Japanese Knotweed Demonstration Project – Phase I
Final Report
11/15/02
Marion County Department of Public Works
In collaboration with…
Oregon State Weed Board Grant Program
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Table of contents
Executive Summary
1. Summary of Project Activities
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
1.2 Survey and Monitoring
1.3 Field Treatments
1.4 Information Management
GIS Maps
1.4.1 Japanese Knotweed Sites
1.4.2 Japanese Knotweed Treatments / Success Ratings
Vegetation Management System
OSU Weed Mapper
1.5 Education and Outreach
2. Performance metrics
3. Final Budget & Budget Narrative
4. Attachments
4.1 Field survey form
4.2 Fact sheet
4.3 Landowner notification
4.4 Volunteer request form (sent to Adopt-a-Road participants)
4.5 Tables of knotweed sites in Marion County with treatment rankings and location information
Marion County is facing a growing number of Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) infestations. This same weed has severely damaged riparian areas in other parts of Oregon. Given the very aggressive and persistent nature of this state-listed noxious weed, the county is actively working to control the existing populations and is interested in collaborating with both public and private landowners to eliminate the limited populations before they spread.
To this end, Marion County had developed The Integrated Vegetation Management System, Japanese knotweed Demonstration Project. This project’s objectives were twofold. First, we wanted to begin systematic eradication of Japanese knotweed in Marion County. Second, we wanted to develop a system that would help us keep track of information relevant to this process and that could be applied to other noxious weed populations in other counties.
During a grant period lasting from April to November of 2002, the county and its project partners, were able to achieve the following milestones:
1. Surveyed a majority of the county road system for knotweed populations.
2. Found 36 Japanese knotweed populations not previously identified.
3. Treated all 44 populations in the county right-of-way and supplied information for the treatment of the remaining 32 sites.
4. Worked closely with partner agencies to develop educational materials.
5. Directly contacted over 200 citizens with information about knotweed.
6. Grant partners printed knotweed fact sheets and distributed them around the area.
7. Citizens and landowners saw knotweed information at the Pudding River watershed fair and at a prominent display in downtown Salem.
8. County and city vegetation crews were trained in knotweed identification and collaborated on eradication projects.
9. The Association of Oregon Counties developed an information management system for tracking and reporting noxious weed information. This system will be available to all Oregon counties.
10. Marion County mapped and monitored all of its known sites for follow-up treatments.
11. Marion County developed an initial volunteer base to survey roadsides for noxious weed populations. This effort included school groups, adopt-a-road participants, and interested citizens.
Based on these milestones and the performance metrics discussed in our final report, Marion County feels that it has satisfied the intent of the State Weed Board Grant. This effort is part of a broader noxious weed control program and will provide a good model for future efforts. Of particular value is the information management component. The system developed through this grant will allow the county to accurately track and address it noxious weed populations and share this information with resource management agencies like ODA.
1.1 Project Objectives (Multiple Phases):
1) Determine extent of Japanese knotweed problem in Marion County and address species through treatments. (Phase I)
2) Effectively identify and manage native plant populations, including threatened and endangered species. (Phase II)
3) Increase accountability and efficacy of vegetation management activities. (all Phases)
4) Provide vegetation information and management tools to other agency counties. (Phase I&II)
1.2 Survey of Japanese Knotweed Site
Our staff botanist and vegetation management foreman coordinated the survey and monitoring activities. They selected road segments to survey based on previous sites located and en route to other projects. Between the two, they were able to survey most of the county road system.
Additionally, the staff botanist trained volunteer groups and MCPW crews in the identification of knotweed. The volunteer groups then selected areas to survey for knotweed. The MCPW crews looked for knotweed populations during the normal course of their fieldwork. Most of the sites reported by these groups had been previously identified, although a few new sites were identified through this effort.
All of the previously identified sites (20 sites) were revisited by the staff botanist or vegetation management foreman and data forms for the sites were completed, along with the establishment of photopoints. Additional survey work during 2002 located 56 new sites. These sites were documented using the field data form.
For Japanese knotweed sites in the county road right-of-ways, the vegetation management crews conducted all treatments. These treatments included manual and chemical methods – sometimes in combination. In the cases where plant material was removed from the site, the material was sent to the Marion County waste-to-energy facility and incinerated.
As part of this treatment project, the county purchased a dual reel spray rig that allowed close application of herbicide in the right-of-way. This spray rig, purchased at a cost of $7,871, allowed the vegetation crews to efficiently reach areas not readily accessible with a boom and too large for backpack sprayers. Its purchase adds an important tool in our on-going efforts to reduce noxious weed populations in the right-of-way.
Garlon 3a/Roundup applied to cut stems seemed to be the most effective treatment method. It was used on 28 of 44 sites and had an average treatment success rating of 6 on a scale of 1-10. Additional treatments will be needed for all of the sites, since regrowth is expected for even the best applications. These re-treatments will occur during the growing season next year. Those areas in county ownership had the highest success rankings, since other owners did not respond as aggressively (or sometimes at all) in the treatment of their knotweed.
Since the treatments of the sites have continued up to the week this report was generated, we cannot correlate the treatment effectiveness and the timing of the treatment. Looking at this data over multiple years will allow us to better understand that correlation.1.4 Information Management
I. Summary of IT Project
II. Partnering Agencies
Contains a noxious weed component
Oregon State University (OSU)
III. Database Development
A. AOC
Land Ownership1. Land ownership of the weed site
Size of Weed Stand
Management Activity Date
Management Activity Performed1. Type of management activity2. Entry locations for herbicides, manual treatments and bio agents3. Can select multiple treatments for one site location
Revisit Date1. Reminder to revisit and treat site
Management Progress (success of treatment)1. Allows user to input notes on the success of treatment or recommendations
a. FTP
b. Mail 1. Data can be submitted by mailing data on a floppy disk or CD
2. Data Transfer
Individuals directly contacted by Marion County:
Internal training:
The MCPW staff botanist conducted training with the vegetation, engineering and survey crews on two occasions. They received information about the plant, (and were shown specimens in pots) were given a list of known sites, and received a fact sheet. The groups also received a noxious weed field survey form for reporting. Additionally, the project staff put up a display in the Public Works lobby with a map showing sites found in 2001 and 2002.
External education efforts:
This same information was also sent to the City of Salem vegetation management department, via Tony Day and Gene Larson. Our staff botanist personally gave it to the city road crews removing knotweed along Kuebler. The crews immediately responded by taking the knotweed from Kuebler sites to the burner instead of to the Browns Island compost pile – thus avoiding a possible massive contamination of the compost material.
Citizen education efforts:
As part of the project, the Soil and Water Conservation district developed a knotweed fact sheet and widely distributed it to farmers and landowners. This same fact sheet was also used for staff education, volunteer education, and as a handout at watershed fairs.
The knotweed information package was also distributed by county staff to the Salem Audubon Society, Native Plant Society, OSU Extension office, Northwest Steelheaders, Marion County K-12 schools, City of Salem Parks and Vegetation Management crews, MC Volunteer Coordinator Glenis Chapman, educators at Chemeketa Community College and Willamette University, several boy scout and girl scout troops, and in the Vistas and Waste Matters county publications. 173 Adopt-a-Road program participants were also sent the knotweed information package. For public outreach, MCPW staff also contributed to a window display at the county offices downtown and had a knotweed information booth at the Watershed Fair at the Oregon Garden this summer.
Additionally, MCPW collaborated with Dennis Wise (WRI) and Claire Hibler (Salem BLM) and their two interns who are developing more educational materials.
1) Were populations of Japanese knotweed significantly reduced?
2) Did the integrated vegetation management system significantly contribute to that reduction?
Target reduction:
Status:
Target survey coverage:
Status
Target monitoring:
Of the known sites, have the number of Japanese knotweed sites been reduced and by how much?
No knotweed sites have been completely eliminated. All will require some form of follow-up treatment. 38% of the sites were given a treatment ranking of 6 (1-10 scale) or better. These sites will likely have much less vigorous growth in the following year and will be even more responsive to additional treatments. With several follow-up treatments, these sites and additional sites will be eliminated.
Has the average size of Japanese knotweed sites been reduced?
All treated sites had reduced growth immediately following treatment. In the case of the more successful chemical treatments, the plants did not re-grow aggressively and were typically reduced in size. In the case of the manual treatments (i.e. cutting or mowing) the plants tended to respond with vigorous re-growth.
Which treatments methods (treatment and timing) were most effective?
Garlon 3A/Roundup application was the most successful treatment method used. The application method was to cut the plants and haul them to the waste burner then treat the stumps with this chemical mixture. Manual removal without chemicals was considerably less effective. We intend to experiment with foliar spraying treatments next year.
How many sites were treated (public vs. private)?
44 of the 45 sites in County right of way were treated (98% treatment rate) at least once. 6 of the 31 in other ownership (private, state, city) were treated (19% treatment rate).
Did private landowners actively engage in the treatment of populations on their land?
All landowners with identified Japanese knotweed populations did receive notification. Their responses to that notification varied from aggressive treatment to no treatment. The majority of private landowners did not treat their knotweed during the grant period. County staff will follow-up with these owners and encourage treatment.
How many new Japanese knotweed sites were reported by MCPW crews?
34 new sites were found by Public Works crews.
How many Japanese knotweed sites were reported by private individuals?
2 new sites were reported by private citizens. Numerous sites were reported by citizens, but they tended to be sites already identified in our own surveys.
How many landowners were directly contacted with noxious weed information?
At least 200 landowners and interested citizens were directly contacted by county staff with knotweed information. Additional information was provided to landowners via presentations at various conferences, public displays, handouts in many locations, and distribution by other agencies.
Where were the Japanese knotweed sites distributed?
The road based survey naturally found those populations that were immediately apparent from the road. Based on our survey, the sites were concentrated near urbanized areas. This may be a factor of the concentration of roads in these areas. Distribution based on land use did not reveal an obvious pattern. No statistical analyses were performed to examine distribution patterns in depth.
System Evaluation Questions:
Phase I:
Does the system function internally as designed?
The system provides a means of recording new noxious weed sites as well as tracking, monitoring, and reporting information. Coupled with the education and program elements of this system, it served the purpose easing information management and increasing response rates to noxious weed populations.
Does the system work with external agencies’ data collection?
We input some test data into the information management module created by AOC. Though still in beta-version, this data entry (including GIS points) seemed to work fine. We expect this to be refined over the next several months as we continue to test the system in collaboration with AOC and other counties. Additionally, we were able to send data reports to the OSU Weed Mapper program, per their specifications. This data has not been entered into their system yet, but is expected to meet their requirements – based on detailed data transfer discussions between Marion County and OSU staff.
Does the system improve the invasive weed management processes?
By using information management techniques, including GIS and databases, we were able to more accurately track populations of knotweed. From this measure alone, the system is a success. We haven’t developed its full analytical and reporting capabilities, but we anticipate that it will have a great deal of utility there as well – i.e. tracking the distribution of weeds and correlating treating responses with species and timing.
Does the system help reduce the target species populations?
It is a bit early to correlate the use of this system with effective reduction of target species. The system has proven to be a useful tool for field staff. It has helped structure and manage information that was previously scattered between divisions and not entered into a centralized system for analysis and reference. In that sense it has enhanced our treatment and tracking abilities and has helped reduce target species populations.
Is the system institutionalized and sustainable?
MCPW has adopted this system for regular use in our noxious weed program. Additionally, the IS system has been developed by AOC and will be part of all counties’ database systems. With AOC providing leadership in its development and distribution, the system is fairly institutionalized. Its sustainability will depend on its long-term utility to counties in Oregon. An expression of interest, on the part of ODA, in using the recorded information to help direct weed control resources would likely encourage the use of the system. While the system will be modified over the next several years, it is likely to be adopted by the county governments in Oregon
3. Final Budget
Budget narrative
AOC took the leadership role in the development of the information management system. Their contribution stemmed from a pesticide-reporting project already underway. The development of an information management system that included noxious weed data tracking was part of this larger effort. This situation reduced Marion County’s software development time and ensured that a larger group of county users had input on the development process. The result was that costs for software development were incurred by AOC (as match) rather than Marion County.
Surveying and monitoring costs were lower since it was difficult to differentiate some of the surveying, monitoring, surveying and treatment activities. Quite often, the botanist or vegetation management foreman would survey en route to another project or combine monitoring and treatment activities at one site. The same is true for educational activities. Sometimes our staff would supply educational information to interested landowners while conducting surveying or treatment activities. Though sometimes difficult to differentiate individually, the activity totals are an accurate estimate of time spent.
Verifiers: Please complete all information in the section below the bold line.
Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
DESCRIPTION: Japanese knotweed is a semi-woody perennial with spreading rhizomes (underground stems) and numerous reddish-brown stems. Plants send up new red-splotched green shoots in April and grow quickly, reaching full size by July. The plant can reach four to eight feet in height and is often shrubby. The stems are hollow and jointed, resembling those of bamboo, especially in older plants, and are visible in winter as bare brown stalks with spent flower clusters. The petioled leaves are four to six inches long and somewhat heart shaped. The plant is deciduous, dropping its leaves in the fall. The flowers are small greenish or white and bloom in August and September. The female flowers may produce small 3-angled, shiny black-brown seeds. Rhizome fragments are capable of producing new plants. Knotweed thrives in any moist soil in full sun to part shade. Japanese knotweed is a native of Asia introduced to the United States in the 18th century as an ornamental.
CONTROL:
Hand pulling or digging knotweed is another means of control if the plants are small. Remove all of the root and dispose of it in a way that will not allow re-sprout. Do not throw the stems into a waterway or a compost pile. Check to see if the plant returns, as a small piece of root or rhizome can start new plants.
Herbicides are another alternative if cutting or digging is not possible. Dense stands can be treated with a glyphosate-based herbicide, such as ‘Roundup’. If the Japanese Knotweed is sparsely distributed, 2,4-D amine may be applied with decent results. If spraying near water, be sure to use an herbicide such as Garlon3A or Rodeo, which are labeled for that use. Use adequate spray volume to thoroughly cover each plant. Native or desirable plants sprayed by herbicides may also be damaged or killed.
The following timing of treatment and combination of herbicides has proven to be most effective so far: In spring when the plants are 1-2 feet tall, spray with Garlon3A (if near water) or Garlon4. In summer, just before flowering, cut stems back and apply full-strength Roundup directly to the cut stems. Some root system disruption can speed herbicide uptake.
REMARKS: Japanese Knotweed is difficult to control due to its asexual and sexual reproduction and rapid deep-rooting infestation. It can quickly overtake areas and choke out native or favorable species. Always replant sprayed areas with competitive vegetation to avoid weed re-infestation.
Text from a door hanger)
(Distributed along with an informational flier)
Japanese Knotweed Has Been Sited
Japanese knotweed has been sited on or near your property. Through a grant from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Marion County is surveying all of our county roadways looking for infestations of this state-listed noxious weed. We hope to prevent it from becoming so established that it is impossible to eradicate or control. Attached is an information sheet describing Japanese knotweed.
We will be taking measures to control Japanese knotweed in the right-of-way areas of Marion County roadways. If you want information on controlling knotweed on your private property, please refer to the attached sheet. For more information, please call Marion County Public Works botanist Susan Morré at 503-365-3188.
Thank you.
Marion County Public Works
(Letter sent to Marion County Adopt-a-Road Groups)
5 August 2002
Dear Adopt-a-Road participants,
Marion County is working in cooperation with Oregon Department of Agriculture in an effort to locate and control the spread of Japanese knotweed along our county roadways. Volunteers are assisting county employees in the survey of all our county roads. The next time you travel your adopted stretch of road, please be on the lookout for this noxious weed. If you think you see it, please contact our botanist Susan Morré with the location information. We appreciate your help with this project!
Help Stop the
Japanese Knotweed Invasion!
Public Works needs your help to stop the spread of Japanese knotweed (a noxious weed) in Marion County. This aggressive weed can take over native habitats and damage people’s property.
The County needs volunteers to help find spots where this weed is growing along roadways. Anyone fourteen years or older may sign up to search a section of road, looking for signs of Japanese knotweed.
Staff will train volunteers on how to identify the plant. When the plants are found, volunteers will record the plant’s location on a map. Volunteers will not be involved in removing the weed.
The program goal is to survey all county roads for signs of this threatening weed in the next several months so the weeds can be controlled. Anyone interested in helping to stop the spread of Japanese knotweed should contact:
Susan Morré, Marion County Public Works botanist
503-365-3188
smorre@co.marion.or.us.
SITE LOCATIONS
Site
Year
Road
Address
Directions
1
2001
Ehlen Rd.
9614
S. side W. of Ohnstead
2
Quinbey Rd.
3000
W. of B.N. RR on S. side
3
Abiqua Rd.
16077
Just E. of St Hwy 213 S. side
4
15976
Just W. of St. Hwy 213 E. side
5
Edison Rd.
2976
.4 mil. Past 2976 E. side
6
3035
.1 mi. N. of Finley Rd
7
3535
across from 3535
8
3745
across from 3745 E. side
9
Cordon Rd.
5000
SE corner of Cordon & Center adj. To SW corner Church
10
SE corner of Cordon/Center just N. of site #9
11
Ballyntine
3116
0.6 mi. W. of Croisan Creek Rd. - N. side
12
N. side just E. of site #11
13
2991
across from 2991 Ballyntine - E. of int. of Ballyntine Crk. Ln.
14
2961
across from 2961 Ballyntine on S. side
15
Kuebler Blvd
SW of entrance to Sprague HS - S. side just W. of Hamstreet Ln.
16
Cole Rd.
.04 mi. E. of Skyline S. side
17
0.4 mi. E. of Skyline - N. side
18
Sunnyside Rd.
5826
0.1 mi. N. of Wiltsey Rd. - E. side next to driveway
19
against W. side of house
20
76th St.
6705
60 ft. N. of driveway - N. side
21
2002
Aumsville Hwy
7195
N. side
22
Lancaster Dr.
W. side - across from Glendale near Walmart
23
River Rd. S.
2844
across from 2844 on SW side - NW of Croisan Crk Rd.
24
54th. St.
280 ft. NW of int. - NW corner of 54th @ 99E
25
2311
0.01 mi. W. of Bates - N. side / W. side of driveway
26
2232
0.05 mi. W. of Bates in ditch on S. side
27
Croisan Creek
3851
0.38 mi. S. of Madronna - S. of Spring W. side
28
4105
0.06 mi. S. of Madronna W. side
29
4291
0.08 mi. S. of Madronna W. side
30
4350
0.85 mi. S. of Madronna - across 4350 to 4390
31
4431
0.9 mi. S. o f Madronna W. side
32
4450
1 mi. S. of Madronna - 0.07 mi. N. of Kuebler E. side
33
3362
0.25 mi. E. of Homestead - S. side
34
Kuebler Blvd.
90 ft. E. of Liberty Rd. - N. side of Kuebler
35
River Rd. N.
8076
N. of 8076 0.1 mi. N. of Quinaby Rd. W. side
36
Fisher Rd. NE
2040
just N. of Sunnyview Rd. - E. side
37
Market St. NE
4125
E. of Lancaster - N. side vacant lot between 4105 & 4145
38
Hawthorn St.
2100
N. of Sunnyview W. side
39
Brush Creek Rd.
N. of Hazelgreen - E. side in field
40
N, Fork Rd.
22364
off Hwy. 214 - 0.75 mi. S. side of road
41
Mill Creek Rd.
9613
E. of Aumsville in the ditch - N. side near disposal co.
42
Pringle Creek ?
near Commercial St. & 12th St. cut-off
43
Santiam Lp.
Santiam Lp. @ end of Santiam Ln. along the Santiam river
44
Park St.
halfway between D St. & Center -m E. side
45
Liberty Rd.
7221
S. of Old Liberty Rd.
46
Methany
W. of Wheatland Rd. near bridge on N. side
47
Spinner Rd.
0.25 mi. E. of Boedigheimer Rd.
48
Jennie Rd.
22400
across from 22400 blk - S. side
49
Hwy 22
near Ferry Rd.
50
7496
W. of last RR X-ing underpass - N. side
51
Brooklake Rd.
3495
W. River Rd. N. - N. side
52
Milk Ranch
22605
end of Co. maint. - N. & S.side
53
294 & 370 ft. W. of 22605 Milk Ranch Rd.
54
Hwy. 22
Niagra Forest Rd. / Hwy. 22 - N. side
55
Crooked Finger
above Fire station - n. side of Rd.
56
below Fire station - S. side of Rd.
57
Milk Ranch Rd
76 feet W of site 53 on N side road
58
Steinkamp Rd.
dead end section 200 yd. Of Albus on S. side
59
Fern Ridge
21700
in landscape on N. side of Rd.
60
Finlay Rd.
12530
on S. side by pond
61
13500
gravel section - 1600 ft. S. of end of pavement - W. side
62
Marion Rd.
8205
S. off Mill Creek by 1st bridge - SW corner of bridge
63
Pueblo Rd.
landscaping along Brooklake ROW - E. of Pueblo - N. side
64
Auburn Rd
4975
100 ft. W. of 4975 N.side - in landscape
65
Hwy 99E
8255
230 ft. S. of Quail St. / Hwy. 99E - E. side
66
9810
on shoulder & in landscape - E. side
67
Meadow Ln.
2360
S. side in landscape & on ROW
68
Gannon Rd
6400
N side Gannon in landscape and on ROW
69
Naples @ 22nd Ave
E. side in field
70
Ferry Rd.
21155
S. of Ferry Rd. - 50 ft. down driveway
71
Ferry @ Hwy 22
W. of 21155
72
N. Fork Rd.
540 ft. E. of site #40
73
Joseph St.
6325
across from 2365 - S. side
74
3221
W. side of Croisan in landscape
75
Riverside S.
just s. of wooden bridge - W. of RR underpass
76
Kuebler Rd
2402
S side Kuebler East of site #15