Looking Back on Invasive Species Encounters in Oregon

A blog post by Dan Hilburn

He writes, "The time has come for me to pass the baton and head for the locker room. I’ll be retiring in November. The Department has generously allowed me several weeks to wrap up loose ends. One of those is downloading information that that might be useful to those still in the race. Here is a look back at how Oregon has responded to invasive species in the last few decades. My focus is on ODA insect and weed programs where I have first-hand knowledge."

The Early Years

1960's - Recognition of the Risks

Prior to the 1960’s, ODA surveys focused on documenting pest population levels of established agricultural pests. By the late 1960’s, this evolved to include surveys for pests threatening to invade but not known to occur in Oregon, including Japanese beetle, cereal leaf beetle, and Khapra beetle. One of my predecessors, Bill Kosesan, recognized the risk. He wrote in 1968: “Because we travel more and faster these days and move plants, food, forest, and fiber products in greater quantities, the danger of spreading plant pests is greatly increased.” “If present trends are any indication Oregon can expect more pest invasions, not fewer.” ¹
 

Gypsy Moths

In 1977, Oregon began annual surveys for gypsy moth, one of the worst forest pests ever to invade North America. Two years later, Diana Kearns, who still works for us, reported the first positive trap in West Linn. The first infestation to trigger an eradication treatment occurred in Salem in the early 1980’s. Mill Creek, right outside ODA headquarters, was covered with plastic to minimize insecticide getting into the water. That was good practice for 1984 when a very large infestation was discovered in Lane Co. 19,096 gypsy moths were caught that year triggering a massive aerial assault that grew to include a quarter of a million acres. ² The State Legislature allocated several million dollars for the treatments and continued monitoring. Due to concern about spraying residential neighborhoods with chemical pesticides, ODA pioneered use of B.t., a naturally occurring biological insecticide, for this large-scale eradication project. It took three applications per year applied by helicopter for several years, but happily it worked. We’ve continued to rely on that technique for the last three decades and the funding that came in response to that outbreak.

1990's - the Federal Government

In 1993, the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment came out with a report on “Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.” ³ The following year, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture came out with “Biological Pollution: A Serious New Environmental Challenge.” That report concluded: “What is needed is a national initiative to properly address the issue of harmful non-indigenous species as biological pollutants. Such a national initiative would provide a mechanism whereby all federal, state, and private agencies could join in a holistic effort to deal with the problem.“ ⁴
The term “invasive species” wasn’t commonly used until President Clinton signed executive order 13112 on Feb. 3. 1999, entitled “Invasive Species.” ⁵ His order created the national invasive species council and it’s advisory committee. I remember reading that order, especially one particular paragraph that read: “Among other things, the advisory committee shall recommend plans and actions at local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and objectives of the management plan in section 5 of this order.” Somebody should do that in Oregon, I thought. The idea stayed with me.

The Start of the Oregon Invasive Species Council

Eventually I called Dr. Mark Systma, Oregon’s aquatic nuisance species guru at PSU. He’d also read the executive order and was thinking along the same lines. We pulled in Paul Heimowitz from OSU Sea Grant and Larry Cooper from Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and together drafted a legislative concept that would create an Invasive Species Council in Oregon. We made it easy for legislators by suggesting funding for the Council come from reassigning a few thousand dollars that were going toward a moribund interagency IPM committee. Momentum built through 2000 when OSU hosted a Biology Colloquium called: Biological Invasions! The Quiet Global Change. The legislature responded and the Oregon Invasive Species Council (OISC) was born a year later.
OISC included ex officio members from State agencies that deal with invasive species plus appointed at large members representing “the geographic, cultural and economic diversity of this state.” The Council’s purpose was, and is, to:

• Facilitate reporting of invasive species,
• Educate people about related issues,
• Develop a statewide plan for addressing invasions, and
• Provide grants or loans for eradicating new invasions.

 

Impact

OISC has made a difference. Oregon’s 1-866-INVADER hotline facilitated reporting right out of the gate and then it’s online counterpart http://oregoninvasiveshotline.org made it even easier to connect people noticing suspicious animals and plants to experts that can identify them and respond if necessary. Public awareness has also improved. In 2005, OISC contracted with Anthill Marketing to do a random telephone survey of Oregonians’ knowledge of invasive species. ⁶ The conclusion was: “The average Oregonian does not understand what nuisance or invasive species are other than perhaps weeds.” In 2007, Lisa DeBruyckere, was hired as the first OISC Coordinator. She made an instant impact coordinating an educational campaign. Especially effective were a series of articles in the Statesman Journal by Beth Casper, and an hour-long OPB special directed by Ed Jahn called the “Silent Invasion.” Public awareness improved to the point it became rare to encounter someone who didn’t have some knowledge of the issue. That is a big change from early legislative hearings when Mark, Paul, Larry, and I were questioned about zebras and giraffes!
The OISC has produced two action plans, the first in 2003 and an update in 2012. The original is notable for it’s Appendix III that provides a baseline list of 341 invasive species established in Oregon in 2000. ⁷ A noxious weed strategic plan and an economic assessment of the impact of invasive weeds came out in 2001. ^{8 9} Look for an updated economic assessment is in the works. Stay tuned for that; the documentable impacts are increasing. Also in 2001, Oregon’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan made its debut. ¹⁰ This was followed by a Feral Swine Action Plan for Oregon in 2007. ¹¹ The granting function of the Council is mostly a dream because of the inadequate size of the emergency fund and the lack of a mechanism to replenish it. However, OISC has contributed funding toward the effort to eradicate Japanese beetles from the Portland airport and to address invasive tunicates in the Charleston boat basin and Umpqua triangle. More on funding later.

 

 EDRR

Gypsy moth is our poster species for successful early detection and rapid response (EDRR) in Oregon, but there are other examples including:
Insects. In 1989-‘91 ODA detected and eradicated Japanese beetle infestations in Cave Junction, Rivergrove, and Tigard. Several other infestations have been eradicated since then and a current effort to eliminate JB’s at PDX is ongoing. In 2008 an infestation of granulate ambrosia beetle was eradicated from The Dalles.

Weeds

Kudzu, the weed that ate the South, was detected in Oregon in 2000. Four sites in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties have been eliminated since. We’ve also eradiated several Spartina infestations on the coast and we’re working on purple starthistle, giant hogweed, Patterson’s curse, distaff thistle, African rue, and yellow-tuft alyssum. Weeds are harder to eradicate because there is a seed bank in the soil; it takes a sustained effort.

Plant Diseases

In 2001 sudden oak death was detected in Curry County. Though the eradication effort ultimately failed, we did greatly limit the spread and impact of this disease and we’ve minimized the importance of nursery stock as a vector. Chrysanthemum white rust, was introduced a couple of times, hasn’t yet established here.
When I look at where we are today, I see a lot of positives -- and one big dark cloud. We’re doing some EDRR in Oregon, we have great people in key positions, our laws and regulations have been updated, and we work together well across agencies and organizations. Our challenge is that globalization continues to accelerate and along with it the rate of introduction of new invaders. At the same time government funding for survey and response programs is static or declining. Even if it were available, I don’t think spending more tax dollars is the answer. What we need is a way to link funding for EDRR to globalization.

Funding for Protecting Oregon against Invasive Species

Earlier this year the OISC proposed a 1% pathways assessment on existing fees related to trade and travel. That type of linkage would make a huge difference; funding would increase with heightened risk or decrease if globalization slowed. I’m convinced that is where we need to go. The people and businesses that are engaging in trade and travel should be supporting efforts to prevent negative side effects. I like the “polluter pays” concept; it just makes sense. Let’s keep working on it.

Introducing Dr. Helmuth Rogg

Dr. Helmuth Rogg is my replacement as Director of Plant Programs at ODA; he has already taken the baton and sprinted off to a great start. I’ll be cheering from the sidelines as he leads us on the next leg of the rat race, pig race, beetle race, weed race, plant disease race, etc. There is no finish line to the invasive species chase; for us, keeping up is winning.

Good luck Helmuth, good luck ODA, good luck OISC, good luck Oregon, good luck USA, and good luck Earth!

 --- Dan
________________________________

 References


<sup>1. Kosesan, W.H. Plant Protectors. 1968. Oregon Agrirecord, State Dept. of Agriculture, Salem, OR. No. 239, pp. 11-12. ↩


2. Plant Division Annual Report 2005. Gypsy moth. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Salem, OR. pp.23-24.↩


3. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F-565 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993).↩


4. Westbrooks, R.G. and R.E. Eplee. 1994. Biological Pollution: A Serious New Environmental Challenge, An Exposé on the Ecological Significance of Harmful Non-indigenous Species. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, APHIS, PPQ, Whiteville Plant Methods Center, Whiteville, North Carolina.  5 pgs. ↩


5. Presidential Documents, Executive Oregon 13112. 1999. Invasive Species. Federal Register, Vol. 64, 6183-6186. ↩


6. Oregon Invasive Species Council, Statewide Awareness Campaign Plan. 2005. Ant Hill Marketing. 19 pgs.↩


7. Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan. 2003. Oregon Invasive Species Council, Mark Systma, Chair, Center for Lakes & Reservoirs, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207-0751. 38 pgs.↩


8. Oregon Noxious Weed strategic Plan. 2001. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 635 Capitol St. NE, Salem, OR 97301-2532. 66 pgs.↩


9. Economic Analysis of Containment Programs, Damages, and Production Losses From Noxious Weeds in Oregon. 2000. Prepared by The Research Group, Corvallis, Oregon, for the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Noxious Weed Control Program, Salem, Oregon.↩


10.  Oregon Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. 2001. Center for Lakes and Reservoirs, Portland State University. 86 pgs. ↩


11.  Rouhe A. and M. Sytsma. 2007. Feral Swine Action Plan for Oregon. Environmental Science and Resources, Portland State University. 28 pgs.↩</sup>

Perception, Reality, and Doing the Right Thing

• Post written by Dan Hilburn

Why is it so easy to get funding to extinguish fires and so hard to get support for eradicating weeds? That question was asked by one of the speakers at last week’s Oregon Invasive Species Council meeting. It is true -- we’ll spend millions of dollars putting out a wildfire even where they are a natural part of the ecology. The Two Bulls fire near Bend burned through $5 million as well as 7,000 acres. That works out to $714/acre!

On the other hand, we spend barely $0.02/acre on noxious weed EDRR (Early Detection Rapid Response) in Oregon. This is true even though damage from noxious weed invasions can be more serious ecologically than fire damage.

 ___________________________________________________

Fighting the Two Bulls fire near Bend Oregon cost $714 per acre.
With invasive species, nothing bad happens quickly;
the threat can be more ecologically damaging, but it is insidious.
We spend barely 2 ¢ an acre protecting Oregon's ecosystems from invasive weeds.
___________________________________________________

Native plants grow back after fire, but they don’t compete well with invasive weeds. Weed invasions can be described as ecological wildfires in slow motion. That’s the problem – the slow motion part. Fires are immediate and frightening; weeds are slow and insidious. People perceive one as a threat right now and the other as a lower priority. If you ignore noxious weeds, nothing bad happens – for a quite a while, often years.

The Metolius River is being invaded by non-native ribbon grass.

There was a field trip at the same meeting to see the ribbon grass infestation on the banks of the Metolius River.

USFS Public Notice of Herbicide treatment

The USFS has been working on the NEPA documents to address weeds in the Deschutes National Forest including ribbon grass for a decade. Last fall the pieces fell into place and some herbicide trials were put out using a weed wiper and several different rates of Glyphosate and Imazapyr. The wiper was required because of a perception that the herbicides could most safely applied to the invasive ribbon grass and yellow flag iris by wiping it on the leaves. The reality proved to be a little different.

The weed wiper looks like a paint roller on the end of a hockey stick-shaped piece of PVC pipe. In order to work, the wiper has to be saturated with concentrated herbicide. That concentrate drips from the wiper as you work and it is impossible to push down sufficiently with wiper on ribbon grass growing out into the water without immersing the fuzzy part of the wiper. Several of the trial sites had good control on the bank with a halo of surviving ribbon grass in the water. A backpack sprayer would be more effective and if used carefully, e.g. spraying from the water toward the bank, at least as safe.

 ___________________________________________________

There's a perception that a backpack sprayer is safer than the wiper.
The reality is different.
___________________________________________________

Mike Crumrine, the ODA noxious weed control
expert demonstrated the wiper method on ribbon grass. 

Mike Crumrine, the ODA noxious weed control expert that put in the plots, calculated that the wiper trials used 19.5 oz of Glyphosate and 9.4 oz of Imazapyr. You could do the same work much faster with a backpack sprayer and only use 8.2 oz of Gyphosate and 4.1 oz. of Imazapyr.
The difference comes from using a dilute solution with the backpack sprayer vs. a concentrate in the wiper. Water monitoring during last fall’s trials showed no detectable levels of either chemical in the river. I’d expect the same result with a carefully applied backpack treatment.

I’m not so naïve to think we can eradicate invasive weeds on the banks of the Metolius without getting minute quantities of herbicide into the water, but we don’t have a viable alternative. Weed pulling and solarization with plastic have already been tried and discarded as impractical and worse for the river and the native vegetation. Pulling ribbon grass “brings up the whole bottom,” and solarization kills everything under the plastic. If you stand on the Camp Sherman bridge and look downriver, you can see a little island that was covered with plastic to smother the ribbon grass. The little willow that used to grow there died during the solarization. Luckily we have non-persistent formulations of herbicides that are labeled for aquatic use.

So the perception is that wildfires are worse than weeds and that wipers are safer than backpack sprayers. My point is that the reality is sometimes different. We need to fund our weed EDRR programs like we fund fire suppression and we need to use the best available tools when we attempt to eradicate invasive species from high value habitats.

On Lizards and Toads

Every January we’re inundated by top 10 lists, score cards, and annual reports reflecting on the past year. Here is one little invasive species story that didn’t make the news and won’t appear on anyone’s top 10 list for 2013.  I want to tell it to you before I forget because it illustrates the importance of communication, interagency cooperation, and digital photography -- all increasingly important in our world and in the fight against invasive species.

It all started with a phone call to the invasive species hotline (1-866-INVADER). Employees at a Beaverton distribution center had opened a shipping container full of ground-up tennis shoes from Indonesia. Don’t ask me why we’re importing shredded sneakers from the other side of the world, but we are. 

 Inside were live lizards. Not just one, but several and they were ready to get out. Thankfully the employees were aware that live critters from overseas can be problems, so they called the hotline and asked, “What should we do?”  My first thought was, "Who's in charge of that? US Fish & Wildlife, ODF&W, Customs and Border Protection?”

I was having flashbacks from five years when a toad hopped out of a shipping container carrying granite from China. One agency after another said, "not our problem," and the container languished on the dock for weeks until it was finally fumigated. The cost to the importer and agencies:  many hundreds of dollars, countless headaches, and more gray hair for all involved.

So instead of passing the buck, I asked if they could photograph the lizards and send pictures. They had a cell phone camera and did just that. I forwarded the photos to taxonomists here at ODA, to wildlife biologists at Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and to the US Dept. of Agriculture. One of those people consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Within hours the lizards were identified and the appropriate regulations reviewed. Thankfully they turned out to be a common species of gecko that is sold legally in the pet trade. A USFWS employee even offered to catch them and find them good homes. The cost to the importer and agencies: a few hours of staff time and some chuckles.

The lesson? Next time you’re confronted with a head-scratcher of an invasive species problem, think of the lizards that lived and not the toad that croaked! Take a picture, get on the phone, and let people know what you've found.
-- Dan Hilburn