Fourth National IPM Symposium


Fourth National IPM
Symposium/Workshop
2003



 Session: Application and Prioritization of IPM Projects in Natural Areas
Tuesday 1:45 PM - 5:00 PM
Organizer(s):
Janet Clark (cipm@montana.edu)
Chris Dionigi (chris_dionigi@ios.doi.gov)


The following presentations are in this session:

1:45 PM - 2:30 PM The Need for IPM Project Prioritization in Natural Areas Chris Dionigi


2:30 PM - 3:00 PM Using NEPA as an Assessment Tool Rita Beard


3:30 PM - 3:50 PM Responses To Plant Invasion Bill Gregg


3:50 PM - 4:10 PM Case Study: TEAM Leafy Spurge Gerry Anderson


4:10 PM - 4:30 PM Lygodium Task Force Amy Ferriter


4:30 PM - 5:00 PM Considerations for ranking invasive species projects in natural areas Chris Dionigi ,  Janet Clark ,  Amy Ferriter ,  and Bill Gregg
    National IPM Symposium, April 8-11, 2003
    Invasive Species: Application and Prioritization of IPM Projects in Natural Areas

    Session presenters: Chris Dionigi, National Invasive Species Council, Washington, DC (chris_dionigi@ios.doi.gov, www.invasivespecies.gov); Janet Clark, Center for Invasive Plant Management, Bozeman, MT (cipm@montana.edu, www.weedcenter.org); Bill Gregg, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA (william_gregg@usgs.gov, http://www.usgs.gov/invasive_species/plw/); Amy Ferriter, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL (aferrite@sfwmd.gov, www.sfwmd.gov).

    This session was organized in response to Action Item 32 of the national invasive species management plan (National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Management Plan. 80 pp.). This action item calls for "guidance for ranking the priority of invasive species control projects at local, regional, and ecosystem-based levels."

    The session included presentations as well as group discussion to develop an initial list of criteria to consider when prioritizing IPM projects in natural resource areas. This initial list will be sent to a subcommittee of the national Invasive Species Advisory Council and other interested groups for further development and discussion. It is hoped that this session began a process that will result in useful guidance for land managers nationally.

    Session participants suggested that we can rank projects according to:

    Scientific considerations:
    · Chance of long-term control (but how do we quantify this ahead of time?)
    · Possibility of success
    · Risk potential of the invader (including invasion rate)
    · Existence of effective control technologies
    · Whether invasion pathways are well understood
    · Risk assessment for potential biocontrol agents (i.e., nontarget effects)
    · Loss of biodiversity caused by the invader
    · Potential benefits of the invader (i.e., pollen source)
    · Risk of biocontrol (or other control) vs. risk of doing nothing
    · Whether the project is site-based or species-based (requires different tactics)

    Legal issues:
    · Whether the invader is "noxious" (i.e., is there legal authority for control?)
    · Restrictions (NEPA, ESA, EPA, FIFRA)

    Social and economic issues:
    · Who benefits from control
    · Invader impacts on humans (e.g., fire threat)
    · Whether the project has a constituency (i.e., proponents)
    · Existence of cooperative partners in a control project
    · Services (economic/aesthetic, etc.) that are lost as a consequence of invasion
    · Dedicated funding source (for long-term management)
    · Whether it is a pest of agriculture
    · Future land/water use of invaded area
    · Condition of potentially invaded environment (e.g., unique, pristine areas are a higher
    priority)
    · Historical or aesthetic value of the site
    · Proximity to a dedicated conservation area