley, T.L. 1999. Arundo donax, In: Bossard, C., J. Randall, & M. Hoshovsky (Eds) Noxious wildland weeds of California. California Native Plant Soceity Press, (in press). Dudley, T. and B. Collins. 1995. Biological invasions in California wetlands: the impacts and control of non-indigenous species in natural areas. Pacific Institute for SIDES, Oakland. Else, J A; Zedler, P. 1996. Dynamics of the flood disturbed zone of a riparian system: Vegetative establishment and resprouting of woody native species and the exotic, Arundo donax. Bull. Ecological Society of America 77: 129. Frandsen, P. and N. Jackson. 1994. The impact of Arundo donax on flood control and endangered species. Pp. 13-16 In: Jackson, N. et al. Arundo donax workshop. Grossinger, R., J. Alexander, AN. Cohen and J.N. Collins. 1998. Introduced tidal marsh plants in the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Institute, 41 pp. Herrera, A.M. 1997. Invertebrate community reduction in response to Arundo donax invasion at Sonoma Creek. P. 87-98 In: Dudley, T., J. Reynolds and M Poteet (eds.), The science and policy of environmental impacts and recovery. Envir. Sciences Annual Report, U.C Berkeley. Iverson, M. 1994. Water consumption by Arundo donax. Pp19-26 In: Jackson, N.E. et al. Arundo donax workshop. Jackson, N.E., P. Frandsen and S. Duthoit. 1994. Proceedings of the Arundo donax workshop, Nov. 1993, Ontario, CA. Calif. Exotic Pest Plant Council, Riverside. Perdue, R.E. 1958. Arundo donax - source of musical reeds and industrial cellulose. Econ. Bot. 12:368-404. Rieger, J.P. and A. Kreager. 1989. Giant reed (Arundo donax): a climax community of the riparian zone. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-110. Scott, G.D. 1994. Fire threat from Arundo donax. Pp. 17-18 In: Jackson, N. et al. Arundo donax workshop. Tracy, J.L. and C.J. DeLoach. 1999. Suitability of classical biological control for giant reed (Arundo donax) in the United States. P. 73-109 In: C.E. Bell (Ed.), Arundo and saltcedar: the deadly duo, Proceedings of the Arundo and saltcedar workshop, June 1998, Ontario, California. University of California Cooperative Extension, Holtville, CA. ------------------------------------------------ What is Team Arundo del Norte? Team Arundo del Norte is a multi-stakeholder partnership dedicated to the reduction and eventual elimination of Arundo donax, where it threatens rivers, creeks and wetlands in central and northern California. The Team meets quarterly and communicates actively using an email listserv (tadn@ceres.ca.gov) and an informative website (http://ceres.ca.gov/tadn), providing a forum of communication for those conducting current and planned research and eradication projects, and for the identification and discussion of issues involved in addressing the problem of Arundo invasion. A wide range of geographic representation and expertise has organized within its membership. Janice Alexander, San Francisco Estuary Institute. Graduate student, UC Berkeley Co-author of the SFEI Exotics Species Report, research in NIS issues. Lois Battuello, Napa River Landowner, Vintner Neighborhood stewardship and Arundo eradication with vineyardists and Conservation Corps. Gary P. Bell, PhD. The Nature Conservancy of New Mexico Research on Arundo ecology, management, and approaches to riparian restoration in Southern California Mary Bettiga, MA, Agricultural Biologist, Napa County Agricultural Commissioners Office Weed control and eradication programs, pesticide use enforcement Raymond I. Carruthers, PhD, Research Leader, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Western Regional Research Center, Exotic and Invasive Weed Research Unit Biocontrol research. Josh Collins, PhD, San Francisco Estuary Institute Geographic information systems; spatial data integration and analysis for conservation and planning applications Caitlin Cornwall, MS, Project Manager and Biologist, Sonoma Ecology Center Local and regional planning for coordinated efforts against Arundo and other riparian invasives. Julie Cunningham, Environmental Specialist III, California Department of Water Resources Technical and administrative staff to Sacramento River Riparian Habitat (SB1086) Program. Richard Dale, Executive Director, Sonoma Ecology Center Founding TADN member, non-profit administration, landowner outreach, locally based eradication planning and implementation.. Mike Dannenberg, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, Napa County Agricultural Commissioners Office Agricultural pest management, control and eradication, bio-control, pest detection. Deanne DiPietro, Technical Projects Coordinator, California Resources Agency, CERES Liaison to CERES and ICE (UC Davis); experience in landowner and volunteer coordination for Arundo eradication in Sonoma Creek; TAdN administrative coordinator, webmaster, and listserv manager Tom Dudley, Ph.D. Research Associate, Dept. of Integrative Biology & Environmental Sciences Program, UC Berkeley. Member, CalEPPC Board of Directors Research in ecology and impacts of non-native species in western streams and riparian areas; science and technical issues advisor to TAdN Karen Gaffney, Restoration Ecologist, Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Past President, Society for Ecological Restoration, California Chapter Research on extent and impacts of Arundo on riparian ecosystems, native plant restoration. Paul Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Streamlining permitting process, coordinating funding opportunities, eradication in South Bay Area watersheds Jan Lowrey, Executive Director, Cache Creek Conservancy Research and implementation of NIS and erosion control options on Cache Creek, coordination of Cache Creek effort in partnerships with others Kent Nelson, Recreation and Wildlife Resources Advisor, Environmental Services Office, CA Department of Water Resources DWR's liaison to TAdN Mark Newhouser, Restoration Project Chair, Sonoma Ecology Center Landowner permission procedures, community project planning, volunteer coordination David Spencer, PhD, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Exotic & Invasive Weed Research Unit, Weed Science Unit, UC Davis Research in applied ecology of Arundo donax in Northern California. Joel Trumbo, California Department of Fish and Game Managing EPA grant to compare eradication methods, investigate impacts of herbicide on amphibians and invertebrates, and produce educational materials for local projects Ron Unger, Vegetation Management Specialist/Restoration Ecologist, Jones & Stokes Associates. Restoration Coordinator, Putah Creek Council Board. Liaison to Putah Creek Council, TAdN technical advisor, Arundo growth studies and ecology in southern California, riparian invasives abatement and habitat restoration.