Author Topic: Removal of the Noxious Weed Tamarisk on the Los Padres National Forest  (Read 1442 times)

Offline Peter Vahry

  • UFWDA International Vice-President
  • Administrator
  • ghost
  • Posts: 1,476
The current tamarisk infestation covers 368 miles or 4,247 acres of
riparian habitat on NFS lands. The goal is to implement control
measures now before tamarisk becomes a larger problem in riparian
    The methods of tamarisk eradication have several constraints in
this project: (1) Many treatment areas are very steep, making access
and logistics difficult. There is no motorized access to most of the
project area, much of it is in Congressionally designated Wilderness.
All supplies and equipment must either be packed or flown in. Pile-

burning cut tamarisk stems is not feasible due to the logistics of
getting crews and suppression resources down into the canyons to do it.
(2) There are few suitable areas to relocate tamarisk stems for
disposal via burn piles. (3) There is habitat known for Least Bell's
Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, two federally endangered
birds in the Piru creek watershed. The habitat area contains scattered
tamarisk within the riparian vegetation.
    The proposed action is a combination of tamarisk treatment methods
designed to be as light on the land as possible and at the same time
cost and labor efficient. The methods used will be a combination of
hand treatments, herbicide applications, and biological control.

For the full notice

What a problem 'wilderness' is....!!!!
Auckland Four Wheel Drive Club Inc, 4x4 Challenges NZ Inc, NZFWDA life member, Friends of 42 Traverse Inc.

Offline Pat Crump

  • ghost
  • Posts: 4
Re: Removal of the Noxious Weed Tamarisk on the Los Padres National Forest
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2012, 06:02:46 pm »
Interesting article regarding this noxious weed problem. Our county had an eradication program in use early 2010. Around May or June of 2011, the county commissioners decided, after further research, to abandon the eradication program. They discovered statistics that indicated the Tamarisk (also known as salt cedar) did not deplete the ground water as much as had been earlier predicted. Instead of 100's of gallons per plant, it was determined it was only 10's of gallons and this was tolerable in our river valley agricultural system, as well as the amount of salt the shrubs place in the surrounding soils. Also, the tamarisk doesn't seem to propagate itself as quickly as first thought. Perhaps Los Padres Nat'l Forest biologist(s) might re-examine the results of their study?
Pat Crump, Colorado