BENTON

LINN

LINCOLN

LANE

POLKMARION

Benton

Oregon

Washington ±0 4 8 12 162Miles

BENTON COUNTYCOOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREAS

LegendCWMAStateCounty

1 in = 193 miles

BENTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (CWMA) STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN 2012

1

CONTENTS History ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2

September 2011 ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

November 2011 ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

February 2012 .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Benton County CWMA Planning Committee ............................................................................................................. 5

Cperational Actions ................................................................................................................................................ 6

EDRR Actions ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Restoration and Management Actions ................................................................................................................ 9

Appendices Appendix A. 2011 survey to identify regulatory authority, gaps and overlaps, strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats of invasive species management within the boundaries of Benton County, Oregon.

Appendix B. Proposed A (eradication) and B (containment) lists for Benton County.

Appendix C. Land management map for Benton County.

Appendix D. Place-based criteria map for Benton County.

Appendix E. Vector-based criteria map for Benton County.

Appendix F. Recommendation to Establish a Benton County Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA).

Appendix G. Proposed Outreach and Education Strategy for Benton County.

2

BENTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (CWMA) STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN 2012

HISTORY In 2010, Benton Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) recognized the need to develop an overarching plan on invasive species management across jurisdictions in Benton County. To develop a plan that addresses the protection of quality conservation areas in the County, provides for native fish and wildlife species, and contributes to an informed public aware of the threat invasive species pose to our economy and environment, the SWCD initiated a planning process with a group of land and invasive species managers working in Benton County.

In preparation for this planning process, a survey was conducted and distributed to all potential partners (federal, state, local, nonprofit, industry and private organization) to identify regulatory authority, gaps and overlaps, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of invasive species management within the boundaries of Benton County, Oregon. This resulting information (Appendix A) was used to establish core priorities driving invasive species work in the county, and served as a foundation for the development of this plan.

In total, 79 individuals from 27 organizations were at least tangentially involved in this planning process, with about 25 participants attending each of the three initial planning meetings (Table 1). The objective of these meetings was to collectively and collaboratively address invasive species issues- and most importantly, develop a county-wide plan aimed at early detection and rapid response (EDRR) as well as outreach and education. Specifically, the group sought to effect collaboration among local partners to address invasive plant prevention and management issues via a strategic planning process.

This document summarizes the outcomes of those planning meetings and describes the actions that will be taken to further the collaborative efforts identified by the planning group.

3 September 2011 The planning committee (Table 1) initially convened on September 7 of 2011 to:

Define the “ideal state” Benton County land management and other organizations see to achieve relative to invasive plant management and articulate a vision for a productive invasive plant program, which includes a long-term maintenance strategy as well as public engagement.

The group also described goals that could advance their five-year vision:

Protect Benton County from invasive species using: (a) a comprehensive EDRR strategy; and (b) a landscape-scale strategy based on designated priority habitats;

Develop consistent, permanent, stable, reliable funding for EDRR implementation to achieve landscape goals;

Conduct an inventory to designate priority weeds across ownerships; Establish a weed control district; Reduce the number of new invaders to Benton County; Increase the quality of priority habitats by articulating priority habitats and priority invasive

species associated with those habitats; Effect on-the-ground improvements by implementing best management practices for

integrated pest management; and Create an informed, aware, and knowledgeable citizenry.

Review the results of the survey (Appendix A) and describe the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

and threats to the current and potential invasive species programs; Begin to identify goals based on survey results and participant perspectives; and Articulate specific actions to advance goals for a robust and effective invasive plant management

program in Benton County.

November 2011 The planning committee met again on November 10 of 2011. Between September and November, several committees formed to address action items from the first planning session, and develop materials and background information to inform next steps. During the November 2011 planning session, the planning committee:

Reviewed the results of the action items from the September 2011 planning session and took next steps to develop implementation strategies for the following:

o Inform the development of an EDRR strategy for Benton County (model, list of eradication species, list of containment species, listing process);

o Describe the scope and scale of a landscape-level strategy for Benton County (review existing maps, identify priority habitats, and recommend components important to incorporate into the strategy);

o Develop a public engagement strategy for Benton County;

4 o Develop a successful approach(es) to fund invasive species in Benton County; and o Create a governance structure in Benton County to advance invasive species management

and planning efforts (review existing models and recommend the appropriate model for Benton County).

February 2012 Planning Group Again, committees worked on advancing these action items between the November 10 meeting and their February 13, 2012 meeting. At their February 2012 meeting, they:

EDRR Strategy: Shared proposed A (eradication) and B (containment) lists (Appendix B) with the entire planning group, and decided on next steps to further articulate the guidelines used to develop the lists as well as propose a C list.

Described the scope and scale of a landscape-level strategy for Benton County by reviewing land management (Appendix C) as well as place-based (Appendix D) and vector-based (Appendix E) criteria maps committee members developed to inform potential priority habitats in the county.

Discussed the pros and cons of a variety of governance structures (Appendix F), including a Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) as well as a Weed Control District, and achieved consensus in moving forward as a Cooperative Weed Management Area, and within a 2-year time period, conduct a self-assessment, produce a report on that assessment, and potentially consider the creation of a weed district.

In addition, they discussed refining their proposed outreach and education strategy (Appendix G) based on the new governance structure, the need to develop a funding strategy based on the new governance structure, and the ability to advance their EDRR initiatives with the use of iMapInvasives and its accompanying Smartphone application.

They developed a steering committee that represents five key thematic areas for the CWMA: o Mapping/data: Laurie Starha (Benton County Public Works) o Outreach and Education: Heath Keirstead (Benton SWCD) o EDRR and on-the ground management: Henry Storch (Benton SWCD) and Glenn Miller

(ODA) Conduct an assessment Identify projects and priorities Identify the resources needed to complete the projects

o Operational issues relative to the CWMA: Jennifer Ayotte (Benton SWCD) and Peter Kenagy (Benton County Farm Bureau) Fundraising coordination Framework for the CWMA self-assessment for County Commissioners Action Plan with strategic objectives

o CWMA Partner Recruitment: NAME NEEDED HERE o Steering Committee Members: Jennifer Ayotte, Heath Keirstead, Henry Storch, Peter

Kenagy, Glenn Miller, and Laurie Starha

5 Table 1. Benton County CWMA Planning Committee.

BENTON COUNTY INVASIVE SPECIES PLANNING GROUP AND CWMA ADVISORY GROUP Applegate Forestry LLC—Debbie Johnson Benton County Farm Bureau—Peter Kenagy Benton County Public Works—Laurie Starha, James Stouder Benton Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)—Heath Keirstead, Henry Storch, Donna

Schmitz, Jennifer Ayotte, Liz Graham Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Ron Exeter, Diane Morris Cascade Pacific RC&D—Keli Kuykendahl City of Corvallis—Iris Benson, America McMillin City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES)—Dominic Maze Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District—Sam Leininger Greenbelt Land Trust—Jeff Baker Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE)—Matt Blakely-Smith Lincoln Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)—Josh Lambert Luckiamute Watershed Council—Peter Guillozet Marion County Weed Control District—Tanya Beard Mary’s Peak Stewardship Group—Jane Barth Mary’s River Watershed Council—Karen Fleck Harding, Xanthippe Augerot, Kathleen Westly Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—Tom Snyder Northwest Weed Management Partnership (NWMP)—Vern Holm Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA)—Glenn Miller Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)—Will Lackey Oregon State University (OSU)—Barb Fick, Irene Pilgrim, Maggie Livesay, Tania Siemens,

Claudia Ingham, John Mann, Chris Jackson Trout Mountain Forestry—Mark Miller US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)—Molly Monroe US Forest Service (USFS)—Cindy McCain Western Native Plant Alliance—Jon Pampush Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)— Michael Crabtree

“Management of those invasive species that are able to dominate communities may not need further evidence to justify control: the invasion and displacement of native vegetation is the ecological disaster.” —Blossey, B. 1999.

6 This document is intended to serve as much as an operational management plan for the Benton County CWMA as a strategic plan, and is intended to be updated on a regular basis to ensure the CWMA is continually assessing the economic, political, and societal environments in which it is working and to articulate actions that effectively address invasive species management and prevention issues in Benton County. This document can be combined with specific longer-term management actions the CWMA seeks to articulate and achieve as the CWMA forms, or it can serve as a stand-alone document in concert with a longer-term management plan.

The following are key initial actions the CWMA seeks to achieve:

OPERATIONAL ACTIONS

1. Ensure the CWMA has a coordinator to advance existing and future actions of the steering committee as well as ensure continued operation of the CWMA.

Responsibility: Jennifer Ayotte and Heath Keirstead (Benton SWCD) as well as partners (funding)

Timeline: March 2012

2. Seek the support of the Benton Soil and Water Conservation District to provide staff support to the newly formed Benton County CWMA.

Responsibility: Jennifer Ayotte (Benton SWCD) Timeline: April 2012

3. Communicate the formation of the Benton CWMA to Benton County Commissioners in April 11th, 2012 (Public Works).

Responsibility: Jennifer Ayotte (Benton SWCD)

Timeline: April 2012

4. Create a directory of participating organizations in the Benton CWMA.

Responsibility: Vern Holm (NWMP) will share a template directory, and the Benton SWCD will maintain a directory of CWMA partners.

5. Draft a Memorandum of Understanding for the Benton CWMA partners and route for signatures by all participating organizations.

Responsibility: Vern Holm (NWMP) to share MOU template; Heath Keirstead (Benton SWCD) to route to partners for signatures.

Timeline: All partners will sign the MOU by May 2012.

7

6. Adopt short- and long-term funding strategies for the Benton CWMA, including a description of how the CWMA will process funds in the short term as well as articulating a fiscal sponsor that will manage and disburse funds for large landscape-level projects.

Responsibility:

Timeline: July 2012

7. Within a two-year timeframe, conduct a self-assessment of the CWMA to develop strategies to enhance strengths and address weaknesses, and determine if the county would benefit from the creation of a weed control district. If the latter is true, consider forming a recommendation to county commissioners in support of a weed control district. Consider how the formation of a weed district might affect county municipalities. If a weed control district is created, articulate the roles and responsibilities of both the CWMA and the Weed District such that no gaps or overlaps are created (e.g., the CWMA may be responsible for outreach and education as well as restoration while the weed district may be responsible for on-the-ground management).

Responsibility: Benton County CWMA steering committee

Timeline: April 2015

8. To ensure continued sustainable funding for Benton County invasive species prevention, management, and outreach efforts, survey voters to determine if support exists for a tax levy.

Responsibility: Benton County CWMA steering committee to propose tax levy to county commissioners.

Timeline: April 2015

9. Regularly review the partners engaged in the CWMA and consider outreach to new partners (e.g., Oregon Small Woodland Landowners and the Farm Bureau) that can add strength to the partnership.

Responsibility: Benton County CWMA steering committee

Timeline: Ongoing

8 EDRR ACTIONS

1. Share with CWMA partners the process the Oregon Department of Agriculture uses to conduct risk assessments.

Responsibility: Glenn Miller (Oregon Department of Agriculture)

Timeline: February 2012

2. Develop criteria for restoration and management priorities based on areas on a set of articulate guidelines (e.g., where multiple agencies have intersecting priorities).

Responsibility: Benton County CWMA steering committee

Timeline: May 2012 and ongoing

3. Finalize the A (eradication) and B (containment) lists for Benton County and propose a C list, and provide criteria used to establish the lists. Consider agricultural weeds, and incorporate flexibility to address localized areas of infestation as well as return on investments) (see Appendix B).

Responsibility: Glenn Miller (Oregon Department of Agriculture), Dominic Maze (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services), and Henry Storch (Benton SWCD)

Timeline: April 2012

4. Obtain additional GIS layers from Benton CWMA partners to continually inform restoration, management, and prevention priorities.

Responsibility: Benton CWMA mapping committee

Timeline: Consumers Power and Bureau of Land Management layers by May 2012; other partners on an ongoing basis.

5. Develop species-specific vector maps to help inform restoration, management, and prevention priorities.

Responsibility: Benton CWMA mapping committee

Timeline: July 2012

9

RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

(To be developed)

This report documents the results of a 2011 survey whose purpose was to identify regulatory

authority, gaps and overlaps, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of invasive species

management within the boundaries of Benton County, Oregon. This information will be used to

establish core priorities driving invasive species work in Benton County, and will serve as the

foundation for an invasive species strategic plan.

BENTON COUNTY INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

BENTON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Document prepared by Creative Resource Strategies, LLC

LISATypewritten TextAppendix A. 2011 survey to identify regulatory authority, gaps and overlaps, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of invasive species management within the boundaries of Benton County, Oregon.

1 BENTON COUNTY

INVASIVE SPECIES

PROGRAM BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Benton Soil and Water Conservation District applied for a grant

to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to:

advance the conservation of high quality oak savanna and prairie

habitat;

increase public awareness and access to resources for reporting and

combating invasives;

and effect collaboration among local partners to address invasive

plant species.

Although the District did not receive the grant, it remains committed to

achieving these outcomes to protect quality conservation areas in Benton

County, provide for native fish and wildlife species, and contribute to an

informed public that can identify key invasive species and is aware of the

threat these species pose to our economy and environment.

The District has begun working on eight focal areas, from training and

engaging volunteers to using the recently launched iMapInvasives database

program to track new invaders in Benton County. The District identified a

critical activity important to long-term success—the development of a

comprehensive strategic plan with short- and long-term goals to implement a

coordinated effort to detect, control, manage, and monitor invasive species

in high priority habitats in the county.

One of the initial steps in the strategic planning process was the creation of a

survey instrument to inform the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

and threats) portion of the strategic plan and affirm recommendations made

in 2009 to advance Benton County’s ability to manage and control invasive

plants. The information presented in this report includes the results and

analysis of the 2011 survey.

“On a global basis . . . the

two great destroyers of

biodiversity are, first habitat

destruction, and second,

invasion by exotic species.”

— E.O. Wilson

“The good news is that this

is one environmental

problem that we can do

something about. I have

seen the tremendous

difference that even a few

individuals can make in the

battle to regain the land for

native species.”

— Elizabeth J. Czarapata,

Invasive Plants of the Upper

Midwest

“Management of those

invasive species that are

able to dominate

communities may not need

further evidence to justify

control: invasion and

displacement of native

vegetation is the ecological

disaster.”

— B. Blossey, Biological

Invasions

“. . . the impacts from alien

species can be direct,

indirect, cumulative, and/or

complex, unexpected,

surprising and

counterintuitive, and . . .

they often only show after

considerable lag times. . .”

— M. De Poorter and M.

Clout, Aliens

2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

A 2009 Benton SWCD invasive species survey was reviewed, and key components of that survey were replicated

to affirm prior results and recommendations as well as provide opportunities for additional input and

perspectives. A total of 57 individuals representing federal, tribal, state, and local governments as well as

nonprofit organizations and academia were asked to complete the survey. All survey recipients were given the

opportunity to share the survey hyperlink with others.

The 7-question survey was developed using SurveyMonkey. The survey included a variety of question types,

from open-ended responses to rating the importance of processes and priorities.

SURVEY QUESTIONS

Question #1. Please identify yourself and your organization (included contact information).

Question #2. Are you completing the survey on behalf of your organization, or solely for your program? If you

are completing the survey for your program only, please share this survey with others in your organization.

Question #3. A 2009 survey that many of you completed provided the following suggestions to advance Benton

County’s ability to manage and control invasive plants. Please rate their importance (not important, somewhat

important, important, very important).

a. Create a Weed Control Board for Benton County

b. Develop a process and roles and responsibilities for reporting to IS requests

c. Fund and staff weed response crews

d. Establish priorities for weed species and habitats

e. Provide continuing landowner education

f. Use one source (such as iMapInvasives) to record IS sightings/distribution and control efforts

Question #4. What federal, state, tribal, county, or local laws/policies give you the authority to engage in or

guide your invasive species activities? Do you believe critical gaps exist in Benton County or in any specific

organization’s authorities to manage/control invasive plants? If yes, what regulatory gaps exist? What gaps do

you believe exist in the management of IS in Benton County? Conversely, is there any overlap in how Benton

County addresses IS?

Question #5. Please help us conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis for

invasive species management within Benton County. Identification of SWOTs is essential because subsequent

steps in the creation of a county-wide invasive species strategic plan may be derived from the SWOTs.

STRENGTHS: Describe up to 3 strengths in how IS issues are addressed within Benton County.

WEAKNESSES: Describe up to 3 weaknesses in how IS issues are addressed within Benton County.

OPPORTUNITIES: Provide up to 3 existing opportunities that might improve how IS issues are addressed

within Benton County.

3 THREATS: Provide up to 3 existing internal threats that may prove to be barriers to effective

implementation of an IS program in Benton County (e.g., the current state of the economy and reduced

funding are beyond the scope of Benton County, but may directly affect resources available to address IS

issues).

Question #6. What existing management plans and documents do you believe should serve as foundational to

establishing priority actions for Benton County’s IS strategic plan? (not important, somewhat important,

important, very important)

a. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan

b. BLM’s Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17

Western States

c. Noxious Weed Management Plan for National Forests—Pacific Northwest Region 6

d. Oregon Conservation Strategy

e. Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan

f. Feral Swine Action Plan for Oregon

g. McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan: Invasive Species Management Plan

h. Benton County Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan

i. Watershed council plans

j. Fitton Green Open Space Natural Area Management Plan

k. Beazell Stewardship Management Plan

l. Fort Hoskins Forest Stewardship Plan

m. Jackson Frazier Wetland Management Plan

n. Other (mark importance and list plans in text box below)

Question #7. How do you evaluate your success and the effectiveness of your invasive species efforts?

4 SURVEY RESULTS A total of 57 individuals were sent a hyperlink to the survey instrument during the first week of July 2011. When

the survey closed on August 12, a total of 29 individuals representing federal, state, and local government

agencies, municipalities, universities, nonprofit organizations, and watershed councils had completed the

survey. The following are the results:

Question #2: A total of 97% of survey takers responded to this question (28 of 29). A total of 69% indicated they

completed the survey on behalf of their organization, while 31% (9) indicated they completed the survey on

behalf of their program within their organization. A total of 5 respondents provided names of others within their

organization that should complete the survey; 2 of the 5 names suggested actually completed the survey.

Question #3: When asked to rate the importance of suggestions to advance Benton County’s ability to manage

and control invasive plants, the majority of respondents affirmed the results of the 2009 survey.

A total of 28 of 29 individuals said that establishing priorities for weed species and habitats and providing

continuing landowner education were important or very important (96.5%), followed by developing a process

and roles and responsibilities for responding to invasive species requests (27 of 29 respondents or 93.1%), and

funding and staffing weed response crews (26 of 29 respondents or 89.7%). Creating a Weed Control Board for

5 Benton County received 77.7% of important or very important ratings (21 of 27 respondents), followed by using

one source to record invasive species sightings/distribution and control efforts (19 of 28 respondents or 67.8%).

Question #4: A total of 26 respondents provided examples of laws and policies that provide them with the

authority to engage in invasive species activities. Examples provided included:

FEDERAL

The Endangered Species Act

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

US Fish and Wildlife Service agreements

Environmental Protection Agency herbicide

labels

Bureau of Land Management/US Forest Service

NEPA

Executive Order 13112

Siuslaw National Forest Land Management Plan

Habitat Conservation Plans

Carlson-Foley Act of 1968

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974

Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004

Plant Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-

224)

Farm Bill Programs (WHIP, EQIP)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit

STATE

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife input

on land use permit reviews and habitat

restoration projects

Oregon State Board of Higher Education laws

and regulations

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

agreements

Oregon Forest Practice Rules

Oregon Department of Agriculture pesticide

application laws

State and federal water quality protection

regulations for herbicide use

Oregon state statutes

Oregon Department of Forestry’s Northwest

Forest Management Plan

Oregon Department of Forestry’s Invasive Weed

Management Policy

ORS 634—Pesticide Control

LOCAL, MUNICIPAL, COUNTY

Limited to right of way

Portland City Titles 29, 11, and 33

City of Portland Goals 5 and 6, Integrated Pest

Management Plan

MISCELLANEOUS

Management Plans and Site Master Plans

The permission of property owners

Council bylaws and mission

A total of 20 of 29 respondents answered the portion of the question regarding whether or not gaps exist. Of

the 20 respondents, 14 stated “Yes”, 5 stated “No”, and 2 were uncertain. Of the 14 that stated “Yes”, 12

described the regulatory gaps that exist. These included:

Consistency among counties and organizations

Limitations on public lands

County-level authority to set priorities and control invasives

Invasive plant identification and removal assistance for private lands

Uncertainties among agencies on label interpretation for herbicide applications on forest lands

No requirements to treat/prevent invasives by public/private individuals/entities

Few prohibitions on sale or transfer of identified invasives

6 Ecosystem/ecological threats of invasives aren’t given adequate consideration when listing noxious

weeds

Discrepancies among highly regulated and non-regulated species

Coordination (planning and implementation across land ownerships) and enforcement

Gaps among county rights-of-way management and that of adjoining lands

Interpretation of ORS 634 (prohibits chemical control by public employees on private land; ORS 569

prohibits cities from being part of a Weed District

A total of 16 respondents provided examples of gaps that exist specific to Benton County:

Coordination between watershed councils and SWCD

Gap in regulatory authority

Need an invasive species board

Regulatory issues (use of oryzalin on false-brome in forested applications)

Private landowners are a gap

No regulation at county level – no coordinated EDRR

Lack of resources

Unifying agency or organization responsible for coordinating weed control efforts

Of the 10 respondents that addressed the question of overlaps that exist, 6 were not aware of overlaps, and the

remaining 4 individuals provided the following examples:

Between watershed councils, SWCDs, and county (2)

Separate entities working to control weeds on land they manage

Networking and partnering on some projects, the HCP, and watershed council

Question #5. A total of 23-25 respondents provided examples of strengths (24), weaknesses (24), opportunities

(23), and threats (25) for invasive species management in Benton County.

STRENGTHS: Respondents commented that partnerships among and response by agencies, knowledge

base, desire to manage invasives (including grassroots support) as well as high level of public concern,

existing available funds, habitat and recovery plans, outreach and education, iMapInvasives database,

roadside spray programs, agency programs (Weed Spotters and USFWS Partners Program, e.g.), and

overall coordination and communication were strengths of existing programs.

WEAKNESSES: Respondents described lack of funding and resources, coordination, inappropriate

response times, lack of long-term planning, lack of priorities for new invaders, lack of a designated lead

and clear mandates for control, no weed board, inadequate private landowner education, inadequate

weed control on public lands, and lack of education on proper use of herbicides and data collection as

weaknesses in existing programs.

7 OPPORTUNITIES: Respondents articulated several opportunities, including expanding outreach,

coordination, and communication, tapping into volunteerism, soliciting grant funds and positioning

Benton County for funding as a result of legislation passed in Oregon in 2011 (HB 3358), distributing

biological controls, helping ODA control priority species on private land, using iMapInvasives, clarifying

roles and responsibilities, creating a county weed board, convening coordination and training meetings,

providing focus to comprehensive all-taxa invasive species management, dedicating a portion of

Oregon’s gas tax to managing invasives along roadways, prioritizing habitat types and addressing weeds

in the context of habitat restoration, partnering with the Oregon Invasive Species Council, and

coordinating with the Oregon Department of Transportation.

THREATS: Threats respondents described included funding and staff resources, the existence of invasive

species seed beds from lack of participation by landowners, jurisdictional boundaries, concerns about

being too regulatory, lack of state support for county priorities, lack of political will, failure for a needed

cultural shift to occur to sustain long-term efforts, ignorance, regional coordination, resistance to

herbicide use, short-sighted planning processes, and coordination among governments.

Question #6: When asked what management plans and documents should serve as a foundation to

establishing priority actions for Benton County’s invasive species strategic plan (respondents were asked to

rate 14 plans/documents in existence), 90-96% of respondents rated the Oregon Conservation Strategy,

Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan, and Benton County Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan as

important or very important. Between 68-80% of respondents rated the McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan:

Invasive Species Management Plan, watershed council plans, Fitton Green Open Space Natural Area

Management Plan, Beazell Stewardship Management Plan, Fort Hoskins Forest Stewardship Plan, and

8 Jackson Frazier Wetland Management Plan as important or very important. The remaining plans and

documents on the list were rated by 60% or less of respondents as important or very important.

A total of 11 respondents commented that there were additional plans warranting consideration by the

strategic planning team as foundational for the development of a Benton County strategic plan, including:

A National EDRR system for invasive plants in the United States (Federal Interagency Committee for

the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds)

Lane County Pest Management Policy

Siuslaw Forest Plans

BLM Salem and Eugene District Management Plans

Herbert Natural Area Management Plan

Mary’s River Natural Area Management Plan

Owens Farm Management Plan

Lupine Meadows Management Plan

Oregon Noxious Weed List

Northwest Weed Management Partnership Strategic Plan

Upper Willamette CWMA Annual Operating Plans

Portland Invasive Plants Strategy

Wallow County Integrated Weed Management Plan

Also, one respondent commented that a more holistic, ecological approach driven by this project’s own goals

and objectives at a large spatial scale (versus a jurisdictional approach) would be productive.

Question #7. When asked how they evaluate success and effectiveness of invasive species efforts, respondents

answered this question in 5 thematic areas:

Monitoring—prevalence of species years after treatment (one respondent measures the amount of time

devoted to managing a site after initial eradication efforts)

Education—Measuring changes in public awareness, interest and action by landowners, and changes in

public behavior

Control—Ability to control outlying populations and reductions in targeted species

Habitat—Monitoring functional habitat for native pollinators, and in general, habitat improvement over

time

New Invaders—High priority new invaders at the county scale are detected and controlled

NEXT STEPS

The results of this survey provide excellent foundational information for discussion among the steering

committee members drafting the Benton County invasive species strategic plan. The steering committee will

review gaps and overlaps in regulatory authority as well as strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities

that exist to inform the development of short- and long-term goals to address a coordinated and collaborative

approach to invasive plant management in Benton County.

Common Name Scientific Name Proposed Benton Co.

ODA listing

barbed goat grass Aegilops triuncialis A A

garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata A B

purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa A A

Iberian starthistle Centaurea iberica A A

yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis A A

purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus A A

Portuguese broom Cystisus striatus A B

Paterson's curse Echium plantagineum A A

French broom Genista monspessulana A B

goatsrue Galega officinalis A A

giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum A A

common hawkweed Hieraceum vulgatum A watch list

orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum A A

yellow hawkweed Hieracium X floribundum A A

mouseear hawkweed Hieracium pilosella A A

meadow hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum A A

hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata A A

policeman’s helmet Impatiens glandulifera A B

yellow archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon A watch list

perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium A B

yellow floating heart Nymphoides peltata A A

thistle, Scotch Onopordum acanthium A B

common reed Phragmites australis ssp. australis A A

pokeweed Phytolacca americana A watch list

kudzu Pueraria lobata A A

Spanish broom Spartium junceum A B

European waterchestnut Trapa natans L A A

gorse Ulex europaeus A B

common bugloss Anchusa officinalis B B

hoary alyssum Berteroa incana B N/A

slender false brome Brachypodium sylvaticum B B

bur chervil Anthriscus caucalis B N/A

thistle, musk Carduus nutans B B

thistle, italian Carduus pycnocephalus B B

thistle, slender flower Carduus tenuiflorus B B

thistle, woolly distaff Carthamus lanatus B A

knapweed, spotted Centaurea stoebe B B

old man's beard Clematis vitalba B B

jubata grass Cortaderia jubatum B N/A

hound's tongue Cynoglossum officinale B B

spurge laurel Daphne laureola B B

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B B

vipers bugloss, blue weed Echium vulgare B watch list

LISATypewritten TextAppendix B. Proposed A (eradication) and B (containment) lists for Benton County.

Spanish heath Erica lusitanica B B

knotweeds Fallopia japonica, Fallopia x bohemicum, Fallopia sachalinense

B B

waxy mannagrass Glyceria declinata B N/A

spotted jewelweed Impatiens capensis B N/A

yellowflag iris Iris pseudacorus B B

dyer's woad Isatis tinctoria B B

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica ssp. dalmatica B B

lords and ladies Arum italicum B N/A

water primrose Ludwigia uruguayensis [L. hexapetala] B B

floating primrose-willow Ludwigia peploides ssp. montevidensis B B

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B B

Medusa head Taeniatherum caput-medusae B B

evergreen bugloss Pentaglottis sempervirens B N/A

Japanese coltsfoot Petasities japonica B N/A

sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta B B

lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria B B

milk thistle Silybum marianum B B

coltsfoot Tussilago farara B A

meadow knapweed Centaurea x moncktonii B B

Benton County, OregonKey Management Areas Map

Watershed Boundaries

Public Lands

Synthesis COAsPotential Oak Conservation Areas

USFS Special Interest AreaLate Successional Reserves (BLM and USFS)BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Connect priority oak and prairie habitat

Protect/Enhance Taylor's and FBB habitatProtect/Enhance Marys River TurtleProtect/Enhance FBB habitat

0 6 123 Miles

Agricultural LandsWRP Sites

Benton County Prairie Conservation Strategy

LISATypewritten TextAppendix C. Land management map for Benton County.

0 7.5 153.75 Miles

Benton County, OregonPlace-Based Criteria Map

±The map represents an intersection of key management areas inBenton County. Layers include: Areas of Critical of EnvironmentalConcern (BLM) , Late Successional Reserves (USFS & BLM),Special Interest Areas (USFS), Potential Oak Conservation areas,Synthesis Conservation Opportunity Area (Oregon ConservationStrategy by Nature Conservancy), Wetland Reserve Program(USDA, NRCS), Connect priority oak/prairie (Prairie ConservationStrategy, IAE), Protect Enhance FBB habitat, (Prairie ConservationStrategy, IAE), Protect/Enhance Marys River Turtle (PrairieConservation Strategy, IAE), Protect/Enhance Taylor's and FBB,Agricultural zoned lands, and Public Lands. Highest priority isgiven to areas where the most layers intersecting, layers are 4+ Intersecting Priority Layers

Watershed Boundaries2 Priority Layers Intersect3 Intersecting Priority Layers

LISATypewritten TextAppendix D. Place-based criteria map for Benton County.

Recommendation to Establish a Benton County Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Benton County Invasive Species Planning Group Meeting

02/13/12

Background: At its November 2011 meeting, the Benton County Invasive Species Planning Group discussed the creation of a structure that would help a Benton County weed partnership address invasive species both collaboratively and comprehensively, with an emphasis on voluntary approaches to achieve desired goals.

The desired proactive goals are to: Provide a central location for information about identifying, managing and reporting invasive

species

Publicize timely updates and reports on invasive species in Benton County

Inform and engage the public, provide consistent messages, and identify landowner needs

Design and oversee weed control strategies and help implement and update a county-wide plan

Coordinate, track progress, and communicate efforts of partners

Provide oversight and continuity for weed control efforts over time

Manage invasive species lists

Treat or oversee treatment of Early Detection, Rapid Response (EDRR) species or other target

species

Coordinate/collaborate on funding proposals; leverage funding among partners

Provide baseline information about the status of invasive species in Benton County

Provide for official recognition of a county weed list, priority conservation areas, etc.

Sustain the momentum of the Benton County Invasive Species Planning Group

Options: A number of options have been discussed to achieve the goals described above, including creation of a Weed Control District, creation of a Cooperative Weed Management Area, the use of existing agencies and entities, etc. A core group of the planning team, consisting of Heath Keirstead, Jenny Ayotte, Vern Holm, and Tanya Beard, reviewed the pros and cons of these options and combinations of these options and developed the following recommendation.

Create a Benton County Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA)

Core Elements of the CWMA:

CWMA Advisory Group (consisting of the entire Benton County Invasive Species Planning Group and any other interested parties): Partners would participate in this advisory group and as such would actively support and guide the CWMA. This group would undertake joint planning efforts to achieve agreed to initiatives. The Benton County Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) would be able to tie in with the existing network of groups working through the NW Weed Management Partnership.

CWMA Steering Committee: A steering committee would be established (a subset of the CWMA Advisory Group) to foster CWMA implementation and operations. This group could be designed to have specific representation from identified stakeholder groups or partners.

Staff: Benton SWCD staff would help coordinate the CWMA. They could hire technical staff to complement existing SWCD outreach and education staff.

Funding: The CWMA partners would contribute funding for the CWMA. The SWCD has stable funding and could provide housing and overhead for coordination, as well as technical and outreach staff, but funding is needed from partners to launch and sustain this effort.

LISATypewritten Text

LISATypewritten Text

LISATypewritten TextAppendix F. Recommendation to Establish a Benton County Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA).

Weed District Scenario FINAL Page 2 of 4

A. What is needed for a CWMA to be successful?

1. Partnership Support: Partners need to commit to participating in the CWMA and their role in the management of invasive species. Partners need to offer technical, educational and/or financial assistance. The nature of this commitment needs to be established in an MOA among the partners.

2. Leadership: A core group, representing diverse interests, agencies and landowners needs to provide leadership in the formation of the CWMA and to serve on its Steering Committee.

3. Lead Entity: Benton SWCD proposes to house staff and coordinate the CWMA on a day-to-day basis.

4. Staffing: Staffing would include Benton SWCD staff with technical, outreach and education experience.

5. Planning: The county-wide planning effort that is underway (EDRR, designation of priority areas, public engagement strategy) will be used to guide the work of the CWMA and partner organizations. This plan will need to be updated and refined over time. The scope of implementing this plan will be dependent on the availability of resources.

6. Funding: A funding plan needs to be developed. Consistent funding for staff is essential. Additional funding implementing treatment and restoration work will need to be secured.

B. What resources can partners contribute?

1. Resources/Cash

Benton SWCD: Tax Revenues/Grants Partners: Contribution Agreements/Grants Granting Entities: Non-profits, federal, local, and state entities

2. Resources/In-Kind

Partners could contribute various resources to leverage funds and support CWMA work, including the following:

Equipment GIS/mapping/database Technical consultation Licensed applicators Vehicle use Housing for staff Printing/publishing/mailing Publicity/outreach Education Interns Planning/serve on Weed Board or advisory group Funding Other staff time

C. Next Steps to Discuss

1. Does the Benton County Invasive Species Planning Group support this recommendation and/or does it have another recommendation or combination of recommendations that would achieve similar outcomes?

2. What resources are partners willing and able to bring to support this (or any other) recommendation?

3. What key next steps need to occur to implement this (or any other) recommendation?

Weed District Scenario FINAL Page 3 of 4

Background Information — Preliminary Assessment of Options Various options for structuring a CWMA and/or Weed Control District (WD) in Benton County were analyzed and the pros and cons are listed below.

Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA)

PROS CONS

Engages a wide range of partners CWMA’s may not be familiar to the public

Organizational structure and mission can be designed to meet local needs

Lack of formal institutional structure and local recognition

No regulatory authority; proactive image No regulatory authority; perceived as “toothless”

Ability to define partner roles in implementing strategic plans and initiatives

Could lack formal relationship with county government (unlike a Weed District)

Stronger funding potential; could submit joint funding proposals (through various entities)

Cannot access state funding for Weed Districts

Opportunity to build weed partnerships while buying time to assess whether a formal WD is needed

Without the formal status of a Weed District, could become ineffective if not action oriented with a strong focus and leadership

Regulatory Weed Control District (WD)

PROS CONS

Can take action with or without landowner permission. But you still need landowner permission to enter the property

Perception of WD as the enemy

Have more control over weeds in the county Does not promote trust

Regulatory authority may be a motivator for non-motivated landowners to take action (motivates compliance)

May taint the image of the governing body

Opportunity to create a partnership-style relationship with constituents and other organizations

May interfere with building f cooperative relationships

Introduces additional powers to a local entity regarding invasive species control

Imparts the WD with additional responsibilities, that may or may not be desirable

SWCD Board as Weed Board

PROS CONS

SWCD board already exists SWCD board may not have sufficient expertise

SWCD board has broad geographic representation

This may change the SWCD board’s focus

SWCD board has stable funding No identified source of funding for the Weed District

SWCD board is a long-term entity Potential to overload SWCD capacity

SWCD has positive, service-oriented image Could change the image of the SWCD

SWCD has programs that support weed work Restricted by election requirements

This opportunity may bring funding to SWCD Weed Control District staff would be solely responsible for providing expertise to weed board (SWCD board)

Requires County Commission approval, as such makes Weed Board potentially susceptible to commission influence.

Weed District Scenario FINAL Page 4 of 4

County Commissioners as Weed Board

PROS CONS

Has support of broad staff base to help them make decisions

May not have needed expertise

Might increase county commissioners’ weed awareness and commitment to weed issues

Weed board decision making becomes an internal process instead of partnership process

May bring funding to WD Commissioners would have very limited time for this topic (already a large work load)

A chance to set up an Advisory Committee to help guide the process—they act as public liaisons to the Commissioners

Weed Board work may be a lower priority given scope of County work

SWCD remains completely non-regulatory County has negative regulatory image among certain elements of the population

Creates a new resource in the county for combating invasive species

More governmental

Engages the county in invasive species control Changes voting strategy drastically w/only 3 members

Advisory Committee to Weed Board

PROS CONS

Advisory committee could be chosen to bring expertise to Board

Advisory committee has no voting authority (unless authorized by the Weed Board)

Would be able to draw members from a broad representation (industry, academic, etc.)

Currently there is no identified source of funding for weed district (although structure is in place)

Would advise weed board decisions so that board would make more informed decisions

Adds layers of complexity to structure, decision making process

Would increase the capacity of the weed board

Trying to appease more interests

Could minimize change of SWCD focus (if adjunct to SWCD board as weed board

More work to convene and manage 2 groups.

May provide more direct link to funding from partners who are represented on advisory committee

Stand-Alone Weed Board

PROS CONS

Ability to define their own image New entity with no track record

Can adapt based on areas of expertise No primary base of support

Can choose qualifications and representation for board members

Challenges regarding infrastructure/overhead (office space, phone service, vehicle use, etc.)

May provide access to partnership funding No established relationship with the local government

That is all they will do so weed issues won’t get sidelined

Lack of suitable infrastructure

Appendix G. Proposed Outreach and Education Strategy for Benton County

Priority Audiences Desired Outcomes Message Actions Delivery System Evaluation Method Lead Partners

Private Landowners

(ex: urban, rural, agricultural,

forestry) Be informed Stop the Spread Identify & convene subcommittee Neighborhood meetings

pre and post surveys of

landowners who attend

meetings BSWCD,

Avoid planting invasives Know the weeds and what to do identify funding needs and sources Volunteer trainings

pre and post plant

quizzes, and training

evaluations BSWCD,

Control invasives on your land

solidify agreements among partners-

use same message(s), who will be

responsible for which components of

plan & timeline of activities

radio announcements,

newspaper ads/articles random phone surveys?

Know where to go for help/ resources billboards random phone surveys?

Report invasives

brochures and

GardenSmart Oregon

available at local nurseries

? # of brochures and

Garden Smarts taken by

shoppers at each

nursery?

consistent messaging

across organizations on

social media- facebook,

websites…

check stats on who and

how many people are

accessing these sites (all)

Public Land Managers /

employees

(ex: Public Works & Parks Depts;

road crews/grounds crews,) use BMPs for maintenance work Stop the Spread Identify & convene subcommittee

create accessible

comprehensive BMPs and

deliver information

(trainings, pamphlets,etc)

track movement of

invasives in rights of way,

power lines, etc BSWCD,

clean equipment before moving from

infested areas to areas with sensitive

species

know when to mow/ mow at the

right time identify funding needs and sources

train land

managers/employees

pre and post surveys of

land managers and

employees BSWCD,

know the weeds

solidify agreements among partners-

use same message(s), who will be

responsible for which components of

plan & timeline of activities-who will

help us deliver BMPs?

develop useful weed

calendar of events and

weed ID tools for these

workers

quiz land mngmt

empoyees on

information found in

calendar and ID tools BSWCD,

Invasive Weeds Planning Process: Public Engagement Strategy Key outcomes: Education/Empowerment/Actions/Results

Why should you care? What can you do? Who can help?

1st Draft 9/29/11 Keirstead Ayotte

Priority Audiences Desired Outcomes Message Actions Delivery System Evaluation Method Lead Partners

report invaders found in new

locations

secure

participation/cooperation/involveme

nt of public land managers

record/track # of land

mngmt organizations

willing to participate

Recreationalists

(ex: hikers, bikers, hunters,

fishers) Be informed and aware Stop the Spread Identify & convene subcommittee Trailhead signs & kiosks;

random surveys of

recreationalists leaving

recreational areas

Stop the spread Clean your gear identify funding needs and sources billboards phone surveys?

Report invasives

solidify agreements among partners-

use same message(s), who will be

responsible for which components of

plan & timeline of activities

volunteers talking to

recreationalists at

trailheads, entry points BSWCD,

brochures disributed with

hunting/fishing licenses;

surveys of people who

got hunting/fishing

licesnses

presentations at club

meetings

pre and post surveys of

club members BSWCD,

Other Audiences

Businesses

(ex: realtors, creekside business,

nurseries)

Associations

(ex: Farm Bureau, Chamber,

Community Groups

(ex: Youth groups, Lions/Odd

Fellows, etc)

Utility & Maintenance Workers

(ex: landscapers, phone & utility

workers, forestery workers)

Educators/Students

(ex: OSU, LBCC, K-12, Nature

Centers, Park Programs)

BENTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Among

{list of signees will be adjusted to reflect actual} Alsea Stewardship Group; Alsea Watershed Council;

Benton County Farm Bureau; Benton County Natural Areas and Parks; Benton County Public Works;

Benton Soil & Water Conservation District; Bonneville Power Administration; Bureau of Land

Management - Salem District; Calapooia Watershed Council; Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation &

Development; City of Corvallis; City of Philomath; Department of State Lands; Greenbelt Land Trust;

Institute for Applied Ecology; Long Tom Watershed Council; Luckiamute Watershed Council; Marys

Peak Stewardship Group; Marys River Watershed Council; Natural Resources Conservation Service;

Northwest Weed Management Partnership; Oregon Department of Agriculture; Oregon Department of

Fish & Wildlife; Oregon Department of Forestry; Oregon Department of Transportation; Oregon State

University College of Forestry; Oregon State University Extension; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation;

Small Woodlands Association; The Nature Conservancy/ OSU Sea Grant; US Fish & Wildlife Service;

US Forest Service.

A. PURPOSE:

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to provide a means to effectively

coordinate the actions that each party has authority to undertake to address invasive weeds on lands

within its jurisdiction. Because weeds readily cross property boundaries, it is in each party's interest to

coordinate efforts to accomplish a more effective integrated invasive weed management program.

No party is delegating to any other party any decision making authority. Each party will still be

responsible for making decisions concerning land or resources within its jurisdiction. The benefit of the

cooperative effort, however, is that when a party chooses to take action, the action can be taken in a

manner that enhances and benefits from efforts taken by other parties. Further, on a case-specific basis,

parties may choose to share resources. Agency decisions will be subject to applicable laws, regulations,

and public processes.

B. MUTUAL BENEFIT:

All parties to the MOU agree that it is to their mutual interest and benefit to work cooperatively in

inventorying, controlling, monitoring, and preventing the establishment and spread of invasive weeds

(integrated invasive weed management) across jurisdictional and ownership boundaries within the

Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA). All parties also agree it is to their mutual benefit to

work cooperatively to educate, train, and share technology and information with agency and general

public personnel about invasive weeds, and to work cooperatively to make the best use of available

resources to manage the invasive weed problems within the CWMA.

C. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY ALL PARTIES THAT:

This MOU serves to establish the Benton County Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) which

encompasses the geographic area of Benton County.

1. The parties to this MOU will cooperatively prepare a Management Plan to describe the goals,

objectives and strategies of the CWMA. The Management Plan will also outline the structure and

functioning of the CWMA and provide any other needed background information. Absent any

separate agreement among one or more parties, each party is solely responsible for its own costs and

participation in this joint planning effort.

2. The parties to this MOU will cooperatively prepare an Annual Operating Plan based on the

framework specified in the Management Plan and anticipated available funding. For any given year,

the Annual Operating Plan will identify a schedule of cooperative activities and projects, specifying

responsible parties and the financial and material resources needed and available to complete the

tasks.

3. Modifications within the scope of this MOU shall be made by mutual consent of the parties, by the

issuance of a written modification, signed and dated by all parties, prior to any changes being

performed.

4. Any party, in writing, may terminate their participation in this MOU in whole, or in part, at any time

before the date of expiration.

5. New parties may be added to the MOU by modifying the MOU as described in Section C (4) above.

It is the intent that the CWMA remain open and inclusive of all organizations and individuals who

wish to work cooperatively on invasive weed issues.

6. This instrument in no way restricts the parties from participating in similar activities with other

public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.

7. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any endeavor involving

reimbursement, contribution of resources, or transfer of anything of value between the parties to this

instrument will be handled in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures including

those for Government procurement and printing. Such endeavors will be outlined in separate

agreements that shall be made in writing by representatives of the parties and shall be independently

authorized by appropriate statutory authority. Specifically, this instrument does not establish

authority for noncompetitive award to the cooperator of any contract or other agreement. Any

contract of agreement for training or other services must fully comply with all applicable

requirements for competition.

8. Any information furnished to Federal Agencies under this Agreement is subject to the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

9. This agreement is subject to all applicable laws, and each party agrees to be individually responsible

for full legal compliance with laws and regulations applicable to each party. Each party is an

individual entity, and no party is an agent for any other party.

10. This instrument is executed as of the last date shown below and expires no later than December 31,

2014 at which time it is subject to review and renewal or expiration.

D. AUTHORITY

The following is a listing of authorities that are applicable to this MOU: the Cooperative Funds

and Deposits Act of December 12, 1975 (PL94-148); ORS 570.500 to 570.600; the Granger-Thye

Act of April 24, 1950; the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (PL 93-629); the Oregon Noxious

Weed Law; the Invasive Species Executive Order of February 3, 1999; the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (Public Law 94-579, Section 307 (b); the Omnibus

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Wyden Amendment (Public Law 104-208, Section 124,

as amended, Public Law 105-277, Section 136); the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement

Agreement Authority of FY 1999 and Beyond, Section 323 (a); Flood Control Acts of 1938, 1946,

and 1950; and other applicable laws.

E. MOU PARTY REPRESENTATIVE(S) IS/ARE: (Primary Contact Information)

Name: ____________________________________

Title: _____________________________________

Organization: ______________________________

Address: __________________________________

Phone: ___________________

Fax: _____________________

Email: ____________________________________

BENTON COUNTY

COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Signature Page

IN WITNESS of the above named MOU _____________________________________ (Name of Organization)

hereby agrees to join with other signatories to this MOU to execute this agreement.

Signature ______________________________________

Name ______________________________________

Title ______________________________________

Date _________________

Signed MOU

Date Organization

MOU Party

Representative

First Name

MOU Party

Representative

Last Name MOU Party Representative email MOU Party Rep Title MOU Party Rep Address

MOU Party Rep

Phone #

MOU Party Rep

Fax

MOU Signator

First Name

MOU Signator

Last Name Signator Title phone Address City State Zip notes Column1

7/6/2012 Institute for Applied Ecology Tom Kaye tom@appliedeco.org Executive Director PO Box 2855 Corvallis, OR 97339 541-753-3099 541-753-3098 Thomas Kaye Executive Director PO Box 2855 Corvallis OR 97339

7/11/2012 OSU College Forests Seema Mangla Seema.Mangla@oregonstate.edu Faculty Research Associate 321 Richardson Hall, COF, OSU 541-737-6029 541-737-1393 Seema Mangla seema.mangla@oregonstate.edu

7/12/2012 Calapooia Watershed Council Tara Davis calapooia@peak.org Executive Director PO Box 844 Brownsville, OR 97327541-466-3493 Tara Davis Executive Director

7/18/2012 Oregon Department of Forestry Evelyn Hukari ehukari@odf.state.or.us District Silviculturist 24533 Alsea Hwy, Philomath, OR 97370541-929-3266 541-929-5549 Ted Erdmann Asst District Forester, West Oregon District

7/23/2012 Marys River Watershed Council Kathleen Westly kathleen@mrwc.net Riparian Planting Coordinator PO Box 1041 Corvallis OR 97339-1041541-758-7597 Xan Augerot Executive Director xan@mrwc.net PO Box 1041 Corvallis OR 97339 (Karen Fleck Harding, Xan Augerot?) weed spraying treatment in Wren area & committee meeting participation

7/30/2012 Benton County Public Works Jim Stouder james.c.stouder@co.benton.or.us Road Maintenance Manager 360 SW Avery Ave Corvallis, OR 97333541-766-6821 541-766-6891 Roger Irvin, P.E. Director of Public Works & Contracting Officer 360 SW Avery AveCorvallis OR 97333 (Jim Stouder, Laurie Starha) right-of-way spraying, attendance at committee meetings, response to EDRR reports in Benton County areas (especially right of ways)

7/30/2012 Benton County Public Works Laurie Starha Laurie.STARHA@Co.Benton.OR.US Engineering & Survey Manager 360 SW Avery Ave Corvallis, OR 97333541-766-6821 541-766-6891 Roger Irvin, P.E. Director of Public Works & Contracting Officer Laurie.STARHA@Co.Benton.OR.US 360 SW Avery Ave Corvallis OR 97333 (Jim Stouder, Laurie Starha) right-of-way spraying, attendance at committee meetings, response to EDRR reports in Benton County areas (especially right of ways)

7/31/2012 Alsea Watershed Council Linda Johnston 5rivers@pioneer.net Secretary/Treasurer, Board Member 10518 E. Fiver Rivers Rd 541-528-3390 541-528-3390 Linda Johnston Secretary/Treasurer Board Member 10518 E Five Rivers RdTidewater OR 97390 (Linda Johnson) attendance at weed committee meetings, identifying and mapping Spanish Heath(no offense to you) in partnership with ODA and BLM using Livesay youth crews. Glen told me about this one, really nasty stuff and an outlying population. Claire Hibler and Ron are in on it too.

7/31/2012 Benton County Natural Areas and Parks Al Kitzman al.a.kitzman@co.benton.or.us Natural Resources Manager 360 SW Avery Ave Corvallis, OR 97333541-766-6821 541-766-6891 Natural Resources Manager 1-541-766-6018 360 SW Avery AveCorvallis OR 97333 (Al Kitzman) maintenance of Fitton Green County Natural Area, attendance at committee meetings, response to EDRR reports in Benton County areas (especially right of ways)

7/31/2012 US Fish & Wildlife Service Molly Monroe molly_monroe@fws.gov Wildlife Biologist 26208 Finley Refuge Rd Corvallis, OR 97333541-757-7236 541-757-4450 Molly Monroe Wildlife Biologist

8/1/2012 Greenbelt Land Trust Jeff Baker jeff@greenbeltlandtrust.org Stewardship Manager PO Box 1721 Corvallis, OR 97339 541-752-9609 541-738-2671 Michael Pope Executive Director PO Box 1721 Corvallis OR 97339 (Steve Lilly and Jeff Baker) attendance at weed committee meetings, I would include the work that they have done attempting to eradicate MK and FB on Owen's Farm and Lupine Meadows, also weed control at Lone Star Ranch, and I assume they will continue to do

8/15/2012 Cascade Pacific RC&D Kirk Shimeall kirk@cascadepacific.org Fiscal Sponsorship & Stewardship Coordinator 31978 North Lake Dr Tangent, OR 541-248-3094 Keli Kuykendall Executive Director keli@cascadepacific.org 33630 McFarland Road Tangent OR 97389

8/21/2012 Oregon Department of Transportation Will Lackey william.lackey@odot.state.or.us Vegetation Management Coordinator 800 Airport Rd. Salem, OR 97301503-986-3010 503-986-3032 Joe Squire District 4 Manager

9/17/2012 Western Invasives Network Vern Holm weeds@cascadepacific.org Coordinator 3960 NE Riversaide Loop McMInnville, OR 97128971-241-2173 Vern Holm vgholm1@frontier.com 971-241-2173 3960 NE Riverside Loop McMinnville OR 97128 (Vern Holm) participation in Benton County weed committee meetings

10/3/2012 Luckiamute Watershed Council Kristen Larson info@luckiamutelwc.org Coordinator 226 S Main St Suite L Independence, OR 97351503-837-0237 Gail Oberst Secretary

10/9/2012 Benton SWCD Heath Keirstead hkeirstead@bentonswcd.org Education Coordinator 456 SW Monroe Ave Suite 110 Corvallis, OR 97333541-753-7208 541-753-1871 Jennifer Ayotte jayotte@bentonswcd.org

10/9/2012 Natural Resources Conservation Service Tom Snyder thomas.snyder@or.usda.gov District Conservationist thomas.snyder@or.usda.gov 33630 McFarland Road Tangent OR 97389-9708 District Conservationist

10/11/2012 City of Philomath Randy Kugler philomath.admin@ci.philomath.or.us City Manager PO Box 400 Philomath OR 541-929-6148 541-929-3044 Randy Kugler City Manager rkinor@gmail.com 980 Applegate St Philomath OR 97370 Philomath City Manager

10/17/2012 Benton County Farm Bureau Peter Kenagy kenagy@proaxis.com Bureau Member 1650 NE North Nebergall Loop Albany OR 97321541-905-1011 541-926-9038 Kouash Paul President ALBANY OR 97321

11/2/2012 Benton County Small Woodlands Association Michael Albrecht mmalbrecht@aol.com President 541-231-0337 Michael Albrecht President mmalbrecht@aol.com 430 NW 33rd St Corvallis OR 97330 also a Weed Spotter Volunteer

Alsea Stewardship Group

Bonneville Power Administration Laura Roberts P.O. Box 3621, KEP-4 Portland OR 97208 based in Vancouver WA but may be able to find us a more local representative; these dudes are probably the worst vector in the area, Dominic has a bunch of experience dealing with them, their Albany-Toledo transmission line runs right through Fitton Green.

Bureau of Land Management Ron Exeter Ronald_Exeter@blm.gov; rexeter@blm.gov rexeter@blm.gov; Ronald_Exeter@blm.gov 1717 Fabry Rd. SE Salem OR 97306 (Ron Exeter) treatment of EDRR species, communication re weed committee meetings heard back from Ron, he says he doesn't want more paperwork or meetings, but wants to keep hearing from me about weed sightings and to go ahead and include him as a partner. Seemed to like the hunter EDRR education part a lot do you want me to call Bill?

City of Corvallis America McMillin america.mcmillin@ci.corvallis.or.us

Long Tom Watershed Council Dana Dedrick coordinator@longtom.org 751 South Danebo Ave Eugene OR 97402 (Dana Dedrick) attendance at weed committee meetings

Marys Peak Stewardship Group Jane Brass Barth jbbarth@comcast.net

Oregon Department of Agriculture Glenn Miller gmiller@oda.state.or.us 570 Lawrence St. Suite 215/216Eugene OR 97401 (Glenn Miller) assistance with volunteer training

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife David Stroppel David.J.Stroppel@state.or.us 7118 NE Vandenberg Ave Corvallis OR 97330541-757-5234 7118 NE Vandenberg AveCorvallis OR 97330 (Ann Kreager) attend committee meetings

OSU Extension Amy Garrett amy.garrett@oregonstate.edu

OSU Extension Maggie Livesay maggie.livesay@oregonstate.edu

US Forest Service Cindy McCain cmccain@fs.fed.us PO Box 1148 Corvallis OR 97339 (Cindy McCain) attend committee meetings, Marty Stein Siuslaw botanist at Waldport

US Forest Service Marty Stein mstein@fs.fed.us mstein@fs.fed.us PO Box 400 Waldport OR 97394 (Cindy McCain) attend committee meetings, Marty Stein Siuslaw botanist at Waldport

mailto:seema.mangla@oregonstate.edumailto:David.J.Stroppel@state.or.us

Benton CWMA.pdfBenton Action Plan, Feb. 2012Benton appendicesfinalappendixaappendixbappendixcappendixdappendixeappendixfappendixg

Benton County MOU 061212Benton Partner List BCCWMA