Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by:
Naja Kraus, Forest Health Botanist, Giant Hogweed Program Coordinator
Contact:
Naja Kraus
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands and Forests, Bureau of Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health
Forest Health Section
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, NY 12561
Phone: 845-256-3001
E-mail: naja.kraus@dec.ny.gov
Larger sites are also responding well to control • 2,428 calls and e-mails responded to by
measures. Many larger sites that previously GH information line staff
required herbicide treatment are now small
• 675,968 visits to DEC’s GH webpages
enough to be treated by root cutting. Fewer sites
have large flowering plants and, in general, sites
are patchier than in previous years.
Cumulative Site Totals
• Total sites: 2,484
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................ 22
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................................ 25
GH (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is a
monocarpic perennial, which generally flowers in
its third or fourth year, sets seed, and then dies.
The plant produces an average of 20,000 seeds
that mostly fall within a few meters of the parent
plant. Seedling mortality is generally high under
these crowded conditions. The delayed
flowering and limited dispersal (except where
seed travel is assisted by people or water), in
conjunction with very effective manual and
chemical control methods, make eradication of
GH a feasible goal for most sites in New York
State.
Figure 1. Skin reaction to GH sap over a five-month period (Photo credits: Bob Kleinberg)
Figure 3. 2018 DEC Giant Hogweed Program staff pictured: Naja Kraus, Andrew MoskaLee, Dylan Hurd,
Jeff Fridman, Blake Matacale, Alex Wyatt, Sylvia Albrecht, Dan Waldhorn, Alex McGraw, Rose Louk, Joe Bodine,
Joe Ordway, Lydia Martin, Brandon Anderson, Jerry Carlson, Shannon Booth, Erin Baccari, Nia Puccio,
William DiRenzo, Bailey Whiffen, Bob Slocum, Patty Wakefield-Brown, Matthew Dieffenbach, Meaghan Schwartz.
Not pictured: Brandon Swart.
DEC hired 19 seasonal staff for the 2018 field Ten staff were returning professionals with prior
season (Figure 3). DEC offices in Avon, experience working in the GH Program. Their
New Paltz, and Syracuse hosted field crews. knowledge, dedication, professionalism, and
Crews consisted of: expertise have been extraordinary assets.
• Three one-person crews that used the Six partner agencies conducted outreach,
root-cutting method at sites with less survey, and control for some or all of the GH
than 400 plants; sites within their boundaries:
• Six two-person crews that applied • Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program
herbicide at sites with more than 400 (APIPP) Partnership for Regional
plants and applied herbicide or root-cut Invasive Species Management (PRISM)
control at smaller sites at nearby
locations. The 2018 program had six • Capital/Mohawk PRISM
DEC-certified commercial pesticide • Catskill Regional Invasive Species
applicators, three pesticide technicians, Partnership (CRISP) PRISM
and six pesticide apprentices;
• Lower Hudson PRISM
• One two-person stream survey crew that
surveyed the upper reaches of streams • Saint Lawrence Eastern Lake Ontario
with known sites to search for new GH (SLELO) PRISM
sites; and
• Oswego County Soil and Water
• Two information line staff who managed Conservation District (OCSWCD)
the information line, performed control on
southeastern New York sites, and helped
with the overall program.
Training Funding
DEC held GH trainings April 16–19 and May 21– DEC hired 12 seasonal staff and 7 interns. The
24. We trained returning staff on all protocol and interns were hired through a cooperative program
paperwork changes from last year. We trained with the State University of New York College of
new staff on the following topics: Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-
ESF). Nine of the seasonal staff and the seven
• How to identify GH and its look-alikes interns were funded by various state funding
sources, including the Environmental Protection
• Knowing the hazards of the plant and
Fund. Three seasonal staff were funded through
what to do if they encounter the sap
a cooperative agreement between the United
• How to safely and effectively apply root- States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
cutting, umbel removal, and herbicide Resources Conservation Service and the Finger
control methods Lakes Institute in conjunction with the Finger
Lakes PRISM. DEC also received funding from
• Program protocols and paperwork the USDA U.S. Forest Service to help fund this
program.
• Data collection methods, including the use
of GPS, GIS, and associated applications
Sites
Sites and Surveyed
Root-Cut Herbicide Umbel Mowing Plants (No Plants
Agency Control Control Control Control Controlled Found)
26 sites 27 sites
OCSWCD 0 sites 0 sites 1 site 20
2,394 plants 2,394 plants
DEC staff cutting a GH plant root DEC staff spraying GH with DEC staff removing GH seed heads
herbicide (Photo credit: Rose Louk) (Photo credit: Rose Louk)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year Detected
Figure 7. New York State active giant hogweed sites in treatment or monitor stages.
Site #1867 - Cayuga County. This site has been controlled using herbicide starting in 2014 when there were 7,000
plants controlled. In 2018, after four years of control, 450 plants were controlled.
2013 2018
2012 2018
Site # 100 - Genesee County. This is a good example of the effectiveness of root-cut control and the importance of
continued control to remove plants germinating from the seed bank. Plant numbers from 2008–2018: 425, 95, 35,
9, 0, 13, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0. Survey and control of this site continued until no plants were found for three consecutive
years, and this site is now considered eradicated. As an added precaution, it will be visited again in 2021 and 2024.
2009 2018
Site # 849 - Broome County. This is a good example of the effectiveness of root-cut control at
small sites with a limited seedbank. After three years of treatment (2011–2013), there were no
plants found at this site in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018.One plant was controlled in 2015. Survey
and control of this site continued until no plants were found for three consecutive years, and this
site is now considered eradicated. As an added precaution, it will be visited again in 2021 and 2024.
2012 2017
Total Total
Number Active
Plants Per Site 0 1–99 100–399 400–999 1000+ Unknown of Sites Sites*
Albany 0 1 1
Allegany 9 4 3 1 3 4 1 1
Broome 10 19 11 8 8 1 1
Cattaraugus 35 41 33 8 13 5 4 2 6 5
Cayuga 67 34 21 13 36 9 4 8 4 6
Chautauqua 22 16 10 6 11 8 2 1
Chemung 1 0 1
Chenango 10 7 5 2 4 2 1 2 1
Columbia 0 1 1
Cortland 2 2 2 1 1
Delaware 2 1 1 1 1
Dutchess 3 4 2 2 1 1 1
Essex 2 2 2 2
Franklin 1 0 1
Genesee 44 22 10 12 16 10 7 3 8
Greene 1 0 1
Hamilton 0 1 1
Herkimer 2 7 5 2 1 1
Jefferson 4 7 4 3 1 2 1
Lewis 31 20 16 4 25 5 1
Livingston 125 74 43 31 45 26 13 17 9 13 2
Madison 9 6 3 3 5 3 1
Monroe 110 94 55 39 57 20 12 7 7 7
Nassau 1 2 2 1
Niagara 34 56 40 16 15 10 4 2 2 1
Oneida 88 41 20 21 38 15 9 8 7 11
Onondaga 7 10 6 4 2 4 1
Ontario 22 40 22 18 17 5
Orange 2 4 3 1 2
Orleans 36 35 14 21 19 6 1 4 5 1
Oswego 42 27 17 10 25 10 2 1 3 1
Otsego 7 2 2 4 1 1 1
Putnam 7 14 8 6 2 5
Rensselaer 1 1 1 1
Richmond 1 0 1
Saratoga 3 0 3
Schenectady 1 1 1 1
Schuyler 35 10 7 3 9 8 4 6 3 5
Seneca 1 0 1
Steuben 132 83 42 41 70 21 9 9 10 11 2
Suffolk 2 11 6 5 2
Sullivan 3 3 2 1 2 1
Tioga 1 3 2 1 1
Tompkins 51 26 21 5 20 13 3 4 3 8
Ulster 1 3 2 1 1
Washington 2 0 1 1
Wayne 137 83 46 37 70 27 9 11 11 9
Westchester 1 1 1 1
Wyoming 52 43 23 20 32 9 2 3 5 1
Yates 20 35 20 15 9 6 1 1 2 1
Grand
1413 1071 623 448 719 286 110 90 93 109 6
Total
DEC’s Office of Communication Services staff We use DEC’s GH brochure, poster, and control
help spread the word about GH. Social media is methods guide to educate the public about GH
used during GH’s blooming season to educate in NY. The GH brochure and poster help people
the public and request that they report new sites. learn to identify the plant, to avoid touching it,
We use photos to capture readers’ attention and and to report GH locations to DEC so we can
posts contain a variety of information about the help control it. The control methods guide offers
plant. Each post generates questions and more detailed information about how to safely
comments that provide additional opportunities control GH. In 2018, program staff and partners
to educate the public. Six GH Facebook posts distributed more than 7,400 brochures, posters,
resulted in 614,000 total views. Two GH and control guides to interested people and
Instagram posts resulted in 7,254 total views. organizations.
Six GH tweets resulted in 22,874 total views.
These outreach documents are available on our
website; to request paper copies, contact the
GH Program.
• Poster: www.dec.ny.gov/docs/
lands_forests_pdf/ghposter18x24.pdf
• Brochure: www.dec.ny.gov/docs/
lands_forests_pdf/ghbrochure.pdf
These best practices help keep plant numbers • The Western NY PRISM assisted with
down and overall patch size small, leading to surveys and outreach.
safer and speedier eradication. When training As resources and interest allow, we work with
landowners, crews have learned to stress not state, county, town, and village highway
only the health hazards of the plant but also the departments. Many of them are concerned
benefits of landowner control. about how GH will affect the safety of their
workers or park visitors. We train them to safely
Partnerships control GH, assign sites for them to control,
coordinate primary and follow-up control, and
The GH Program has cultivated strong working
join forces to control some of the larger sites
relationships with Partnerships for Regional
together. When GH infestations occur on state,
Invasive Species Management (PRISMs) and
county, town, and village park land, we
other organizations. DEC Program staff provided
coordinate control efforts with park staff and, in
partner agencies with an initial training on GH
some cases, we control the site for them.
identification, safe and effective control
Control outcomes are more effective at sites
methods, and an overview of GH control
where a partner agency or landowner provides
program protocols and data collection. Partner
an additional round of control.
agencies have been an integral part of the
overall statewide program since 2012. In 2018,
APIPP, Capital/Mohawk PRISM, CRISP, Lower
Hudson PRISM, SLELO and OCSWCD
conducted outreach, survey, and control for
some or all of the GH sites within their
boundaries.
Conclusion
Unlike many invasive species, we can potentially
eradicate GH from most sites in New York State.
Since each mature plant can produce an
average of 20,000 seeds annually, consistent
and continuous efforts are required to reach this
goal. DEC and partner agency efforts have
eliminated GH from 623 of the 2,484 known
sites to date. An additional 448 sites had no GH
plants in 2018. There were a total of 1,071 sites
(43%) with no GH plants in 2018.
In 2006–2007, NYSDAM maintained the GH From 2012–2018, state funds were used to hire
information line. DEC crews visited and from six to nine control crews per season.
confirmed reported GH sites and updated site USDA’s Forest Service supplied partial GH
information on known sites. A GH site is defined Program funding from 2013–2015 through a
as a unique property (by tax parcel or owner) Competitive Allocation Request Proposal
where GH plants have been confirmed. In 2007, (CARP), and from 2016–2018 through a
property ownership information was also Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) grant.
gathered by DEC using GIS data and an Starting in 2012, four partner organizations
outreach mailing. In 2007, we also applied for agreed to control GH sites within their
and received a 2ee exemption letter allowing us boundaries: APIPP, CRISP, SLELO, and
to use the herbicide Rodeo for GH control. OCSWCD. In 2014 the Lower Hudson PRISM
joined the statewide GH control effort. In 2015,
DEC implemented manual control of GH plants the Capital Mohawk PRISM joined the statewide
starting in 2008 with three crews hired to control control effort. In 2016–2018, the Finger Lakes
GH plants by root-cutting. DEC also began PRISM, in conjunction with the Finger Lakes
maintaining the GH information line at this time. Institute, hired three staff to work with the GH
In 2009, two crews were hired to control smaller control program and two staff to work on GH
sites using manual root-cutting, and one crew outreach using funding received through a
was hired to control larger sites using herbicide. cooperative agreement with the USDA’s Natural
In 2010 and 2011, DEC received an American Resources Conservation Service. Table 5 and 6
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant, show GH Program accomplishments from 2006
allowing the GH Program to double in size. Five to 2018.
# of Sites
# of Sites # of Plants # of Sites # of Plants Surveyed** # of New
Root-cut Root-cut Herbicide Herbicide (No Plants Sites
Year Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled* Found) Found
*Starting in 2012, we used a different but more consistent method of calculating the number of plants controlled by herbicide to allow
for better comparison to future plant counts. 2012’s and later calculations are based on the amount of herbicide used; prior year
plant counts were calculated using crews’ plant density estimates.
**Surveyed sites have had prior control, but no GH regrowth/plants found during the latest yearly field season’s surveying visit. After
three consecutive yearly visits with no plants found, a site is deemed eradicated.
1 3 13 8 5 3
2 1 0 1
3 17 29 18 11 9 5 1 1 1
4 12 7 3 4 6 2 2 1 1
5 8 3 3 7 1
6 124 73 45 28 65 22 11 8 8 10
Grand
1413 1071 623 448 719 286 110 90 93 109 6
Total
APIPP 4 8 7 1 3 1
Capital 9 6 4 2 6 3
Mohawk
CRISP 13 7 3 4 8 3 1 1
Long 4 13 8 5 4
Island
Lower 13 25 15 10 6 5 1 1
Hudson
SLELO 165 95 57 38 89 32 12 9 11 11 1
Grand
1413 1071 623 448 719 286 110 90 93 109 6
Total
2017 1349 904 498 406 645 255 94 114 104 135 2
2015 1309 639 277 362 586 286 105 98 100 124 10
2014 1259 501 239 262 516 277 116 98 116 108 28
2013 1188 348 149 199 419 255 119 101 132 143 19
Table 11. Average Plant Number and Control Time at Root-Cut and Herbicide Sites 2012–2018
2015 46 1,097 30 97
2014 39 824 30 76
2013 71 1,547 50 91
2012 79 1,084 51 91