-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
Watershed-‐scale Cooperative Weed
Management: An Assessment of the King County
Knotweed Control Project
by
Jill Politsch-Zarzeczny
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
November 2010
i
©2010 by Jill Politsch-‐Zarzeczny. All rights reserved.
ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by Jill Politsch-Zarzeczny
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Frederica Bowcutt, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty, The Evergreen State College
________________________
Edward A. Whitesell, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty, The Evergreen State College
________________________
Steven J. Burke
Program Manager, King County Noxious Weed Control Program
________________________
Date
iii
ABSTRACT
Watershed-‐scale Cooperative Weed Management: An Assessment of the King
County Knotweed Control Project
Jill Politsch-‐Zarzeczny
The desire to extend weed management efforts from a particular area of land
ownership to an entire community or watershed motivated the conception of
the Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) framework. By bringing
groups and individuals from within a given watershed or community into the
planning and implementation process, CWMA participants share the
responsibilities and benefits of weed management.
The CWMA framework offers an effective strategy for managing invasive
knotweed on a watershed-‐scale throughout King County. Most commonly,
invasive knotweed spreads along rivers and riparian areas when rhizome
and stem fragments wash downstream, reroot, and grow into clones of
parent plants. Because a single infestation along a river or stream can spread
downstream, invasive knotweed cannot be effectively managed on a site-‐by-‐
site basis but, rather, needs to be managed on a watershed-‐scale. Watershed-‐
scale weed management necessitates collaboration and cooperation among
the different stakeholders in a given area.
This thesis examines the management strategy of the King County Knotweed
Control Project to identify its strengths and challenges. To do this, I use an
interdisciplinary approach that examines both quantitative GPS data for
acres of treated invasive knotweed and qualitative data from interviews and
surveys of the various project stakeholders. Analysis of the project indicates
that invasive knotweed management in King County will benefit most
significantly from greater focus on community education, outreach, and
overall communication with project participants. Furthermore, I recommend
framing the project within the context of salmon habitat improvement in
order to build a cohesive place-‐based group identity around the watershed-‐
scale project. The lessons derived from this project can provide beneficial
direction to other watershed-‐scale weed management efforts.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Lists of Figures, Tables, and Photos
vii
List of Acronyms
viii
Acknowledgements
ix
Chapter One. Introduction
1
Chapter Two. Literature Review
4
Defining a Weed
Invasive Knotweed Overview
Washington State Knotweed Management Plan
Watershed Management
Chapter Three. King County Knotweed Control Project
17
Cooperative Weed Management Areas
King County Control Methods
Chapter Four. Methods
26
Procedures
Analytic Methods
Limitations to Research
v
Chapter Five. Findings
30
Overview of Project Stakeholder Feedback
Role of Education and Outreach
Why Invasive Knotweed Control Matters
Herbicide Use for Invasive Knotweed Control
Perceptions of an Effective Project
Chapter Six. Conclusions
53
56
Appendix I. Project Manager Interview Transcript
60
Appendix II. Property Owners Survey
References
74
Appendix III. Conservation Crew Survey
75
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Washington State Knotweed Control Program Budget
9
2. Statewide Knotweed Control Area Map
11
3. King County Knotweed Control Project Area
19
4. Injection System Illustration
25
5. Landowner Evaluations of Satisfaction with 2008 Project
34
6. Crew Member Evaluation of 2008 Injection Training
34
7. Crew Member Evaluation of 2008 Control Effectiveness
35
21
LIST OF TABLES
1. King County Knotweed Control Project Partners
2. Survey Response: Dz
is controlled by King County?dz
31
3. SurvǣDzarticipation in
the King County Knotweed Control Projectǫdz
32
4. Survey Response: Dz
ǫdz
33
5. 2008 King County Knotweed Control Project Outreach Events
38
6. King County Knotweed Control Project Area Treatment
2005-‐2008
46
6
2. Streamside Infestation of Invasive Knotweed
6
3. Knotweed Stem Injection Process
25
LIST OF PHOTOS
1. Young Invasive Knotweed
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BMPs
Best Management Practices
CWMA
Cooperative Weed Management Area
KCNWCP
King County Noxious Weed Control Program
SRF Board
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
USDA-‐FHP
US Department of Agriculture-‐ Forest Health Protection Program
WCC
Washington Conservation Corps
WSDA
Washington State Department of Agriculture
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express heartfelt gratitude to a number of folks for their support
and direction throughout this process. This project has challenged me both
personally and academically; it is my hope that it will contribute to the greater
dialogue of cooperative land management and stewardship.
First, I would like to thank my advisors, Frederica Bowcutt and Ted Whitesell,
Members of the Faculty at the Evergreen State College, and Steve Burke,
Program Manager for the King County Noxious Weed Control Program. The
unique perspective and knowledge that each brought to the task of reviewing
has added depth and breadth to my work. As my primary advisor, I offer sincere
appreciation to Frederica for the time, energy, and sometimes circular
conversations that went into helping shape the focus and context of this project.
Thanks to Monica Walker, former Project Manager of the King County Knotweed
Control Project, for sharing her knowledge and experience with me both in the
field and during the post-‐season interview. Additional thanks to the King County
Noxious Weed Control Program Staff for answering my frequent questions and
making me feel so welcome.
Thanks to all of the landowners and conservation crew members for sharing
their views, experiences, and perspectives about the King County Knotweed
Control Project.
Finally, an inexpressible appreciation goes to my parents, Ray and Bet Politsch,
and my husband, Justin Zarzeczny, for seeing me through the completion of this,
at times, seemingly insurmountable task. Thank you for listening and supporting
me when I struggled and for encouraging me when I put my head down and got
to work. And, Mom and Dad, thanks for teaching meȄfrom the very beginningȄ
that my potential is limitless.
ix
Chapter One. Introduction
Today many American weed scientists and land managers advocate ignoring
invasive species that have become so widespread and abundant that there are not
enough human and financial resources to effectively manage them. They advocate
instead focusing on emerging weed populationsȄbefore they progress beyond
control. The King County Knotweed Control Project deviates from this prevailing
strategy. Washington State Weed Law does not require management of invasive
knotweed. However, it densely inhabits thousands of acres of riparian land
throughout the County, so the King County Noxious Weed Control Board identified
the impacts of invasive knotweed to be so great that it prioritized watershed-‐scale
management of the plants in critical riparian habitat areas in King County. The King
County Knotweed Control Project is a trial of an alternative strategy for weed
managementȄtackling a widespread invasive weed by using a cooperative
watershed-‐scale approach. Invasive knotweed is a good candidate for this trial
Dz
dz
ǣ
sensitive riparian ecosystems are well-‐documented, including negative impacts on
habitat for a Pacific Northwest iconȄwild Pacific salmon species (Oncorhynchus
spp.).
The purpose of this thesis is to conduct an assessment of the King County Knotweed
Control Project using an interdisciplinary approach to
ǯ
strengths and challenges and to make recommendations for its improvement. In
2008, the project completed its fifth year of actionȄ an appropriate time to assess
1
and adapt. My interest in this subject comes from personal involvement with the
King County Knotweed Control Project. Over the course of three years, I had the
chance to play two distinct roles in the project. First, I served as a member of a
conservation crew who had been contracted to execute the on-‐the-‐ground
treatment of invasive knotweed. Second, I served as a member of the staff who
managed the watershed-‐scale control project. Through these two lenses, I saw the
Ǥ
ǯ
ǡ
perceptions of different stakeholders is integral.
Using quantitative data gathered using GPS surveying technology and analysis of
interviews and surveys of various project stakeholders, I identify the strengths and
challenges of the current management strategies of the King County Knotweed
Control Project and make recommendations for its improvement. My assessment of
the project indicates that invasive knotweed management in King County will
benefit most significantly from greater focus on community education, outreach,
and overall communication with project participants. Furthermore, I recommend
attention to be paid to project messaging as a means for building a cohesive place-‐
based group identity around the watershed-‐scale project. The lessons derived from
this assessment can provide beneficial direction to other watershed-‐scale weed
management efforts.
The focus of each chapter is briefly summarized as follows. Chapter Two looks at the
foundation of invasive knotweed management in Washington State. It will also
examine current literature regarding watershed-‐scale land management and posit
2
the importance of stakeholder involvement in weed management at this scale.
Chapter Three offers an overview of the King County Knotweed Control Project
strategy and methods including its guiding framework of Cooperative Weed
ȋǯȌǤ r discusses my research methods.
Chapter Five presents the findings of my research, which include quantitative
results from surveys completed by different stakeholders in the project and an in-‐
depth exploration of the themes that arose from their feedback. That chapter
concludes with a discussion of what the findings mean for the future of the King
County Knotweed Control Project. Lastly, Chapter Six highlights the
recommendations for King County and explores what the research means in the
wider context of watershed-‐scale land management.
3
Chapter Two. Literature Review
ǡDz
Ǥdz ǡ
discussed in terms of their management, the term becomes more difficult to define
in an absolute and encompassing way (Evans 2002). The definition put forth by the
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Weed Board serves as a guide for the
management strategies of the King County Knotweed Control Project (King County
Noxious Weed Control Program 2010). So, for the purpose of this research, I will
utilize the following definition.
Noxious weeds are non-‐native plants introduced into Washington State. They
spread quickly and can be difficult to control. They invade our croplands,
rangeland, forests, prairies, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries, causing
both ecological and economic damage that affects us all (Washington State
Noxious Weed Control Board 2010).
Noxious weeds are classified into lists by Washington State and its county weed
boards based on the characteristics of abundance, distribution, and level of threat.
The classifications are the following:
Class A Noxious Weeds: non-‐native plants that are limited in distribution in
Washington State. State law requires eradication and complete removal of
these plants;
Class B Noxious Weeds: non-‐native plants that are absent or limited in
distribution in parts of the state and very abundant in other regions. These
4
plants are required to be controlled to prevent further spread on a county-‐
by-‐county basis;
Class C Noxious Weeds: non-‐native plants already widespread
throughout Washington. Counties can either require the control of
these plants or educate residents and landowners about methods for
controlling these noxious weeds (Washington State Weed Board
2009).
Invasive Knotweed
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Giant knotweed (Polygonum
sachalinense) and Bohemian knotweed (Polygonum x bohemicum) are three closely-‐
related species of knotweed in the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae) that are
invading stream banks, riparian areas, roadsides, and parks throughout Washington
(Zika and Jacobson 2003). Polygonum X bohemicum, a hybrid of P. cuspidatum and P.
sachalinese, is the most widespread of the three; it has been recently understood
that it is capable of cross-‐breeding with either of its parent species (King County
Noxious Weed Control Program 2009). Therefore, the invasive knotweed is more
Ǥ
ǯ
morphological characteristics are very closely related and they all occur in King
County, I re
DzdzǤ
5
species, Himalayan knotweed (Polygonum polystacyum) is also invading many
riparian ecosystems in Washington (Udo 2007; Urgenson 2006).
All four species of knotweed are listed as Class B Noxious Weeds on the Washington
State Noxious Weed List (King County Noxious Weed Control Program 2007).
Invasive knotweed was introduced as an ornamental from Asia; its native habitats
include harsh environments like volcanic slopes (Udo 2007). The International
Union for the Conservation of Nature has listed Polygonum cuspidatum DzͳͲͲ
ǯ
dzȋǤʹͲͲͶȌǤ
Photo 1. Young Invasive Knotweed Photo 2. Streamside Infestation of Invasive
(Shaw 2010).
Knotweed in Flower (Shaw 2010).
Dense invasive knotweed infestations are a problem for aquatic ecosystems because
they choke the flow of small streams and displace streamside vegetation, which
lowers the quality of riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. Although infested riparian
areas are visibly dominated by dense vegetation during the spring and summer,
invasive knotweed dies down to the ground in late fall and Winter; the resulting
6
bare stream banks are at increased risk of erosion. Invasive knotweed roots can
reach as far as seven feet down into the earth and twenty feet horizontally from
their parent plants; their root systems can effectively out-‐compete those of
surrounding native groundcover, shrub, and even tree communities (King County
Noxious Weed Control Program 2010, Urgenson 2006). Also, invasive knotweed
nutrient absorption patterns have been found to alter the nutrient cycle of Pacific
Northwest riparian ecosystems. A study conducted by Lauren Urgenson at the
University of Washington has found that knotweed species reabsorb 75.5% of the
foliar nitrogen into their roots as their leaves senesce, while native species reabsorb
only 2.3-‐33%. In turn, significantly less nitrogen is available to the surrounding
riparian forest ecosystem. The study concurrently found reductions in native plant
cover that ranged from 41-‐91% in plots infested by knotweed (Urgenson 2006).
Urgenson has conducted a preliminary study of how a decrease in the concentration
of nitrogen in leaf matter might affect the abundance of aquatic insects in river
systems. Although no conclusive results have been determined, Urgenson discussed
possible links between lower nitrogen compositions in leaf litter, slower
decomposition rates resulting from fewer aquatic microbes, and, ultimately, fewer
macroinvertebrate consumersȄwhich are an important food source for some
juvenile salmon populations (Urgenson 2006; Gerber 2008).
By outcompeting native plants that serve both to maintain stream structure and also
to provide leaf litter and woody debris, and by disrupting the nutrient cycling of the
sǯ
ǡ
7
ǯ
eciesȄlike wild salmon. The
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) states that 80-‐90% of
Washington wildlife species spend at least one stage of their life in a riparian habitat
area; considering this high percentage, successful knotweed control can impact the
ǯ (Udo 2008).
Invasive knotweed can reproduce through seeds and rhizomes. Most commo nly, it
spreads along riparian areas when rhizome and stem fragments wash downstream,
reroot, and grow into clones of parent plants (Udo 2008, Walker 2009). Fragments
as short as 1/3 of an inch are capable of growing into viable plantsǤǯ
ability to spread via hydrological transport is a key reason that invasive knotweed is
such an effective and challenging invader. Because a single infestation along a river
or stream can spread downstream, invasive knotweed cannot be effectively
managed on a site-‐by-‐site basis but, rather, needs to be managed on a watershed
scale. Watershed-‐scale weed management necessitates collaboration and
cooperation among the different stakeholders in a given area.
The Washington State Weed Board classifies all four of the invasive knotweed
species as Class B Weeds. However, in King County, invasive knotweed is classified
Dz-‐dzǡ
Dzǡ
dzȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ As a
consequence, approaches to invasive knotweed control focus on voluntary and
cooperative strategies rather than regulatory strategies.
8
Washington State Knotweed Control Program
In 2005, the WSDA created the State Knotweed Control Program and released the
Dz dzǤ
coordinate knotweed control efforts across the state by disseminating Best
Management Practices (BMPs) more widely and by improving project cost efficiency
through a collaborative effort. The State Knotweed Control Program came into
existence as a result of the 2004 pilot collaborative knotweed management project
in southwestern Washington. Since 2004, WSDA has annually invested at least
$500,000 in regional watershed-‐scale invasive knotweed control projects (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Washington State Knotweed Control Program Budget.
9
The Washington State Integrated Knotweed Management Plan has established a
coordinated management strategy that is administered by the Knotweed Advisory
Panel consisting of individuals from county weed boards, the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, the Washington State Noxious Weed Board, the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington State
Department of Ecology, and The Nature Conservancy (Udo 2007). This panel is
responsible for selecting the organizations and agencies with whom the WSDA will
collaborate each year in statewide knotweed control efforts. In 2008, the 19 selected
cooperators received a total of $650,000: $512,280 for contracted knotweed control
ǡ̈́͵͵ǡͲͲͲ
ǡ̈́ͳͲͶǡʹͲǯ
activities (Udo 2007)ǤDz
dz
contracted field staff,
supplying herbicides, and WSDA administrative support. In 2009, 22 selected
cooperators received a total of $650,000 from the WSDA: $522,242 for contracts
and agreements, $30,000 for a centralized herbicide purchase, and $97,758 for
WSDA coordination (Udo 2008). Below (Figure 2), is a map that illustrates the
knotweed control project areas that received varying amounts of funding from
WSDA in 2008.
10
Figure 2. Statewide Knotweed Control Areas (Udo 2008).
Dz dzȄ
perhaps most significant to my researchȄis that the WSDA and its cooperating
partners are taking a watershed-‐scale approach to knotweed management. Due to
the understanding of how invasive knotweed most frequently spreadsȄstream flow
transports root and stem fragments to form new infestations downstream from
older onesȄit is essential that invasive knotweed be managed on the watershed-‐
scale. So, in each participating watershed, the entire river system is first surveyed
for knotweed, and then the observed patches of it are treated beginning at the
uppermost infestation continuing downstream. This approach seeks to prevent
reinfestations of treated areas in which valuable human and financial resources
have already been invested.
11
Watershed Management
It would be useful to begin by examining two defining factors of watershed-‐scale
land management. First, what is a watershed? Second, who makes land use decisions
at the watershed scale?
Dzdz
Ǥ
the lͳͻͲǯͳͻͲǯǡ-‐related policy was focused on flood
protection, water quantity, andȄto some extentȄwater quality, so surface water-‐
centric definitions dominated the literature. As terms like ecosystem health and
function began to be
ͳͻͻͲǯǡ
the meaning of watershed began to evolve. Below are two more recent definitions
for watershed:
1. Entire region drained by a waterway that drains into a lake or reservoir;
total area above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the flow at
that point; the topographic dividing line from which surface streams flow in
two different directions (Corn 1993).
2. A watershed is a topographically delineated area that is drained by a stream
system; a watershed is also a hydrologic-‐response unit, a physical-‐biological
unit and a socio-‐economic-‐political unit for management planning and
implementation purposes (Adams, Newton, and Noonan 2000).
12
While, factually, it is difficult to disagree with either of these definitions, each has an
entirely different meaning and management implication. The first definition was
written in ǡDz
stems, Biomes, and
Watersheds: Definitions and UdzǤs written, Members of
Congress were seeking alternatives to laws and regulations for land use that would
Ǥ
Dz
dzǤǡ
by a Natural Resource Policy Specialist, sought to clearly define the meanings and
applications associated with ecosystem management, watersheds, and biomes. By
Dzdzǡ
framework through which policymakers would manage land on this scale. This
definition limits the concept of a watershed to the topographical boundaries of a
geographical landscapeȄignoring tangible aspects like groundwater flow and less
tangible aspects like societal interactions with the land. The second definition was
Dz
ʹͳ st
dz
ǡʹͲͲͲǤ
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (within USDA) including the Director of
the Natural Resource Conservation Service, a Water Resources Planner, and a
limnologist.
In Watershed Management in the 21st Century: A National Perspective, Carolyn
Adams, Bruce Newton, and Thomas Noonan set out to examine this ongoing debate
13
Dzdz
ǤDzdz
so difficult to define because the general motive of government agencies that
manage land on the watershed
Dz
tensions between the reality of the physical/natural world and human-‐contrived
geo
dzȋal. pg 23). In essence, watershed-‐scale
management attempts to address the obvious clash of political and natural
boundaries. The challenge, however, lies in moving beyond ideological motivations
to actual implementation of land management practices that achieve a holistic
approach to successfully restoring and protecting aquatic ecosystems and health of
natural and human communities as a whole.
Successful real-‐world implementation relies a lot on the second defining question
that I posed above: Who makes land use decisions at the watershed scale?
Watershed-‐scale management requires a collaborative effort among the different
stakeholders in a given area because of the complex biological and societal
relationships that exist within it. The need for stakeholder collaboration is widely
agreed upon in the watershed planning community. However, what has not been
agreed upon is how best to achieve this collaborative effort (Webler and Tuler 2001;
Cheng and Daniels 2005; Higgins et al 2007; Leach et al 2002; France 2005).
Facilitating Watershed Management addresses the vast quandary of how best to
achieve a collaborative effort. This book is a compilation of works inspired by a
14
symposium held at Harvard University in 2000 entitled, Water Sensitive Ecological
Planning and Design. While the symposium resulted in a large book of technical
solutions for improving watershed functions, ǯǡǤFrance,
emphasized the significance of the policy-‐oriented task of facilitating watershed
management by cultivating watershed stewardship (France 2005). In turn, France
compiled a selection of papers into a book that attempts to show watershed
managers how to build this sense of stewardship via three specific avenues:
environmental communication, education outreach, and demonstration projects.
This is one of the most comprehensive guides to real-‐world application of
watershed-‐scale management. The book offers both theoretical and policy-‐inspired
papers about the frameworks and definitions surrounding watershed-‐scale
management as well as real-‐world examples of successful communication and
education strategies implemented in watershed-‐scale projects in Massachusetts.
Researchers Cheng and Daniels took a unique approach by examining the role that
the geographic scale of a watershed project plays in the stakeholder dynamics
within the given project. The authors conducted a comparative case study of two
collaborative watershed planning efforts in Oregon and, drawing from the discipline
of social psychology, they looked at the role geographic scale plays in determining
Dz-‐
dzȋʹͲͲͷȌǤ
looked at how stakeholders identified themselves and each other in terms of
Dzdz
the key issues of the watershed planning efforts. Through semi-‐structured
individual interviews, participant observation at planning meetings, and analysis of
15
watershed group reports, the authors found that with smaller-‐scale geographic
ǡDzrs are more able to identify concerns over the
interconnection between watershed and community health, and know and interact
dz (Cheng and Daniels pp 40).
In larger-‐scale geographic areas, stakeholders more often identified with one
another based on organizational affiliations instead of as members of a shared
community. This was a case study that examined just two watershed planning
efforts in the same region, so it is unwise to assume that small-‐scale watershed
planning efforts are always the best way to build effective collaborative
participation. However, it does draw attention to the importance of framing issues
in watershed-‐scale management efforts. Forming place-‐based group identities
through issue framing can foster the long-‐term watershed stewardship that France
emphasized in Facilitating Watershed Management: Fostering Awareness and
Stewardship (2005).
One benefit to watershed management in western Washington and the Pacific
Northwest is the importance of salmon species to the cultural and economic history
of the region. The existence of such an iconic regional symbol that is so closely
connected and dependant on aquatic ecosystem health offers a great point from
which to build a place-‐based group identity for collaborative watershed planning in
the region.
16
Chapter Three. The King County Knotweed Control Project
For the purpose of this paper, I have conducted a case study of an agency that has
been collaborating with the WSDA since 2005 in conducting watershed-‐scale
invasive knotweed management in King County. The King County Knotweed Control
Project is administered by the King County Noxious Weed Control Program
(KCNWCP). KCNWCP is responsible for carrying out the mandates of the
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Law (Chapter 17.10 RCW), setting county
weed control priorities, annually adopting a weed control list, and advising the
program staff responsible for conducting on-‐the-‐ground surveys, treatment, and
Ǥǯon is to minimize impacts of noxious weeds to the
environment, recreation, public health and the economy (King County Noxious
Weed Control Board 2009).
The efforts of the KCNWCP are primarily funded by a special assessment fee that is
placed on all property tax bills in King County. The current assessment fee is $2.10
each year, per parcel with an added $0.15 for each additional acre (Shaw 2010). This
fee funds efforts to eradicate or control weeds in Classes A, B, and C that are
designated for removal by state or county law. The goal of the Washington State
Weed Law (17.10 RCW) is to focus time and resources on preventing the spread of
new and recently introduced weeds.
17
The Washington State Weed Board classifies all four of the invasive knotweed
species as Class B weeds. In King County, invasive knotweed is classified as non-‐
designateǡ
Dzǡ
dzȋʹͲͲͻȌǤǡ
the weed assessment property fee does not directly fund knotweed management in
King County. In spite of non-‐designate classification, the King County Noxious Weed
Control Board identified the need for a targeted management strategy to control
invasive knotweed within the riparian ecosystems in King County.
Cooperative Weed Management Areas
The KCNWCP has been able to address the need for a targeted management strategy
by establishing knotweed-‐
ǯthe
King County watersheds of the Cedar River, the Green River, the Middle Fork and
South Fork of the Snoqualmie River, and the South Fork of the Skykomish River.
18
Figure 3. King County Knotweed Control Project Area (Shaw 2010).
The Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) framework offers a strategy for
managing invasive knotweed on a watershed scale. A CWMA is a partnership of
federal, state, and local government agencies, tribes, individuals, and various
interested groups who manage noxious weeds or invasive plants in a defined area
(Western Weed Coordinating CoʹͲͲȌǤǯ
following five basic characteristics:
1). defined area distinguished by a common geography, weed problem,
community, climate, political boundary, or land use;
2). involvement or representation of the majority of landowners and natural
resource managers in the defined area;
3). a steering committee;
19
4). a commitment to cooperation; and
5). comprehensive plan that addresses the management or prevention of one
or more noxious weeds or invasive plants (Western Weed Coordinating
Committee 2006).
The desire to extend weed management efforts from a particular area of land
ownership to an entire community or watershed motivated the conception of the
CWMA framework, which integrates management and communication resources
across jurisdictional boundaries. Previously, state and regional noxious weed
management agencies experienced limited participation by different landowners
within the weed jurisdiction areas, so resources and commitment were often wasted
while noxious weeds continued to spread in surrounding unmanaged areas
(Interagency Noxious Weed Program 2003). By bringing groups and individuals
from watersheds and communities into the planning and implementation process,
CWMA participants share the responsibilities and benefits of weed management.
KCNWCP serves as the lead entity for each of these Knotweed CWMAs. Because the
invasive knotweed control projects are being managed on a watershed scale,
establishing and maintaining partnerships with other stakeholders has been an
integral component of project planning and implementation. King County Knotweed
Control Project partners include private landowners, municipalities, state agencies,
federal agencies, and community-‐based conservation groups (Table 1).
20
Table 1. King County Knotweed Control Project CWMA Partners.
Knotweed Cooperative
Funding Partners
Other CWMA Partners
King Conservation District;
Private landowners; Seattle Public Utilities;
Community Salmon Fund;
Cascade Land Conservancy; EarthCorps;
Washington State Department of
Washington Conservation Corps (WCC)
Weed Management Area
Cedar River Watershed
Agriculture (WSDA)
Green River Watershed
USDA-‐Forest Service Forest Health
Private landowners; EarthCorps; WCC; King
Protection Program (FHP); US Fish
County Parks; Washington State Parks; King
and Wildlife; WSDA; Tacoma
County Roads Division
Public Utilities
Middle Fork Snoqualmie
WSDA; USDA-‐Forest Service FHP;
Private landowners; Washington State
River Watershed
Mountains to Sound Greenway
Department of Natural Resources; Washington
Trust
State Department of Fish and Wildlife;
Washington State Dept. of Transportation; US
Forest Service; Cascade Land Conservancy;
Middle Fork Outdoor Recreation Coalition;
American Whitewater; Washington Native Plant
Society; EarthCorps; WCC
South Fork Snoqualmie
WSDA; USDA-‐Forest Service FHP;
Cedar Village Homeowners Association; private
River Watershed
King Conservation District;
landowners; King County Parks; King County
Mountains to Sound Greenway
Roads; WS Dept. of Natural Resources, Fish and
Trust
Wildlife, Transportation, and Parks; EarthCorps;
WCC
South Fork Skykomish River
USDA Forest Service Mount
Private landowners; Burlington Northern Santa
Watershed
Baker-‐Snoqualmie National Forest
Fe Railway; Town of Skykomish; King County
Resource Advisory Committees
Parks; King County Roads; Washington State
(RAC); WSDA.
Departments of Natural Resources, Fish &
Wildlife, and Transportation; United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, EarthCorps; and WCC
21
Knotweed Control Methods
The Washington State Integrated Knotweed Management Plan outlines the
following knotweed control and removal techniques that have been used with
varying degrees of success: hand pulling and digging; cutting and mowing; covering
and shading out with black fabric; mechanical removal; grazing by goats; burning;
and herbicide application. However, the current coordinated efforts consist mostly
of aquatic herbicide treatment, because it has been deemed the most cost-‐ and time-‐
effective method. Foliar spraying and stem injection are the most commonly utilized
herbicide application techniques for invasive knotweed management; however,
types of herbicides vary across the state. Most invasive knotweed control efforts are
conducted along rivers and in riparian areas, so herbicides used are aquatically-‐
approved formulations and treatments are only conducted by individuals holding
state aquatic pesticide applicator licenses (WSDA 2009).
A recent publication by the State Knotweed Program discusses efforts begun in
2003 by the University of Washington Olympic Natural Resources Center and the
ǯ
ǡ
ǡǤǤǡ
biological control program for invasive knotweed in North America. The Center has
partnered with t
ǯ
se Team,
Cornell University, CABI-‐Biosciences-‐UK, and Lethbridge Research Center of
Alberta, Canada in these efforts (Udo 2008, Kurose 2006, Grevstad et al. 2009).
22
In 2003 and 2004, the knotweed biological control program partners conducted
surveys of existing natural enemies in New York State, Oregon, and Washington. Of
the fifty herbivorous species that were found, all were generalists (not focusing on
invasive knotweed alone), none were root or stem feeders, and damage levels were
low. So, the program partners studied management efforts in the native range of
knotweed (Japan), in which eight herbivores and pathogens were selected as
candidates for biocontrol. From those candidates, two insect species, a sap-‐feeding
psyllid, Aphalara itadori, and a leaf and stem-‐feeding moth, Ostrinia ovalipennis,
were selected for testing at the Oregon State University USDA-‐APHIS-‐certified
quarantine facility to determine if they were sufficiently host-‐specific for release
into North America. They are being tested to determine if they will feed and
develop on 70 native and economically important plants here with an emphasis on
closely related plants within the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae). Following the
potential selection of one of these candidates, the biocontrol agent will go through a
rigorous process of technical review and permitting before it can be introduced on a
limited basis (Grevstad 2009). The psyllid has shown a high level of host specificity
with only very marginal development on three of the selected non-‐target native or
economically important hosts. These results are being for reviewed by the
regulatory authorities, for a possible release as early as 2010. Testing of the moth
will take at least two more years for completion (Grevstad et al. 2009).
Currently most land managers rely heavily on herbicides to control knotweed
populations in combination with manual removal. In King County Knotweed Control
23
Project areas, knotweed stem injection with a 3 ml dose of an undiluted aquatic
formulation of glyphosate was selected as the primary treatment option for sites
directly adjacent to riparian corridors; and follow-‐up foliar applications of 1%
aquatic imazapyr and 1% surfactant applied with five-‐gallon backpack sprayers
were chosen for sites that were injected in previous years (Walker 2009; Hagen and
Dunwiddie 2008).
The relatively new method of stem injection is conducted by utilizing a system that
was specially designed for injecting concentrated herbicide into plants with large
hollow stems, such as knotweed. The system consists of an injector gun that can be
calibrated to release a specific volume of herbicide, a leak-‐proof canister that
connects to the gun and holds up to 16 ounces of herbicide, a hollow needle, an Allen
wrench for calibrating the injection dose, and a measuring vial for calibration (JK
Injections Tools 2010). To control invasive knotweed, trained herbicide applicators
inject every stem greater than a ½ inch diameter in a project area with one 3ml
dose. The injection is applied just above the lowest visible node (Hagen and
Dunwiddie 2008). Following an injection, a stem is marked with a paint marker or
spray paint in order to keep track of which stems in a project area have been
treated.
24
Figure 4. Injection System Photo 3. Knotweed stem injection process
(Burgess 2007). (Shaw 2010).
25
Chapter Four. Research Methods
In this case study of the King County Knotweed Control Project, I used an
interdisciplinary approach to incorporate various measures of progress. Measures
included stakeholder perceptions of the project and changes in the area of invasive
knotweed treated over time. I selected assessment methods based on related
studies that have been conducted pertaining to CWMAs (Izurieta, Paulson, and
Enloe 2008; Tidwell and Brunson 2008; Hershdorfer, Gimenez, and Howery 2007). I
have included data from an individual semi-‐structured interview, evaluative
surveys, and project documents (Denzin and Lincoln 1998).
My research identified three groups of stakeholders involved in the King County
Knotweed Control Project:
1). Lead Knotweed Control project manager
2). Landowners who own property along rivers within the project area
3). Conservation crew members who did on-‐the-‐ground knotweed
treatment
Procedures
Lead Knotweed Control Project Manager Interview
I conducted a semi-‐structured interview with the lead project manager from the
King County Noxious Weed Control Program, who also serves as the lead entity for
each of the CWMAs. While a project manager is generally not considered a
26
stakeholder in a study of public agency management programs, this study examines
the perceptions of the agency representative and other project participants to
identify project challenges that might result from differing project perceptions or
misunderstandings. Using a digital recording device, I recorded the fifty-‐five minute
interview and transcribed it the following day. As I read the transcription, I
highlighted words, phrases, or ideas that came up frequently and ideas that stood
out as unique. Finally, I created a word or phrase to represent common and
uncommon themes next to highlighted phrases. Using this open-‐coding process, I
identified themes within the interview.
Project Documents
Following the interview, the project manager provided hard and digital copies of
King County Knotweed Control Project outreach literature, grant reports, and
Ǥ
ǯhistorical context, goals, and
measured achievements.
Landowner Surveys
In September of 2008, I mailed surveys to all of the landowners who owned
property parcels along rivers in the King County Knotweed Control Project Area.
The mailing list included three hundred property ownersȄmany of whom owned
more than one property parcel within the project area. I used an existing mailing list
that the King County Knotweed Control project manager had used to contact
landowners at the beginning of the knotweed treatment season in June 2008. The
27
mailing list was created using parcel information from King County records and
ArcGIS mapping technology. Each mailing included an end-‐of-‐season thank you
letter, a survey, and a return envelope that included postage. Surveys were returned
to the King County Noxious Weed Control Program office and relayed to me.
Landowner surveys included open-‐ended questions and five-‐level Likert items.
Likert scaling is a method often used in questionnaires and survey research to
ǯ
of ordered responses (Trochim 2005).
The format of a typical five-‐level Likert item is:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Conservation Crew Surveys
In September of 2008, I hand-‐delivered surveys to all the crew supervisors of crew
members who had done knotweed treatment in King County project areas during
the summer project season. I collected the completed surveys from crew
supervisors at the end-‐of-‐season meeting between the crew supervisors and the
King County knotweed project manager. Crew members had three weeks to
complete the surveys. Conservation crew member surveys included open-‐ended
questions and five-‐level Likert items.
28
Analytic Methods
To analyze the project manager interview and project document data, I thoroughly
reviewed the transcript and accompanying documents, then performed an analysis
of themes. I conducted a within-‐case analysis of the project documents and the
projecǯǡlooking for differences in perceptions of
project success, project goals, and public roles (Creswell 2007).
I conducted within-‐case analyses of landowner and conservation crew survey
responses (Creswell 2007). Surveys were thoroughly reviewed and responses to the
open-‐ended questions were systematically open-‐coded for common or overriding
themes. Identified themes were interpreted in relation to the knotweed project
ǯ
past research conducted in the fields of cooperative
weed and watershed management. To analyze the Likert item questions, I created
tables to express quantitative results visually.
29
Chapter Five. Findings
Of the 300 hundred surveys mailed to property owners in the King County
Knotweed Control Project Area, 76 property owners responded to the survey. The
18 conservation crewmembers who conducted invasive knotweed control in the
Summer of 2008 for the King County Knotweed Control Project all responded to the
survey. In the subsequent pages, tables and graphs summarize participant survey
responses. A detailed exploration of stakeholder feedback and the themes derived
from it follow the tables and figures.
Tables 2 and 3 focus on stakeholder perceptions about the King County Knotweed
Control Project. Table 4 focuses more broadly on how stakeholders became aware
of invasive knotweed.
30
ʹǤDzit important to you that invasive knotweed is controlled by
King County?
Reasons the King County Knotweed Control Project is important
Landowners (n=76)
Work Crews (n=18)
Knotweed is too
6.6%
0.0%
28.9%
50.0%
18.4%
0.0%
28.9%
27.8%
0.0%
22.2%
No response
11.8%
0.0%
Other*
5.3%
0.0%
difficult to control as
an individual
Threat to the riparian
ecosystem and
wildlife habitat
Negative impacts on
property value
It is rapidly taking
over stream banks
Negative impacts on
biodiversity
*Other responses will be discussed in more detail in the text.
31
Table 3.Dz
ǫdz
Hesitations about the King County Knotweed Control Project
Landowners (n=76)
Work Crews (n=18)
None
68.4%
5.6%
Working with King County
6.6%
0.0%
Use of herbicide
17.1%
83.3%
1.3%
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
5.6%
Being previously unaware of
ŚŽǁ͞ďĂĚ͟ŬŶŽƚǁĞĞĚ
infestations were
Concern about stream bank
vulnerability
Slowness of eradication and
time commitment to project
Effectiveness of control
techniques
Health impacts of spray paint
32
Table 4. Dz ǫdz
Stakeholder introductions to invasive knotweed
Landowners (n=76)
Work Crews (n=18)
Contacted by King County
60.5%
0.0%
17.1%
0.0%
From neighbors
9.2%
0.0%
From books, articles, or other
9.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
3.9%
0.0%
regarding the Knotweed Control
Project
Saw invasive knotweed growing
on their property
media
From King County Knotweed
Injection Training
No response
33
Figures 5-‐7 illustrate participant perceptions about success or effectiveness of the
project and related trainings based on responses to five-‐level Likert item question
on the surveys.
*Project did not reach their property in 2008 season or they have yet to see results.
Figure 5. Landowner evalations of satisfaction with the 2008 project.
Figure 6. Crew member evaluation of 2008 injection training
34
Figure 7. Crew member evaluation of 2008 control effectivness
Based on the survey responses, I have identified four themes regarding stakeholder
perceptions of the King County Knotweed Control Project.
1). The Role of Education and Outreach
2). Why Invasive Knotweed Control Matters
3). Herbicide Use for Invasive Knotweed Control
4). Perceptions of an Effective Project
The Role of Education and Outreach
ǯ
knowledge about proper removal and disposal of invasive knotweed as a major
obstacle to the p
ǯ
Ǥ
owners, she learned that many cut down thickets in their yard and tossed the
35
cuttings into the river, which can grow into new infestations downstream (Walker
Interview 2008). 46(60.5 percent) of property owners responding to the survey first
learned about the existence of invasive knotweed and its impacts on riparian
ecosystems as a result of being contacted by the King County Noxious Weed Control
Program in regards to the Knotweed Control Project. These points emphasize the
important role that outreach and education play in laying the groundwork for
landowner interest and participation in the project. When the project began in 2005,
targeted education and outreach in the project area was minimal. The King County
Noxious Weed Control Program Outreach Specialist introduced the project in a bi-‐
monthly newsletter that was sent to individuals who had previously requested it.
Individuals could and still can find a great deal of information about invasive
knotweed and the Knotweed Control Project on the King County Noxious Weed
Control Program website, which annual reports about the Knotweed Control
Project. Proactive outreach focusing specifically on the project consisted of the
Knotweed Control Project Manager calling or visiting property owners in the project
area to ask for permission to work on their property.
Beginning in 2008 , education and outreach received a more focused effort including
$2000 in a grant from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife that was designated
specifically for outreach efforts. The knotweed control project manager identified
education and outreach as an important part of the watershed-‐scale knotweed
management strategy. In 2008, the King County Education Specialist and the King
County Knotweed Control Project Manager conducted a total of 11 education and
36
outreach events for property owners in the project areas, conservation crews,
volunteers in the project watersheds, and the general public (Table 5). These events
sought to introduce people to the King County Knotweed Control Project, show
where the project was taking place, and offer resources to individuals or community
groups dealing with the invasive weed. At events directed toward people in the
project areas, property owners learned about different knotweed control methods
and were trained on proper use of herbicide injection equipment so they could
check out it from the King County Noxious Weed Control Program and perform
work on their own property. The King County Noxious Weed staff sent out 2600
training announcements for workshops that were hosted in the project area
watersheds. 40 people (not including the conservation crew members) attended the
2008 workshops.
Web based outreach and education included a Mid Fork Snoqualmie Invasive Weed
Project web page, a Knotweed Biology and Control Slideshow and a Knotweed
Biology and Control Fact Sheet. Additionally, a Knotweed Best Management
Practices (BMP) document ǯǯ
for park kiosks and landowner mailings.
7 (9.2 percent) of the responding property owners learned about the impacts and
ǤǡDz
Ǥdz
37
Table 5. 2008 King County Knotweed Control Project Outreach Events
Type of Outreach
Outreach Event
Intended
Audience
Education Booth: Introduction
King County Fair; Issaquah Salmon
General public
to Issues of Invasive Knotweed
Days
Technical Training Workshop:
WCC training day, EarthCorps training
Conservation
Chemical Control
day
Crews
Community Meeting: King
Meadowbrook Farm Snoqualmie
Property owners
County Knotweed Control
Knotweed and Invasive Weed
in Project areas
Project Overview and Available
Workshop; Covington Knotweed and
Resources
Invasive Weed Workshop; Cedar River
Council Knotweed and Invasive Weed
Workshop
Service Learning Workshop:
WSU Forest Steward Invasive Weed
Interested
Knotweed Identification and
Training; Middle Fork Snoqualmie
Community
Control Techniques
Weed Watcher Training and
Members
Volunteer Trails Survey;
Naturescaping Workshop
In one of the project areas, the South Fork of the Snoqualmie, one landowner
became so passionate about controlling invasive knotweed, after being contacted by
the Knotweed Control Project Manager to treat the invasive knotweed on his
property, that he hosted a community meeting to introduce the project and to
demonstrate control methods for individuals in his homeowners association. This
example illustrates the possible trickle down effect that an investment in education
and outreach can have.
Additionally, when asked what hesitations property owners might have about the
King County Knotweed Control Project, 5 (6.6 percent) of the respondents indicated
38
that they were hesitant to work with King County and cited a variety of reasons:
concern that untrained King County employees would damage the river; past
negative experiences working with other King County departments; concern that
they would be financially responsible for the control of invasive knotweed; and the
requirement by King County for all participating property owners to sign a legal
waiver. These hesitations might be alleviated if familiar and passionate community
members throughout Knotweed Control Project Areas were given the tools and a
more formal role in the outreach portion of the Knotweed Control Project.
18 (100 percent) of the conservation crewmembers who responded to the survey
first learned about the existence of invasive knotweed and its impacts on riparian
ecosystems from a knotweed injection training that was hosted by the King County
Knotweed Control Project. Crewmembers were required to attend the training in
order to be able to conduct treatment of knotweed infestations using aquatically
approved herbicides in riparian areas. Although 5 (27.8 percent) of crewmembers
were unable to attend the King County-‐hosted training, those individuals received
on-‐site trainings from their crew supervisors who had both attended the King
County training and held Washington State Aquatic Pesticide Applicators licenses.
The high response rates (60.5% of property owners and 100% of conservation
crewmembers) regarding a lack of awareness of invasive knotweed before contact
by the King County Knotweed Control Project staff indicate a major challenge to the
growth of a watershed-‐scale effort to control invasive knotweed. However, the
39
increased focus towards education and outreach in the 2008 control season
illustrates a move to meet that challenge.
Why Invasive Knotweed Control Matters
The Knotweed Control Project Manager identified two main reasons why property
owners wanted to be involved in the King County Knotweed Control Project:
ǯ
and they want to see the
river. Mainly, the most common responseȄthey can see it (invasive
knotweed) taking over and they can see that itǯs not creating a healthy
ǤǯǤ
Some people say, you know, I want access to my river, I want to see the river
(Walker interview 2008).
The survey responses articulated similar results. 22 (28.9 percent) of the property
owners and 9 (50 percent) of the conservation crewmembers who responded to the
survey ciǯ
habitats in which it most often thrives as the reason for needing to control it. More
ǡ
ǯ
impact on Pacific salǤǡDzȋ
important to control invasive knotweed) to allow natural vegetation to flourish and
Ǥdz A conservation crewmember responded similarly,
Dz
Ǣǯ
Ǥdz
40
Frequent reference to Pacific salmon is not surprising; they are keystone species in
Pacific Northwest ecosystems. The stakeholder perception of a connection between
invasive knotweed and healthy salmon habitat may be a useful tool for framing the
issue of invasive knotweed control in order to achieve greater project interest,
funding, and support at the watershed scale. Region-‐wide interest in watershed-‐
scale restoration and conservation of salmon habitat has been beneficial to the
financial side of invasive knotweed management. The King County Knotweed
Control Project has been partially funded by the following salmon-‐focused
conservation programs:
1. The Community Salmon Fund, which is administered by the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation; and
2. The Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board, which is administered by the
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (Monica Walker
interview 2008).
22 (28.9 percent) of the property owners and 5 (27.8 percent) of the conservation
crewmembers responding to the survey said that they want to control invasive
knotweed because it is rapidly taking over the stream banks. Responses expressed a
sense of urgency in preventing further rapid and dense spread of invasive knotweed
in riparian areas. One ǡDz
Ǣǯ
ǡǡǨdz A
ǡDz
Ǥdz
41
Additionally, 4 (22.2 percent) of the conservation crewmembers who responded to
the survey felt it is important to control invasive knotweed because of its negative
impacts on biodiversity.
ǯ
Dzdz
.
The 3 previously cited categories of responses could be broadly classified as
ǯ
Ǥ
results, 44 (57.8 percent) of property owners and 18 (100 percent) of conservation
crewmembers responses about the importance of controlling knotweed related to
the overall health of the watershed in which invasive knotweed is occurring.
14 (18.4 percent) of the property owners who responded to the survey think it is
important to control invasive knotweed because they are concerned with how
infestations may negatively affect the value of their properties. Some individuals
talked about how the thickets of this tall plant obstructed their river views. Others
were frustrated with how the infestations were encroaching on their gardens and
open spaces.
5(6.6 percent) of property owners who responded to the survey think it is
important to control invasive knotweed because it is too difficult to control on their
own. These responses expressed a lack of knowledge, time, and materials necessary
to effectively control invasive knotweed or difficulty in acquiring the permits or
licenses that are required in order to apply herbicide in an aquatic ecosystem.
42
4 (5.3 percent) of the property owners who responded to the survey had responses
that did not easily fit into any of the above categories. Some of these responses
expressed general dislike for the invasive plant or uncertainty about why it is
important to control. One notable property owner response acknowledged the
negative impacts of knotweed, but expressed concern with control strategies.
We realize that knotweed is a problem, but think it is too dangerous to try to
eradicate it by chemical means. This is a danger to the honey bees and other
important pollinators in the areas (Landowner Survey Results 2008).
I will discuss stakeholder views regarding chemical control of invasive knotweed in
the following section. 9 (11.8 percent) of the property owners who responded to the
survey did not respond to this question.
Herbicide Use for Invasive Knotweed Control
52 (68.4 percent) of the property owners who responded to the survey said that
they had no hesitations about participating in the King County Knotweed Control
Project. However, of the 24 (31.6 percent) who did have hesitations, 13 (17.1
percent) cited the use herbicides for treating invasive knotweed infestations as their
main concern. However, reasons for concern with herbicide use varied. Like the
individual in the previous section, some were concerned with the impacts that
herbicides might have on wildlife and overall ecosystem health.
ǡDz ǡ
micals
to be used to control knotweed and the effects they may have on stream, fish,
Ǥdz
43
Others were concerned about how herbicide use might affect human health. Some
property owners rely on wells and wanted to be assured that herbicide use would
not contaminate their groundwater supply. Similarly, one property owner was
specifically concerned about their honey bees ingesting chemicals and making the
resulting honey supply dangerous to people. Others were more concerned with
direct exposure:
Dz
ǡ
Ǥdz
15 (83.3 percent) of the conservation crew members who responded to the survey
cited herbicide use as their reason for hesitation with participating in the King
County Knotweed Control Project. While this percentage is significantly higher than
that of property owners, it is important to point out that the conservation crew
members had a hands-‐on relationship with herbicides in the control process. They
were responsible for conducting nearly all of the glyphosate stem injection
Dzdz
section; they did not conduct any of the backpack-‐administered herbicide spraying.
Some crew members said that they did not feel safe administering herbicides. They
were also a self-‐selecting group with a high level of environmental consciousness.
One conservation crew member mentioned that he was concerned with possible
negative health impacts from spray paint. The stem injection method includes using
spray paint to mark invasive knotweed canes after they have been treated. That
44
said, some of the conservation crew members cited concerns similar to those of
property owners, such as impacts that herbicides might have on wildlife and overall
ecosystem health.
Perceptions of an Effective Project
The King County Knotweed Control Project tracks annual progress of the King
County Knotweed Control Project by conducting GPS surveys of new and previously
treated sites in each project area. Collected survey data include gross infested area
(ft2) of each infestation site and net area of invasive knotweed within the given
infestation. By looking at the change in treated net acres from year to year, one can
assess the effectiveness of control. For example, on the Middle Fork of the
Snoqualmie River, the project treated 13 acres of invasive knotweed during the first
project year in 2006, only 2 net acres in 2008, and 1.79 in 2009 (Walker interview
2008, King County Noxious Weed Board 2009). Since the onset of project, the
overall footprint of invasive knotweed has been reduced by 75 percent from along
the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie.
Table 6 displays an overview of the change in acres of treated areas within each of
the King County Knotweed Control Project Areas. Noticeably, the South Fork
Skykomish and the Middle Fork Snoqualmie are the only project areas that show a
decrease in treated area. However, the project manager noted the circumstances
behind this detail. Both the South Fork Skykomish and the South Fork Snoqualmie
project areas received more time and funding for surveys and treatment in 2008;
45
the increase in gross area treated does not aptly reflect the ǯeffectiveness
as compared to previous years. In the Green River Project Area, a previously
undiscovered infestation of invasive knotweed in Soos Creek, a tributary of the
Green River, is responsible for the increase in gross area treated (Walker interview
2008).
Table 6. King County Knotweed Control Project Area Treatment 2005-2008
Gross Acres Treated in the King County Knotweed Control Project Areas
2005
2006
2007
2008
South Fork Skykomish River
21.2
16.26
15.77
30.76
Green River
23.3
15.06
27.79
28.9
Middle Fork Snoqualmie River
**
27.47
16.06
6.37
South Fork Snoqualmie River
**
**
6.58
20.35
Cedar River
**
**
**
24
Total
44.5
58.79
66.2
110.38
46
The management goal established by the CWMA and the King County Knotweed
Control Project is:
To restore or enhance the quality of the riparian habitat so that healthy
ecosystem functions can return. This is achieved through eradication of
invasive knotweeds from riparian ecosystems in the watershed and
encouragement of subsequent re-‐vegetation activities (Walker 2008).
W
Dz
dzǡproject manager responded,
ǯǤ ǯȄexcept for the
Middle Fork (Snoqualmie)Ȅany end to it. So, I feel a project has been
successful if I get a lot of knotweed controlled, if I spend my money wisely, if I
can get a lot of people to buy into the project, and if people get excited and call
me and want to parti
Ǥ ǯ
ȋȌ
ǡ
ǯ
Ǥ ǯȋȌǡ
ǯǡǡective (Walker
interview 2008).
Dz
knotweed
ǡdz the practical goal focuses more on reducing the level of
infestation to manageable l evels with greatly reduced impacts.
When asked if they were satisfied with the 2008 Knotweed Control Project efforts,
26 (34.2 percent) of the property owners who responded to the survey rated their
satisfaction level as 5 (very satisfied). Those who responded with a 5 cited the
helpful and informative staff as reasons for satisfaction. However, some of those
same respondents were disappointed that the project had not reached their
property yet (they are, likely, located downstream of the sites treated in 2008). In
47
fact, the dominating response of property owners who rated their satisfaction levels
at ͳȋȌͶDz
dz
project had not, yet, reached their property.
When conservation crew members were asked to rate the effectiveness of the
control efforts in which they had participated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1= not satisfied,
5= very satisfied), 5 people (27.8 percent) each responded with 3, 4, Dzǯ
dzǤ͵ (16.7 percent) rated their perceived effectiveness as a 5. Although
this varied range does not provide a clear sense of crewmember perceptions of the
ǯ
ǡ
3. None of the crewmembers who responded to the survey had adverse opinions
about the projecǯ
Ǥǡǡ
conservation crew members who rated
͵ǡͶǡDzǯ
dzǡȋʹͲͲͺȌǡ
yet see whether or not their efforts had successfully killed the invasive knotweed.
Discussion
Through analysis of written surveys and a semi-‐structured interview, this research
has provided insight into the personal experiences and views of 76 landowners, 18
conservation crew members, and the project manager involved in the King County
Knotweed Control Project. In summary, the qualitative data in this thesis suggest
that the project stakeholders are concerned about the impacts of invasive knotweed
because of its negative effects on the health of the watershed and its negative effects
48
on the value of privately owned property. Lack of previous knowledge about the
impacts of invasive knotweed and proper control techniques, misgivings about
working with King County, and concern about the negative impacts of herbicide are
significant challenges that the King County staff needs to address in order to more
effectively manage the Knotweed Control Project.
Greater utilization of key community members will play a significant role in the
success of this project. Key community members can serve as on-‐the-‐ground
liaisons with a working knowledge of their local landscape. Additionally, they can
help to break down the government/community barrier. Cathy Lucero, program
manager for Clallam County Noxious Weeds, accounts the benefits of empowering a
key community member for knotweed management on the North Olympic
Peninsula:
Our approach was to have people who lived in the community on our
crew. That was a big deal. One of things we were working towards was with a
certain guy; he was working for the county, but he was part of the
community. So, he would get into it and talk to people and would directly
contact people that he knew, because ǯ a very small community there (on
ȌǤ ǡDz ǯ
ǡǯǥǡ
ǯ
Ǥdzǯ a good way
to go for a small far-‐flung community. H
ǯǡ
ǥ(Lucero interview 2009).
When evaluating overall satisfaction with the project, a number of property owners
expressed disappointment that control efforts had not reached their property
49
during the 2008 season after having received a project introduction letter and
participation waiver at the beginning of the control season. Communicating the
seasonal and long-‐term project expectations clearly at the beginning of the season
and more frequently throughout the season would minimize such disappointment.
This also illustrates the merit of creating a system for communicating up-‐to-‐date
project progress.
Such a system could utilize an inte
ǤDzdz
combination of the terms DzdzDzdzǡa website that contains regular
updates or posts of announcements of upcoming events, descriptions of past events,
and commentaries on particular subjects or available resources. Posts are often
displayed in reverse-‐chronological order. While blogs are usually maintained by an
individual, they are interactive in nature, because site visitors can leave comments
or messages in response to the posts (Blood 2010). By creating and regularly
updating a blog that focuses on the King County Knotweed Control Project, the
Project Manager could provide more detailed and current project information for
landowners and interested parties throughout the project season. The interactive
blog might also serve as a social networking area where interested parties could
connect and become more involved in the project. Although individual contact via
telephone, email, and mail should remain dominant, an interactive blog could
greatly increase project transparency, stakeholder feedback, and timely
communication, while reducing redundant tasks for the project staff.
50
Beyond improving communication with individuals already involved in the project,
it is also essential to continue to build wider project support throughout the
participating watersheds. One benefit to watershed management in western
Washington and the Pacific Northwest is the importance of salmon species to the
cultural and economic history of the region. The existence of an iconic regional
symbol that is so closely connected and dependant on aquatic ecosystem health
offers a great point from which to build a place-‐based group identity for
collaborative watershed planning in the region. Forming place-‐based group
identities through issue framing can foster long-‐term watershed stewardship
(France 2005). For example, one regional non-‐profit organization has created the
Salmon-safe certification program for small farms in the Pacific Northwest. Like
organic certification, Salmon-safe certification offers market-‐incentives to promote
ecologically sustainable agricultural practices by enabling farmers to sell their
products with the Salmon-safe logo. Certified farms are required to minimize
negative impacts on water quality while seeking to improve fish habitat (Salmon
Safe 2003).
Current King County Knotweed Control Project messaging and media describe the
negative impacts that invasive knotweed has on ecosystems and private property.
While such detailed information is valuable, a simplified project message that links
invasive knotweed control directly to the bigger goal of improved salmon habitat
could frame the issue in a way that would broaden interest in the project and,
eventually, build a place-‐based group identity. Such issue framing could be achieved
51
through the creation of media (i.e. posters and pamphlets) and messaging that starts
with salmon habitat health as a segue into the importance of invasive knotweed
control.
Both the stakeholder responses and the quantitative data that describe the infested
areas that have been treated indicate that the King County Knotweed Control
Project is making progress. Landowners and conservation crew members who
participated in the surveys are generally supportive of and excited about the goal of
eradicating invasive knotweed. Although the gross number of infested areas that
have been treated have increasedȄrather than decreasedȄ since the beginning of
the project, this is a result of an increased footprint of project operations. In
comparing the official project goals as determined by the King County Noxious
Weed Control Board and that of the King County Knotweed Control Project Manager,
it is apparent that it is time to stop, assess the project outcomes and experiences,
and to adapt the project goals based on those assessments. More clearly defined
goals would more effectively guide project priorities and day-‐to-‐day decision-‐
making. Based on the project assessment, I have identified three recommendations:
1. Recruit, educate, and support a key community member from each of the
project areas to build greater project support and involvement.
2. Build an interactive website to more effectively and efficiently
communicate up-‐to-‐date project information to stakeholders.
3. Frame the project around the issue of salmon habitat improvement to
build a place-‐based group identity and simplify project messaging.
52
Chapter Six. Conclusions
The King County Knotweed Control Project deviates from the prevailing weed
management strategy of focusing on emerging weed populations that have not
become significantly established in an area. Instead, the project is a trial of an
alternative strategy for weed managementȄtackling a widespread invasive weed
by using a cooperative watershed-‐scale approach. The outcome of this project could
set a precedent for how widespread weed populations are managed in the future.
Also, although CWMA managers and watershed-‐scale policy makers share a
common goal of uniting community members across socio-‐political boundaries in
the name of land stewardship, lessons learned in CWMAs have, yet, to be looked to
inform opportunities for improving community participation in cooperative
watershed-‐scale management. This study encourages interdisciplinary collaboration
between CWMA managers and the broader community of watershed-‐scale policy
managers.
The purpose of this thesis research was to conduct an assessment of the King
County Knotweed Control Project using an interdisciplinary approach that includes
both measurable gains or losses of acres of treated invasive knotweed and a
qualitative look at stakeholder perceptions of the project.
53
GPS data show that the presence of invasive knotweed has been significantly
reduced in all five project areas. Most significant is the 75 percent reduction of the
weed in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie project area since the onset of the project in
2006 (King County Noxious Weed Board 2009). These measures indicate that the
King County Knotweed Control Project is moving towards its goal of eradication of
invasive knotweed in identified sensitive riparian areas in King County. However,
the project will not be complete for a number of years. The project manager cited
time as the key limiting-‐factor in the project (Walker interview 2009). In a period
when competition for additional funding is challenging and time is limited, it is
important to take steps towards improving project efficiency and stakeholder
support. Based on careful analysis of the project manager interview and survey
results from 76 landowners and 18 conservation crew members, I have identified 4
themes regarding stakeholder perceptions of the King County Knotweed Control
Project:
-‐
The Role of Education and Outreach;
-‐
Why Invasive Knotweed Control Matters;
-‐
Herbicide Use for Invasive Knotweed Control; and
-‐
Perceptions of an Effective Project .
By exploring these themes, I determined that invasive knotweed management in
King County will benefit most significantly from greater focus on community
54
education, outreach, and overall communication with project participants.
Furthermore, I recommend that attention be paid to project messaging as a means
for building a cohesive place-‐based group identity around the watershed-‐scale
project.
Beyond the King County Knotweed Control Project
Watershed-‐scale land management of invasive knotweed demands near complete
community support for project success. If one landowner along a river is unwilling
to cooperate in knotweed control on his or her property, that inaction compromises
successful eradication of the weed downstream. The recommendations made based
on analysis of feedback from the project stakeholders focus on developing a place-‐
based identity in order to build community-‐wide enthusiasm surrounding invasive
knotweed control. However, long-‐term support must be maintained through
regular and trusted communication. Although this was a single case study of the
King County Knotweed Control Project, lessons derived from it can be applied more
broadly to watershed-‐scale environmental stewardship. Watershed-‐scale weed
management requires more than a few years and a few individuals to make a lasting
impact on the health of an ecosystem; instead, it necessitates the long-‐term
commitment of an entire community.
55
REFERENCES
Adams, Carolyn, Bruce Newton, and Thomas Noonan. Watershed Management in the
21st Century: National Perspectives. United States Department of Agriculture -‐
Forest Service, Mar. 2000. Web. 22 Mar. 2009. <www.fs.fed.us>.
Beerling, David J., John P. Bailey, and Ann P. Conolly. "Fallopia Japonica (Houtt.)
Ronse Decraene." The Journal of Ecology 82.4 (1994): 959-‐79. Print.
Blood, Rebecca. "Weblogs: A History And Perspective." Rebecca's Pocket. 7 Sept.
2000. Web. 29 Aug. 2010.
<http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html>.
Burgess, Phillip. Japanese Knotweed Injector System. Patent US20070033870A1. 15
February 2007. Print.
ǡǤǤǤDz
We: Examining the Relationship
between Geographic Scale and In-‐group Emergence in Collaborative
Ǥdz Human Ecology Review 12.1(2005): 30-‐43. Print.
Corn, M. Lynne. Ecosystems, Biomes, and Watersheds: Definitions and Use. United
States Congressional Report. 93-‐655 ENR. National Council for Science and
the Environment, 14 July 1993. Web. 22 Mar. 2009. <www.ncseonline.org>.
Creswell, John W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications, 2007. Print.
Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998. Print.
Evans, Clinton L. The W ar on Weeds in the Prairie West: an Environmental History.
Calgary: University of Calgary, 2002. Print.
France, Robert L. Facilitating Watershed Management: Fostering Awareness and
Stewardship. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefeid, 2005. Print.
Gerber, Esther, and e. al. "Exotic Invasive Knotweeds (Fallopia Spp.) Negatively
Affect Native Plant and Invertebrate Assemblages in European Riparian
Habitats." Biological Conservation 141.3 (2008): 646-‐54. Print.
56
Glesne, C., and A. Peshkin. Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. White
Plains: Longman, 1992. Print.
Grevstad, Fritzi. "Developing a Control Program for Invasive Knotweed." ONRC
Website. University of Washington, Fall 2009. Web. 01 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.onrc.washington.edu/MarinePrograms/knotweeds.html>.
Grevstad, Fritzi, Paolo Sanguankeo, Richard Shaw, Robert Bourchier, and Richard
Reardon. Biological Control for Knotweeds in North America. Tech. Newton
Square: USDA, 2009. Print. 2009 Research Forum on Invasive Species.
Gunderson-‐Izurieta, Sharlyn, Deborah Paulson, and Stephen F. Enloe. "The Estes
Valley, Colorado: A Case Study of a Weed Management Area." Invasive Plant
Science and Management 1 (2008): 91-‐97. Print.
Hagen, Erin N., and Peter W. Dunwiddie. "Does Stem Injection of Glyphosate Control
Invasive Knotweeds (Polygonum Spp.)? A Comparison of Four Methods."
Invasive Plant and Science Management 1.1 (2008): 31-‐35. Print.
Hansen, Rich, and Ken Bloem. USDA-APHIS-PPQ Biocontrol Target Pest Canvassing
and Evaluation 2005Ȃ2006. Issue brief. Fort Collins: National Weed
Management Laboratory, 2006. Print.
Hershdorfer, Mary E., Maria E. Fernandez-‐Gimenez, and Larry D. Howery. "Key
Attributes Influence the Performance of Local Weed Management Programs
in the Southwest United States." Rangeland Ecology and Management 60.3
(2007): 225-‐34. Print.
King County Knotweed Control Board. 2009 Annual Report: King County Noxious
Weed Control Program. Rep. Seattle: King County, 2009. Print.
Kurose, Daisuke. "Fallopia Japonica, an Increasingly Intractable Weed Problem in
the UK: Can Fungi Help Cut through This Gordian Knot?" Mycologist 20
(2006): 126-‐29. Print.
Lowe, S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas, and M. De Poorter. 100 of the World's Worst Alien
Invasive S pecies : A Selection from the Global Invasive S pecies Database.
Publication. Auckland, New Zealand: Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)
of the World Conservation Union, 2004. Print.
57
Lucero, Cathy. "North Olympic Knotweed Working Group." Personal interview. 23
Feb. 2009.
Miller, Tim. Evaluation of Knotweed Control Projects in Southwestern Washington.
Rep. Mount Vernon: Washington State University Northwestern Washington
Research and Extension Center, 2005. Print.
Seiger, Leslie. Element Stewardship Abstract for Polygonum Cuspidatum. Arlington:
Nature Conservancy, 1991. Print.
Shaw, Sasha. "Noxious Weed Information and Services." King County Noxious Weeds.
King County, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-‐
weeds.aspx>.
Talmage, Erin, and Erik Kiviat. Japanese Knotweed and Water Quality on the Batavia
Kill in Greene County, New York. Publication. Annandale: Hudsonia, 2004.
Print.
Tidwell, Leith S., and Mark W. Brunson. "Volunteering to Manage Rangeland Weeds:
Results of a Citizen Survey in the Southwestern United States." Rangelands
Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Journal No. 7958 (2008): 19-‐24.
Trochim, William. Research Methods The Concise Knowledge Base, First Edition.
Cincinnati: Atomic Dog, 2005. Print.
Udo, Marshall. Statewide Knotweed Control Program: 2007 Progress Report. Rep. no.
805-‐215. Olympia: Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2008. Print.
United States. USDA-‐Forest Service. Interagency Noxious Weed Program. CWMA
Cookbook: a Recipe for Success. By Rick Vanbebber. Boise: Idaho Noxious
Weed Coordinating Committee, 2003. Print.
Urgenson, Lauren. "The Ecological Consequences of Knotweed Invasion in Riparian
Forests." Thesis. University of Washington, 2006. Print.
Wagner, Edward O., Ronald F. Ott, and James W. Dunn. "Watershed Management
Addresses Area Water Quality Issues." Pollution Engineering (1997): 82-‐86.
Print.
58
Walker, Monica. "King County Knotweed Control Project." Personal interview. 5 Feb.
2009.
Walker, Monica. Snoqualmie/Skykomish Invasive Knotweed Control: 2008 Final
Report. Rep. Seattle: King County Noxious Weed Control Program, 2008.
Print.
Warshall, Peter. "Streaming Wisdom-‐-‐Watershed Consciousness in the Twenty-‐first
Century." The Many Voices of the Boulder Creek Watershed. Boulder:
University of Colorado, 1996. Print.
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. Washington State NWCB, 1 Mar.
2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/FAQs/FAQs.htm>.
Western Weed Coordinating Committee. Cooperative Weed Management Area.
Cheyenne: Western Weed Coordinating Committee, 2006. Print.
Zika, Peter F. and Arthur L. Jacobson. DzAn Overlooked Hybrid Japanese Knotweed In
North America.dz RHODORA 105(2003): 143-‐152. Print.
59
Appendix I: Interview with Monica Walker Ȃ King County Knotweed
Control Project Manager
February 5, 2009
ǯ ing County and describe what that encompasses?
Monica: My official title is noxious weed specialist. That will be changing in May to
aquaticȄǡǡ
ǥǤǡ Ȃis the
knotweed project manager for K ing County. I coordinate landscape-‐scale knotweed.
How long have you been doing that?
Monicaǣ ǯͶǤ
Is knotweed fulltime with your position?
Monicaǣ Ǥ ǯaybe 60% knotweed and 40%
weed control specialist, which is surveying urban Seattle areas for noxious weeds
that grow thereȄǯǤ
How did the 60/40 work out?
Monicaǣ ǯǤeattle that was
ǯǤ
So, that got lostȄmy route got lost because I had to focus on knotweed. Knotweed
never got lost. Because it was externally funded, it was important there was no
sliding on that b/c I had to work with other partners. My route did suffer.
60
This is a seasonal position---not all year long. Do you feel like it could be a year-long job?
Monicaǣ ǥ
ing
and county council, but I do think that there is def. enough work for it to be year-‐
round. I think a lot gets lost b/c its not year-‐round and I have to rely on other co-‐
workers that are full-‐
ǯǡ
ǯǡ ǯǥ
Dzdzǫ
Monica: I just had one, yesterday. A landowner on Roaring CreekȄthe MTSG Project
ǥǤ
Crew and Restoration Project Manager went out and spent two days walking the
property with the landowner, deciding where to plant, how to do things, and looking
Ǥǯǡ
after the
Dz
Ǥdzǡǡ
out there and were going to spend 2 days planting willow stakes. The first day went
great. They brought the crews out cokes and were happy they were there. The
second day, the crews got there and she leftȄǯ
ͳͳǤ
ǡǡDzǯ
ǡǯǡǡǯǤdz
landowner came back and kicked the crew off site.
ǡDz Ǩ Ǥdz
ǡǯ
Ǥ
61
T
ʹǯ
Ȅ
Ǥǯ
called a half hour later and said that his wife was embarrassed to call and had
overreacted, the neighbor had scared her. They apologized profusely and thanked
them for everything that they had done and KC for the work we have done for them
and apologized for the embarrassment.
Wow.
MonicaǣǥǤǡǤ ǯn this time of
year and I have to deal with thisȄfind sites for planting, put out fires, and deal with
ǥ ǯ ǯǤǡ
job!
Will you talk a little bit about how the projects are funded?
MonicaǣǤ
ǥ
ǡǤǥ
bit confusing.
Um, the projects initially started with Forest Service Funding on the Green River.
So, it was the USFS Ȃ Forest Health Protection funding-‐-‐-‐ǡǯ
Ǥ ǡǯ
on the Green R. After that, we transferred some of the WSDA money to the MF
Snoqualmie.
62
We also had Title II funds, which are RAC-‐-‐-‐ ǯ-‐A-‐C stands
ǥǤ̈́ͺͲͲͲǡ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ ǥ ǯ
st
Service and the FS can dole it out how they want.
ǡǯ ǯǯ
Conservation District money. Coming up, we just got two grants from Community
Ǥ ǯǯǯ
ng. Forest Service, USFW, WSDA,
King Conservation District, and now Community Salmon FundȄǯǤ
So, something like the Community Salmo n Fund seems to be focused on salmon, so are
there stipulations that come with the grand funding? How it should be spent, what it
should be spent on?
MonicaǣǥǤǯǤ ǡ ǯ
River and the Skykomish-‐-‐-‐I have money from them in both rivers and the Green
river definitely has salmon and the Skykomish has a block, but they catch and haul
salmon upstream so it can be considered a salmon-‐bearing stream. ǯt
really a lot of limitations with USFWȄǯǡ
riparian systems.
ǡ ǯȄǡǯ
Ȅiǯ-‐based. They work off of
plans that are, um, based on salmon recovery.
Forest Health Protection was not salmon-‐based at all.
63
Community Salmon FundȄǤ ǡ ǯ
Ǥ ǯ that the invoicing process in getting
reimbursed is difficultȄyou have to really be prepared to prove your match.
Are matching their funding?
M
ǣǥǤǤ for WSDA and grants from SPU doing work up in
the Cedar River Watershed can match whatever they put it. C ascade Land
Conservancy is now doing a project downstream (in the Cedar), so we can match
that.
Did you apply for all of this grant funding?
Monica: Yes. You have to actively seek and actively apply for that funding every year.
Is any of the funding provided by King County Noxious Weeds?
MonicaǣǤ
ǤǤǯǡ ǯǡ
ǡǤǯ
the grantsȄwith in-‐kind wǤǯ-‐kind match. Um,
anybody else who puts work into the project or our GPS units, our software,
ǥǤ-‐
Ǥǯ
-‐-‐-‐or
ǯ
the grants.
HDz
dz
ǫ
MonicaǣǤǤǤ ǯǤ ǯ
seenȄexcept for the MFȄǤǡ
ǥ
64
get a lot of knotweed controlled, if I can get a lot of people to buy into the project, if
Ǥ ǯ
ǡ
ǯǥ ǯ
seen it happenȄǯ
ǯǤǡǡǥ
being able to control every site that I know about.
Would you considered the KC knotweed control project successful?
Monica: Yes.
Dz
dzement? Is that the s ame thing as
Dz
dzǫ
Monicaǣ ǯǤǡ
ǯ
-‐-‐-‐
ǯ
ǡ
ǯͷΨǤ
ǡǯ ǯ
Ǥ ǯ
ǡ
ǯ
Ǥ ǯ
Ȁ
̈́ǡ
ǥǡ
ǯǤǯ
Ǥ ǯ
Ǥ ǯmanageable, but
not to fully eradicate.
Dzdzǡ-scale, site-by-
ǥǫ
Monica: On a river-‐scale. I think the Middle Fork Snoqualmie isȄI was just looking at
the data today. I think the first year we did knotweed work, I would consider it
successful. We did 13 acresȄnet acres of knotweed that we treatedȄand this last
65
year in 2008, it was 2. So, thǯ
Ǥ ǯ
Ǥǡǯ
Ǥ
What would you consider your major limiting factors in managing knotweed?
Monica: Time. The time that I have in the year to do the work and the time that crews
ǤǯǤ
Ǥ ǥ
ǡ ǯ
ǡ
ǡǡǥ ͳ0 more crews to do
the work in the allotted time we have to control it.
What have been your biggest challenges or hurdles?
MonicaǣǥǡǤǤ
ǯ
expectȄI was working on Soos Creek and we were working away and a landowner
called and said he had bees. He asked what we were going to do about the bees
Ǥ ǯ
what to do about that. Apparently, aquamaster is not going to harm bee or humans,
but who wants to make honey that has chemical in it? So, I had to have the crews,
after they injected, cut off all the flower heads of every plantȄwhich, of course,
slowed up the project until we figured out what to do. The landowner took his bees
awayȄǡǯǯ
that can stop or halt your project. Landowners are a huge problemȄSOME of them,
not all of them. They can hold up your project or can leave one parcel in the middle
of your projecǯ
ǡ
entire project. So, that can be an issue.
66
Cooperative Weed Management AreaǤ
ǥ
you define CWMA in reference to this particular project?
Monica: I define itȄand I think this is not necessary how it was meant, but I think
ǯȄI believe it is defined as everybodyȄall stakeholdersȄ
within the project area working together. Um, to complete whatever you are
working on together. How it has actually turned out-‐-‐-‐we see as cooperationȄ
Ǥ Ǣ ǯ
Ǥǡ
ǯ
ǡ
ǯǡ
ǯȀ
ǡ
equipment. We do have some landowner stakeholder that have taken over control
ǥǤǡǯǤ ǯ
ǯǡǡ
Ǥ ǯ
goal, I think its what we want it to be, but right now, everybody letting us do work -‐-‐
-‐Ǥ ǯǡ
Ǥ
sounds terribleȄI might hear from the county about that one.
It sounds like a work in progress.
Monicaǣ ǯǤ
Do you think that also has a lot to do with the nature of knotweedȄǯ
than other plants managed under the guise of CWMA?
Monica: That could probably play into it. You need to get MPDS permits. Landowners
ǯǯǥ
67
ǡ
ǯǯ
knotweed grows. So, how are they supposed to get that? So, we really need to come
ǯ
done. So, that is probably why its taking the shape that it, versus what was originally
Ǥǡǯ ǡǯǡǡ
participating.
ǡǯǥ
other stakeholders?
MonicaǣǡǤǤ
ǥǯ
from federal all the way down to private. Um, but there are some non-‐profits like
MTGW and CLC who have done immense work in the upper watershed of the
Ǥǯǡ
out and keeping the ǡ
Ǥǡǯ
necessarily have to be a landowner.
ǥǡ
ǡǥǤ
ǫ
Monicaǣ ǯǡing contact with them. We do have a newsletter that
SashaȄour outreach specialistȄǡǥ
have usually been apart ofȄǡ ǯǡ
cities and agencies and a lot of private people too. Then, she advertises the projects
ǤǯǤ
ǢǯȂpast years reports. Typically, where we have a
68
project going, I reach out to those landowners and request their participationȄ
ǡDz
ǫdz
Education and Outreach..is it a part of the knotweed management strategy?
Monica: It is. An important part. We hold and are going to start holding more
meetings and trainingsȄworkshopsȄto train landowners on the diff. knotweed
control methods. WE also include training them on the use of the injection gun
which allows them to check out a gun from the program to do work on their
property. We advertise that through a large mailing to ǥ
held the workshop in those basins. At the end of the season, there was a
naturescaping workshop that dealt w / the knotweed and what to do in this coming
year. We also hold municipal trainings so people who work in the municipalities can
control their own knotweed. I think ǯ advertised mostly through those direct
mailings and through the newsletter. ..and word of mouth.
Does any of your grant funding go towards that?
Monica: Yeah. Yes. USFW put $2000 towards outreach last year. I usually put in 60
ǯ-‐kind match for grants. Some of its funded. Some not.
That brochure I gave youȄwas funded by FW.
Has education/outreach always been a part of the knotweed program?
MonicaǣǤ ǡǥǤǯǡ
year was the first year that we did direct mailings and invited landowners to come
and learn what they could do. Letting them know where are projects are, and that
69
ǯ
Ȁ
ǯ so much, but giving them the tools to help
themselves or get a community group together to take it upon themselves has
definitely taken off in the last few years .
Did you have a good response?
Monicaǣ Ǥ ǯǤʹͲͲing announcements
ͶͲǤǡǯǡ ǯ
probably a good response.
What reasonsȄtalking with the l andowners and stakeholdersȄhave they given for
wanting to be involved?
Monicaǣǯ
out the health of their river. They want to see the river.
Mainly, the most common responseȄthey can see it taking over and they can see
ǯ
Ǥ
ǯǤay, you know, I want access to my river, I
want to see the river.
Do you notice certain characteristics in landowners that are more excited about being
ǥ
ǫ
Monicaǣ ǯǤ outh Fork Snoqualmie people are SO excited about
the projectȄprobably tenǤ ǯǫ
ǯǤǯǤ ǯǤ
ǯǤ
The Green River ǥǡd. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie ǯ
Ǥ ǯǥouth Fork Snoqualmie
ǡ ǯǤ
70
the Raging RiverǥǤǥountains To Sound Gǯ starting
working on this yearȄthey have salmon, that one makes a liǤ ǯ
know.
How do you feel landowners are most useful to you in helping the project?
Monica: Allow me access. Not having to call them a day or two ahead before the
crews are going to come, because ǯ Ǥǥǡng access
when it happens. I understand, ǯ their private property. That makes the job much
ǯ
Ǥ
Do you see any more active roles they can take on in the projects?
Monicaǣ
Ǥ ǯle on the Green River and oneȄthis is
ǥ ǯ ǯȄshe does hikes throughout the
watershed and she would call me when she saw knotweedȄwhich is GREAT! They
ǯǡǥ ǯk of that. Sites I
ǯǤǯǯǡDz
ǯǡ ǡ ǯǤdzǡǯ
helpful. Them letting their neighbors know or getting their neighbors involved. The
ǯ
neighbor got him to come on board. They can help in that wayȄbring their
ǡǯ
anyǡǤ ǯǡǡ
any of the control would help b/c its not usually effective or fully effective when
71
they do that. But, I think getting communities together and agreeing on the
importance of this is really useful.
Why do you think its not effective for them to do the control?
ǣ ǯǯȀ
ǯ
ǡ
ǯ
g
legally safe. So, that makes it harder. Sometimes, its easier for us to just come in a do
itȄǡǯ
Ǥ
What roles do landowners take on that impact the project in a negative ways?
Monica: I dǯǯǤǤǡ
ǥǯ
ǤǯǤǡ ǯ
ǯ
herbicide when its not needed. Have they done anything, trying to help? Before
ǡǯly a liabilityȄ ǯ
times during a rafting surveyȄǯ
Ȁ
ǯ ǡ ǯ
river. ǡ
Ǥǡ ǯ
ǥǯ
Ǥ
ǯǤǤ, that do, but not willingly or knowingly.
Additional feedback about community involvement in the project, or aspects about the
project ǯ
ǯǫ
72
Monicaǣ ǯ
Ǥ
ews, landowners,
ǡǥ
ǥǡ
Ǥ
ǯ
ǡǤ
to start at this property when we need to get permission or are waiting to get
permission for something and then we move up. For people to criticize the project
Ǥǥ
ǥ
ǯ
ǯ
ǥǤǤǡ Ǥ
Where do you hear that criticism?
Monica: From the hired crews. Yeah.
Those that you contract to do the control?
Monica: Right. And I know that its because they want to do the best job and they
ǯ-‐
ǥǡǯǡDz
ǯ
ǫdzǤǤ
ǥǯ
Ȅǯ
down. Skipped on property in the middleȄǯǤǯ
ǯ
they will understand and not be frustrated with the process.
Do you hear that from landowners too?
Monica: no.
73
Appendix II: Project Landowner Survey
Name (optional):
Contact information (optional):
When and how did you learn about invasive knotweed?
Why is it important to you to control knotweed?
Did you attend a 2008 Knotweed Informational Workshop? Which one?
How satisfied were you with the project this year (2008)? (1=not satisfied, 5=very
satisfied) Explain.
1
2
3
4
5
What were your hesitations, if any, in participating in the project?
ǥ
74
Appendix III: Project Field Crew Survey
What organization do you work for?
When and how did you learn about invasive knotweed?
Why is it important to you to control knotweed?
Did you attend the 2008 Knotweed Injection Training? YES NO
Was it useful? How could it be improved?
Rate the effectiveness of the control efforts this summer. (1-‐5; 1=not satisfied,
5=very satisfied) Explain.
1
2
3
4
5
What hesitations, if any, did you have about participating in the KC Knotweed
Control project?
ǥ
75
76