The following policy is used by CIBA to help us to evaluate proposals by public land management agencies which aim to control non-native invasive plants.

CIBA Policy On Control Of Non-Native Invasive Plants

April 2002
Whereas

1. The goals of the California Indian Basketweavers Association resource protection program are:

• To halt the use of pesticides on public lands and in other areas where they affect native basketweavers and gatherers, and advocate for alternatives to pesticides.

• To protect and enhance plant and animal resources used by basketweavers and gatherers.

• To preserve and expand free unrestricted access to, and stewardship of, gathering sites by basketweavers.

2. The greatest source of herbicide use in California is for control of vegetation (both native and non-native plants) by farmers, ranchers, foresters, agriculture officials, and county and state road departments. Recently, there is a growing awareness that the rapid increase in global trade is resulting in an increase in the spread of non-native plants. They may cause economic losses to agriculture as weeds in crops, as unpalatable weeds on grazing lands, or they may clog pumps in water diversion canals. They are also considered ecological threats because they displace native species wherever they occur.

3. As a result of these concerns, the federal government recently (2000) created a National Invasive Species Management Plan, and many state and local governments have already increased funding for herbicide projects targeting non-native plants. These increases are usually justified on the grounds that non-native invasive species are damaging to the environment. Yet, efforts to control them may result in worse ecological threats to native habitats. For example, threatened aquatic species such as native amphibians and fish populations, already at risk from pesticide run-off, may be exposed to higher levels of chemical pollution from increased use of herbicides.

4. Mining, industrialization, development, conversion of forests to tree farms, and other types of non-sustainable use of natural resources are facilitating non-native plant establishment. Habitat destruction is the greatest cause of native plant decline and extinction. Many California native plant species are finely attuned to an exact soil type, plant association, and fire or hydrologic regime, and may no longer be able to survive when habitats have been severely altered. Removal and compaction of topsoil, deposition of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur compounds from air pollution, and agrochemical run-off has rendered many soil types unsuitable for the historical native assemblages. In many instances, where native plants can no longer survive in degraded habitats, non-native species may be providing surrogate ecological services such as food, shelter, and nesting material for wildlife, halting soil erosion, climate moderation, and acting as carbon sinks. Thus, non-native species presence may be viewed as a symptom of ecosystem change, not the actual cause.

5. In areas that are severely damaged by habitat changes, the use of herbicides to kill non-native plants frequently results in re-invasion by another invasive non-native species, sometimes one that is even more aggressive (termed weed shifting). Repeated use of herbicides can also result in development of herbicide resistant individuals or "superweeds." Treating wildlands as if they are agricultural lands will likely result in simplified ecosystems and establish a growth industry for the use of chemical management of wildlands.

6. Herbicides are currently being sprayed on a routine basis on roadsides throughout the state, impacting basket plants such as willows, redbud, deer grass and other plants indiscriminately. These plants may not be killed completely, and may return in subsequent years to be harvested by basketweavers and gatherers who may face health risks from processing the contaminated plants. Similarly, in forest environments, herbicide use to control non-native species is increasing on private timberlands and on state and national forests and parks.

7. The use of chemicals in modern agriculture has been termed a "chemical treadmill" by the National Academy of Sciences, due to the fact that pests and weeds quickly become resistant to chemicals--requiring more chemicals of increasing toxicity to achieve effective control. If this same paradigm is applied to natural areas and wildlands, it is likely to impact Native American basketweavers and gatherers through cumulative contamination of soil, water, basket plants and gathering areas, and an increased potential for exposure to pesticides.

8. While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) endorse the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to control pests, there is still little institutional support from governmental agencies for sustainable agriculture and alternatives to chemical based pest management. Efforts to suppress invasive non-native plants in wildlands using alternatives to pesticides have frequently been met with opposition by public officials. There is little evidence to suggest that this will change significantly in the near future.

9. The most effective way to protect wildland ecosystems from invasive non-native plants is to protect and conserve ecosystem components and functions. Natural areas with intact native ecosystems should be protected from habitat alterations that facilitate weed invasions. Of equal importance is the reintroduction or maintenance of the natural historical disturbance regime, such as the use of fire to maintain plant diversity and viability. Consideration must also be given to the soil biogeochemistry in order to promote restoration of native species, and reintroduction of native plants through planting or seeding may also be necessary in places where native species have been eliminated.

It is resolved that

1. The California Indian Basketweavers Association supports efforts to protect and restore native ecosystems that have been colonized by invasive non-native species. However, CIBA does not support public funding for broad scale use of herbicides for this purpose.

2. CIBA supports alternative and integrative approaches to vegetation management and recognizes that development of these approaches will require a genuine commitment from government agencies involved in this effort. Dedicated financial and institutional support for research, for farmers and ranchers to assist in the transition to alternative methods, and for community based efforts to use alternatives to pesticides to control non-native species must be integral and assured in any management planning effort.

3. CIBA recommends the following guidelines to assess proposals using public funds for controlling non-native species:

• Any proposal must be part of a greater program and management plan for the restoration and protection of the affected environment. The ecological benefits of controlling the target species should be clearly demonstrated. If ecological benefits are provided by the non-native species, these must be identified and evaluated as part of the proposal.

• Methods of control must be evaluated not only for their effectiveness but also for their effects on public health, effects on subsistence uses of the resources impacted, and effects on the environment. Impacts to Indian basketweavers and gatherers should always be considered in any plan.

• Proposals must address the causes of non-native invasive plant invasions, and efforts to prevent and mitigate destructive land management practices that facilitate these invasions must be a part of planning.

• Proposals must include re-introduction and maintenance of native plants through seeding and/or planting. Historical disturbance regimes such as the regular and properly timed use of fire should also be re-introduced where necessary, and attention must be given to restoring the natural biogeochemistry of soils that no longer sustain native species.

• When native plants can be identified that are naturally competing with the non-native species, these should be protected and encouraged. Research to identify these natural competitors and the means to promote their growth should be encouraged and supported. Public funds should be used to support institutional and private efforts to grow these plants to provide seeds for widespread plantings along highways and other right of ways.

• Integrated management methods must result in an increase in native diversity and ecosystems that are better able to resist further invasion. If control measures result in further simplification or net species loss, they are not effective. Long term monitoring of projects for success and ecological effects must be assured in any proposal.

References:

Baker, H.G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. & Syst. 5:1-24.

Belsky, A.J. and J.L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. Oregon Natural Desert Association, Portland.

Denslow, J.S. 1985. Disturbance-mediated coexistence of species. Pp. 307-323 in: Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White, eds. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando.

DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser, S.B. Orloff, and S.F. Enloe. 2000. Integrated strategies offer site-specific control of yellow starthistle. Calif. Ag. 54:6; 30-36.

Groves, R.H. 1989. Ecological control of invasive terrestrial plants. Pp. 437-461 in: Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F.D. Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson, eds., Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Harper, J.L. 1956. The evolution of weeds in relation to resistance to herbicides. Pp. 179-88. in Proc. 3rd Brit. Weed Conf.

Kearns, C.A., D.W. Inouye, and N.M. Waser. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29:83-112.

LeJeune, K.D., T.R. Seastedt 2001. Centaurea species: the forb that won the west. Cons. Bio. 15(6):1568-1574.

MacDonald, I.A.W. et al. 1989. Wildlife conservation and the invasion of nature reserves. Pp. 240-255 in: Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F.DiCastri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmanék, and M. Williamson, Eds. Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Mack, R.N. 1986. Alien plant invasion into the Intermountain West: a case history. Pp. 191-213 in: Mooney, H.A. and J.A. Drake, eds., Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Noble, I.R. and R.O. Slatyer. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43:5-21.

Rejmánek, M. 1989. Invasibility of plant communities. Pp. 369-388 in: J.A. Drake, H.A. Mooney, F.D. Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson, eds. Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.

US General United States General Accounting Office (GAO). 2001. Agricultural Pesticides: Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management. Report to U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. GAO-01-815. Washington, D.C.

Vermeij, G.J. 1986. The biology of human-caused extinction. Pp. 28-49 in: Norton, B.G., ed. The Preservation of Species. Princeton Press, Princeton.

Vermeij, G.J. 1991. When biotas meet: understanding biotic interchange. Science 253:1099-1104.

Westman, W.E., K.P. Preston, and L.B. Weeks. 1985. SO2 effects on the growth of native plants. Pp. 264-279 in Winner, W.E., H.A. Mooney, and R.A. Goldstein, eds. Sulfur Dioxide and Vegetation: Physiology, Ecology, and Policy Issues. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Westman, W.E. 1990. Managing for biodiversity: unresolved science and policy questions. BioScience 40:26-33.

Wooten, G. and M. Renwyck. 2001. Risky Business: Invasive Species Management on National Forests. Kettle Range Conservation Group. Spokane, Washington.