[This page is intentionally left blank] Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The proceedings document, Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Phragmites Management and Control, has been prepared as part of a Michigan Coastal Management Program (CMP) funded grant. The project has been conducted by the Great Lakes Commission project team that includes Thomas Crane (Deputy Director), Katherine Glassner‐Shwayder (Senior Project Manager), Erika Jensen (Senior Program Specialist), Heather Braun (Project Manager), Julie Hinderer (formerly employed as the 2010‐2011 Sea Grant Fellow) Stuart Eddy (Senior Project Manager), Devra Polack (Web Design and Communications Support), Laura Andrews (Design Manager) and Cassie Bradley (2011‐2012 Sea Grant Fellow).
Critical to the success of this project has been the guidance provided by the Project Advisory Committee (PAT), including representatives from the Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (DNR, DEQ and MNFI). The Great Lakes Commission extends appreciation to the following members of the PAT: Sue Tangora (Wildlife Division, DNR), Phyllis Higman (Senior Conservation Scientist, MNFI), Emily Finnell (Office of the Great Lakes, DEQ), Anne Hokanson (Wetlands, Lakes and Streams Unit, DEQ), Sarah LeSage (Aquatic Biologist, DEQ), Matt Preisser (Office of the Great Lakes, DEQ), Kevin Walters (Wildlife Division, DNR) and Matt Ankney (Wildlife Division, DNR). Collectively, the PAT has been engaged in every aspect of this CMP project including planning and convening the project symposium; developing and conducting a questionnaire to assess phragmites management in the state of Michigan; and developing a strategic framework on phragmites management and control. This involvement has been tremendously helpful in efforts to ensure that project activities meet the needs of state resource managers to advance coordination of the management and control of phragmites in the state of Michigan.
2 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYMPOSIUM AGENDA ...... 4
PLENARY SESSION FACILITATED QUESTIONS/ANCHOR POINTS ...... 9
BREAKOUT SESSION FACILITATED QUESTIONS/ANCHOR POINTS ...... 10
FIELD TRIP HIGHLIGHTS ...... 11
SYMPOSIUM PRESENTATION SUMMARIES...... 13
SYMPOSIUM BIOGRAPHIES ...... 25
SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS ...... 33
POSTER ABSTRACTS ...... 40
Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan ...... 43 Symposium Draft: March 27, 2011
SYMPOSIUM SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS ...... 46
3 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
SYMPOSIUM AGENDA Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management March 28‐30, 2011 Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center East Lansing, Michigan
Symposium Overview
The Great Lakes Commission, in cooperation with the Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality, is pleased to present this symposium on management and control of the non‐native, invasive plant, Phragmites australis. The symposium features plenary sessions on current and future invasive phragmites management and control efforts and technologies. In addition, a series of breakout sessions are offered on topics including capacity building, policy and regulations, case studies in collaborative management, and distribution and mapping. The symposium is being held as part of a broader initiative to develop a strategic framework to advance coordinated phragmites management and control in Michigan with relevance to the Great Lakes region. See www.glc.org/ans/phragmites/symposium2011.html.
Agenda
Monday, March 28
12:45 – 4:30 p.m. Field Trip to Lake Lansing Park North
Participants will learn how a local team of dedicated volunteers and stakeholders has banded together around a common threat: the invasion of non‐native phragmites. The goal of this experience is to gain a first‐hand, on the ground understanding of the ecological context of phragmites invasions in the park and the efforts underway to manage and control these invasions.
Tuesday, March 29
8:00 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast
9:00 a.m. Welcoming Remarks
Frank Ruswick, Deputy Director, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Roger Eberhardt, Environmental Quality Specialist, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
9:25 a.m. Review of Agenda Kathe Glassner‐Shwayder, GLC
9:30 a.m. The Impacts and Challenges of Invasive Phragmites
4 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Background on invasive phragmites: definition/scope of problem, impacts, challenges Sue Tangora, Wildlife Division, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR)
Project overview featuring strategic framework as a symposium outcome Kathe Glassner‐Shwayder, GLC
10:15 a.m. BREAK
10:30 a.m. Panel: Current Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Efforts Moderator: Barb Avers, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR
Large scale management and control for large infestations Ray Fahlsing, State Park Stewardship Program, Michigan DNR
Small scale management and control for rapid response Shaun Howard, The Nature Conservancy in Michigan
Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right‐of‐ways Bob Batt, Michigan Department of Transportation
Invasive phragmites management in high‐quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
12:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30 p.m. Introduction to Breakout Sessions
Results of invasive phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, GLC
2:00 p.m. Breakout Sessions (2:00 – 3:30 p.m. and 3:45 – 5:15 p.m.)
Tools for Success: Building Capacity to Implement Large‐scale Phragmites Management and Control Facilitator: Amy Derosier, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Recorder: Heather Braun, GLC
This session will showcase successful regional efforts to build the capacity needed to implement large‐scale invasive phragmites management and control. Presenters will discuss their strategies and lessons learned on topics such as raising funds, securing technical assistance, garnering public and political support, designing projects and coordinating with partners.
Building capacity for invasive phragmites management in the Grand Traverse region: Brian Piccolo, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Controlling invasive phragmites: Lessons learned on identifying projects, building partnerships and securing funding: Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited Regional early detection and rapid response campaign in northeast Michigan: Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines
5 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
The Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Facilitator: Steve Beyer, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Recorder: Erika Jensen, GLC
This session will examine existing policies and regulations relevant to invasive phragmites management and control, including opportunities for increasing their effectiveness and public awareness to improve compliance.
State prohibited and restricted invasive species laws: Mike Bryan, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development Permitting laws governing state waters: Water Resource Division, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) o Anne Hokanson, Wetlands Program (mechanical control permitting) o Eric Bacon, Aquatic Nuisance Control Program (herbicide permitting) County‐wide ordinances on treating phragmites infestations on private property: Dr. Grenetta Thomassey, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Who’s on First: Case Studies in Collaborative Management at the Local Level Facilitator: Mark Sargent, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Recorder: Julie Hinderer, GLC
This session will feature examples of multiple stakeholders working together at the local level to prevent and control small‐scale invasive phragmites infestations. It will focus on the collaborative process, including building relationships, roles and responsibilities of partners, strategies for successful collaboration and lessons learned.
Making collaboration work in implementing invasive phragmites control along Lake St. Clair: Bill Parkus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island: Bob Williams, Stewart Farm Successful collaboration of local governments, landowners, and the Michigan DNR in eradicating phragmites populations on Beaver Island through rapid response: Pam Grassmick, Beaver Island Association
Tracking Progress: Locating and Documenting Invasive Phragmites Populations, Treatments and Successes Facilitator: Mike Donovan, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Recorder: Stuart Eddy, GLC
This session will focus on tools that can be used to locate and document invasive phragmites infestations, as well as treatment areas. Of particular interest are outcomes from tracking efforts that support decision‐making and illustrate successful control efforts. Presenters will discuss the various methods and technologies for monitoring and mapping that are currently in use on varying spatial scales.
Role of Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) in citizen monitoring, mapping, collecting and validating phragmites data: Amos Ziegler, Michigan State University
6 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Mapping phragmites in St. Clair Flats using aerial photos, Google street view and Bing oblique imagery: Robb Macleod, Ducks Unlimited Large‐scale invasive phragmites mapping: Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute
5:30 p.m. Poster Reception
Featuring the following posters:
Innovative method to control seed‐mediated invasion of Phragmites australis: restoring resident plant communities to enhance biological resistance: Chaeho Byun, McGill University Effect of the timing of herbicide application on Phragmites australis rhizome viability and seed production in Leelanau County, Michigan: Laura Powley, The College of Wooster The Flora of Lake Lansing Park North, Ingham County, Michigan: Christopher Reidy, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: removal of phragmites and lyme grass from Wisconsin Lake Michigan shoreline: Heidi Springborn, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources Coupled remote sensing and biological monitoring of invasive plant species and their impacts on the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge: William Welsh, Eastern Michigan University Building capacity for early detection and rapid response to invasive phragmites in northern Michigan: Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Wednesday, March 30
8:00 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast
8:30 a.m. Agenda Review
Kathe Glassner‐Shwayder, GLC
8:35 a.m. Keynote Presentation The Honorable Debbie Stabenow, United States Senator (video presentation)
9:00 a.m. Breakout Session Reports and Discussion Breakout session facilitators
10:20 a.m. BREAK
10:35 a.m. Panel: Looking to the Future of Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Moderator: Heather Braun, GLC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invasive Plant Research Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Status of Research on Biological Control Methods Dr. Bernd Blossey, Cornell University
7 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Innovative Phragmites Control Strategies Dr. Kurt Kowalski, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center
12:15 p.m. Next Steps and Closing Statements
Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Aquatic Invasive Species Program Coordinator, Michigan DEQ
Project Direction Kathe Glassner‐Shwayder, GLC
12:45 p.m. ADJOURN
8 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
PLENARY SESSION FACILITATED QUESTIONS/ANCHOR POINTS
Plenary Panel 1: Current Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Efforts Moderator: Barb Avers, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR How are we currently prioritizing treatment? How could this process be improved and/or better coordinated among stakeholders?
When does large‐scale control (e.g., aerial herbicide application) make sense vs. small‐scale treatment? For both types of treatment, what is the best long‐term, cost‐effective strategy for maintenance of results?
How do we best assess the effectiveness of treatment, and incorporate adaptive management principles to improve outcomes?
Following successful phragmites treatment, how do we determine what the next most aggressive invasive species is, and how do we deal with it in order to facilitate restoration of native communities?
How can steps be taken to establish a network between different management teams to facilitate information exchange and the sharing of lessons learned in phragmites treatment and other aspects of management?
Plenary Panel 2: Looking to the Future of Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Moderator: Heather Braun, Great Lakes Commission What are the cumulative impacts of “business as usual” and “do nothing” scenarios moving forward on phragmites control, and are we willing to live with them?
Until an effective biological control agent or other sustainable technology is identified, how can we build a multi‐pronged approach that integrates current management and control methods as well as measuring outcomes? What is the best region wide strategy to control phragmites and prevent spread while we wait for the development of a “silver bullet” (e.g., biocontrol)?
Limitations in local resources and capacity often prevent long‐term post‐treatment monitoring of the type necessary for scientific studies. How can we build capacity for long‐term monitoring at post‐ treatment sites to inform future work?
Invasive phragmites ecosystem targets are often framed in terms of what we don’t want – e.g., acres of phragmites controlled, etc. How do we shift our thinking towards what we want to see (e.g., biodiversity of native species, functional ecosystem services, etc.) in order to develop better measurable ecosystem targets?
How can management options be prioritized given finite resources? For example, should we target small patches and highly sensitive areas while leaving large populations alone until bio‐control methods are developed?
9 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
BREAKOUT SESSION FACILITATED QUESTIONS/ANCHOR POINTS
Tools for Success: Building Capacity to Implement Large‐scale Phragmites Management and Control Facilitator: Amy Derosier, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR What strategies have worked to build capacity in these areas and why? Are there limitations to those strategies?
What has not worked and what lessons have we learned?
In which areas do we need more help building capacity and how can we accomplish this?
What do we need to do to move forward in building capacity on a state and regional level?
The Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Facilitator: Steve Beyer, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR What currently works well and doesn’t work well about regulations at the federal – state – local/county levels?
For biological, physical, and chemical controls, which regulations are most misunderstood by practitioners?
What tools do practitioners need to assist in obtaining permits?
What can we do to facilitate and streamline the permitting process for practitioners?
Who’s on First: Case Studies in Collaborative Management at the Local Level Facilitator: Mark Sargent, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR How do we get started on local collaboration (e.g., building trust, setting the tone for collaboration, conducting education and outreach)? How can agency officials be catalysts for collaboration at the local level?
How do we maintain momentum in the collaborative process?
Who should be partners? What are the roles of various partners?
What tools would be useful to local collaborators?
Tracking Progress: Locating and Documenting Invasive Phragmites Populations, Treatments and Successes Facilitator: Mike Donovan, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR What methods are being used to locate and map phragmites?
How could use of these methods be expanded?
How (or how well) are treatment sites being recorded and mapped?
What approaches should be considered to maximize data access and use?
What considerations do we need to make for long‐term maintenance of the data and data distribution systems?
10 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
FIELD TRIP HIGHLIGHTS
Field Trip to Lake Lansing Park North March 28, 2011
Participants learned how a local team of dedicated volunteers and stakeholders has banded together around a common threat: the invasion of non‐native phragmites. The goal of the experience was to gain a first‐hand, on the ground understanding of the ecological context of phragmites invasions in the park and the efforts underway to manage and control these invasions.
Station 1: Setting the Stage Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Chris Reidy, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service From a sedge meadow and marshland overlook at Lake Lansing Park North, participants viewed the watershed and discussed the story of this site. They learned about the history of disturbance, how the distribution of native and non‐native phragmites was mapped, and how treatment strategies unfolded. Participants also discussed some of the challenges encountered in treating phragmites and how they were addressed. Chris spoke about his extensive botanical inventory of the site and how it will influence overall management planning at the park, including the treatment of invasive phragmites.
Station 2: The Boardwalk Suzan Campbell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Steve Thomas, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Participants were able to view areas of marsh and sedge meadow communities and discuss factors that should be considered in planning restoration projects including phragmites control. Among the factors that were discussed were the existing or remaining natural communities, other invasive species present, past disturbances and current threats, and likely outcomes of treating the invasive species in comparison to no action. This site was chosen because it includes stands of native phragmites and native cattail which were also discussed and compared with the non‐native forms at other stations.
Station 3: Impacts and Treatment Nick Sanchez, Ingham County Parks Pat Witte, Ingham County Parks Along the entrance way to Lake Lansing Park North, participants viewed large stands of invasive phragmites and alternative treatments that are in process. Discussed were the impacts of invasive phragmites to native ecosystems and discuss various treatment options and their benefits and challenges. The specific treatments conducted at the Park were described, and several techniques/equipment were be demonstrated. Also highlighted were important considerations when designing phragmites treatment strategies such as selecting herbicides, timing and application rates, permitting, follow‐up plans, and research.
Questions and Discussion Field trip participants were provided discussion time and had the opportunity to ask questions of the field trip speakers. A summary of some of those questions and discussion follows.
How can you penetrate (walk through) stands of phragmites to treat it? Make narrow corridors if you are spraying with a backpack sprayer, but avoid breaking too many stalks because this may prevent herbicide from being taken down into the roots. Use a pressurized sprayer (up to 60 psi) with a wand extender or spray from a tall platform so you can spray over the top and
11 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
into a colony about 30 feet. Knee‐high rubber boots are often helpful, and using duct tape around the outside of the ankles will help keep your foot from sliding out if your boot gets stuck in the muck.
How does one avoid getting sprayed with the herbicide solution, which has blue dye in it? Walk upwind of where you spray; walk backwards through the phragmites; use a wand extender; cut the phragmites stalks 6 weeks to 2 months ahead of time and allow them to re‐grow to partial height before spraying them; have pairs of people walk with an herbicide‐moistened wick (e.g., thick towel) between them and drag it over a 3 foot width of phragmites stalks.
How can you cut the stalks once they are dead? Use a machete or a brush knife (like a weed whip, but with a rotating blade at the base); hire a MarshMaster with a mowing deck.
Does seeding on top of thatch take? We are still seeking answers to this question. Best answers I’ve gotten on ways to enhance germination if phragmites thatch is still present: rake to expose soil between clumps of dead phragmites, and seed into those areas; make “dirt balls” with seed in them, and throw them into the areas you want to seed; mechanized approaches to grind up the thatch may be possible; use a seed drill (like farmers use in no‐till sites) to inject the seed into the ground.)
How can I get help filling out a permit application, especially regarding mapping requirements and chemical details? The Mid‐Michigan Stewardship is one group that will provide advice on filling out DEQ Aquatic Nuisance Treatment permit applications, including allowed concentrations of herbicides that are safe for aquatic environments. Some of the mapping information requested on the application is pertinent only to treatment of water in lakes, and the DEQ staff are happy to answer questions about the information needed for such situations. Doing a blanket permit covering treatment on the property of a number of neighboring or regional properties means only one application needs to be filled out for everyone; the cost per property is generally much lower that way. The permit application should be submitted early in the year, preferably by the end of February, to be assured of approval before treatment in September. DEQ has an enormous number of applications to review each year.
What herbicides are okay to use and are effective? A standard solution of 1.5% glyphosate solution can be made by adding 1.9 oz aquatic formulation glyphosate sold at 50% concentration, 0.8 oz Cygnet Plus adjuvant, and ~0.5 oz or less Cygnet Select marker dye (just enough to create a blue color you can see when sprayed on plants) and diluting with water to 1 gallon total volume. The key is to only use glyphosate, adjuvant, and dye that are DEQ‐ approved and formulated for aquatic use. Several companies like Cygnet Enterprises, Townsend Chemicals, and Tractor Supply Company sell aquatic glyphosate at various concentrations, with or without adjuvant (which is needed for penetrating the leaves and stalks of phragmites). It is important not to use any petroleum/organic solvent formulation of glyphosate, like RoundUp, because it will poison wetland and aquatic life; just a few parts per billion of organic solvent can foul drinking water.
12 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
SYMPOSIUM PRESENTATION SUMMARIES
(For more information, refer to the actual presentations included in the last section of this document)
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011
Welcoming Remarks
Frank Ruswick, Deputy Director of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, extended a welcome to symposium attendees. Ruswick discussed the recent split of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) into the departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources. He emphasized that the change would allow each department to focus on their target missions, but that the year spent working together as the DNRE improved inter‐ departmental communication and collaboration. Ruswick said that invasive phragmites is an example of the type of issue on which the two departments can successfully work together. He highlighted the need to integrate across institutional and geographic lines to prevent and manage invasive species such as phragmites.
Roger Eberhardt, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, was next to offer welcoming remarks. Eberhardt recounted the origins of the idea for the invasive phragmites symposium and strategic plan, which came out of discussions at the 2008 State of the Lake Ecosystem Conference and the 2009 MI Great Lakes Plan workshop. Eberhardt emphasized that the phragmites issue is an example of the “7th generation” perspective, where our actions now are vital to the quality of life for future generations of Great Lakes citizens.
A final welcome was extended by Tim Eder, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission (GLC). Eder provided background on the GLC’s mandate in addressing the land and water interface and introduced the purpose of the symposium as an information‐sharing forum on best practices. He also introduced the primary symposium outcome: a strategic framework to advance coordinated invasive phragmites control and management. Eder emphasized that the framework is intended to be regionally relevant. He also noted several features that make phragmites unique as compared to other invasive species: one, that the emphasis is not on prevention but rather on management and control; and two, that this is not just a public trust issue, but a private lands challenge as well. Eder also noted a need to broaden the general public’s understanding of the phragmites issue.
The Impacts and Challenges of Invasive Phragmites
Background on invasive phragmites: definition/scope of problem, impacts, challenges Sue Tangora, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Tangora presented background information on how invasive phragmites was introduced to the Great Lakes region, its initial pattern of spread and current distribution in Michigan, and increasing awareness of the issue over time. She also noted the presence of a native strain of phragmites, its importance both ecologically and culturally, and how to differentiate it from the invasive strain. Tangora outlined the ecological, economic, and social impacts of invasive phragmites. She also discussed possible impacts from the treatment of phragmites and challenges in treatment and monitoring. Specifically mentioned was the challenge of conducting contiguous treatment of a phragmites infestation with private in‐holdings. Tangora concluded her presentation on a positive note by pointing out that the invasive phragmites issue is helping with community‐building, connecting leaders and civilians, getting people outside, strengthening partnerships, and creating jobs.
Project overview featuring strategic framework as a symposium outcome Katherine Glassner‐Shwayder, GLC
Glassner‐Shwayder provided an overview of the symposium and its purpose, explaining how the strategic framework for coordinated phragmites management and control was being developed as a primary outcome of the symposium. Also reviewed were the primary goals and objectives of the strategic framework, with an emphasis on the importance of collaboration among stakeholder groups in the framework’s development and implementation. She discussed the purpose of the framework as a consensus based document to advance effective, sustainable management of invasive phragmites throughout the state of Michigan. It was emphasized that the strategic framework is to be used as guidance in
13 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 defining phragmites problems and their scope and determine strategic actions and roles of stakeholders to address these problems. Also presented in the framework are guiding principles for success, such as using the best available science, prioritizing management and control, and facilitating collaboration. Glassner‐Shwayder encouraged participants to keep the strategic framework and its goals in mind throughout the symposium. Her presentation concluded with some photos highlighting the phragmites field trip conducted the day before the symposium (March 28) at Lake Lansing Park North (Ingham County). The purpose of the field trip was to provide an opportunity for symposium participants to experience firsthand the different aspects of the phragmites problems, the history of the watershed and disturbances setting the stage for invasions, compare native and non‐native species of phragmites, management challenges, as well as to learn about control practices.
Plenary Panel: Current Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Efforts Moderator: Barb Avers, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR
Large scale management and control for large infestations Ray Fahlsing, Michigan DNR
Fahlsing presented on his experiences controlling large‐scale phragmites infestations in several Michigan state parks. He discussed the use of helicopters to apply herbicides and the approximate cost per acre associated with this scale of treatment. Fahlsing also outlined the types of permits required, follow‐up treatments for new growth used and their cost‐ effectiveness, and changes in quality of post‐treatment botanical communities. He emphasized the need to anticipate and plan for the next most aggressive invasive plant that may invade following the removal of phragmites. Fahlsing also outlined the prioritization process used by the state parks, which emphasized ecological significance and operational use, the opportunity for funding and partnerships, operational needs, and the likelihood of success and sustainability. Fahlsing said that Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funds are being leveraged to help adjacent private landowners treat for phragmites. He emphasized the importance of showcasing successes to convince landowners that treatment is worthwhile. There was also discussion on the need for seed banking and the invasion of narrow‐leaf cattail at Fahlsing’s sites. He stressed the importance of understanding the history of degradation at any site in order to predict what species will move in post‐treatment. Also mentioned was the need to find a way to do follow‐up treatment cost effectively.
Small scale management and control for rapid response Shaun Howard, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Howard discussed the organization’s work controlling invasive plants, including phragmites, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. He talked about the difficulty of defining “small‐scale” management. It was noted that the keys to success at a small scale are prioritization based on accurate, complete survey data; this information will help determine where to begin working and how to most efficiently reach desired outcomes with the utilization of regional partners. Howard discussed the importance of defining ultimate goals in order to succeed with limited resources. He then outlined in detail TNC’s regional management plan, including logistical details and prioritization strategies. Also mentioned was the importance of determining the overall extent of infestations to identify resources needed for treatment (e.g., people, equipment and supplies). Treatment areas were prioritized with a focus on cost‐effectiveness; other priority infestations including those in high quality areas and those with the potential for significant impact (e.g., close to Great Lakes coastlines). The need to define clear goals was emphasized along with the need for reporting to a database such as the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network; both are considered necessary to track progress in terms of control, create a record of distribution, and inform the work of others not directly involved. Finally, Howard emphasized that a regional approach is important because it provides an efficient and tailored response and uses resources and knowledge already in place.
Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right‐of‐ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT)
Batt discussed the agency’s efforts controlling invasive phragmites along roadside right‐of‐ways. Each of MDOT's seven regions has a resource specialist that provides advice in vegetation management for the region’s engineers and maintenance workers. The agency’s invasive phragmites management philosophy is to achieve eradication where possible, with elements of early detection/rapid response to eliminate small patches (i.e. search and destroy) and dedicated efforts in areas with large‐scale infestations. Batt said that MDOT’s priorities are driven primarily by its mission
14 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 to provide safe transportation services; operational needs are also important in prioritization. He outlined several challenges facing MDOT in its phragmites control programs, including the linear nature of the right‐of‐way and coordinating funding and staffing with other road maintenance activities. Batt described MDOT’s efforts to improve its phragmites program, including instituting a more intentional planning process, better record keeping through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GPS, development of a site condition rating system, and improved partnerships with other agencies and states. Finally, Batt said that the agency would be permitting right‐of‐way treatment to other entities and coordinating treatment of problem areas. Batt was asked whether MDOT considers factors such as potential spread by seeds and the presence of threatened and endangered species in their treatment. In his response, it was noted that the scale of treatment makes the seed issue challenging, but that the department will consider this in the near future. He said that MDOT has been very active in identifying species of concern where they treat, and identified the agency’s need for more partners to assist in these efforts.
Invasive phragmites management in high‐quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI)
Higman discussed invasive phragmites control in high‐quality natural areas. In introducing her presentation, Higman noted that in treating phragmites in high quality and natural communities, people protect what they know and value. Treatment in high quality areas needs to focus at the point in the invasion process where phragmites is just arriving. She described MNFI’s comprehensive database of rare biodiversity elements, in which occurrences of threatened, endangered, and rare species are ranked based on their quality. These quality rankings are used to prioritize invasive phragmites control efforts; the coastal zone contains many of these high‐quality occurrences and is thus a high priority. Higman emphasized the importance of mapping biodiversity and how ecosystems change overtime, including habitats and the locations of rare and endangered species. To achieve early detection and rapid response, this information is considered key along with distribution of phragmites populations and associated impacts. Higman also discussed the importance of tailoring treatments (e.g., quantifying herbicides and timing) to the specific characteristics of a site and to the presence of species of concern (e.g., bitterns, tadpoles, spotted turtle, butterflies and moths) along with monitoring post‐treatment results. Learning about species of concern was noted as key in planning management in efforts to protect these species (e.g., hand swiping, spot treatments, early springtime burnings). Higman was asked about strategies to save endangered species by relocating them. She said that this was possible, but emphasized that the focus should be on efforts to identify and protect the valuable habitats where phragmites has not yet invaded.
Discussion: Following the panel, there was discussion on the state of research on the use of phragmites for biofuel. The DNR has been approached with plans for a small‐scale device to convert phragmites or other plants to biofuel, but there are multiple hurdles to using phragmites, including site access and moving materials. Some participants expressed concern that if we encourage the use of phragmites as biofuel, a commodity market will be created that will encourage its continued growth and spread. Also mentioned during the discussion was the need for a protocol to prevent seed dispersal of phragmites, especially when mowing where the focus thus far has been on rhizomes. The importance of maintaining seed banks of native species while treating phragmites was also raised.
Introduction to Breakout Sessions
Results of invasive phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, GLC
Hinderer presented results from a questionnaire distributed to land and resource managers across Michigan. The questionnaire gathered information from respondents on topics including impacts of concern associated with phragmites infestation, mapping and monitoring protocols, treatment methods, policy tools, and education and outreach efforts. Hinderer presented some of the main themes emerging from initial analysis of the questionnaire results. These include: detection and monitoring efforts are not well coordinated or standardized, management plans are often site‐by‐site and reactionary, criteria for prioritization vary based on the values of user groups and landowners, and better education of the public, practitioners, and partners is needed. Other issues raised by Hinderer in her discussion of the questionnaire is the importance of prioritizing treatment areas, the need for improvement in using partnerships for phragmites management, the need for technical assistance for permitting related to phragmites management and the need for long‐ term, coordinated management planning for phragmites.
15 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Breakout Sessions
Tools for Success: Building Capacity to Implement Large‐scale Phragmites Management and Control Facilitator: Amy Derosier, Michigan DNR
Brian Piccolo, Michigan DNR, discussed building capacity for invasive phragmites management in the Grand Traverse Bay region. He gave advice for coordinating with multiple partners and for performing outreach and education, emphasizing the importance of educating local officials before reaching out to citizens. Future steps in the Grand Traverse program include a continuation of public education by county officials, annual shoreline monitoring conducted by property owners, and follow‐up phragmites treatment as needed. Piccolo attributed the program’s success to rapid response to an early infestation, and said that in areas of the state where invasive phragmites is more widespread, this process will be different and may be more difficult. Piccolo clarified that the public response to this work was generally very supportive. Initial concerns were present, but were resolved through education and outreach. When asked whether the public was interested in treating invasive phragmites in inland areas, Piccolo said that the initial focus was on the coastal region partially because getting funding was easier. He said that counties and townships are beginning to look inland and hope to move in that direction soon. There was discussion on whether the strategies being discussed could be easily transferred to other invasive species. Piccolo said that people can easily learn to identify invasive phragmites, which is helpful to getting the public interested and engaged in this work.
Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited, discussed the organization’s work on phragmites control and management in priority areas of the Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie watersheds. He outlined the key components of successful partnerships, including connecting with diverse partners, building on each partner’s strengths, using a “bundled” proposal approach, and providing ample outreach and education. Kroll also discussed the importance of private lands partnerships to invasive phragmites control, and promoted including small treatment projects into larger‐scale projects to show success at different scales. Kroll emphasized that in choosing partners, it is important to seek out a diverse group with the goal of securing long‐term funding for phragmites management on a large scale. He confirmed that Ducks Unlimited has partnered with chemical companies to reduce herbicide expenses.
Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines Resource Conservation and Development Council, discussed the organization’s work on an early detection and rapid response campaign for invasive phragmites in Northeast Michigan. This program, a multi‐ stakeholder partnership formed by the creation of a Cooperative Weed Management Area, included inventory activities, partnerships with private landowners, outreach and education, and physical and chemical treatment. Muladore discussed obstacles the program faced, including apathy among local leaders, lack of funding for whole shoreline treatment, and difficulties contacting absent property owners. She also outlined the factors that contributed to the program’s successful treatment efforts, including the “SWAT team approach,” relationships with individual landowners, volunteer events, outreach via workshops, letters, and materials, and obtaining county‐wide permits. Muladore said that establishing a Cooperative Weed Management Area for the program was important for two primary reasons: building partnerships and identifying partner roles, and improving funders’ perception of the quality and importance of the work. Muladore also expanded on methods for contacting landowners, which included a door‐to‐door campaign and sending letters. Some counties did not have parcel data available electronically, which made contacting landowners difficult in some cases. Working with local townships is necessary in contacting landowners, and an integrated approach must be used.
Discussion: The group discussed how to “hook” landowners to gain their support and participation. The specific message, whether focused on altered views, recreation, or other impacts, will depend on the type of landowners being contacted. However, the presenters found that before‐and‐after images were usually effective in convincing landowners of the need to act quickly. In many cases, emphasizing the economic impacts of invasive phragmites was important in getting local officials and private landowners involved. Engaging local officials early in the process made outreach to the community easier – in other words, do not underestimate the importance of social capital. Breakout session participants had the following response to the discussion questions they were provided: o What strategies have worked to build capacity in these areas and why? Are there limitations to those strategies? Participants identified several capacity‐building strategies that are working well, including establishing diverse partnerships, working with local contacts such as counties and townships, utilizing Cooperative Weed Management Areas. These strategies play an important role in building collaboration, involving volunteers to increase buy‐in and get the attention of the local media, and identifying local champions for the issue. Other specific strategies that have proven
16 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 successful include focusing on early detection and rapid response and using coarse‐scale inventory to prioritize treatment. Participants also emphasized the importance of working within the context of each unique community, discussing different values openly, and advanced planning about what should occur after treatment. o What has not worked and what lessons have we learned? General hurdles to effective capacity‐building that were identified include lack of funding, which impedes long‐term planning, difficulties in dealing with absentee landowners, lack of coordination of disparate efforts, and challenges in engaging lower‐income communities. Participants stressed the need for creative strategies in dealing with these limitations, such as tailoring outreach strategies to communities with different backgrounds and values. o What do we need to do to move forward in building capacity on a state and regional level? Participants identified some technical needs for building capacity, including coarse filter inventory, GIS mapping, better access to high resolution data, and decision‐support tools for prioritization. Potential improvements to education and outreach efforts include reaching out to state and federal regulators and legislators, targeting outreach materials to different groups (local leaders and conservation groups), establishing stronger state leadership on the issue and better highlighting success stories. Other general needs for building capacity include integrating invasive species components into all restoration projects, connecting different levels of government, and starting conversations on the potential implications of climate change to this issue. Funding more project opportunities based on partnerships was recommended to help leverage funding given that funders tend to value partnerships.
The Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Facilitator: Steve Beyer, Michigan DNR
Mike Bryan, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development, outlined Michigan’s prohibited and restricted invasive species laws and how they apply to invasive phragmites. A 2005 amendment to the state Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act instituted regulations naming restricted and prohibited plants and animals. Invasive phragmites is listed as restricted under this law, prohibiting its sale, intentional planting, and possession without a permit. With a permit, phragmites can be used for educational and research purposes. Permits are sometimes needed for lawful activity to control invasive phragmites; Bryan recommended that when in doubt, ask if you need a permit for your activities. Bryan clarified that a permit is probably required when using samples of native vs. non‐native phragmites to educate people on identification. There was discussion on the common use of invasive phragmites for camouflaging hunting blinds and boats; this practice is illegal without a permit if a propagule (e.g., roots, seeds) is involved. Bryan also clarified that state agency personnel need permits to possess and move phragmites, but in some cases an organization‐ wide permit can be obtained to eliminate the need for many individual permits.
Eric Bacon, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ), discussed Michigan’s herbicide permitting laws governing state waters. Permits are required for application of a chemical to any waters of the state, if water is visibly present or contained in the area of impact at the time of chemical treatment. In addition, a permit is required for application of chemicals to Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair shoreline if the area of impact is exposed bottomland located below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Bacon described the two mechanisms by which authorization can be received for herbicide application: the standard permitting process for all inland water bodies, or the General Permit for Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair bottomlands. If an applicant agrees to abide by what is outlined for treatment in the General Permit, and the treatment area is the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair bottomlands, the applicant can apply for a certificate of coverage (COC) to treat the site under the General Permit. The deadline for a standard permit for treatment in any given year is August 15; there is no deadline for a Great Lakes General Permit COC. As a result of a federal court case, starting on October 1, 2011 an additional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for discharge of pesticides in Michigan waters. Bacon emphasized that if you are unsure of whether your activity requires a permit, contact the DEQ’s Aquatic Nuisance Control Program.
Anne Hokanson, Michigan DEQ, presented on Michigan’s requirements for mechanical control permitting. A permit is required if mechanical removal is planned for invasive phragmites at sites that lie below the OHWM of the Great lakes; there is a General Permit available to cover these activities. Hokanson described the information that applicants are required to provide in their permit application, which includes a control plan and site drawing. Examples are available on the DEQ website. Hokanson discussed recommended mowing practices to protect native species and habitats, and clarified that discing and plowing of phragmites‐infested sites is not permitted because it encourages the spread of
17 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 rhizomes. She outlined recommendations for when mechanical treatment should be performed in relation to herbicide treatment and based on individual site conditions. Hokanson mentioned several DEQ publications that are available on the website as resources to guide landowners through the permitting and treatment processes. It was also clarified that in most cases, a chemical permit will be required before a mechanical permit can be issued because herbicide treatment should be carried out before mechanical removal on the Great Lakes. Permits for mechanical treatment can be combined for adjacent landowners, but this may require a more thorough review process. This permit category is specifically for invasive species management, and not for other shoreline projects such as beach grooming or sanding ‐ there are separate review criteria for different types of projects. Hokanson said that permits are currently governed by two different laws, but efforts are underway to streamline and simplify the process. She clarified that no permits are required for mechanical treatment above the Great Lakes OHWM, but the same protocols are encouraged. There was also discussion on whether permit fees are ever waived; Hokanson said that the DEQ is required by law to charge a fee, but landowners can save money by applying for combined permits.
Dr. Grenetta Thomassey, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, discussed her experiences with county‐wide ordinances for treating phragmites infestations on private property. She described a DNR‐led partnership that undertook a large, coordinated effort to treat invasive phragmites along the Lake Michigan coast beginning in 2009. Thomassey discussed challenges in garnering public support for ordinances and in moving funds from the federal government through the state. Creative solutions were required to overcome these obstacles, and in particular effective outreach and education to the public were emphasized as important to successful county‐level management. Thomassey said that in general, townships in Emmet County wanted county‐level government to take the lead in coordinating treatment efforts. She described the approach eventually used for county‐wide treatment: the passage of a county phragmites ordinance accompanied by a one‐year, “pilot implementation program.” The pilot program allowed the County to work with Tip of the Mitt and the Emmet County Lake Shore Association to get a voluntary project implemented, with treatment done under one, county‐wide permit. The ordinance allows for enforcement, when necessary, and encourages public‐private partnerships. She attributed the overall success of the program, which had a high public participation rate, to this county‐ wide, centralized, but flexible approach. Thomassey clarified that the ordinance also allows the county to get a court order to require landowners to participate in treatment programs. It was decided that the public should be given the option not to participate in the first year of the ordinance, with the hope that seeing successful treatment would encourage landowners to participate voluntarily.
Discussion: Breakout session participants had the following response to the discussion questions they were provided: o What currently works well and doesn’t work well about regulations at the federal – state – local/county levels? What can we do to facilitate and streamline the permitting process for practitioners?
Participants felt that the ability to lump projects together under a single permit was very effective, and that state agencies should explore additional ways to expand and encourage this practice. Education and outreach initiated as early as possible were seen as vital to making combined permits work; it was noted that other partners should be engaged to assist state agencies in these efforts. The short duration of permits was seen as a hurdle, and ways to extend herbicide permits over multiple years (such as a renewal process) to match the length of time needed for treatment should be considered. Additionally, technical assistance would help streamline the permitting process; ideas include providing examples of acceptable applications and approved permits, and working with DEQ staff to provide consultation to practitioners prior to applying. Participants also noted that a general permit for treatment in different categories of inland waters would be useful in streamlining the application and treatment processes. There was general frustration that laws, regulations, and permitting processes do not distinguish between allowing for “positive actions” and preventing “negative actions;” agencies are encouraged to explore options for dealing with this hurdle. o For biological, physical, and chemical controls, which regulations are most misunderstood by practitioners? Participants felt that permitting agencies could do a better job of educating practitioners on the relationships between chemical and mechanical control of invasive phragmites. For example, when applicants seek permits, information on other control options and best management practices could be made more readily available. Also identified was the need for clarity in permitting regulations applicable to biological, chemical and mechanical control. o What tools do practitioners need to assist in obtaining permits? The differences between early detection/rapid‐response work and treating large, established phragmites infestations were discussed as important factors to be recognized by regulatory agencies. A streamlined, simple process is needed to
18 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 quickly and effectively work with landowners in getting permits and securing contractors. Participants felt that providing examples of how other groups have successfully overcome regulatory barriers would be a helpful service. Also noted was the value of compiling success stories in addressing challenges.
Who’s on First: Case Studies in Collaborative Management at the Local Level Facilitator: Mark Sargent, Michigan DNR
Bill Parkus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), described the Lake St. Clair/St. Clair River Protection and Restoration Partnership, which is made up of local governments, state and federal agencies, non‐governmental organizations and other partners. This group developed a comprehensive management plan for the Lake St. Clair region with treatment of invasive phragmites as a priority. Parkus discussed the benefits of the team approach and gave advice for maintaining momentum. He emphasized that different types of partners are needed – some provide action, others provide funding, authority, or general support. This partnership mix is particularly important in a poor economy. Parkus also noted the importance of public education/outreach campaigns to local phragmites control efforts. Also clarified was the role of SEMCOG in the partnership is as a regional coordinator. The organization works with local governments to scope projects but does not carry out actual implementation.
Bob Williams, Stewart Farm, talked about his efforts in coordinating phragmites control on private lands on Harsen’s Island, in Lake St. Clair. The effort started to help a handful of people treat phragmites on their properties and turned into an island‐wide, volunteer‐based committee providing education, advice, and resources. Williams described the process by which this citizen group collaborated and encouraged the formation of an official phragmites management program for Clay Township, and the passing of a resolution to support and encourage landowners doing treatment. Lessons learned from this unique effort include the importance of dedicated volunteers and a public that is educated and interested, creative treatment methods, and the need to follow up on permits.
Pam Grassmick, Beaver Island, presented on the experience of another group of private landowners. In this case, individual attempts at treatment were unsuccessful, and the Michigan DNR and DEQ served as important partners to increase coordination and effectiveness of treatment on the island. A township ordinance was passed that requires treatment along the entire shoreline of the island, and a fund was created to finance the effort. Grassmick said that the cost‐effectiveness and ease of access to the program has ensured its continued support, and treatment has succeeded in reducing 27 acres of invasive phragmites to only three acres. She said that lessons learned include the importance of conducting surveys and tailoring treatments to local conditions, ensuring property owners a successful and cost‐effective program, and continually providing public education. Grassmick emphasized the positive impacts of this work in providing a community‐building experience for Beaver Island.
Discussion: There was discussion on the similarities and differences between the Harsen’s Island and Beaver Island experiences, and whether an ordinance or resolution is most effective. Grassmick stressed that the ordinance works well on Beaver Island because invasive phragmites is limited to the shoreline and is in the early detection/rapid response stage of management, and because private landowners are environmentally conscious and socioeconomically advantaged. Williams said that on Harsen’s Island, the infestation is more widespread over coastal and inland areas, and the landowner mentality is born of different socioeconomic conditions. In this case, it was more appropriate to pass a resolution establishing a system whereby the government was available to provide assistance for treatment, instead of requiring it. Breakout session participants had the following response to the discussion questions they were provided: o How do we get started on local collaboration? How can agency officials be catalysts for collaboration at the local level?
Participants felt that the key elements of getting started on local collaboration were a local champion, a local stakeholder‐ led process, and an effective outreach/education campaign clearly communicating the biological, social, and economic impacts of invasive phragmites. It was emphasized that these efforts must be led at the local level, with state agencies providing the support and tools necessary for local communities to do the job. o How do we maintain momentum in the collaborative process? Discussions centered on the importance of celebrating successes for maintaining momentum. This can be done through avenues such as regular media, social media ((e.g., twitter and facebook) and focusing on treatment areas that are
19 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 publicly visual and explaining how phragmites impacting values. In addition, participants felt that while a volunteer “champion” could catalyze initial collaboration, a fully‐funded “champion” may be necessary to continue momentum. o Who should be partners? What are the roles of various partners? Participants felt that potential partners and their roles varied greatly based on specific locations and needs, but that generally more partners were needed to bring in different values, expertise, and leverage resources and funding. The three categories of partners as described by Bill Parkus (action, funding/authority, and support groups) were viewed as a useful framework. o What tools would be useful to local collaborators? Resources and tools useful to collaborators included example ordinances, resolutions, grant proposals, and mapping protocols. Tools to facilitate the permit process, and changes to regulations to allow for multi‐year permits, were also seen as potentially useful. Participants also felt that unique sources of leadership, such as from universities, were needed to champion the cause. It was also noted that documentation of phragmites impacts (such as those to fisheries, agriculture and drainage ditches) can help promote success among collaborators.
Locating and Documenting Invasive Phragmites Populations, Treatments, & Successes Facilitator: Mike Donovan, Michigan DNR
Amos Ziegler, Michigan State University, talked about the role of the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) in citizen monitoring, mapping, collecting and validating phragmites data. MISIN’s purpose is to “further the development of a regional network of data providers dedicated to the survey and management of invasive alien species.” The MISIN website consists of four primary modules: detection, reporting, education, and training. The website uses interactive map‐based data entry to gather contributions from experts and citizen scientists. Phragmites is one of 10 species currently being reported. In 2011, the website is expanding to include aquatic invaders and new insect invaders, and to develop early detection email alerts and national and global database linkages. In the future, the initiative hopes to continue building regional partnerships and to develop a structured survey module and mobile data reporting. Ziegler clarified that users are authenticated through an online registration process that incorporates training. He also said that the list of species currently being tracked was determined by a review of expert lists and through expert advice. There was discussion on including mechanisms for reporting absence as well as presence – in other words, tracking monitoring activities and surveyed locations where phragmites was not found. Ziegler said that for now, MISIN is focused on tracking presence and treatment progress.
Robb MacLeod, Ducks Unlimited, discussed the organization’s work mapping phragmites in the St. Clair Flats area. Aerial photos, Bing oblique images and the Google Street View application were all utilized in a photo interpretation and digitizing process, followed by a field survey of the study area. MacLeod described both the image interpretation process and the field verification methods used, acknowledging that the time commitment required is high. The process has the capacity to accurately identify relatively small patches of phragmites, so there were few omission errors where species were incorrectly identified as phragmites. However, there were a higher number of omission errors where phragmites stands were not flagged. In part, MacLeod suspects this is due to the age of the imagery used; small, newer stands may not have existed yet when the images were taken. This may become a limiting factor for the method if Bing and Google imagery are not updated regularly. MacLeod said that these methods are easily repeatable for other areas, but that Google and Bing oblique imagery are best utilized in urban areas, so this may be more appropriate for some places than others. MacLeod clarified that the smallest identifiable area using this method is quite small, probably on the order of an individual ditch. He also answered questions about techniques and mapping resources, noting that Bing and Google imagery were reference resources but that a GIS program and properly referenced aerial imagery were required for digitizing. Neither MacLeod nor anyone else present was aware of good metadata for the imagery used in Bing and Google, which limits the ability to predict the rate of omission errors for a given study area.
Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI), presented on MTRI’s work as part of a cooperative project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to map invasive phragmites in U.S. Great Lakes coastal areas. The overall project goal is to develop methods for creating a distribution map of invasive phragmites for management and control to support decision making. Borgeau‐Chavez’s presentation focused on the remote sensing methods used to detect the presence of invasive phragmites. Key to the process was the use of PALSAR
20 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 satellite imagery from three seasons, using the satellite data and characteristics of phragmites phenology to detect likely stands. Borgeau‐Chavez reported that preliminary maps were developed for lakes Huron, Erie, Michigan and Ontario.
During discussion, Bourgeau‐Chavez stated that data verification had taken place using field surveys, but noted that with additional resources, validation could have been stronger. Validation to a 95% confidence interval would have required about 370 data points per basin, which was not possible given the constraints of the project. The usability of other means of validation, such as photo interpretation, is not being used, but could be added as a resource. Bourgeau‐Chavez observed that although the project team used the National Wetlands Inventory category “emergent wetland” as the focus of randomly selected validation points, only 47% of the areas identified as “palustrine emergent wetlands” were reported as such in the field. Sometimes they were forested bogs, open water or upland, so there are multiple areas where data is an issue. When asked whether data from this project should be entered into MISIN, Bourgeau‐Chavez replied that ground‐truthing points could and should be shared. She felt that analysis products, however, should stay separate.
Discussion: Breakout session participants had the following response to the discussion questions they were provided: o What methods are being used to locate and map phragmites? The presentations in this session focused on inventory, including development of a statewide catalog of data on invasive species, detailed surveys over a moderately sized area and larger, regional scale surveys using a semi‐automated process. There was discussion on the capacity of these methods for early detection through characteristic patterns on the landscape, which may be possible. Methods of phragmites detection used by the presenters relied upon manual interpretation of aerial imagery or computer analysis of remote sensing data and used paid staff and interns. The challenge identified in use of remote sensing was picking up early infestations with low population density. It was noted that most session participants and other groups are working locally and using volunteers to carry out field surveys, which is likely to remain a critical activity. o How could use of these methods be expanded? Participants noted that there is much work being done in coastal areas of the Great Lakes, but few efforts are looking at inland areas. Participants agreed that one of the best uses for a “long‐distance” detection tool would be to note the possible presence of phragmites in areas not easily reached by individuals doing field surveys. Such tools could be used to identify areas for field validation that would otherwise be overlooked due to inaccessibility, e.g., areas away from roadways and far enough inland not to be visible from a river or lake shoreline. o How (or how well) are treatment sites being recorded and mapped? From the discussions, it seemed that most groups doing invasive phragmites treatment projects are tracking their results. This capacity is being developed in MISIN, with the hope that contributions will be made to a common inventory tracking effectiveness. Participants identified some issues associated with this topic, including a lack of resources for documentation and monitoring and privacy rights for landowners. There was some discussion on whether funding agencies should require post‐treatment monitoring for projects. o What approaches should be considered to maximize data access and use? What considerations do we need to make for long‐term maintenance of the data and data distribution systems?
Participants noted that while many people are aware of inventories such as MISIN, few people are contributing to them or using the data. Several hurdles to these activities were noted, the most prominent being lack of time and resources to enter data. Solutions were discussed, such as reporting requirements from funding agencies or as part of permit applications. An incentive based system was suggested to encourage information sharing. It was noted that being unable to track absence of phragmites is a hurdle to accurate reporting. Participants emphasized simplicity, without sacrificing accuracy, as important to encouraging contributions to and use of databases. Structuring databases around permitting requirements would also encourage use by streamlining the two steps. Integration of a standardized protocol for mapping was recommended for the data management system. Other points raised during the discussion included the need for feedback in the development of the data management system, use of predictive modeling in areas where phragmites may invade into the future, the role of mapping as part of a decision support tool, and the need to connect phragmites control with restoration work to facilitate rebound of new communities and adaptation of wildlife. Cost analysis was also discussed as a strategy to illustrate how property values can decrease with phragmites infestations along with the cost of being reactive by waiting for phragmites infestations to occur.
21 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011
Keynote Presentation
Brandon Fewins, Office of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, introduced the Senator’s video remarks with a brief statement. Fewins emphasized that Michigan is defined by the Great Lakes, and steps must be taken today to protect them for future generations. He recognized that invasive phragmites is one of the challenges facing the region, and noted that the GLRI is one of the tools we have to meet this challenge. It was also mentioned that Senator Stabenow’s office is willing to help by providing letters of support for phragmites‐related projects.
The Honorable Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, presented a video greeting thanking the GLC for its leadership and all attendees for their hard work to combat invasive phragmites. She highlighted the many success stories in the state, and encouraged continued partnerships to bring in resources. Senator Stabenow promised to do her part by continuing to champion the GLRI in Congress.
Breakout Session Reports
Facilitators from the previous day’s breakout sessions provided a report on the presentations and discussion themes that were shared during their session. Refer to the section above for summaries of these sessions.
Plenary Panel: Looking to the Future of Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Moderator: Heather Braun, GLC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invasive Plant Research Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Cofrancesco presented on the Corps’ invasive phragmites research based on its ecosystem restoration mission (Water Resources Development Act of 1986) to “restore significant ecosystem function, structure, and dynamic processes that have been degraded.” It was noted that Confined Disposal Facilities (CDF) sites where the harbor‐dredged materials are stored tend to be dominated by invasive species given the ecological disruption caused by dredging. Cofrancesco focused his presentation on a demonstration project CDF near Buffalo, NY where phragmites infestations are extensive. The proposed phragmites management approach is to combine chemical and physical treatment coupled with the establishment of native plant communities. A long term assessment protocol will be used to document results for this demonstration project.
Cofrancesco also discussed the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds. Cofrancesco chairs this group, which is comprised of representatives from 17 North American organizations and reviews the safety of potential biological control agents. Cofrancesco said that a drawback of this process is that the negative impacts of the target plant on the environment are not considered in analyzing the benefits and costs of potential agents. Cofrancesco clarified that in order for a biological control agent to be deemed safe; it cannot feed on a native species or be able to reproduce on native plant populations. A problem with the review process is that in captivity under no‐choice conditions, agents are stressed to a great degree and they may behave atypically. Also discussed was how dredge material transport contributes to the spread of invasive plants from CDF sites which has led to permit requirements. To address this problem, CDF sites are being treated to remove invasive species. There was general discussion on the need to establish screening of imported aquatic invasive species with the burden of proof of invasive species falling on regulators instead of importers.
Status of Research on Biological Control Methods Dr. Bernd Blossey, Cornell University
Dr. Bernd Blossey, Cornell University, discussed the status of his research on potential biological control agents for invasive phragmites. He said that the research has faced several challenges, including high tissue specificity of control agents, especially regarding the protection of native phragmites. Several candidates for biological control agents have been identified, all of which are stem‐boring moth larvae. Testing has shown that the larvae can successfully reduce phragmites biomass and decrease stem height. Blossey predicted that a request for release approval of any agents is still
22 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 three to five years away, noting that the Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) drives the approval process. He also presented results of a 2009 nationwide questionnaire gauging the attitudes of managers towards biological control and its potential ecological impacts. General attitudes were that biological control was supported if the species is host‐specific; 46% of respondents would approve of a phragmites biological control agent even if it attacked native phragmites, so long as populations did not decline significantly. Blossey emphasized the importance of establishing clear habitat restoration goals because biological control agents, if successful, will only provide a short window of opportunity for restoration before the next invasive plant moves into an area.
Also discussed was the extensive use of herbicides in treating phragmites and the need for documentation on potential impacts on sensitive species, such as amphibians (e.g., developmental deformities). Blossey expressed concern for ecological impacts that could potentially result from the wide scale use of herbicides in the control of a single species; he reminded symposium participants of the lessons learned on this issue through the well known book, Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson. Also noted was the need for further documentation that herbicide treatment is not impacting native species, recommending that management goals should strive for the protection of biodiversity and not be solely focused on the control of a single species.
Blossey responded to question on hybridization between native and invasive phragmites, indicating that it is unknown how much hybridization occurs but it likely happens in some cases when populations are in close contact. Hybrids created in the laboratory have either been very aggressive or very weak, but those that eventually survive in the wild tend to be aggressive. There was general discussion on defining successful treatment of invasive phragmites, and whether simple measures of abundance before and after treatment are sufficient. Blossey emphasized that in order for societal support of the use of herbicides to continue, we must do a better job of showing ecological success post‐treatment through clearly defined ecosystem goals. More specifically, it was pointed out that in measuring success for control efforts, the reduction of phragmites populations was inadequate; more importantly, ecological success should be measured in terms of the restored structure and function of the ecosystem. It was also recommended that in defining desired outcomes, metrics should measure restored benefits versus use of herbicides.
Innovative Phragmites Control Strategies Dr. Kurt Kowalski, USGS Great Lakes Science Center
Kowalski presented on a GLRI‐funded multi‐agency project (USGS – Great Lakes Science Center, USGS – Western Fisheries Research Center, Wayne State University, and SUNY – Brockport) that is examining innovative invasive phragmites control methods. The project has two components: 1) determining the role of endophytic fungi (i.e., microbes that live symbiotically with the plant) in the competitive advantage that phragmites has over many native plants, and 2) applying gene silencing technology to modify plant characteristics as another way to reduce competitive advantage. With a better understanding of the factors that give invasive phragmites the ability to outcompete native species, researchers can begin to examine ways to manipulate these factors to limit the spread of invasive plant species. For instance, relationships between endophytic fungi and their host plants can strengthen the tolerance of these plants to severe conditions (e.g., drought, heavy metals). Experimental studies have shown that the plant tolerance can be weakened when these endophytes are removed. The approach of endophyte removal may be used to target control of non‐native Phragmites, as well as other invasive plants. An example given for gene silencing technique is the reduction of the reproductive capacity of plants by reducing reproductive flower development which, in turn, can be used to weaken the competitiveness of invasive plants.
Kowalski said this project seeks to produce results that will be immediately useful to resource managers in controlling phragmites, and eventually other invasive plants. Laboratory studies are continuing this year, and in 2012 experiments will be conducted to test the effectiveness of new technologies in the field. Kowalski emphasized that this work seeks to add to the current toolbox of managers seeking to control invasive phragmites, and that we must take a broad‐scale approach and learn from work happening outside the Great Lakes. Kowalski clarified that endophytes, while not necessarily host‐specific, do tend to be specific in the way they communicate with each host species. This work focuses on interrupting this communication, with a low risk of impacts to native plant species. He said that the timeline for the research portion of this work is approximately 3‐5 years; it is not known how long any regulatory processes would take that might be required to implement these technologies in the field.
23 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Discussion: Following the plenary panel, the floor was opened up for discussion. There was extended conversation on the need to focus on restoring native communities following treatment of invasive phragmites, and the importance of having clearly‐defined restoration endpoints before treatment. Treatment itself is a disturbance that can open up areas for other invasives to move in, which some have experienced during their work. It was noted that with restoration goals, funding was often easier to obtain; these goals should be to diversity of native plant communities as well as benefits for other wildlife. This strategy highlights the values of different user groups and can increase overall support for invasive phragmites control efforts. Participants were heartened by the research presented by the panel; if biological control is successful, the competitive advantage of native species will be strengthened naturally, making restoration more cost‐ effective. There was also discussion on the need for economic studies on the short‐ and long‐term costs associated with phragmites treatment. Data on the economic impacts of phragmites when left untreated, such as declines in property values, would also be useful.
Next Steps and Closing Statements
Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Michigan DEQ
LeSage gave an overview of the the Michigan Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) State Management Plan. The first version, in 1996, had three goals: to prevent new introductions, to limit the spread of introduced species, and to abate harmful ecological, economic, social and public health impacts caused by AIS. The plan was updated in 2002 using a process that gathered input from public and private stakeholders. Currently, the plan is being updated with funding from the GLRI, which has energized Michigan’s AIS program. LeSage reported that this project will focus on increasing AIS program cohesiveness, updating the plan, and implementing priority activities. The plan will use a new organizational approach focused on vectors and pathways for introduction and spread. LeSage encouraged attendees to help by providing input to the public comment process, as invasive phragmites management is part of the overall plan.
Project Direction Katherine Glassner‐Shwayder, GLC
Glassner‐Shwayder provided closing remarks to wrap up the symposium. She thanked all participants for their high level of engagement and dedication to the issue and, in particular, the plenary and breakout speakers for providing excellent information and for inspiring productive dialogue supporting the purpose of the symposium. Glassner‐Shwayder noted that the outcomes from the symposium will help refine and expand the strategic framework that is in development. Work on the framework will include developing strategic actions, assigning roles and responsibilities, and identifying opportunities to take the strategic framework from a conceptual level to implementation. It was mentioned that immediately following the symposium, a 2‐3 hour de‐briefing session would be convened (at the Kellogg Center) to capture lessons learned at the symposium for further development of the strategic plan. Glassner‐Shwayder also announced that in 8‐10 weeks following the symposium, a stakeholder meeting open to the public would be held in East Lansing to gather additional input on the next iteration of the strategic framework. Glassner‐Shwayder closed by recognizing the new relationships that were established during the symposium, and expressed hope that these would develop into new partnerships and collaborative efforts to combat invasive phragmites in the Great Lakes.
24 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
SYMPOSIUM BIOGRAPHIES
(Presented in order of the agenda)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Field Trip to Lake Lansing Park North
Leslie Kuhn, Michigan State University (Field Trip Coordinator) Leslie Kuhn received her B.A. in Computer Mathematics and Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Pennsylvania, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship at The Scripps Research Institute on protein structural modeling and molecular design. She has always loved the outdoors and learning about nature, from living in the woods of Massachusetts and on a coral island in the South Pacific as a kid. Her environmental work began by running a community recycling center during high school, and more recently she led the community effort to acquire 120 acres of woods and wetlands to add to Lake Lansing North Park. Becoming acquainted with the natural communities and invasive species in Ingham County led to development of the Mid‐Michigan Cluster of the Stewardship Network, which Leslie coordinates. Happily, their restoration work on a habitat scale is influencing her lab research on the nanoscale. As Professor of Biochemistry and Computer Science at Michigan State University, she is collaborating with Professor Weiming Li of Fisheries & Wildlife to design molecules that block pheromone receptors in sea lampreys, as an environmentally friendly control for this aggressive invader of the Great Lakes.
Suzan Campbell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Suzan Campbell is a Conservation Associate at Michigan Natural Features Inventory, where she works on a wide range of topics including terrestrial and aquatic invasive plants. Suzan is also an instructor for the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. She has a B. Sc in Zoology from Michigan State University and is (slowly) working on a Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and the Environment.
Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Phyllis Higman is a Senior Conservation Scientist and Botanist with the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. She has over 18 years of field‐based experience studying Michigan’s native ecological communities and rare and declining species. Phyllis leads an education program focused on biodiversity conservation and emerging conservation issues, delivering interdisciplinary field‐based workshops and symposia to a wide array of audiences. She has studied invasive plants since 2003 and is currently working with partners to standardize mapping protocols and facilitate the aggregation of invasive species distribution data statewide through the Midwest Invasive Species Information System (MISIN). Phyllis completed a strategic plan to address invasive plants in Michigan and is working with many partners to implement its goals and objectives across jurisdictional boundaries. She worked with her colleagues to develop field guides to Michigan’s terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic invasive plants and training for partners and contractors on coastal natural communities and rare species. Currently, she is collaborating with the DNR, the DEQ, and partners to expand early detection and rapid response capacity for invasive phragmites in northern Michigan and to develop a rapid response program for new aquatic invasive plants throughout Michigan.
Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Daria Hyde has been a conservation scientist with Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) since 1994. Ms. Hyde has extensive experience developing and delivering outreach and educational materials, programs and products to promote greater understanding and protection of declining wildlife species and natural communities in Michigan, including: species abstracts, habitat and site conservation plans for endangered species, ecosystem management plans, and green infrastructure plans. She has conducted and overseen applied research focused on the conservation of biodiversity in Michigan and has developed conservation plans focused on the protection of rare species and natural communities for agencies, local units of government and other interested parties. Most recently, she has focused her efforts on promoting an early detection and rapid response approach to protect Michigan’s native plant communities from invasive species. Ms. Hyde has managed projects and supervised project teams for more than 10 years. Her work has been funded by the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Quality departments, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. EPA and local units of government.
25 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Chris Reidy, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Chris Reidy is a biologist with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in East Lansing, Michigan. Through his 15 years with NRCS he has also worked in Alaska, Indiana and New York. Much of his work is related to habitat restoration, particularly wetland restoration. Chris received a M.S. from Ball State University and a B.S. from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse. He is presently working on a botanical inventory of vascular plant species for Lake Lansing Park North, Ingham County, MI. Chris resides in Williamston, MI with his wife, Molly, who tolerates his botanical proclivities.
Nicholas Sanchez, Ingham County Parks and Mid‐Michigan Stewardship Initiative Nick is a senior in Forestry at Michigan State University and has been surveying and leading invasive species control efforts at Michigan State University and in Ingham County Parks since October 2009. Nick's projects include GPS mapping and treating distributions of black swallow‐wort, garlic mustard, autumn olive, phragmites, Japanese knotweed, oriental bittersweet, and a number of other herbaceous and woody exotic species in the parks and MSU's natural areas. He leads 30 restoration outings per year, focused on youth and neighborhood involvement and education in conserving our natural areas. Current efforts include rain garden development, and planning restoration of phragmites and autumn olive infested areas of Lake Lansing Park North.
Steve Thomas, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Steve is an Associate Ecologist with the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, where his work has focused upon wetland health evaluations and natural community assessments. He has held prior positions in Illinois, Colorado, Idaho, Washington (state), and Florida, where his duties have included ecological restoration, vegetation sampling, invasive species control, wetland delineation, and hydrologic evaluation. His education includes a Bachelor's Degree in Botany from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Master's Degree in Watershed Science from Colorado State University.
Patrick Witte, Ingham County Park Department Pat earned his B.S. degree in Park Management from South Dakota State University and has 20 years of experience in park management, including 10 years with Ingham County Parks. He oversees the 569 acres of wetlands and woodlands in Lake Lansing Park North, and the ongoing phragmites control project at 60 sites in the Lake Lansing Watershed. He also oversees Lake Lansing South Park and the Lake Lansing Boat Launch, which together with Lake Lansing Park North receive over 125,000 visitors per year. Pat is a member of the Lake Lansing Watershed Special Assessment District Advisory Committee and a certified Stormwater Manager. He recently led 40 teenagers in the planting of a native Michigan wildflower rain garden at Lake Lansing Park South, as a demonstration site for filtering parking lot storm water runoff before it enters the adjacent marshlands and Lake Lansing.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Welcoming Remarks
Frank Ruswick, Deputy Director, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Frank Ruswick is the Deputy Director of the Office of Great Lakes (OGL) in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality where he provides support in management of the Office and backup to the OGL Director on all Great Lakes issues. Ruswick has been employed by the Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources since 1987 and has served as the Stewardship Deputy Director, Senior Policy Advisor, Assistant Division Chief of the Waste and Hazardous Materials Division, Assistant to the Deputy Director for Environmental Protection, and the Chief of the Office of Special Services. Previously, Ruswick served as the Executive Director of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (1982‐ 1987) and as an Attorney for the United States Department of the Interior (1980‐1982). Ruswick holds Juris Doctor and Master of Science degrees from the University of Michigan and a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science is from the Univ. of Wisconsin ‐ Stevens Point.
Roger Eberhardt, Environmental Quality Specialist, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Roger works in Michigan’s Office of the Great Lakes. For the last 10 years, he has been involved with implementing Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Prior to coming to work for the state, he completed a Ph.D. in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University.
26 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission Tim Eder was appointed as the fifth executive director of the Great Lakes Commission on July 10, 2006. With more than 25 years of experience in natural resources policy development and advocacy, Eder is in charge of the Commission's day‐ to‐day operations and advancing the shared interests of the Commission membership in the areas of natural resources management and advocacy. In nearly two decades with the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Eder has headed a variety of programs that directly relate to Great Lakes issues. As NWF director of water resources, he led the formation of a nationwide coalition of taxpayer and conservation interests that forged bipartisan support in the U.S. House and Senate for legislation to protect and restore aquatic habitat. Prior to that, he served as director of the NWF's largest field office, the Great Lakes Natural Resource Center, dedicated to educating, mobilizing and assisting individuals and organizations in the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Eder has served on the boards of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, the Washtenaw County (Mich.) Road Commission, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, the Michigan Aquatic Nuisance Species Advisory Council, and the Aquatic Invasive Species Team of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. He holds a bachelor of science degree in resource development from Michigan State University. The Impacts and Challenges of Invasive Phragmites
Sue Tangora, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) Sue Tangora obtained her bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University in zoology. She currently works for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division as a wildlife biologist. Her main responsibility includes coordinating the Division’s private lands habitat program, the Landowner Incentive Program, and coordinating invasive species efforts within the Wildlife Division. Sue has worked on several invasive species projects including a phragmites demonstration project in Saginaw Bay, a spotted knapweed biocontrol release project in conjunction with Michigan State University and worked with the Michigan Natural Features Inventory to develop a statewide strategy to address invasive plants. She is currently working to develop a statewide rapid response program. Sue also serves on the state’s Aquatic Invasive Species Team and coordinates the DNR’s annual invasive species training. Sue owns 40 acres in mid‐Michigan where she and her family work to restore native vegetation.
Katherine Glassner‐Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission Katherine Glassner‐Shwayder serves as senior project manager at the Commission in the Aquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity program. The focus of her work at the Commission has been on the prevention and control of aquatic invasive species (AIS) since 1992. Katherine also holds the position of coordinator for the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, providing support on AIS issues in areas of policy development, research coordination and information/education. Through her work with the Great Lakes Panel, Katherine has gained significant experience in consensus building focused on AIS issues on a multijurisdictional level among agency representatives and stakeholders in the region. She has also participated on the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, representing Great Lakes interests. Katherine holds a master’s degree in water resources management from the University of Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and a bachelor’s degree in biology from Oberlin College. Before joining the Commission, she worked as a research associate at The Center for the Great Lakes. She also has experience as a Wisconsin Sea Grant extension agent, secondary science teacher and naturalist with the National Park Service.
Current Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Efforts
Ray Fahlsing, State Park Stewardship Program Manager, Michigan DNR Ray Fahlsing earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Purdue University, where he studied Forestry and Wildlife Management. He received a Master of Science degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from Texas A&M University, studying habitat use by white‐tailed deer in relation to land use practices in the Edwards Plateau Region of Texas. Since 1995, he has been the manager of the State Park Stewardship Unit. The Stewardship Unit focuses on the preservation, management and restoration of the cultural and natural resources of Michigan’s 100 state parks.
Shaun Howard, Dunes Alliance Coastal Invasive Species Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy A Michigan native, Shaun earned a B.S. in Zoology through the Lyman Briggs College at Michigan State University. In the summer of 2010 he joined The Nature Conservancy to lead the Dune Restoration Crew’s control efforts against invasive baby’s‐breath along the shores of Northwest Lower Michigan. His current role is that of Coastal Invasives Coordinator, combining the efforts of TNC and other Michigan Dune Alliance partners all along the Eastern Lake Michigan shoreline toward the surveying, treatment, and monitoring of seven key invasive plants species.
27 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation Bob Batt is the Region Resource Specialist for the Michigan Department of Transportation's University Region, which covers ten counties in south central Michigan. He is responsible for ensuring the Region's compliance with environmental statutes and regulations, and serves as the Region's roadside vegetation manager. He has a Forestry degree from Michigan Technological University, with additional graduate work in urban forestry at Michigan State.
Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Phyllis Higman is a Senior Conservation Scientist and Botanist with the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. She has over 18 years of field‐based experience studying Michigan’s native ecological communities and rare and declining species. Phyllis leads an education program focused on biodiversity conservation and emerging conservation issues, delivering interdisciplinary field‐based workshops and symposia to a wide array of audiences. She has studied invasive plants since 2003 and is currently working with partners to standardize mapping protocols and facilitate the aggregation of invasive species distribution data statewide through the Midwest Invasive Species Information System (MISIN). Phyllis completed a strategic plan to address invasive plants in Michigan and is working with many partners to implement its goals and objectives across jurisdictional boundaries. She worked with her colleagues to develop field guides to Michigan’s terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic invasive plants and training for partners and contractors on coastal natural communities and rare species. Currently, she is collaborating with the DNR, the DEQ, and partners to expand early detection and rapid response capacity for invasive phragmites in northern Michigan and to develop a rapid response program for new aquatic invasive plants throughout Michigan.
Introduction to Breakout Sessions
Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission Julie Mida Hinderer is the Great Lakes Commission’s Sea Grant Fellow for 2010‐11. She provides support to several Commission projects, including the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, the Value of Great Lakes Water Initiative, and the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. Julie holds a B.S. degree in environmental science, and an M.S. degree in aquatic sciences, both from the University of Michigan. Her research experience is on the impacts of invasive species on open‐water food webs in the Great Lakes.
Breakout Sessions
Tools for Success: Building Capacity to Implement Large‐scale Phragmites Management and Control
Facilitator: Amy Derosier, Michigan DNR Amy Derosier is currently the Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator for the Michigan DNR’s Wildlife Division. She has been in this position for 2.5 years and her primary responsibilities revolve around planning and working with partners. Previously, she worked for Michigan Natural Features Inventory for over 5 years as an Aquatic Ecologist and as the Aquatic Ecology Program Leader. She has also worked for the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Amy has a bachelor’s degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology from the University of Massachusetts and a master’s degree in Fisheries from Michigan State University. She has spent her career working in states that start with “M” and has enjoyed hiking, camping and fishing in each state. She continues to explore Michigan with her husband, 4 year old son, and dog.
Recorder: Heather Braun, Great Lakes Commission Heather Braun is the Commission’s Habitat Restoration Project Manager. She supports the Commission’s role in advancing habitat restoration throughout the Great Lakes basin and currently manages several habitat restoration projects. Prior to joining the Commission, Heather was a Regional Biologist for Ducks Unlimited, Inc. She has also worked for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Ducks Unlimited, Canada. Heather grew up in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and attended the University of Manitoba. She holds a Master of Natural Resources Management degree focused on wetland restoration and wildlife management, and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Zoology.
Brian Piccolo, Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Brian Piccolo has worked for the Michigan DNR Wildlife Division for over 7 years. He was a Private Lands Wildlife Habitat Biologist throughout the northern Lower Peninsula for 6 years and currently he serves as the biologist responsible for the Waterfowl Management Areas around Saginaw Bay. During his years as the Private Lands Biologist, he was the primary
28 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 coordinator of the Grand Traverse Bay phragmites steering committee and was responsible for developing an early detection and rapid response program throughout the region.
Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited Roy has been employed by Ducks Unlimited in the Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office in Ann Arbor Michigan since 2008 as manager of conservation programs and is responsible for delivery of Ducks Unlimited’s Southwestern Lake Erie Lands Protection Program in Michigan and Ohio. Over the last decade, he has worked to integrate coastal wetland fish and wildlife management habitat objectives, and to promote hemi‐marsh conditions, diverse plant communities and increased unrestricted hydrologic flows in managed coastal wetlands. Prior to joining Ducks Unlimited, Roy was the Executive Director of the Winous Point Marsh Conservancy, where he managed Ohio’s largest privately owned wetland for 25 years, and supervised operations at a private conservation organization encompassing the oldest (1856) duck‐ hunting club in North America.
Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines Jennifer Muladore is the ecologist for Huron Pines Resource Conservation and Development Council, a nonprofit conservation organization that serves the northeast 11 counties of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The Huron Pines Invasive Species Program, started in 2009, is an early detection‐rapid response program centered around a Cooperative Weed Management Area that addresses target invasive species like phragmites on coastal Lake Huron in Northeast Michigan. Through the program, Jennifer organized a SWAT team of AmeriCorps members that performed a coastal phragmites inventory, met with local landowners, and treated over 33 acres of invasive phragmites on 80 sites. Other ongoing components include volunteer events, workshops, and outreach materials.
The Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Phragmites Management and Control
Facilitator: Steve Beyer, Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division Steve has been the Federal Aid Coordinator for the Wildlife Division for the past seven years. Steve is responsible for ensuring the federal grants are in place funding half of the Division’s expenditures. Steve is the Division’s lead on policies and regulations on the use of these funds and lands acquired with these funds. Before his current position, Steve was the Division’s Wildlife Habitat Biologist for Barry, Kalamazoo, and Calhoun Counties for five years. Prior to working with the Michigan DNR, Steve was a Wildlife Planner with the West Virginia DNR for three years. Before that, he spent some time as the Natural Heritage Program Zoologist in West Virginia. Steve was born in raised in Connecticut where he became a life‐long fan of the Boston Red Sox. Steve has a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Wildlife Management from the University of Maine and a Master’s of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Iowa State University. Current interests revolve around hunting, fishing, skiing, and coaching baseball with his three boys.
Recorder: Erika Jensen, Great Lakes Commission Erika Jensen is a senior program specialist working under the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity Programs. Erika also provides support to the Commission's policy and advocacy efforts. She previously served as the 2006‐ 2007 Great Lakes Commission‐Sea Grant Fellow. Erika has received a Master of Environmental Management degree, focused on environmental policy, from the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Studies from Michigan State University. She has also worked as an environmental policy intern for the state of Michigan Senate Majority Policy Office.
Mike Bryan, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture Mike Bryan is a plant industry specialist with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development where he has worked since 1998. Mr. Bryan manages the Department’s nursery stock and Christmas tree inspection program; export certification program; and invasive plant issues. Mike manages Departmental permits for prohibited and restricted aquatic and wetland plant species, including any permits for Phragmites utilization and research.
Anne Hokanson, Michigan DEQ, Wetlands Program Anne Hokanson is the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Ecologist in the Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. She is involved in the Saginaw Bay Phragmites Demonstration Project, Great Lakes Shoreline Management activities, and several Great Lakes Coastal Wetland monitoring efforts. Anne is available to help property owners navigate the permit application process for mowing and mechanical treatment of Phragmites on Great Lakes bottomland wetlands, and can be reached at [email protected] or 517‐241‐4506.
29 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Eric Bacon, Michigan DEQ, Aquatic Nuisance Control Program Eric Bacon works in the Aquatic Nuisance Control Program of the Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. He has been with the Michigan DNR/DEQ since 1994, all within the Water Division or Water Bureau. Eric graduated in 1994 from Michigan State University with a BS in Resources Development, Water Resources.
Dr. Grenetta Thomassey, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Dr. Grenetta Thomassey is Program Director for Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. In this capacity, she works as an advocate for fresh water resources at the local, state and federal levels. She spearheaded the successful Phragmites Control Project for Emmet County during the summer of 2010. Prior to her arrival in Michigan, Thomassey was an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and an instructor in the Political Science Department at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. She also held a senior staff position on a nationally targeted Congressional campaign in 2004. Dr. Thomassey’s research is focused on federalism, interest groups, and how to translate science into the policy arena. Her dissertation is a unique examination of groundwater management policies across the entire US. Published articles and book chapters include a case study of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act and its impact upon rural/urban relations in that state. She is also the primary author and researcher for a book called Fresh Water Issues, published in 2003, and is currently involved in planning stages for a new book on collaborative, fresh water federal restoration efforts. Thomassey holds a Bachelor’s and a Masters Degree in Political Science. In 2003, she earned her PhD in Public Policy, with an emphasis on Environmental Policy and a specialty in Fresh Water concerns.
Who’s on First: Case Studies in Collaborative Management at the Local Level
Facilitator: Mark Sargent, Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division Mark received his bachelor’s degree and masters from Michigan State University in wildlife management and natural resources economics and marketing, respectively. Mark has worked for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division since 1991 as a Private Lands Wildlife Specialist and Program Coordinator. Before this he worked 6 years for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources as Planning Supervisor for the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and as a Resource Planner for the Division of Outdoor Recreation. Mark’s professional interests include grassland and wetlands habitat management and restoration. His hobbies after work include hunting and training bird‐dogs.
Bill Parkus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments William Parkus is an Environmental Planner with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. His current focus is on protecting and restoring the water quality and natural resources of the Huron to Erie Corridor – comprised of the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and Detroit River. SEMCOG facilitates the Lake St. Clair/St. Clair River Protection and Restoration Partnership – a collaboration of representatives from local, regional, state and federal agencies, associations, Nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and consulting technical experts. The partnership is responsible for implementing the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Comprehensive Management Plan. The management of invasive phragmites is a priority recommendation under the Management Plan. There are thousands of acres of invasive phragmites around Lake St. Clair and partnerships and collaborations are an integral part of the management process. Mr. Parkus holds a Bachelors of Science in Geology and a Master’s of Science in Land Use Planning from Eastern Michigan University.
Bob Williams, Stewart Farm Bob has been successful at controlling Phragmites in his restoration of a lake plain prairie at Stewart farm. He is an MSU Extension Service Volunteer and the founder and webmaster of www.Phragmites.org. He is the Chairperson of the Harsens Island Phragmites Committee and the Clay Township Phragmites Advisory Board. On this topic Bob has presented dozens of public workshops and in‐field trainings and has done personal tutoring to more than a hundred individuals.
Pam Grassmick, Beaver Island Pam Grassmick began her invasive species work approximately 7 years ago while observing invasive phragmites growing on the Beaver Island shorelines in northern Lake Michigan. She educated the public through a video production, hosting frequent meetings with shoreline owners, and articles in various publications. In addition, she surveyed the entire shoreline of multiple islands for phragmites. As the Island’s volunteer Phragmites Coordinator, she directed and developed the present Phragmites control program efforts. The initial treatment area included 27+ shoreline acres being brought down to scattered plants over 3 acres. She worked with the townships’ attorney to develop a phragmites ordinance for Beaver Island’s two townships and the DEQ allowing for herbicide treatment of the entire Island’s shoreline
30 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 rather than individual lots making the treatment more cost efficient and effective. Currently over 500 property owners are engaged in the eradication efforts. The program has been extended to the outer islands of the Beaver Island archipelago. She continues to collaborate and share the lessons learned from a community’s rapid response to phragmites with property owners, local governments, and state agencies.
Tracking Progress: Locating and Documenting Invasive Phragmites Populations, Treatments and Successes
Facilitator: Mike Donovan, Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division Mike is currently the Wildlife Habitat Research Specialist with the Michigan DNR’s Wildlife Division. Mike has 20+ years of experience in a variety of positions helping to build GIS and Remote Sensing capacity within the DNR. He spent 4 years as manager of the Michigan DNR’s GIS support Unit. In this position, he had primary responsibility for managing the DNR’s department level GIS initiatives. He was the Michigan Terrestrial GAP Project Coordinator. He is currently the Chair of the DNR’s Statewide Biodiversity Planning Team. Mike is an instructor in Lansing Community College’s GIS program. Previous to his Michigan DNR Career, Mike worked as an engineer for Eastman Kodak Company and as a physical scientist for NOAA. Mike has an undergraduate wildlife degree and a graduate degree in Remote Sensing and Wildlife Management both from the University of Michigan. Mike grew up in Brighton, Michigan and says his love of fishing and hunting and watching Mort Kneff (Michigan Out‐of‐Doors) and Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom led him to a career in natural resource management.
Recorder: Stuart Eddy, Great Lakes Commission Previously a geographic information systems (GIS) specialist for the St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Eddy works on the Great Lakes GIS Online and Great Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory projects and coordinates computer technical support for GLC staff.
Amos H. Ziegler, Michigan State University Amos H. Ziegler is a research scientist in the Department of Entomology at Michigan State University and leads the Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services (ASETS) laboratory. He applies 20 years of Geographic Information Science and spatial technology experience to a variety of invasive species survey and mitigation projects from local to national in scale. ASETS is the primary developer of the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) framework. MISIN is an easy to use on‐line system which experts and citizen scientists can use to report high priority invasive species through the interaction with general education, field identification training, and reporting modules.
Robb MacLeod, Ducks Unlimited Mr. Macleod oversees the GIS activities in the 18 state Great Lakes/Atlantic Region of Ducks Unlimited. He works closely with the Region’s Conservation Planner and Regional Biologists to perform spatial analysis for targeting conservation efforts and planning restoration activities. Mr. Macleod has a Master’s of Science in Natural Resources (GIS and Remote Sensing emphasis) from the University of New Hampshire and a Bachelor of Science in Forestry from Michigan State University.
Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez is an ecologist using remote sensing to study landscape scale environmental issues. She has been researching and applying satellite imagery to landscape issues in the Great Lakes since 2003. She developed methods for mapping coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes using a fusion of satellite optical and radar imagery and is currently working on mapping the invasive Phragmites australis.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Keynote Presentation
The Honorable Debbie Stabenow, United States Senator Born in Gladwin and raised in Clare, Debbie Stabenow knows what matters to Michigan. Elected to the United States Senate in 2000, she is respected for her ability to build coalitions to get things done for Michigan and our nation. As Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and a member of the Senate Energy, Finance, and Budget Committees, she has a powerful and unique role to play in shaping our nation's manufacturing, health care, and agriculture policies, which are so critical to our future. After her election to the U.S. Senate, the first bill she passed into law was a ban on oil and gas
31 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 drilling in the Great Lakes. She has fought against attempts to divert water out of the Great Lakes, and is leading efforts to stop the spread of invasive species, like Asian carp, and to clean up and restore our waterways.
Looking to the Future of Invasive Phragmites Management and Control
Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dr. Alfred F. Cofrancesco, Jr. is the Technical Director, Civil Works Environmental Engineering and Sciences at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. He is responsible for the integration of civil works environmental research and developmental activities across all functional programs. Dr. Cofrancesco’s research has focused on environmental issues, particularly ecosystem restoration and the control and management of invasive species.
Dr. Bernd Blossey, Cornell University Bernd was born and raised in northern Germany. He went to school at Kiel University, initially interested in a degree in marine biology. Bernd then became fascinated by insects; followed by birds, plants and mammals and it became clear to him that he was an ecologist with wide ranging interests. After spending a summer internship at the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Switzerland in the mid 1980's, he started his Masters work, which developed into a PhD, studying the insect communities on purple loosestrife. This study was motivated by the interest of potentially using insects from the native range of purple loosestrife as biological control agents. In 1992, Bernd moved to Cornell University, initially as a post‐doc and Research Associate and he is now an Associate Professor in the Dept of Natural Resources. Bernd directs the Ecology and Management of Invasive Plants Program at Cornell. Bernd continues to develop and implement biological weed control programs. Among his target plants are purple loosestrife, garlic mustard, and invasive Phragmites. An ever increasing focus of his team are investigations into impacts of multiple “stressors” including of invasive and native plants, earthworms, slugs and deer on a wide range of native organisms. The ultimate aim of this work is to increase the conservation values of all lands through development of best management practices.
Kurt Kowalski, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center Dr. Kurt Kowalski is a Research Wetland Ecologist in the Coastal Ecosystems Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan. His research is focused on the rehabilitation and management of Great Lakes coastal wetland ecosystems, with a particular emphasis on wetland connectivity, mapping and modeling Phragmites distribution in the Great Lakes, and strategies for invasive phragmites management. He holds certification as a Professional Wetland Scientist and is an active member of the Society of Wetland Scientists.
Next Steps and Closing Statements
Sarah Lesage, Michigan DEQ Sarah is presently the Aquatic Invasive Species Program Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. In this capacity Sarah organizes interdepartmental efforts to prevent and control aquatic invasive species through legislation and policy, information and education, and research and monitoring activities. She is currently coordinating efforts to update and implement Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. In addition, she serves as the Department’s expert on the control of aquatic invasive species via ballast water. Prior to this position, Sarah was an aquatic biologist in the Surface Water Assessment Section of the Water Resources Division beginning in 2000. Her responsibilities included coordinating statewide reporting efforts on surface water quality; monitoring water quality, fish and macroinvertebrate communities, and sediment in surface waters; and developing water quality limits for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and groundwater permits. She also served as the rules liaison for the Division, the primary contact for Michigan’s rapid bioassessment procedure, and the primary contact for algae related water quality problems.
32 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS
Matt Ankney Bob Batt Todd Bowen Wildlife Division MI Dept. of Transportation JFNew MI Dept. of Natural Resources Phone: 517‐750‐0410 11181 Marwill Avenue 530 West Allegan [email protected] West Olive, MI 49460 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 616‐847‐1680 Phone: 734‐373‐1234 Steve Beyer [email protected] [email protected] Wildlife Federal Aid Coordinate Wildlife Division Heather Braun Vicki Anderson MI Dept. of Natural Resources Great Lakes Commission Great Lakes Coordinator 530 West Allegan 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Lansing, MI 48909 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Service Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Phone: 734‐971‐9135x132 3001 Coolidge Road [email protected] [email protected] East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: 517‐324‐5158 Sherry Blaszak Jeff Bridgland [email protected] Executive Director Ecologist Missaukee Conservation District Niswander Environmental Chadwick Appleman 6180 W. Sanborn Road, Suite 3 10524 E. Grand River Ave., Ste 103 Coordinator Lake City, MI 49651 Brighton, MI 48116 Davey Resource Group Phone: 231‐839‐7193 Phone: 810‐25‐0539 3846 New Vision Drive [email protected] jbridgland@niswander‐env.com Fort Wayne, IN 46845 Phone: 260‐969‐5990 Dr. Bernd Blossey Jake Britton [email protected] Cornell University SePRO 122 E. Fernow Hall 3375 N. Gale Road Barb Avers Ithaca, NY 14853 Davison, MI 48423 Wildlife Biologist Specialist Phone: 607‐255‐5314 Phone: 810‐341‐3659 Wildlife Division [email protected] [email protected] MI Dept. of Natural Resources 530 West Allegan Mary Bohling Colin Brooks Lansing, MI 48909 Educator Research Scientist Phone: 517‐373‐1234 MI Sea Grant MI Tech Research Institute [email protected] 640 Temple, 6th Floor 3600 Green Ct., Suite 100 Detroit, MI 48201 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Eric Bacon Phone: 313‐410‐9431 Phone: 734‐913‐6858 Water Res. Div. [email protected] MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Mike Bryan 525 W. Allegan Jack Boss MI Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Lansing, MI 48909 Consulting Wildlife Biologist Development Phone: 517‐241‐9007 Ecosystems Management P.O. Box 30017 [email protected] 3210 Bewell Ave. SE Lansing, MI 48909 Lowell, MI 49331 Phone: 517‐241‐2977 Scott Banfield Phone: 616‐897‐8575 [email protected] President [email protected] Aquatic Enhancement & Survey, Inc. Meredith Bryant P.O. Box 1036 Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Angola, IN 46203 Research Scientist 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 Phone: 260‐665‐8226 Michigan Tech Research Institute East Lansing, MI 48823 [email protected] 3600 Green Ct., Suite 100 Phone: 517‐351‐6238 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [email protected] Phone: 734‐913‐6873 [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 33 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Bob Bryson Tom Crane Steve Dushane Owner Great Lakes Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Phragmites Cutter 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 9311 Groh Road P.O. Box 28006 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Grosse Ile, MI 48138 Harsens Island, MI 48028 Phone: 734‐971‐9135x123 Phone: 734‐692‐7604 Phone: 810‐523‐9841 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Jill Crosthwaite Greg Eagle Chaeho Byun The Nature Conservancy of Canada Land Protection Specialist McGill University 148 Fullarton St., Suite 1606 Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy 21 111 Lakeshore London, ONT N6A 5P3 P.O. Box 222 Ste Anne de Bellevue, QBC H9X 3V9 Phone: 519‐640‐6822 Bay City, MI 48707‐0222 Phone: 514‐746‐6310 [email protected] Phone: 989‐891‐9986 [email protected] grege@sblc‐mi.org Katherine David Suzan Campbell MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Roger Eberhardt Conservation Associate 301 E. Louis Glick Highway Michigan Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Natural Features Inventory Jackson, MI 49201 P.O Box 30473 P.O. Box 30444 Phone: 517‐780‐7021 Lansing, MI 48909 Lansing, MI 48909‐7944 [email protected] Phone: 517‐335‐4227 Phone: 313‐378‐0433 [email protected] [email protected] Lisa Denys Student Tim Eder Bob Clancy Eastern Michigan University Executive Director Restoration Specialist 6130 N. Crown Great Lakes Commission MI Dept of Natural Resources Westland, MI 48185 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 530 West Allegan Street Phone: 313‐729‐3385 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected] Phone: 734‐971‐9135x101 Phone: 517‐241‐2055 [email protected] [email protected] Amy Derosier Wildlife Management Specialist Stuart Eddy Carol Clement Wildlife Division Great Lakes Commission LEAP Land Conservancy Mentor Marsh MI Dept. of Natural Resources 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 & Nature Conservancy 530 West Allegan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 8371 Villa Morina Ct. Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 734‐971‐9135x114 Mentor, OH 44077 Phone: 517‐373‐1234 [email protected] Phone: 440‐209‐0634 [email protected] [email protected] Tim Engelhardt Mike Donovan Huron Pines Al Cofrancesco Wildlife Division Specialist 501 Norway St. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Division Grayling, MI 49738 3909 Halls Ferry Road MI Dept. of Natural Resources Phone: 989‐344‐0753x31 Vicksburg, MS 39180 530 West Allegan [email protected] Phone: 601‐634‐3182 Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Kris Erickson [email protected] Restoration Specialist Joe Cook Ecology and Environment, Inc. President David Dortman 368 Pleasant View Drive AQ Environmental MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Lancaster, NY 14086 180 E. Sherwood Rd. 27700 Donald Court Phone: 716‐684‐8060x2533 Williamston, MI 48895 Warren, MI 48092 [email protected] Phone: 517‐899‐8110 Phone: 586‐753‐3864 [email protected] [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 34 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Ray Fahlsing Dusty Grabill Phyllis Higman Manager PLM Lake & Land Management Corp. Sr. Conservation Scientist St. Park Stewardship Program P.O. Box 132 Michigan Natural Features Inventory MI Dept. of Natural Resources Caledonia, MI 49316 P.O. Box 30333 Phone: 517‐335‐4823 Phone: 616‐891‐1294x2007 Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 517‐242‐3269 [email protected] Emily Finnell Pamela Grassmick Coastal Management Program Beaver Island Association Julie Hinderer MI Dept. of Environmental Quality 30170 East Side Drive Great Lakes Commission 525 W. Allegan Beaver Island, MI 49782 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 248‐489‐0784 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 517‐241‐7927 [email protected] Phone: 734‐971‐9135 [email protected] [email protected] Bill Gratopp Tony Friona Commissioner Chad Hipshier Physical Scientist St. Clair County Project Manager Engineer Research & Dev. Center 9200 N. River Rd. #6 Muskegon Conservation District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Algonac, MI 48001 940 Van Eyck Street 3909 Halls Ferry Road Phone: 810‐794‐1069 Muskegon, MI 49442 Vicksburg, MS 39180 [email protected] Phone: 231‐773‐0008 Phone: 716‐832‐5384 [email protected] [email protected] Martha Gruelle Wildlife Habitat Council Michelle Hohn Paul Fuhrmann One energy Plaza, 1573 WCB Water Res. Div. Restoration specialist Detroit, MI 48210 MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Ecology and Environment, Inc. Phone: 313‐235‐9627 350 Ottawa NW, Suite 10 368 Pleasant View Drive [email protected] Great Rapids, MI 49503 Lancaster, NY 14086 Phone: 616‐356‐0204 Phone: 716‐684‐8060 John Haggeman [email protected] [email protected] Wildlife Technician Canadian Wildlife Service Anne Hokanson St. Clair National Wildlife Area Tammy Giroux Wetlands, Lakes and Streams Unit 5633 Balmoral Line RR1 Wildlife Technician MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Pain Court, Ont N0P 1Z0 Wildlife Division 525 W. Allegan Phone: 519‐354‐1418 MI Dept. of Natural Resources Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] 530 West Allegan Phone: 517‐241‐4506
Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] Derek Haroldson Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Water Res. Div. [email protected] Kurt Homkes MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Hamilton Helicopters, Inc. 350 Ottawa NW, Suite 10 Kathe Glassner‐Shwayder P.O. Box 264 Great Rapids, MI 49503 Great Lakes Commission 4488 134th Ave. Phone: 616‐356‐0269 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 Hamilton, MI 49419 [email protected] Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 616‐291‐5808
Phone: 734‐971‐9135x108 [email protected] Tom Heuttle [email protected] USDA Forest Service Shaun Howard 200 Ash Avenue NW Edward M. Golenberg The Nature Conservancy in Michigan Cass Lake, MN 56633 Dept. of Biological Sciences 3728 West River Dr., NE Phone: 218‐335‐8662 Wayne State University Comstock Park, MI 49321 [email protected] Detroit, MI 48202 Phone: 616‐785‐7055
Phone: 313‐577‐2888 [email protected] [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 35 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Jim Hudgins Robert Kavetsky Leslie Kuhn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Biologist Coordinator 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mid‐Michigan Stewardship Initiative East Lansing, MI 48823 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 6162 Oakpark Trail Phone: 517‐351‐4230 East Lansing, MI 48823 Haslett, MI 48840 [email protected] Phone: 517‐351‐5293 Phone: 517‐339‐3854 [email protected] [email protected] Daria Hyde Michigan Natural Features Inventory Gib King Jacqueline LaFreniere P.O Box 30444 Fish & Wildlife Phragmites Administrator Lansing, MI 48909‐7944 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Beaver Island Phone: 517‐373‐4815 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 27435 Paid Een Ogs Road [email protected] East Lansing, MI 48823 Beaver Island, MI 49782 Phone: 517‐351‐2241 Phone: 231‐448‐2220 Eugene Jaworski [email protected] [email protected] Professor Emeritus Eastern Michigan University Keith Kluting Elizabeth LaPorte 205 Strong Hall Wildlife Assistant Director Education Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Wildlife Division MI Sea Grant UM MSU Phone: 734‐487‐048 MI Dept. of Natural Resources 440 Church St., Dana Blgd 1041 [email protected] 530 West Allegan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 734‐647‐0767 Erika Jensen Phone: 517‐373‐1234 [email protected] Great Lakes Commission [email protected] 2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100 John Legge Ann Arbor, MI 48104 John Koches Conservation Director Phone: 734‐971‐9135 Associate Research Scientist The Nature Conservancy [email protected] Great Valley State University 3728 West River Dr., NE 740 W. Shoreline Drive Comstock Park, MI 49321 Donna Jones Muskegon, Mi 49441 Phone: 616‐785‐7055 Wildlife Technician Phone: 616‐331‐3792 [email protected] Wildlife Division [email protected] MI Dept. of Natural Resources Sarah LeSage 530 West Allegan Dr. Kurt Kowalski Aquatic Biologist Lansing, MI 48909 U.S. Geological Survey MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Great Lakes Science Center 525 W. Allegan [email protected] 1451 Green Road Lansing, MI 48933 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Phone: 517‐241‐7931 Ernie Kafcas Phone: 734‐214‐9308 [email protected] Wildlife and Wetlands Solutions [email protected] 547 N. Riverside Ave Mitchell Lettow St. Clair, MI 48079 Roy Kroll Michigan State University Phone: 810‐531‐2056 Conservation Programs Manager 204 CIPS [email protected] Ducks Unlimited East Lansing, MI 48824 1220 Eisenhower Place Phone: 517‐432‐5282 Laurie Kaufman Ann Arbor, MI 48108 [email protected] Mid‐Michigan Stewardship Initiative Phone: 734‐623‐2000 6212 W. Reynolds Rd. [email protected] Bernard (Buzz) Long Haslett, MI 48840 Executive Director Phone: 517‐339‐0380 Leelanau Conservation District [email protected] 112 W. Philip Street P.O. Box 205 Lake Leelanau, MI 49653 Phone: 231‐256‐9783x15 [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 36 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Amy Lounds Maureen McManus Greg Norwood Wetlands, Lakes and Streams Unit Program Associate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MI Dept. of Environmental Quality The Watershed Center 9311 Groh Road 525 W. Allegan Grand Traverse Bay Grosse Ile, MI 48138 Lansing, MI 48909 13272 S. West Bay Shore Drive Phone: 734‐692‐7611 Phone: 517‐241‐8069 Traverse City, MI 49684 [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 231‐935‐1514 [email protected] Glenn Palmgren Barbara Lucas Stewardship Ecologist 1211 Wright St. David Mifsud MI Dept. of Natural Resources Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Herpetologist 530 West Allegan Street Phone: 248‐974‐6942 HRM Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected] P.O. Box 110 Phone: 517‐373‐7844 Chelsea, MI 48118 [email protected] Mark MacKay Phone: 313‐268‐6189 Wildlife Biologist [email protected] William Parkus Wildlife Division Environmental Planner MI Dept. of Natural Resources Doug Morse SEMCOG 530 West Allegan Michigan Dept. of Environmental 535 Griswold, Suite 300 Lansing, MI 48909 Quality Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Phone: 989‐894‐6224 Phone: 313‐324‐3351 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Robb Macleod Jennifer Muladore Tim Payne GIS Manager Ecologist Wildlife SE Region Supervisor Ducks Unlimited Huron Pines Wildlife Division 1220 Eisenhower Place 501 Norway St. MI Dept. of Natural Resources Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Grayling, MI 49738 530 West Allegan Phone: 734‐623‐2000 Phone: 989‐344‐0753 Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 517373‐1234 [email protected] Kelly Martin David Myers District Coordinator IL Dept. of Natural Resources Melissa Pettijohn Charlevoix Conservation District One Natural Resources Way 21658 Taft Road 303 North Street Springfield, IL 62702 Northville, MI 48167 Boyne City, MI 49712 [email protected] Phone: 248‐344‐4240 Phone: 231‐582‐6193 [email protected] [email protected] Subashini Nagendran Dept. of Biological Sciences Brian Piccolo Chris May Wayne State University Wildlife Division The Nature Conservancy Detroit, MI 48202 MI Dept. of Natural Resources 101 E. Grand River Phone: 313‐577‐2894 Shiawassee River State Game Area Lansing, MI 48906 [email protected] 225 E. Spruce St. Phone: 517‐316‐2274 St. Charles, MI 48655 [email protected] Laurie Beth Nederveld Phone: 989‐865‐6211 Environmental Specialist [email protected] Randy McKenzie FTC&H Fire Management Specialist 1515 Arboretum Drive, SE Laura Powley Michigan Dept. Of Natural Resources Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Leelanau Conservancy and 8717 N. Roscommon Rd. Phone: 616‐464‐3919 The College of Wooster Roscommon, MI [email protected] 970 Evergreen Lane Phone: 989‐275‐5151 Neenah, WI 54956 [email protected] Phone: 921‐268‐5642 [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 37 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Matt Preisser Cary Rouse Ruth Shaffer Office of the Great Lakes Region Forester USDA Natural Resources MI Dept. of Environmental Quality MI Dept. of Transportation Conservation Service 525 W. Allegan 55 E. Morley Drive 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 250 Lansing, MI 48933 Saginaw, MI 48601 East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: 517‐335‐0061 Phone: 989‐754‐0878x244 Phone: 517‐324‐5239 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Joe Ramcheck Brian Rowe Vern Stephens Senior Hydrologist Pesticide Section Manager Wildlife Assistant Endeavor Environmental Serv., Inc. MI Dept. of Ag. and Rural Wildlife Division 2280‐B Salscheider Court Development MI Dept. of Natural Resources Green Bay, WI 54313 Phone: 517‐373‐4905 530 West Allegan Phone: 920‐437‐2997 [email protected] Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Frank Ruswick [email protected] Christopher Reidy Deputy Director State Biologist Office of the Great Lakes Greg Stevens USDA Natural Resources MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Eastern Michigan University Conservation Service 525 W. Allegan 1813 Charlton Street 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 250 Lansing, MI 48909 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: 517‐373‐6093 Phone: 609‐992‐2514 Phone: 517‐324‐5267 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mark Sargent Ron Sting Greg Renn Wildlife Management Specialist Wildlife Assistant Huron Conservation District Wildlife Division Wildlife Division 1460 Van Dyke MI Dept of Environmental Quality MI Dept. of Natural Resources Bad Axe, MI 48413 530 West Allegan 530 West Allegan Phone: 989269‐9540x3 Lansing, MI 48909 Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] Phone: 517‐373‐1234 Phone: 517‐373‐1234 [email protected] [email protected] Jeff Robinson Protected Areas Coordinator Kenton Scherzer Rochelle Sturtevant Canadian Wildlife Service Cass River Greenway Sea Grant Outreach Specialist P.O. Box 490 Lambeth Station 8320 W. Tuscola Road Great Lakes Environmental Research London, ONT N6P 1R1 Frankenmuth, MI 48734 Laboratory Phone: 519‐472‐6695 Phone: 898‐652‐6033 4840 South State Road [email protected] [email protected] Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Phone: 734‐741‐2287 Rusty Rodriguez Jim Scott [email protected] Project Leader State Resource Conservationist U.S. Geological Survey USDA Natural Resources Sue Tangora 6505 NE 65th Street Conservation Service Wildlife Biologist Specialist Seattle, WA 98115 3001 Coolidge Road Wildlife Division Phone: 206‐523‐6596 East Lansing, MI 48823 MI Dept. of Natural Resources [email protected] Phone: 517‐324‐5281 530 West Allegan [email protected] Lansing, MI 48909 Lindsay Ross Phone: 734‐373‐1234 Stewardship Assistant Michelle Selzer [email protected] MI Dept. of Natural Resources MI Dept. of Environmental Quality 530 West Allegan Street 525 W. Allegan Lansing, MI 48933 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 517‐241‐3366 Phone: 517‐241‐3731 [email protected] [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 38 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Steve Thomas William Welsh Monica Wymer Ecologist Associate Professor USDA Natural Resources Conservation Michigan Natural Features Inventory Eastern Michigan University Service 530 W. Allegan 205 Strong Hall 3001 Coolidge Road Lansing, MI 48933 Ypsilanti, MI 48197 East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: 517‐335‐3075 Phone: 734‐487‐7586 Phone: 517‐324‐5230 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Grenetta Thomassey Travis White Robert Zeilinger Program Director Wayne State University Cass River Greenway Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council 468 Prentis, Apt 5 509 Harvest Lane 426 Bay St. Detroit, MI 48201 Frankenmuth, MI 48734 Petoskey, MI 49770 Phone: 517‐281‐9788 Phone: 989‐652‐9617 Phone: 231‐347‐1181x118 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Robert Williams Amos Ziegler Michael Ulrich Phragmites.org & Clay Township Research Scientist Restoration Ecologist 2007 Stewart Rd. Michigan State University ICES Harsens Island, MI 48028 243‐Natural Science Building 8731 S. Dunns Farm Rd. Phone: 248‐388‐0465 East Lansing, MI 48824 Maple City, MI 49664 [email protected] Phone: 517‐355‐0204 Phone: 231‐342‐6551 [email protected] [email protected] Lois Wolfson Specialist Laura Zigmanth Michelle Vander Haar Michigan State University Owner Wildlife Biologist 101 Manly Miles Bldg. EcoChic Landscape Design U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing, MI 48823 5902 Ridgewood Lane 6975 Mower Road Phone: 517‐353‐9222 White Lake, MI 48383 Saginaw, MI 48601 [email protected] Phone: 248‐978‐2300 Phone: 989‐777‐5930x12 [email protected] [email protected] Brock Woods Wetland Invasive Species Mgr. Don Zoller Kevin Walters WI Dept. of Natural Resources Cass River Greenway Wildlife Division University of WI 239 Frank Road MI Dept. of Natural Resources 2801 Progress Road Frankenmuth, MI 48734 530 W. Allegan St. Madison, WI 53716 Phone: 989‐652‐3820 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 608‐221‐6349 don.zoller@gma Phone: 734‐373‐1234 [email protected] [email protected]
Note: Participants with a served on the Project Advisory Committee 39 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
POSTER ABSTRACTS
(Presented in alphabetical order by author)
Poster Title: Innovative method to control seed‐mediated invasion of Phragmites australis: restoring resident plant communities to enhance biological resistance
Authors: Chaeho Byun1, Sylvie de Blois2, Jacques Brisson3
1McGill University, Department of Plant Science 2McGill University, Department of Plant Science and McGill School of Environment 3Université de Montréal, Département de Sciences Biologiques, Institut de recherche en biologie végétale
Abstract
The reassembly of native communities for restoration purposes provides the opportunity to explore underlying processes of biological resistance to invasion. We assessed through experiments the effectiveness of restoring resident plant communities to suppress early invasion of Phragmites australis, a notorious invader in North America. We hypothesized that (1) certain functional groups of resident species based on life history traits will resist early invasion best; (2) diversity of resident community will increase invasion resistance; (3) species traits, related to plant size and growth rate, will be correlated with invasion resistance; (4) the effectiveness of the resident plant communities in suppressing P. australis invasion will be further improved by flooding and lowering available soil nitrogen.
We constructed pot and field experiments to simulate a situation where seeds of P. australis arrive on bare clay soil after biological disturbance. We first sowed seeds of wetland plants from each functional group based on life history traits, together with seeds of P. australis as treatment. Second, we compared relative effectiveness of resident communities by species richness, species evenness, and diversity index. Third, we build a multiple regression model based on species traits to explain and predict invasion resistance. Finally, we tested the effect of two water levels (flooding and drawdown condition) in a pot experiment, and two levels of available soil nitrogen by applying sawdust in a field experiment, on the effectiveness of resident communities in resisting invasion of P. australis.
In the pot experiment, Lolium perenne and Bidens cernua were most effective against P. australis, with 92% and 88% of reduction in aboveground biomass of P. australis compared with control. Scirpus cyperinus, Penthorum sedoides, and Mimulus ringens also significantly affected P. australis, but they were less effective (53 %, 47 %, and 40 % respectively). The competitive effect of ruderal species on establishment of P. australis was significantly greater than all other groups in both pot and field experiments. Mixture of four resident species resist invasion better than monoculture in a pot experiment. In resident communities consisting of more than four species, Simpson’s diversity index and species evenness were negatively correlated with number of seedlings of P. australis in the field experiment. In the multiple regression analysis, biomass and early height increase of resident species explain majority of invasion success of P. australis. The number of shoots of P. australis was significantly reduced under flooding. Lolium perenne (facultative upland species) reduced the early establishment of P. australis more under drawdown conditions than under flooding, while the opposite was true for, Typha latifolia (obligate wetland species). Lowering soil available nitrogen did not significantly affect invasion resistance. Overall, our research implies that restoration of resident communities should consist of more than four fast growing ruderal species, which will best resists early invasion of common reed. Flooding sites will further improve the effectiveness of the plant cover if it is composed of wetland species. Our findings support the importance of restoration to prevent early establishment of P. australis efficiently.
40 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Poster Title: Effect of the timing of herbicide application on Phragmites australis rhizome viability and seed production in Leelanau County, Michigan
Author: Laura Powley1
1The College of Wooster
Abstract
Phragmites australis, or common reed, is expanding into previously unoccupied wetland habitats, usually after disturbance. This expansion results in decreased plant diversity and habitat alterations that reduce the wetland value and alter the ecosystem structure. The current most effective method for controlling Phragmites growth and spread is through herbicide application and the two herbicides that have been shown to be the most effective are glyphosate and imazapyr. Studies have found imazapyr to be slightly more effective at reducing return rate of Phragmites the following growing season, but is much more expensive than glyphosate. The current guidelines for Phragmites control by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality state that glyphosate and glyphosate/imazapyr herbicide combinations are more effective after the inflorescences have fully developed, usually in mid‐late August and September, but before the first killing frost. In Leelanau County, MI, however, the first killing frost occurs in late September, reducing the growing season and creating a smaller time frame available for herbicide application.
I used three well‐established sites of Phragmites along the coastline of Lake Michigan in Leelanau County, Michigan and set up five plots in each site. One site, located within the state park, had been treated once in 2009, while the other two sites, on private properties, had not been treated before. The five treatment plots included two times of application, July and August, and two herbicide combinations, glyphosate and glyphosate with imazapyr, as well as a control plot. All herbicides were applied at a 1.5% concentration, with the combined treatments having a total 3.0% concentration. At the end of the growing season, all inflorescences and three blocks of rhizome material were removed from each plot. Inflorescences were analyzed for seed production and rhizomes were used to assess potential future growth and impacts of herbicide treatment by growing under controlled conditions. There were significant site differences during the growing season, and in the rhizome growth assessment, the State Park site had significantly more shoot production than either of the other sites from the treated plots. There were no significant differences between any of the herbicide treated plots, for rhizome growth or seed production. However, there were fewer inflorescences from the July treated plots, and only from one site, than the August treated plots and none of the July treated inflorescences contained seeds.
These results suggest earlier application times of glyphosate and imazapyr do not hinder the abilities of these chemicals to effectively control Phragmites. This is consistent with several recent studies conducted in brackish and freshwater stands of Phragmites in east coast states. Earlier applications would allow for reapplication during the same season if necessary to enhance control, and would reduce the total amount of herbicide needed due to the reduced biomass that would need to be sprayed if applied earlier in the season. The concern for affecting non‐target species also needs to be considered, as altering application times may negatively impact these species.
Poster Title: The Flora of Lake Lansing Park North, Ingham County, Michigan
Authors: Christopher Reidy1, Leslie Kuhn2, Steve Thomas3
1USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2Michigan State University 3Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Abstract
In March of 2010, a botanical inventory project was initiated at Lake Lansing Park North, a 550+ acre county park located in Ingham County, Michigan. The information collected is being used to document existing conditions, including species diversity and natural community types. From these preliminary data, mean coefficient of conservatism, Floristic Quality Index and mean coefficient of wetness were calculated. To date, 530 taxa of vascular plants in 93 families were
41 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011 documented. Families with the greatest number of species include grasses (Poaceae; 65), composites (Asteraceae; 59) and sedges (Cyperaceae; 53). Of the documented species, 424 were native and 106 were introduced. Dry southern forests commonly occupy knolls, while lowlands contain a mosaic of southern hardwood swamp, shrub‐carr and wet meadow. A small remnant rich tamarack swamp is also present. Lake Lansing Park North contains a surprising diversity of vascular plant species and several community types. These data will be used to develop future management priorities at the park.
Poster Title: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: removal of phragmites and lyme grass from Wisconsin Lake Michigan shoreline
Author: Heidi Springborn1
1Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources
Abstract
Project Location: Northeast Wisconsin along the Lake Michigan shoreline in Brown, Door, Manitowoc, Marinette, Oconto, and Sheboygan Counties. To remove Phragmites (Phragmites australis) and Lyme Grass (Leymus arenarius) from 118 miles and 3,600 acres of Lake Michigan Shoreline. Work would mostly be done below the Lake Michigan ordinary high water mark along identified Conservation Opportunity Areas that include 25 State Natural Areas, 6 State Parks/Forests, 3 State Wildlife Areas and adjacent private lands. Phragmites and Lyme Grass will be removed from 1) 54 miles and 3,315 acres in Brown, Marinette, and Oconto Counties, 2) 50 miles and 240 acres in Door County and 3) 13 miles and 55 acres in Manitowoc and Sheboygan Counties. The poster will be a combination of images and pictures; describing the GLRI – Removal of Phragmites and Lyme Grass from Wisconsin, Lake Michigan shorelines. Support information will be provided for anyone wanting a more detailed breakdown of events. Contact information will be provided for any contract companies that would like to be included in the list for a bid process that will occur in the next month.
Poster Title: Coupled remote sensing and biological monitoring of invasive plant species and their impacts on the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge (CRSBM‐DRIWR)
Author: William Welsh, PhD.1
1Eastern Michigan University, Department of Geography & Geology
Abstract
Eastern Michigan University (EMU) is developing a coupled remote sensing and biological monitoring (CRSBM) research method to identify invasive plant species and assess their impacts on the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge (DRIWR). This project will focus on three major tasks: 1) developing and validating remote sensing protocols for monitoring Phragmites distributions and mapping habitats within the DRIWR, 2) assessing the effects of Phragmites invasion and Phragmites removal efforts on wetland ecosystem function, and 3) producing a GIS‐based Decision Support System and habitat maps to aid management activities at the DRIWR. Field research will be conducted at sites selected in consultation with DRIWR managers. Research findings will be used for developing: 1) management policies regarding conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration and 2) best practices for the control and eradication of invasive Phragmites from the DRIWR ecosystem. This initiative will assemble a collaborative network of wetland scientists, biologists, geographers, remote‐sensing specialists, and their students who will work closely with the managers of the DRIWR and other concerned stakeholders. Knowledge gained and methods developed from this project will be useful for invasive species management of wetlands within the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem and elsewhere in the United States.
42 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
*** Symposium Draft: March 27, 2011 ***
Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan
Developed as Guidance for the Initiative: Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management
Background and Problem Statement: Phragmites australis, also known as common reed or invasive phragmites, is a non‐native perennial grass causing significant ecological and economic impacts across the Great Lakes region. Through rapid growth in dense stands, the non‐native strain of phragmites displaces native plant species – including the native strain of phragmites –and reduces habitat diversity in coastal and interior wetlands, riparian corridors, roadside ditches and other disturbed areas. Invasion by non‐native phragmites causes severe impacts to native plants, animals and valuable habitat, such as wetlands. The establishment of invasive phragmites also creates societal impacts by degrading shoreline views, impacting resources for recreational use, and creating a fire hazard, among others.
Control of invasive phragmites is highly challenging and currently there is no “silver bullet” (i.e., single most effective control or management strategy) to solve management problems. Non‐native phragmites infestations vary in density, size and landscape type, presenting further challenges to effective management. Management and control of invasive phragmites is also complicated by the presence of native phragmites, which is an important part of native communities and should be protected during efforts to control the non‐ native strain.
Phragmites has been identified by the Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality as a priority invasive species in the state given its rapid spread over large geographic areas and the associated mounting impacts. The need has emerged for a comprehensive and systematic approach to phragmites management and control across the state. Although significant work is underway to control phragmites infestations in specific areas, these efforts are fragmented due to varying local capacity, limited resources and insufficient public awareness and understanding of the problem and its scope. Further, the agencies, academic institutions and other organizations working on phragmites control often lack the capacity to integrate, communicate and market their information and management tools on a systematic, large‐scale basis.
Purpose: This strategic framework is being developed as part of a collaborative initiative to advance effective and sustainable management of invasive phragmites throughout Michigan for the protection and restoration of native plant and animal communities and the biodiversity of these communities.
The strategic framework is focused on the state of Michigan while recognizing that the management and control of Phragmites australis is a regional issue. To the extent possible, the framework is designed to inform development of similar efforts in other parts of the Great Lakes region. As part of this initiative, the following guiding principles1 are recommended to guide in the development and execution of the strategic framework: Use of best available science and commitment to the integration of new information Prioritization of management/control based upon societal values, level of threat, distribution, and feasibility of control (e.g., benefit cost analysis) Collaboration with managers, researchers and landowners to find optimal solutions Communication to share resources, knowledge and skills Monitoring to ensure efficient and effective use of resources at all levels of organization
1 Higman, P., S. Campbell. 2009. Meeting the Challenge of Invasive Plants: A Framework for Action. A report prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division.
43 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
Statewide Invasive Phragmites Management Goals and Objectives (Note: Although the goals are listed in a sequential nature, they are intended to be dynamic and occur simultaneously while providing feedback to one another)
Goal 1: Build capacity to focus and facilitate collaborative management of large‐ and small‐scale infestations in areas that are identified as priorities and where success can be achieved Objectives: a) Identify and develop strategies for building programmatic capacity b) Develop long‐term management strategies for large scale phragmites invasions c) Establish strategies within communities for the prevention and control of phragmites infestations at the small scale d) Work with other states and provinces to share information on risk, pathways of introduction and spread, and control of phragmites e) Assess effectiveness of control measures to improve overall treatment outcomes
Goal 2: Develop strategies to prevent the introduction and spread of non‐native phragmites on a statewide level Objectives: a) Identify vectors of introduction and spread b) Determine how to reduce the risk of introduction and spread by these vectors
Goal 3: Tailor management strategies to geographic area and scope, temporal parameters, socioeconomic and ecological conditions Objectives: a) Develop an approach for identifying and prioritizing areas for treatment b) Define realistic management goals (i.e., target levels) for infested areas based on desired use and ecological conditions c) Encourage strategic, collaborative control efforts wherever phragmites is being treated d) Institute an early detection and rapid response program with the capacity to operate across jurisdictional boundaries e) Establish incentives for implementing phragmites control in priority areas f) Establish a strategy for adaptive management
Goal 4: Identify and evaluate the policies and regulations that affect invasive phragmites management and its control Objectives: a) Examine existing policies and regulations b) Identify gaps and inconsistencies c) Identify opportunities to increase effectiveness, raise public awareness and improve compliance
Goal 5: Locate, delineate and document invasive phragmites populations, treatments and successes to support sound decision‐making related to management efforts Objectives: a) Integrate existing monitoring, mapping and tracking systems b) Facilitate accessibility to a centralized database and distribution maps for use by managers and decision‐makers c) Utilize surveillance and mapping tools to track population dynamics, monitor treatment areas and support effective management d) Implement monitoring activities to assess impacts of current treatment regimes
44 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
e) Develop a data management plan to ensure information remains useful to managers and decision‐ makers
Goal 6: Operationalize the strategic framework in support of the management and control of invasive phragmites on a statewide level with regional relevance Objectives: a) Define strategic actions to address the goals and objectives in the strategic framework b) Identify potential stakeholder roles, opportunities and authorities for execution of the framework c) Institute a networking capacity among stakeholders d) Develop an education/outreach plan to disseminate information on invasive phragmites and outcomes of the strategic framework
45 | Page Phragmites Invasions in Michigan: A Symposium to Build Capacity for Management East Lansing, Michigan ● March 28-30, 2011
SYMPOSIUM SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS
(Presented in order of the agenda)
46 | Page Background on Invasive Phragmites Sue Tangora, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Background on Invasive Background on Invasive Phragmites Phragmites
• Introduction • Dispersal • Distribution • Native vs. non-native phragmites • Impacts Presented By: Sue Tangora • Challenges Date: 03/29/11
Introduction Dispersal of Phragmites
• Phragmites australis • Rhizomes subsp. australis • Root fragments –First arrived throug h • Seed ballast water • Plantings –Michigan 1979 –Rapid spread and slow awareness
Distribution in Michigan Distribution in Michigan
• Heavy infestations • Younger infestations – Southern – Northern Michigan Michigan/Saginaw Bay/St. Clair Delta – Inland areas – PiittbProximity to urban areas • UifUninfes tdted areas – Coastal – Upper Peninsula wetlands/shoreline – Portions of northern – River mouths and bayous Lower Peninsula – Exposed bottomlands – Disturbed wetlands
1 Background on Invasive Phragmites Sue Tangora, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Native and non-native phragmites Distribution of Native Phragmites Native Phragmites occurs in low density stands often comingled with other native plants.
Distribution of Non-native Invasive Identifying Native vs. Non-native Phragmites Phragmites
Native Phragmites has dark (purple/red) coloration
Identifying Native vs. Non-native Phragmites
Invasive leaf sheaths adhere tightly to stem and persist through the winter.
Native Invasive
Invasive with sheaths that Native without sheaths adhere tightly
2 Background on Invasive Phragmites Sue Tangora, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Impacts to Wetlands
• Native vegetation • Threatened/endangered species • Change in hy dro logy • Tolerant of heavy metals/salt • Change in light levels reaching soil
80% of plant below ground.
Impacts to Wildlife Impacts to Human Safety
• Impacts specialists • Fire hazard • Increases in some • Obstructed generalists views for drivers • Changes in foo d we b • IdImpedes • Changes in wetland navigation use (nesting/brood rearing)
Impacts to Human Values Impacts from Phragmites • Recreation Treatment • Herbicide use • Property values • Limited • Aesthetics funding/resources pulled from other programs • Infrastructure • Follow-up and sustainability challenging • Ineffective/inefficient treatments • Other invasive species can follow
3 Background on Invasive Phragmites Sue Tangora, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Challenges in Monitoring and Challenges in Mapping Phragmites Detection • Access • MISIN database – Private lands • Research projects – Coastal and interior wetlands • Local efforts • Public lands • Merging information • Gaps • Continuity • Native • Tracking treatments phragmites • Awareness
Challenges in Control Efforts Challenges in Permitting Phragmites Treatment • Ownership patterns • Up to three permits needed • Large stands – Wetland – Aquatic Nuisance Control • Small isolated – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (?) stands • Laws creat ed to a ddress oth er env ironmen ta l • Coordination issues and are still relevant today • Programs historically • Staffing of permitting programs experienced available to deep cuts individual • New treatment categories and targets have landowners complicated issue
Challenges in Sustaining Moving Phragmites Management Treatments Forward • Breaking down • Short-term funding institutional barriers • Maintenance funds • Better tools and support for increased coordinated lacking in wetland effort and prioritization restoration and • ItitttInnovative treatment mitigation projects methods – grazing, new technologies, biofuels • Monitoring effects • Integrating aquatic and of treatments terrestrial invasive species efforts • Grassroot efforts • Our message
4 Background on Invasive Phragmites Sue Tangora, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
A Silver Lining Acknowledgements
• Community building Kevin Kronk, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Cornell University • Citizens and leaders Suzan Campbell and Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural can connect among a Features Inventory range of values Ernie Kafcas, John Schaefer, Arnie Karr, Barb Avers, Brian Piccolo, Mark Boersen, Mark Sargent, DNR Wildlife • Gets people outdoors Division • Strengthens Tracy Collins, Matt Preisser, John Riley, Julie Sims, Anne partnerships Hokansen, Emily Finnell, DEQ • Creates jobs Melanie Manion, Land Conservancy of West Michigan Kate Howe, Midwest Invasive Plant Network
Thank you
Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Outdoors
www.michigan.gov
5 Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission
Presentation Topics Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of • Rational for developing a strategic framework Invasive Phragmites in Michigan to be built upon consensus of stakeholders • An overview of the strategic framework as an Kathe Glassner‐Shwayder outcome from the symposium Great Lakes Commission • Bird’s‐eye view of yesterday’s field trip at Senior Project Manager Ingham County’s Lake Lansing Park North • What you should be listening for during your time at the symposium
Project Acknowledgements Project Acknowledgements Regional Symposium to Build Capacity for the Regional Symposium to Build Capacity for the Management and Control of Phragmites Australis Management and Control of Phragmites Australis
• Special thanks to our project funder: Michigan Coastal • Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Project Staff: Management Program Julie Hinderer, GLC Sea Grant Fellow • Symposium Planning Committee Erika Jensen, Senior Program Specialist Sue Tangora, Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division Heather Braun, Habitat Restoration Project Manager Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Amy Lounds, Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division Stuart Eddy, GIS Specialist, IT Support Emily Finnell, Michigan DEQ, Coastal Management Program
Why a Strategic Framework is needed Where Do We Start? on a statewide level in Michigan? • At the beginning with as many stakeholders around • Create a road map to guide efforts the table as possible working together to: to advance the management and Define the ecological, economic and social aspects control of phragmites of the problem and identify primary stressors and • Provide an opportunity to build related priority concerns stakeholder engagement in rallying around a common cause: halting Delineate the geographic and temporal scope of the invasion of non‐native the problem phragmites Decide how to tackle these problems with goals, • Build a collaborative foundation in objectives and strategic actions the battle to control invasive Identify roles, opportunities/responsibilities and phragmites authorities to implement the strategic actions
1 Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission
Guiding Principals for Success Why Collaboration is Critical?
• Use of best available science and commitment to the • The complex ecological problem posed by phragmites integration of new information invasions requires people with different expertise and • Prioritization of management/control based upon backgrounds to collectively work together in the search societal values, level of threat, distribution, and for solutions to phragmites management and control feasibility of control (e.g., benefit cost analysis) • Collaboration with managers, researchers, outreach specialists and landowners to find optimal solutions • Communication to share resources, knowledge and skills • Monitoring to ensure efficient and effective use of resources at all levels of organization
Why Collaboration is Critical? Why Collaboration is Critical? • Funding constraints require the • Control efforts are fragmented due to varying pooling of resources from local capacity, limited resources and different sources to meet the insufficient public awareness and demands of phragmites understanding of the problem and its scope management and control • Entities working on phragmites control often • The labor intensive nature of lack the capacity to integrate, communicate phragmites management Resource Managers, Researchers, Educators and market their information and requires synergistic management tools on a systematic, large‐scale relationships among multiple basis stakeholder groups Volunteer Groups Property Owners
Why Collaboration is Critical? Purpose of the Strategic Framework
• As the challenges of • Advance effective and phragmites management sustainable management of and control loom, there is Phragmites australis a critical need to improve (invasive phragmites) throughout Michigan for the coordination of individual Native Phragmites projects to produce a protection and restoration of native plant and animal greater impact on the communities and the landscape and yield more biodiversity of these sustainable management communities
2 Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission
State‐wide Strategic Framework State‐wide Strategic Framework Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Build capacity to focus and facilitate Goal 1: Build capacity to focus and facilitate collaborative management of large and small collaborative management of large and small scale infestations in areas identified as a priority scale infestations in areas identified as a priority and where success can be achieved and where success can be achieved Objectives Objectives Develop long term management strategies for large scale Identify and develop strategies for building phragmites invasions programmatic capacity Establish strategies within communities for the prevention • raising funds and control of phragmites infestations at the small scale • securing technical assistance Work with other states and provinces to share information on risk, pathways of introduction and spread, and control of • garnering public and political support phragmites • designing projects Assess effectiveness of control measures to improve overall • coordinating with partners treatment outcomes
State‐wide Strategic Framework State‐wide Strategic Framework Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goal 2: Develop strategies to prevent the introduction and Goal 3: Tailor management spread of non‐native phragmites strategies to geographic Objectives: area and scope, temporal Identify vectors of introduction and spread parameters, socioeconomic Determine how to reduce the risk of introduction and and ecological conditions spread by these vectors Objec tives: Identify and prioritize areas for treatment Define realistic management goals (i.e., target levels) for infested areas based on desired use and ecological conditions
State‐wide Strategic Framework State‐wide Strategic Framework Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goal 3: Tailor management strategies to geographic Goal 4: Identify and evaluate the policies and area and scope, temporal parameters, regulations associated with invasive socioeconomic and ecological conditions phragmites management and its control Objectives: Encourage strategic, collaborative control efforts Objectives: Institute an early detection and rapid response Examine existing policies and regulations program with capacity to operate across jurisdictional boundaries Identify gaps and inconsistencies Establish incentives for implementing phragmites Identify opportunities to increase effectiveness, control raise public awareness and improve compliance Establish a strategy for adaptive management
3 Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission
State‐wide Strategic Framework State‐wide Invasive Phragmites Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goal 5: Locate, delineate and document invasive Goal 5: Locate, delineate and document invasive phragmites populations, treatments and successes to phragmites populations, treatments and successes to support sound decision‐making related to management efforts support sound decision‐making related to Objectives: management efforts Integrate existing monitoring, mapping and tracking Objectives: systems Facilitate accessibility to a centralized database and Implement monitoring activities to assess impacts distribution maps for use by managers and decision‐ of current treatment regimes makers Utilize surveillance and mapping tools to track population Develop a data management plan to ensure dynamics and monitor treatment areas that facilitate information remains useful to managers and effective management decision‐makers
State‐wide Invasive Phragmites Fighting Invasions in Ingham County’s Goals and Objectives Lake Lansing Park North Goal 6: Operationalize the strategic framework in A lesson in collaboration! support of the management and control of invasive phragmites on a statewide level w/ regional relevance Objectives: Define strategic actions to address the goals and objectives in the strategic framework Identify potential stakeholder roles, opportunities and authorities for execution of the framework Institute a networking capacity among stakeholders Develop an education/outreach plan to disseminate information on invasive phragmites and outcomes of the strategic framework
Field Trip: Lake Lansing Park North Field Trip: Lake Lansing Park North • Field Trip Leaders Setting the Stage: Phyllis Higman & Chris Reidy Leslie Kuhn, Volunteer, Lake Lansing Park North • From a sedge meadow and Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory marshland overlook, we Chris Reidy, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation learned about: Service the history of the watershed and disturbances setting the Steve Thomas, Michigan Natural Features Inventory stage for invasions Suzan Campbell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory distribution of native and Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory non‐native phragmites and Brian Sanchez, Lake Lansing Park North how treatment strategies for phragmites has unfolded Pat Witte, Lake Lansing Park North
4 Strategic Framework for the Management and Control of Invasive Phragmites in Michigan Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission
Field Trip: Lake Lansing Park North Field Trip: Lake Lansing Park North The Boardwalk: Suzan Campbell, Steve Thomas, and Impacts and Treatments: Nick Sanchez and Pat Witte Daria Hyde • • While viewing a large expanse of Along the entrance way to Lake marsh and sedge meadow, we Lansing Park, we viewed: learned about the ecological large stands of untreated context of the park: phragmites (right) compared past disturb ances, current to treated stands (left) threats, restoration planning characteristics of phragmites invasive populations co‐ and the challenges these existing with natural pose for management and communities control native and non‐native various treatment options, phragmites comparison benefits and challenges
Field Trip: Lake Lansing Park North Field Trip: Lake Lansing Park North Impacts and Treatments: Nick Sanchez and Pat Witte Great Lakes Phragmites Cutter
• Offers an efficient mechanical option • Capable of cutting phragmites brush up to 2” in diameter in wide range of habitat, including wetlands • Operates with environmentally safe oil, complying with EPA regulations • Centrally located in Harsens Island, well positioned to cut through out the Great Lakes region
What you should be listening for during your time at the symposium
• Build upon what you know, keeping an open mind for different perspectives • Consider the strategic framework and its components in terms of value in addressing the problems posed by invasive phragmites • Look for opportunitites to strengthen your efforts on fighting phragmites by coordinating with others here at the symposium?
5 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Large Scale Control Large Scale Treatments of Phragmites australis • Algonac SP (1,400 acres) – treating 400 acres (99% of known phragmites)
•Bayyy City RA (,(2,500 acres) – treating 220 acres – potential to treat 870 acres more
Ray D. Fahlsing • Wm. C. Sterling SP (1,200 acres) Recreation Division, MDNR – treating 665 acres (100% of known phragmites) March 29, 2011
Helicopter Applications
• Bay City RA (2005)
• Algonac SP (1998 , 2000, 2002)
• Sterling SP (2003, 2009 and 2010) Helicopter Herbicide Application
Aerial Treatment - Herbicide William C. Sterling
• Glyphosate: State ParkParkState – 3 to 4 pints/ac
• Mix: – 3pts/ac Imazapyr, 3pts/ac Glyphosate
• All treatments include the DEQ/wetland approved surfactant - Cygnet Plus, at 1 pint/ac
1 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
1860 Lakeplain Lakeplain PrairiePrairie
River Raisin
Lowland Great Lakes Hardwoods MarshMarsh
Wm. C. Sterling State Park
2 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Permits –Safety– Safety ––SignageSignage
Ground Applications Ground Applications Broadcast Spray Broadcast Spray
3 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Ground Based Treatments - Herbicides - • Glyphosate (low volume applications) –2% to 5% • Mix (low volume applications) – 1%-2% Imazapyr plus 2%-5% Glyphosate
• Glyphosate (high volume applications) –2% • Mix (high volume applications) – 1% Imazapyr plus 2% Glyphosate
• All treatments include DEQ/wetland approved surfactant Cygnet Plus 0.25% of spray volume
Follow up Treatments Ground Applications Backpack Broadcast and Spot Spray
4 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Ground Applications August 8, 2003 Hand Swipe Techniques
November 17, 2003 March 24, 2004
August 19, 2004 August 18, 2005
5 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
August 24, 2006 September 11, 2007
August 30, 2008
September 16, 2009
Great Lake Restoration Initiative Phragmites Partners
• Control phragmites (Phragmites australis) in north River Raisin delta wetlands on public and private land for five years
• Wm. C. Sterling SP - 665 acres • Partner’s Wetlands - 460 acres
6 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Wm. C. Sterling SP Bay City RA - Phragmites Partners - • 25 businesses, agencies, organizations and private residents. Including:
– Detroit River IWR (USFWS) – Michigan Department of Transportation – Homrich, Inc. – Great Lakes Western Star – River Raisin Golf Course – ITC – Ford Raisin River Warehouse – Raisin River Marina – US Army Corps of Engineers – Norfolk Southern Railroad – Sandy Creek Residents
Bay City RA
7 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Bay City Shoreline Before (July 2005)
Bay City Shoreline Bay City Shoreline After (July 2006) Before (July 2005)
Bay City Shoreline Bay City Shoreline After (July 2006) Before (July 2005)
8 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Bay City Shoreline Bay City Shoreline After (July 2006) Before (July 2005)
Bay City Shoreline Bay City Shoreline After (July 2006) Before (July 2005)
Bay City Shoreline Bay City Shoreline After (July 2006) Before (July 2005)
9 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Bay City Shoreline After (July 2006)
Cost of Aerial Treatment
• Bay City 2005 – 26 acres, $5,630 ($217/acre) – (helicopter and herbicide – glyphosate)
• Sterling 2009 – 100 acres, $25,711.50 ($257/acre) – helicopter and chemical – glyphosate & imazapyr
10 Large Scale Control of Phragmites australis Ray Fahlsing, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Phragmites treatment in 31 State Parks and Recreation Areas
• Marsh, Swamp, Prairie fen, Wet prairie, Bog
• Prioritize by: Ecological Significance Opportunity – Funding, Partnerships Operational Need Likelihood of Success - Sustainability
Thank you
Learn more about the Recreation Passport at: www.michigan.gov/recreationpassport
11 Small scale management and control for rapid response Shaun Howard, The Nature Conservancy
Controlling Invasive Plants Throughout Eastern Lake Michigan
Surveying and treatment of seven key coastal invasives Newly emergent Blue lyme grass Regionally specific Baby’s-breath Widespread Phragmites Funding provided by: SMALL SCALE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL FOR RAPID RESPONSE
Shaun Howard – Coastal Invasives Coordinator
Defining “Small Scale” The Importance of Surveying
Determine the extent of an infestation Provides guidance on control methods “Frames” the scale Catches emergent populations Makes prioritization much easier
Analogy Time! Analogy Time!
Without Where are comprehensive you starting? survey data, What is the how do you most efficient know where to way to achieve begin working? the desired outcome?
1 Small scale management and control for rapid response Shaun Howard, The Nature Conservancy
Analogy Time! 2010 Phragmites Survey
Over 200 miles of on-the-ground and Seeing the aerial surveying entire scope Land Conservancy and of West Michigan prioritizing Southwest efforts will Michigan Land achieve results! Conservancy MDNR
2010 Phragmites Survey The Logistics of a Regional Strategy
Methods
…to complex Getting the tools in place Transporting People Equipment Supplies
Simple…
The Logistics of a Regional Strategy The Logistics of a Regional Strategy
The unexpected happens…
Getting the tools in place Using/applying People Equipment Supplies
…continued survey work can be the backup plan
2 Small scale management and control for rapid response Shaun Howard, The Nature Conservancy
Prioritizing Treatment (Primary) Survey Outcomes: Prioritization
Not the first choice for Early Detection/Rapid Response work…
Survey Outcomes: Prioritization Survey Outcomes: Prioritization
A much better return on resource investment! Prioritizing treatment is not always so clear-cut Vectors Outliers Existing biodiversity
But up close…
Survey Outcomes: Prioritization Prioritizing Treatment (Secondary)
…there are areas where a large impact can be made with minimal resources.
Herbicide has been applied… …where might be the best sites for biomass removal?
3 Small scale management and control for rapid response Shaun Howard, The Nature Conservancy
Prioritizing Treatment (Secondary) Survey Outcomes: Information
Small scale biomass removal: All survey data is made publicly available through MISIN Track progress and quantify output A record of distribution (future comparison) Informs others and provides a “starting point”
Why a Regional Approach?
Utilizing partners provides an efficient and tailored response SifiSpecific kldknowledge in a given area Utilize resources that are already in place Continue to build on past work
4 Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right-of-ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation
Phragmites Control on Roadsides and Rights-of-Way
Bob Batt Michigan Department of Transportation University Region
About MDOT
I, US, and M Routes 10,000 + miles of roads Divided into seven Regions and 26 TSCs Reggpion Resource Specialists one per Region provide specialized expertise in vegetation management for our Regions work with specialists in our Roadside Operations area and Environmental Section our role in Phragmites management
How MDOT Works MDOT’s Phragmites Management Philosophy
Design “Eradication” Construction Each Region has a program Maintenance Region philosophies similar MDOT personnel Eliminate small patches – “seek and destroy” county road commissions under contract Dedicated efforts in targeted areas private contractors larger scale infestations wetlands
1 Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right-of-ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation
MDOT’s Priorities Safety
Signs Guardrail
Clear Vision Areas
Operatilional
2 Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right-of-ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation
Ditches Other Structures
Wetland Mitigation Sites Challenges
Built to replace ROW issues wetlands lost during Linear nature of ROW road construction Different types/different approaches
fee Regulated by easement USACE & DNRE permitted Funding/staffing MDOT is required to meet certain Offsite presence of Phragmites vegetation standards
3 Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right-of-ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation
MDOT Control Strategies MDOT’s Roadside Spray Program
Primarily herbicide treatments Six distinct categories Linear ROW inappropriate for burning guardrail Cannot manipulate water levels weed Herbicides used brush plant growth regulator Roundup Pro/Rodeo (glyphosate) with drift control agent pavement Phragmites/invasive species Arsenal/Habitat (imazapyr) Cultural methods no mowing w/o prior treatment notes on project plans
MDOT’s Roadside Spray Program MDOT’s Roadside Spray Program
Spraying done by Maintenance 2009 Figures each Region has crews who spray Almost $1.7 million statewide limited private contractors 2010 Figures All applicators are MDA certified Sprayed 22, 814 acres total all categories Annual training 2,280 acres of Phragmites Total herbicide purchase amount $835,156 Phragmites program - $200,000+ in labor, equipment and chemical
Equipment
¾ ton 4x4 pickup 300 gallon tank 5 hp Briggs w/pump Hand Sprayer 30’ hose/reel Spill Kit Washing station/tank Lock box for chemicals
4 Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right-of-ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation
Program Improvements Working Together
MDOT more intentional with our Partnering with other program agencies and states planning record keeping Permitting treatment by GIS/GPS others on ROW Pavement Management Coordinating treatment System of problem areas
5 Invasive phragmites management on roadsides and right-of-ways Bob Batt, Michigan Dept. of Transportation
Permits
Permit approval in 5 - 45 days from TSC
Applicant is responsible for environmental clearances that may be needed
Signage and traffic control will be required
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot Scroll down to Favorite Links Click on Permits Click on Right-of-Way Construction Permits
6 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
People Treating Phragmites in High protect Quality Natural Communities what they know and . MNFI Phyllis Higman value. Michigan Natural . Coastal zone Features Inventory . Strategic action . Pop Quiz Thanks to Sue Tangora, Mark Sargent, Brian Piccolo, Pam Grassmick, Suzan Campbell, Daria Hyde, Ed Schools, Leslie . Impacts Kuhn, Steve Thomas, Dave Cuthrell, Mike Monfils, Yu Man Lee, Ellen Jacquert, all our northern Michigan Partners . What to do? and our funders DNR, DEQ, USFWS, NFWF
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Listings and Ranks Maintain comprehensive database
on Michigan’s rare elements of biodiversity State & Federal Endangered: E LE legallylegally protectedprotected GIS based: State & Federal Threatened: T LT 15,438 element occurrences (EO’s) endangered, threatened, special concern State Special Concern: SC not legally protected; Glob al Ran ks: G1……. G5 420 plants use to State Ranks: S1…….S5 prioritize conservation 302 animals Endangered Element Occurrence Ranks: AA--DD
NatureServe Programs collect and track data Threatened the same way – enables comparisons across 76 natural communities jurisdictions Globally imperiled
Coastal Zone EO’s Mosaic of Coastal Communities Upper Peninsula Michigan
Lake Michigan Michigan’s Coastal Heritage
~1/3NW Lowerdatabase recordsPeninsula are in coastal zone
1 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Strategic Plan
Our challenge is to pick the right battles. Early Detection & Treatment of important Widespread awareness (many locations) Phragmites in Northern Michigan success likely Regional approach: Detection • high quality areas (scattered locations) No hope!! • Phragmites just coming incoming in Introduction
Collaboratiion: ••EducationEducation • Surveys Area invaded Area • Prioritizing Time ••TreatmentTreatment Prevention Early detection- Prioritizing winnable battles. • Monitoring rapid response Control, contain, restore.
Collaboration! Overlay of phragmites on biodiversity scored sites Emmet Darker green: County higher score Red: phragmites points
Helen Enander, Kraig Korroch, Daria Hyde, Suzan Campbell, Ed Schools,
2 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Outcomes! Outcomes!
12+ workshops conducted 275 miles surveyed 1 regional phrag distribution map 1 coastal biodiversity map 14+ local coordinators 220 acres treated 7 invasive phragmites ordinances Thanks to Suzan Campbell, Daria Hyde
Houghton’s goldenrod
State and federal threatened
7 Coastalfederal listed Zone: species
7 Federal listed species 40 natural community types 40 State listed & SC species
15 wetland types Inland wetlands too!
Photo: Phyllis Higman Photo: Sue Crispen
American Bittern Spotted Turtle State special concern State threatened
Photo: Jim Harding
3 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Native Phragmites Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly
State and federal endangered
Photo: William Smith
Photo: Suzan Campbell
What to do? 1. Learn what’s in your area!
• Information requests Don’t throw the baby out with the • Data contracts bathwater! • Web database access • Web info & applications Mapping distribution of phragmites and Natural features abstracts sites of concern is criti ca l! Rare species explorer
Understand species life history! Watershed element data Biorarity/probability layers Species and communities are not County Lists static!static! • DNR: Michigan Endangered species assessments • Surveys and workshops!
2. Map Important places! = values
If you don’t know what and where they are, how can you strategize to protect them?
4 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
3. Hone Your Identification Skills! 4. Implement Early Detection MonitoringMonitoring •important places • likely entry points
5. Map phragmites distribution!
Photo: Suzan Campbell
Photo by Suzan Campbell 6. Prioritize treatment!treatment!
• Important places • Success likely
• Outliers Green: Houghton’s goldenrod higher •Sources score Lake Huron •Pathways Red: tansy phrag
5 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
7. Understand potential impacts 8. Consider timing of techniques
Techniques: Impacts:Impacts: Glyphosate August – September Herbicides* Toxic killToxic kill Imazapyr June – September Mowing/cutting Physical kill Cutting 2 wks after herbicide; FireFire Disppapalacement Mowing late summer, fall, winter FloodingFlooding Disrupted food webs Burning 1 yr after herbicide application GrazingGrazing Disrupted nesting late summer, fall, winter Disrupted eggs before green-up * approved aquatic Disrupted hibernacula Flooding mid-August – July after drawdown formulation! Altered biotic Grazing ??? approved aquatic conditions surfactants!
Birds Amphibians & Reptiles JAN MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT JAN MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
A: Pre-nesting Red: Highly vulnerable A: Active adults Red: Highly vulnerable B: Breeding N: Nesting Tan: Potentially vulnerable Tan: Potentially N: Nesting, eggs, young vulnerable Y: Nesting young Blue: Not vulnerable M: Metamorphosis, hatchling, Blue: Not vulnerable P: Post-nesting emigration, emergence Mike Monfils, Daria Hyde E: Aestivation A - Aquatic Yu Man Lee, Daria Hyde Best guesses; lack rigorous studies! H: Hibernation T - Terrestrial Best guesses, lack studies…
Butterflies and Moths Recommendations JAN MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT Detect phragmites early!
Field survey to assess what you have • Hand swiping, spot treat vs. broadcast • Burn earlyyp spring gp* prior to animal emergence OR late summer A: Pre-nesting Red: Highly vulnerable • Search and temporary relocate L/N: Larvae, Nymphs Tan: Potentially vulnerable • Flush nests and critters P: Pupae Blue: Not vulnerable • Work an inside out pattern E: Eggs **will stimulate stems that weren’t killed Dave Cuthrell, Daria Hyde Best guesses; lack rigorous studies!
6 Invasive phragmites management in high-quality natural communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Photo: Suzan Campbell
Detect infestations early! Monitor the results! Study impacts on species! Identify winnable battles in highly infested areas! Photo by Leslie Kuhn
7 Results of phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission
Presentation Outline
Invasive Phragmites Management & • Purpose of questionnaire Control Questionnaire • Questionnaire development
• Questionnaire dbdistribution and response March 29, 2011 Julie Mida Hinderer • Overview of results Great Lakes Commission 2010‐2011 Sea Grant Fellow • Conclusions
Purpose of Questionnaire Questionnaire Development
• To establish a baseline understanding of the status of • Began development in late summer 2010 invasive phragmites management in Michigan • Iterative process with core symposium – identify information and tools that are currently available – identify gaps in management and ways we can improve planning team –Great Lakes Commission, cooperation DNR/DEQ, Mich igan Natura l Features • To inform the development of the Strategic Inventory Framework • Questions loaded into SurveyMonkey online tool – Allows for question logic
Questionnaire Distribution and Response • Target audience of those doing on‐the‐ground invasive phragmites management and control in Michigan Questionnaire Results • Sent invitation e‐mails in late Jan 2011; distributed through various professional 1. Background Information networks • 57 completed survey as of 16 March 2011
1 Results of phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission
In what capacity do you deal with In this role, with whom are you invasive Phragmites? affiliated? 35% 90% 80% 30%
70% 25% 60% 50% 20% 40% 30% 15% 20% 10% 10%
0% 5% Professional Volunteer Other 0%
“Other:” ‐private landowners ‐students conducting Phragmites research ‐no official capacity at this time, but concerned
What is the scale of lands in which you work?
35%
30%
25% 20% Questionnaire Results 15%
10% 5% 2. Monitoring 0% Statewide Multi‐county Countywide Township Other
Other: ‐multiple states in Great Lakes region ‐entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan ‐riparian zones of a particular lake ‐no jurisdiction –provide assistance to other groups
Do you or your organization have an early detection Monitoring monitoring program for invasive Phragmites? Who is carrying out monitoring activities? Answer Option Response Percent Staff from my agency or organization 68% 30 What monitoring techniques Volunteers 65% Yes are you currently using? Staff from a different agency or organization 48% No 25 Contractors 19%
20 Other 13% Count
15
44% nse o 30 Wha t type of ddtata is collect e d?
57% Resp 10 25 5 Other monitoring data collected: 20 •Wet vs. Dry site condition 0 Count 15 •Access for treatment Plant surveys Aerial surveys Interpretation of Citizen reporting Other •Results of previous treatments aerial imagery 10 •Presence of, proximity to rare species Response •Culm height •Presence of runners Other: ‐Satellite radar mapping 5 •Source of infestation ‐Roadside surveys 0 •Wildlife/Ecological impacts Presence/Absence Stand size Stand density Mixed community Other vs. monoculture
2 Results of phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission
Monitoring: Database Reporting To what, if any, online invasive species databases are you reporting occurrences of non‐native phragmites?
Response Answer Option Count Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) 8 National Institute of Invasive Species Science (NIISS) 1 Questionnaire Results Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System 0 (GLANSIS) iMapInvasives 0 EDDMapS 0 3. Invasive Phragmites Infestations I am aware of such databases, but am not currently reporting to 12 them I was not aware of such databases 5 Other 8
Extent of invasion in various habitats Perceptions of phragmites infestations Perceived severity of problem: 99% responded that phragmites has invaded their area significant 61% severe 28% 70 minor 12% 60 not a problem 0% 50 Impacts of concern:
Widespread 100% Count 40
se Local
n 90% 30 Isolated 80%
Respo Absent 20 70%
N/A 60% 10 50% Other (11%): 0 40% ‐economic impacts Coastal Inland wetlands Roadside Riparian Upland habitats 30% ‐loss of property wetlands/coasts ditches corridors 20% value
10% Other habitats: ‐inland lake shorelines ‐other disturbed sites (e.g., parking lot edges, 0% Aesthetic Recreational Wildlife Biodiversity Ecosystem Infrastructure Health and Other natural ‐woodlands industrial sites) habitat services safety resources
Management/control plans
Does your jurisdiction have a management/control plan for phragmites?
No 32% Questionnaire Results Yes, a short‐term, year‐to‐year plan 36% 56% of management plans include a decision‐support Yes, a long‐term, sustaiblinable plan 9% structure for prioritizing Yes, other type of plan 29% treatment… 4. Management and Control Other: piecemeal, site‐by‐site; reactionary and short‐term; shorter‐term but adaptive in nature
3 Results of phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission
Decision‐support criteria for Funding source and level for treatment projects Federal competitive grant program 51% prioritizing treatment Non‐profit organization 47% Local government 45% Protecting high‐value/high‐quality sites 96% State program 41% Private 35% Responding to early infestations 84% Other 25% Acting on window of opportunity 80% Federal non‐competitive grant program 10%
Treating source infestations 44% 60% Annual Funding Level
Interrupting vectors 28% 50% Other 12% 40%
30% Other: ‐“Utilizing high use public lands to show public and governmental units best techniques to fight problem” 20% ‐ “Raising public awareness; encouraging private landowners to treat “ ‐ “Cost Benefit Ranking based on jurisdictional priorities” 10%
0% 0‐$20,000 $20,000‐50,000 $50,000‐100,000 greater than $100,000 Funding Level
Treatment methods Who is carrying out treatment?
80%
120% 70%
100% 60%
50% 80% 40%
60% 30%
20% 40%
10%
20% 0% Staff from my org. Staff from Volunteers Contractors Private Other another org, landowners 0% Herbicides Mechanical Prescribed fire Water level Grazing Other removal management (Other: a combination of several methods)
Partnerships Local governments 78% Non‐profit organizations 69% State agencies 63% Private landowners 55% Conservation districts 45% Private or for‐profit organizations, consultants, or industries 41% Land conservancies 39% Parks 37% Questionnaire Results Other divisions, offices, or programs within your agency 35% Federal agencies 27% Road commissions 25% Regional agencies 22% Tribal agencies 20% 5. Policy and Regulations Other 10% Do not coordinate with others 8%
Other: Drain commission Comments: no one yet; need to coordinate better and educate partners
4 Results of phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission
Policy and Regulations
• Permitting – Most (74%) have needed permits – Assistance would be helpful Conclusions • KldKnowledge of phhit’ragmites’ stttatus as a restricted invasive species in Michigan – 37% not aware of this law • 36% working in areas with local ordinances
Conclusions Conclusions, cont. • Nature of phragmites and its impacts creates need • Management plans are often site‐by‐site, for cooperative approach reactionary – Widespread problem with diversity of habitats impacted – need for proactive, long‐term, coordinated – People working at various scales; often large, cross‐jurisdictional – No single entity doing majority of management and control planning – Respondents noted need for forming partnerships, educating partners • Prioritization is fundamental to effectively • Monitoring for detection can be strengthened prevent spread and control infestations – General awareness of mapping databases– but usage is low – Resources are limited (e.g., funding) – Need for standardized protocols, type of data collected – Involvement of volunteers, citizen scientists is high – need continued – Criteria for prioritization vary based on values of education and outreach user groups, land owners
Conclusions, cont. Questions? • Education of public and practitioners is needed – Need for technical assistance with permitting – Need for increased awareness of state laws listing http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6SY87TJ phragmites as restricted – All steps of process (monitoring, treatment, etc.) involve private landowners and volunteers
5 Results of phragmites management and control questionnaire Julie Hinderer, Great Lakes Commission
Breakout Session Instructions • Sign‐up sheets in back of auditorium Questions? • Two identical 90‐minute cycles –each session will be repeated in second cycle – 15‐minute break in between at 3:30 pm • Locations: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6SY87TJ – Building Capacity – Room 106 – Policy and Regulations – Auditorium – Case Studies – Room 103 – Tracking Progress –Conference Room 62 (Garden Level) • See green sheet for discussion points • Don’t miss the poster reception at 5:30!
6 Building capacity for invasive phragmites management in the Grand Traverse region Brian Piccolo, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
June, 2008 – Regional phragmites stakeholder group formed
•MDNR •Emmet Co. Conservation District •MDEQ •Charlevoix Co. Conservation District •MNFI •Antrim Co. Conservation District •USFWS •Grand Traverse Co. Conservation District •National Park Service •Leelanau Co. Conservation District •The Nature Conservancy •Benzie Co. Conservation District •The Watershed Center, GT Bay •Manistee Co. Conservation District •Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council •GT Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians •GT R egi ona l Lan d Conservancy •Little River Ban d o f Ottawa In dians •Little Traverse Conservancy •Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians •Leelanau Conservancy •Lake Charlevoix Association •MSU Extension •Professional Lake Management •Beaver Island Association •Wildlife and Wetlands Solutions •Saving Birds Thru Habitat •JFNew •National Wildlife Federation •Inland Seas Education Association •Great Lakes Water Studies Institute •Conservation Resource Alliance
September, 2008 MDNR - GT Bay Phragmites Survey
October, 2008 GT Bay Phragmites Stakeholder Meeting
• Discussed the survey results • Developed a strategy - Educate county commissioners, township officials, public - Identify local county phragmites coordinators - Promote a coordinated approach throughout the region - Conduct ground surveys
1 Building capacity for invasive phragmites management in the Grand Traverse region Brian Piccolo, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Winter, 2009 County Phragmites Coordinators County and Township Educational Meetings - Educate township officials and county commissioners Leelanau County: 1/27/09: Leelanau Co. Conservation District Charlevoix County 3/18/09: Grand Traverse County: Leelenau County The Watershed Center, GT Bay Grand Traverse County Antrim County Antrim County: Antrim Co. Conservation District
Charlev oix Cou ntnty: Charlevoix Co. Conservation District
Emmet County: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Emmet Co. Conservation District
*Local champions – assist public, outreach and education, and coordinate survey and treatment efforts within their county
June, 2009 Spring, 2009 Public Education Meeting, Traverse City DNR Grant Writing $100K - MI Natural Features Inventory & MDNR Focus area: Manistee - Emmet County Education and outreach, survey, prioritize, research dispersal vectors, money for treatment and permit costs
$100K – MDNR Leelanau, Grand Traverse , Antrim , and Charlevoix Counties Money for treatment
$95K – MDNR & MI Natural Features Inventory Focus area: Muskegon – Emmet County & UP south shore • Phragmites overview Survey, prioritize, money for treatment, monitoring • Phragmites impacts to wildlife and habitat • Regional Update – meetings, surveys results, county coordinators • Phragmites control options – what works? what doesn’t? • Permitting • Beaver Island project – *success story
Summer, 2009 Summer, 2009 Ground Surveys Township phragmites treatment permission slips sent to shoreline owners
2 Building capacity for invasive phragmites management in the Grand Traverse region Brian Piccolo, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Fall, 2009 & 2010 Phragmites Treatments • 185 miles of shoreline were treated Fall, 2009 despite not having funding assistance - funding from townships (general fund $ and donations) • 285 miles of shoreline were treated Fall, 2010 with $140K from DNR (grant funds)
Now What? Timeline Summary
• County coordinators will continue public June, 2008: June, 2009: education Stakeholder group formed Public education meeting October, 2008: Stakeholder group meeting Fall, 2009: • Annual monitoring of shoreline by property Initial treatments owners September, 2008: Jan-March, 2009: Summer, 2009: Fall, 2010: • Conduct follow up spot treatments where Aerial survey County meetings Ground surveys Phragmites treatments needed
*EDUCATE AND COORDINATE WITH NEIGHBORS & PARTNERS
•MDNR •Emmet Co. Conservation District •MDEQ •Charlevoix Co. Conservation District •MNFI •Antrim Co. Conservation District •USFWS •Grand Traverse Co. Conservation District •National Park Service •Leelanau Co. Conservation District •The Nature Conservancy •Benzie Co. Conservation District •The Watershed Center, GT Bay •Manistee Co. Conservation District •Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council •GT Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians •GT R egi ona l Lan d Conservancy •Little River Ban d o f Ottawa In dians •Little Traverse Conservancy •Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians •Leelanau Conservancy •Lake Charlevoix Association •MSU Extension •Professional Lake Management •Beaver Island Association •Wildlife and Wetlands Solutions •Saving Birds Thru Habitat •JFNew •National Wildlife Federation •Inland Seas Education Association •Great Lakes Water Studies Institute •Conservation Resource Alliance
3 Controlling invasive phragmites: Lessons learned on identifying projects, building partnerships and securing funding Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited
DU GLARO, Priority Areas, Ecosystem Initiatives and Project Locations
Controlling Invasive Phragmites: Lessons Learned on Identifying Projects, Building Partnerships, and Securing Funding
Ducks Unlimited, Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office Roy Kroll – Manager of Conservation Programs
Lake Erie Watershed Priority and Target Areas Utilized DU’s Record of Success in SE Michigan Habitat Conservation
• The Lake St. Clair/Western Lake Erie Watershed Project NAWCA grant (2002 to 2007)
‐Coalition of 14 conservation partners ‐Michigan Joint Venture Group (w/NAWMP) ‐4,072 acres conserved, 76 projects completed
Utilized DU’s Long‐term Involvement in Phragmites Control in SE MI Focused Conservation Delivery
Program areas correspond with variety of funding sources • First Phragmites control effort: 2003‐4 at Harsen’s & habitat restoration partners Island (Ernie Kafcas) • Frequent technical assistance • Component of Saginaw Bay to Lake Erie NAWCA Grant • Participated in DEQ Demonstration Project • Involved in developing “A Guide to the Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites”
1 Controlling invasive phragmites: Lessons learned on identifying projects, building partnerships and securing funding Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited
Keys to Successful Partnerships: MOMENTUM: BUILD ON SUCCESS •Find Diverse Partners to Participate -Use prior research, planning, & restoration efforts “Great Lakes Marsh Restoration: Controlling the Spread -Ensure each partner has a funded component of Phragmites within the Lake St. Clair Watershed”
•Build on Strengths of Individual Partners Funding: USFWS NCWC grant received by MDNR -Approval processes: facilitate & expedite plans -Technical services: on-ground work , GIS mapping , & monitoring Partners: MDNR, SEMCOG, MI Sea Grant, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Harrison Twp, Clay Twp, Ira Twp, St. Clair Flats Waterfowlers Association, St. Clair Co Parks •Use “Bundled” Proposal Approach & Recreation, and Harsen’s Island Waterfowlers Association -Multiple & diverse restoration sites -Smaller sites bring match from multiple partners -Larger sites bring more restorable acres
•Provide Ample Outreach and Education -Notify elected officials and media sources
MOMENTUM: BUILD ON SUCCESS MOMENTUM: BUILD ON SUCCESS
“Anchor Bay/St. Clair Flats Phragmites Control and Expanding Phragmites Control through Congressional Education Project” Funding from Senator Debbie Stabenow
Funding: EPA’s GLRI Invasive Species Prevention and Funding: administered by USDA National Institute of Food and Control Grant Program Agriculture
Partners: MDNR, MI Sea Grant, and SEMCOG Partners: Detroit River IWR, Wildlife Habitat Council
Private lands Partnerships in Ohio Private lands Partnerships in Ohio
• • Focus activity within Target Area Record of (Lythrum) control efforts beginning in late 1970’s • Pulling, mowing, hand‐spray, backpack spray, aerial spray • History of contacts with local private marsh owners
• Long‐term effort to organize duck hunting clubs into association
• Lake Erie Marsh Association (LEMA) established 2010
2 Controlling invasive phragmites: Lessons learned on identifying projects, building partnerships and securing funding Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited
Aerial Spraying program development Combine local knowledge and GIS information
• Spray dates and mixtures adapted to impact Phragmites • Separate trials (September) for Phragmites led by Ohio DOW
Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Private lands Partnerships in Ohio established for Ohio Lake Erie area
• Demonstrated success at Winous Point Shooting Club through research & educational programs
• Congeal private sector interest as Phrag expanded
• Solicit start‐up funds (USFWS Challenge Grant) for spraying on private lands by Jeff Finn ‐ ONWR & John Simpson –WPMC
• Acres treated: 550 acres in 2009, 800 acres in 2010 • managed through the Ottawa Soil and Water Conservation District via the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge . via the US Forestry Service via the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) established for Ohio Lake Erie area Primary Area of Control
Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie Counties
3 Controlling invasive phragmites: Lessons learned on identifying projects, building partnerships and securing funding Roy Kroll, Ducks Unlimited
1,500 acres projected to be treated in 2011 on private lands in Ohio coastal areas
4 Regional early detection and rapid response campaign in northeast Michigan Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines
Jennifer Muladore Ecologist Huron Pines About Huron Pines March 29, 2011 Conserving the forests, lakes, and streams of Northeast Michigan • Nonprofit, 501(c)(3) • 38 years in business • 8 full‐time staff plus AmeriCorps program • Projects include: The Regional Early Detection and – In‐stream habitat Rapid Response Campaign in – Land stewardship Northeast Michigan – Watershed planning
Early Detection‐Rapid Program Overview Response Early detection and rapid • Our resources are still response, involving high quality • Partnerships (CWMA) • Find invaders fast and • Inventory treat them before they become a big, expensive • Working with landowners problem • Physical/Chemical • Priority species: treatment phragmites, buckthorn, • Outreach and education purple loosestrife (newcomer: Japanese knotweed)
1 Regional early detection and rapid response campaign in northeast Michigan Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines
2010 Phragmites Partnerships Inventory • We organized a • May aerial survey Cooperative Weed Management Area • June‐July ground survey • Partners include agencies, • Met private landowners, nonprofits, interest enrolle d in program groups, local governments • Results: 246 patches • Not a commitment to – 24 native, 222 invasive funding but to the overall effort – 80 treated (33%) • HP AmeriCorps SWAT – Over 200 miles surveyed Team
2010 Treatment (All Species) • Phragmites: 80 sites, 33.1 acres • Buckthorn: 4 acres • Loosestrife: 30 river miles surveyed, 45 trash bags of plants • Japanese knotweed: 1 patch in Presque Isle Co.
2011 Plans Future Goals
• Continued SWAT Success • Treatment organized • Increase phragmites locally treatment from 80 to • HP treated areas clear of 100 ppproperties invasives • Invasive Species Summit • HP Crew acts as a SWAT • Enlist local volunteers team—”on call” for small • Invasive species projects but not months inventory/removal • Northeast Michigan integrated into other invasive species under HP projects control!
2 Regional early detection and rapid response campaign in northeast Michigan Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines
Obstacles Successes • Lack of knowledge: what • SWAT team approach to do and what NOT to do • Individual landowner • Apathy at local leader level relationships • Lack of funding for whole • Outreach—workshops, shoreline treatment letters, materials • Many vacant/forclosed/ • County‐wide permits unknown properties • Volunteer events • Distrust of • Treatment! government/anger at shoreline regs
Contact Info
Jennifer Muladore Huron Pines 501 Norway St. Grayling, MI 49738
(989) 344‐0753 ext. 31 [email protected]
www.huronpines.org
3 State prohibited and restricted invasive species laws Mike Bryan, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development
Invasive Plant Regulations pre- 2005
State Prohibited & • State seed laws - seed contaminants Restricted Invasive – mustards, thistles, bindweed • Commissioner of noxious weeds law – local gov’t.
Species Laws – unmanaged fields & overgrown yards • Nursery law – purple loosestrife
• Federal noxious weeds
Mike Bryan Pesticide & Plant Pest Mgmt. Division
Invasive Regulations Modern Era NREPA cont’d.
• Natural Resources & Environmental • Listing/delisting process
Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994 • Website listing species, photos & descriptions, penalties, reports • NREPA amen de d in 2005 & 2009 • Public education component • Invasives sections MCL 324.41301-41232 • Permits
• Regulates 18 aquatic/wetland plants • Progressive penalties
1 State prohibited and restricted invasive species laws Mike Bryan, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development
Prohibited actions Permissible Actions
• Offer Phragmites for sale • Educational use (under permit)
• Intentionallyyp plant Phra gmites at a site • Research (under permit) • Specimen for identification • Possess except under certain conditions • “lawful activity to eradicate or control”
Permits Typical Permit Content
• Plants and insects – Agriculture (MDNRD) • Describe containment requirements
• Fish, birds, crustaceans, mollusks, • Applicable location (s)
mammals & other species - MDNRE • Disposition methods
• For educational & research purposes • Report to agency
• Finite time period covered
Permit applications Michigan NREPA regulated plants
• Contact: Mike Bryan • African oxygen weed (Lagarosiphon major) – Email: bryanm @ michigan.gov • Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) – Phone (()517) 241-2977 •Cyy(ypplindro (Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii ) – Fax: (517) 335-4540 • European frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) – MDARD-PPPMD, P.O.Box 30017 Lansing, MI 48909 • Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) • Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) • Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta, auriculata, biloba, or herzogii
2 State prohibited and restricted invasive species laws Mike Bryan, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development
Michigan NREPA regulated plants
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) • Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) • Parrot's feather ((yMyriop pyhyllum aq uaticum) • Starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) • Water chestnut (Trapa natans) • Yellow floating heart (Nymphoides peltata)
3 Permitting laws governing state waters Anne Hokanson, Wetlands Program (mechanical control permitting) Eric Bacon, Aquatic Nuisance Control Program (herbicide permitting)
MDEQ Aquatic Nuisance Control Program • State Law: Part 33, Aquatic Nuisance Control, of Invasive Phragmites Control Natural Resources and Environmental Permitting Requirements Protection Act, PA 451, 1994, as amended (NREPA)
Eric Bacon • When is a permit required? With few exceptions, any herbicide treatment in: Aquatic Nuisance Control Program • Inland waters of the state (standing water) MDEQ, Water Resources Division • Along the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair below the ordinary high water mark Examples: inland lakes, ponds, streams, wetlands, ditches, exposed Great Lakes bottomlands March 29, 2011
ANC Permitting – Practical Advice for How does it work? Herbicide Treatments • Who can apply for a permit/COC? • Staff: 5 (all in Lansing) - Applicant = individual(s), homeowners association, • Permit versus Certificate of Coverage (COC) applicator, consultant, unit of government, etc. - In 2010, # permits/COCs reviewed = 2,254 - Multiple properties OK. Coordination with neighbors is • Applicant submits form to MDEQ – target plants, beneficial – reduced cost, less recolonization from neighboring properties proposed herbicides, waterbody info, location map • Who can conduct the herbicide treatment? • MDEQ conducts review; decision required within - Depends on the herbicide (some require certification) 30/15 business days for permits/COCs, respectively - Consider hiring a licensed applicator (list of companies: • MDEQ permit lists approved herbicides, www.michigan.gov/deqinlandlakes) rates/amounts, location(s), special conditions - Shop around, obtain multiple quotes • New permit required each year • Treatment method? Aim for selectivity - Hand wicking, wand, backpack sprayer, tractor/boom
Common ANC Questions Mechanical Treatment of • Application fees? - COCs = $75 Phragmites on Great Lakes - Permits = $75, $200, $400, $800, $1,500 (treatment size) Shorelines • Are the herbicides safe? Yes. – Registered/reviewed by US EPA, MDA, and MDEQ DEQ General Permit Water Toxics Unit. Very few herbicides past muster for direct application to/near water. Pt303WtldPtPart 303, Wetlands Protecti on an d – Must be used according to permit & label requirements. Part 325 Great Lakes Submerged Lands – Applicator licensing, certification • How will I know if an area has been treated? – Written notifications, posting signs DEQ Water Bureau • Can I chemically treat all the vegetation? No, counter- productive to invasive species control; env’l impacts Anne Hokanson, Coastal Wetland Ecologist
1 Permitting laws governing state waters Anne Hokanson, Wetlands Program (mechanical control permitting) Eric Bacon, Aquatic Nuisance Control Program (herbicide permitting)
General Permit Authorization for Mechanical Treatments Management of Phragmites • How should the appropriate equipment be chosen? Mowing invasive or non-native species on – Depends on the size and wetness of site Great Lakes bottomlands below the Weed whips and hand tools: OHWM and above the water’s edge- dry or wet sites with low density Small mowers: Mowing areas predominantly vegetated by non- dry, low density sites native or invasive species as part of a vegetation Brush cutters: control plan in accordance with recommendations dry or frozen sites with high densities provided by the DEQ. Always set mower and cutter blades to the highest position possible, no lower than 4 inches.
Mechanical Treatment Mechanical Treatments
• When should mechanical treatment be Should dead, cut stems be removed from the conducted? site after the mechanical treatment is complete? – Dry sites: Treatment can occur approximately two weeks after herbicide treatment, up until • Remova l w ill a id in the following spring. sunlight penetrating – Wet sites: Treatment can occur after ground native plant seed is frozen, when equipment will not disturb bank. soils • Not always possible due to costCareful: This type of thatch removal – Typically, treatment only needs to occur once. can disturb soil and spread and limited phragmites. equipment.
Elements of an Application
Control Plan: Overall Site Plan: Sample Drawing 1. Describe existing phragmites stand. 1. Dimensions of the 2. Average and maximum depth of water property. that is normally present in the 2. Approximate location of treatment area. the ordinary high Phragmites 3. A description of the type of watermark. Management Project Site Plan mechanical equipment to be used in 3. Approximate location of the project the water’s edge. For General Permit 4. The type of herbicide to be used and 4. Dimensions of the Mechanical the file number or copy of the treatment area. Treatment application to the ANC program. 5. Any areas that are 5. A treatment schedule including dates dominated by plant of proposed herbicide treatment and species other than dates of proposed mechanical phragmites. treatment.
2 Permitting laws governing state waters Anne Hokanson, Wetlands Program (mechanical control permitting) Eric Bacon, Aquatic Nuisance Control Program (herbicide permitting)
Follow up Treatment
• An important part of Integrated Pest Management is follow up herbicide www.mi.gov/jointpermit (Look for the Great Lakes Shoreline treatment. Management Permit Application) • Annual maintenance plan should include: Projects that meet this – Spot treatment of new growth with herbicide category have an application fee of $100. – Mechanical treatment of new growth at least two weeks after herbicide application
Available Resources MDEQ Contact Information
Aquatic Nuisance Control Program: Web: www.michigan.gov/deqinlandlakes Phone: 517-241-1554 Email: deq-lwm-anc@michigan. gov
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: Web: www.michigan.gov/wetlands Phone: 517-241-4506 www.michigan.gov/deqaquaticinvasives Email: [email protected] (Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites)
Questions?
3 Making collaboration work in implementing invasive phragmites control along Lake St. Clair Bill Parkus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Using Partnerships to Build Capacity for Managing the Spread of Phragmites
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Restoring and Protecting the Lake St. Clair Watershed
Protecting and Restoring purposespurposes Lake St. Clair
•• Partnerships in protecting and restoring Lake St. Clair •• St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Comprehensive Management Plan •• How we maintain momentum –– Released in 2004 •• Who our partners are and their roles –– 110 recommendations •• Tools useful to local collaborators
Lake St. Clair/St. Clair River Protection and Restoration Partnership Why the Team Approach
Participating Agencies •• Leverage human and fiscal resources •• Partners engage in areas of expertise •• Local governments •• Partners engage based on institutional •• County departments responsibility •• Regional agencies •• State agencies •• Focus federal and state partners on local priorities •• Federal agencies •• Nongovernmental organizations •• Consulting technical experts
1 Making collaboration work in implementing invasive phragmites control along Lake St. Clair Bill Parkus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
How do we Maintain Momentum in our Extent of the Spread around Lake St. Clair Program?Program?
•• Ducks Unlimited recently •• Establish outcomes upfront mapped the spread Phragmites •• 12,300 acres of Phragmites •• As ownership changes so does partners •• 37 community planning area and funding opportunities •• LongLong--termterm management strategystrategy •• Partners Type –– ActionAction –– Funding/Authority –– SupportSupport
Status of Management NCWC Grant Partners EffortsEfforts
Lake St. Clair PhragmitesControl Project (2008) Action U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grant (NCWC) •• MDNR (Applicant) •• Ducks Unlimited, Inc. •• Herbicide application •• Michigan Sea Grant –– Three sitessitesThree Cash/Authority –– Acres treated: 866 •• Huron Clinton Metropolitan Parks Authority •• HiHarrison Townshi p •• Tracking native vegetation growgrow--backback •• Ira Township •• Clay Township •• MappingMapping •• St. Clair County Parks and Recreation Commission –– Ducks Unlimited •• St. Clair Flats Waterfowlers,Waterfowlers, Inc. –– 12,300 acres •• Harsens Island Waterfowlers SupportSupport •• Public education /outreach •• SEMCOGSEMCOG –– Focus: Ecological problems LeveragesLeverages: Federal, local, County, Private resources
Status of Management GLRI Grant Partners EffortsEfforts
Anchor Bay/St. Clair Flats Phragmites Control and ActionAction Education Project •• Ducks Unlimited (Applicant) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Grant •• MDNRMDNR Herbicide application •• Michigan Sea Grant •• 1, 000 acres in St. Cla ir Fla ts /Dicki nson I sl and AuthorityAuthority •• 200 acres along coastal Anchor Bay •• Clay Township •• Ira Township Public education/outreach SupportSupport ecological problems information for property owners and local governments •• SEMCOGSEMCOG
Monitoring native vegetation growgrow--backback LeveragesLeverages: No local match requirement
2 Making collaboration work in implementing invasive phragmites control along Lake St. Clair Bill Parkus, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Status of Management Clay Township Partners EffortsEfforts ActionAction Clay Township Municipal Phragmites Control •• Clay Township Phragmites Advisory Board ProgramProgram •• Property owners •• Extent of problem: 8,600 acres •• MDNRMDNR •• Focus: Training propertyproperty owners to self-self-applyapply •• St. Clair County Road Commission herbicideherbicide •• MDOTMDOT FFdi/Athitunding/Authority Sustain Our Great Lakes Pre-Pre-proposalproposal •• Clay Township Herbicide application •• Cottrellville Township •• 450 acres of private and state property •• Ira Township Replicate program in surrounding communities •• City of Algonac •• Cottrellville Township SupportSupport •• Ira Township •• St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission •• City of Algonac •• SEMCOGSEMCOG Public Education /Outreach •• Public information campaign LeveragesLeverages: Federal, state, local, county and private resources
What tools would be useful to local collaborators?
•• Publication of options for municipal control programs •• Options for modifying or using municipal ordinances •• Brochures/information cards providing information to property owners and local governments on how to manage Phragmites..Phragmites –– Ecological damage and public safety issues –– The herbicide control process (when to apply, what to apply, when to mow or burn) –– Local and state government contact numbers/ information websites –– Selecting a contractor –– List of contractors –– Permit application process
3 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
Stewart Farm, Harsens Island & Clay Township Phragmites Management Programs March 29, 2011
By Bob Williams of Phragmites.org – [email protected]
4
5 6
1 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
7
10
Stewart Farm - 2008 Stewart Farm - 2010
Blocked Views
1111 12
2 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
Year 2003 • Began Phragmites control at Stewart Farm based on • In about 2000 research and results at St. DNR starts John’s Marsh Phragmites Control at St. John’s Marsh, Clay Township, St. Clair County
13 14
September 2005 October 2005
Our first workshop – 86 attendees show up • Harsens Island Phragmites Committee is formed by 5 residents. • Over the next 5 years the group – Initi at ed and mai nt ai ned Ph ragm ites.org – Conducted annual workshops – Provided information on chemical purchase – Advised residents on obtaining permits – Assisted neighbors with treatment – Developed and shared equipment – Provided herbicide samples 15 16
Local residents developed specialized equipment
Equipment for cutting over water
17 Phragmites.org 18
3 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
Equipment for cutting under water Cobbled together pieces
Equipment for cleaning up
Phragmites.org 19 20
21 22
23 24
4 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
February 2010 2005-2009 Initiation of the Clay Township Phragmites Management Program
• Harsens Island Phragmites Committee • Clay Township Supervisor asked citizens and worked as an unofficial,,g unregistered government representatives to discuss a Township committee of citizens to help each other wide program to address Phragmites Management. solve a problem which was common to • Over the next four months more than 50 property much of the community. owners and government representatives were involved in the development of the Clay Township Phragmites Management Plan and Program 2010.
25 2626
The Problems Identified Clay Township Phragmites Management Plan and Program 2010 Property owner needs – To understand the problems created by Phragmites. • Resolution adopted June 7, 2010 by the Township Board – To know that there was something they could do about Phragmites. – To be educated in the safe and effective methods of controlling Phragmites – Supporting the property owners in the areas specified – To have easier access to the proper chemicals and equipment needed – Creating a coordinator and a volunteer organization for safe and effective control. – Surveying the infestations (using GIS) – To get assistance in obtaining the required permits, retaining qualified – Establishing priority treatment areas contractors and in some cases actually treating their Phragmites. – Exploring sources of funding – To have someone coordinate their efforts with that of adjacent property owners including the State of Michigan.
27 28
Initiated and maintained a website at www.clayTownship.org/Phragmites
29 30
5 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
Conducted 5 Phragmites Management Workshops Arranged for a sign at St. John’s Marsh to publicize the program. and trained 186 people in Phragmites Management Initiated and maintained a Phragmites Management phone hotline.
31 32
Clay Township Spraying and Mowing Permits Procedure
During 2010 the Township procured spraying permits for 161 properties and mowing permits for 94 properties
• Property owners applied to be in the program • Volunteers inspected each site, consulted with the property owners and noted infestation area and conditions • Property owner attended a Phragmites Management Workshop • The Township applied to the State for permits for all the properties • The Township received a single season spraying permit and five year mowing permit from the State • The Township issued individual approval letters to participants along with the needed posting signs and treatment report forms • The property owner completed the treatment and mowing and filed reports with the Township.
• The Township filed treatment and mowing reports with the State. 33 34
35 36
6 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
37 38
Herbicide Distribution Volunteer assistance program
During 2010 the Township distributed enough chemical for property owners to self-treat over During 2010 we had 330 acres of Phragmites. • 11 Volunteers who assisted with education, inspections, consultation, chemical distribution, spraying and cutting. • Proper ty owners applied t o b e i n th e program • 124 Properties were treated by volunteers representing approximately • Participants attended a Phragmites Management Workshop 177 Acres (85% of the property for which permits were obtained). • Participants ordered and paid for chemicals at the Township • A 15 foot outboard runabout and a 24 foot pontoon boat were • The Township ordered chemicals in individual 2.5 and one gallon bottles by the pallet at special government prices. donated to the Township by participants for use in the effort. • Purchasers picked up herbicides from the Township • The HISCFA donated $1000 to the PAB program. The money was used to purchase needed equipment and chemicals.
39 40
Assistance with contractor procurement and adjacent owner coordination
• The Township obtained a list of contractors certified by the State of Michigan to treat Phragmites. • The Township prepared a list of recommended contractors based on certification, experience with Phragmites control and interest in working in this area. • The list was made available to all property owners. • The Township coordinated groups of property owners to establish larger contiguous areas which could be treated by helicopter. • The Township arranged for the MDNRE to treat some State owned properties adjacent to those being treated by individual property owners. • The Township obtained the necessary permits and filed the required reports following treatment, reducing work for the contractors and thereby the cost to the property owners. 41 42
7 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
43 44
Local contractor, Bobby Bryson purchases Marshmaster GreatLakesPhragmitesCutter.com
45 46
Clay Township Coordination with other View agencies Enhancement During 2010 we coordinated Phragmites control efforts with representatives from the following agencies:
• MDNRE • MDOT •SEMCOG before • Lake St. Clair Protection and Restoration Partnership • St. Clair County Planning Commission, Road Commission and Drain Commission • Other local communities – Algonac, Cottrellville, Ira after
47 48
8 Stewardship approach in fighting phragmites invasions on Harsen’s Island Bob Williams, Stewart Farm
Ecosystem Restoration Recreational Access
after after
before before
49 50
Fire Safety First Year Lessons
- The program requires dedicated volunteers willing to give it a lot of personal attention. after - Generally the public is more interested in restoring their view, their access to recreation and their fire safety than they are in increasing biodiversity. - There are people who want to keep their Phragmites and those who do not want any herbicide used anywhere in the community. - Leave plenty of time for the State to process the permits and be sure to follow up regularly. - Spraying permits should be extended to be valid for a five year before period, to match the mowing permit. - Spraying and mowing permits (and upcoming NPDES permits) should be coordinated to be issued through a single application process. 51
For further information
www.ClayTownship.org/Phragmites www.Phragmites.org www.Phragmites.info
53
9 Successful collaboration of local governments, landowners, and the Michigan DNRE in eradicating phragmites populations on Beaver Island through rapid response Pam Grassmick, Beaver Island
Results of individual attempts at treatment of Phragmites A Case Study of Rapid Wrong plants being treated Response Wrong herbicides being used To Invasive Wrong dosages of herbicide Poor methods utilized Phragmites Herbicide treatment applied at the wrong time of the year
Presented By : Pam Grassmick Using herbicides without proper permits Beaver Island Association Superior Environmental Aquatic Services March 29, 2011
Department of Natural Resources arrive on our shores. What we did: We chose as a community to address our problem.
Formation of a steering committee Site visits and surveys Media campaign: message to community Ease of joining treatment program Permits were applied for to treat the entire infested shoreline Award of contract
Having a broad based steering committee helped not only get the job done but also made it easier for many people to accept the recommendation of using herbicides on our shoreline.
We believed in these three key How we got there: concepts: Phragmites is ecologically Breakdown of jobs destructive. Townships taking the lead vs. a 501 c 3 Phragmites is a safety Funding and treatment concern. Ordinance and procedure Shoreline restoration, Phragmites affects the post treatment: burn economic welfare of the Work in progress community.
1 Successful collaboration of local governments, landowners, and the Michigan DNRE in eradicating phragmites populations on Beaver Island through rapid response Pam Grassmick, Beaver Island
Development of ordinance in Specific lessons learned from the response to Phragmites threat shoreline/drawbacks:
Survey and equipment Phragmites growing among endangered Monkey Flower at Little Sand Bay Timing of the herbicide treatment Formula funding Bids, contracts, and follow‐ up treatment
DEQ bottomland relationship with Limitless educational opportunities upland owners Personal connection Funding of personnel Expectations in evaluating Phragmites demise Necessary notifications
Frequently asked questions from Do we actively engage or let it take over the wetlands and shorelines? shoreline owners: Community building What are the costs related to herbicide treatment? How difficult is it to work with the DEQ and permits? Rolling up your How safe are the chemicals? sleeves Where to find and what to look for in a contractor? Where to find a list of Level 6 certified contractors in good Regulatory agencies standing with the DEQ? commitment What to expect: Argo vs. hand swiping applications Tracer dye issues Death expectations of Phragmites plants and when to evaluate effectiveness of treatment.
2 Successful collaboration of local governments, landowners, and the Michigan DNRE in eradicating phragmites populations on Beaver Island through rapid response Pam Grassmick, Beaver Island
Additional information:
www.beaverislandassociation.org
www.agreatlakesjewel.org
Post Treatment
3 Role of Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) in citizen monitoring, mapping, collecting and validating phragmites data Amos Ziegler, Michigan State University
Principle Architects
Midwest Invasive Species • Amos Ziegler, ASETS, MSU Department of Entomology Information Network (MISIN) • Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Primary Development
Furthering Early Detection and Distribution Mapping • Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services (ASETS) – Database, mapping and website development. • Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) – Training module and education factsheet design and development.
The MISIN web site can be found @ www.misin.msu.edu and is Purpose composed of the following primary modules: Further the development of a regional network of data providers dedicated to the survey and management of invasive alien species Detection: Allows authenticated users the ability to enter (IAS). observations using the MISIN spatial server.
RtiRationa l RtiReporting: Prov ides pu blic an d reg is tere d users w ith ta bu lar an d map enhanced reports of species observations. The Midwest currently lacks effective collaborative mechanisms for dealing with regional scale emerging invasive species issues. Education: Provides invasive species based outreach materials. However, if invasive species data could be easily gathered by many observers, readily aggregated and disseminated in real-time, synergistic relationships between resource managers would occur, Training: Instructs citizen scientists in the detection and survey of resulting in improved efficiency and better decision making at regional target species, as well as the recording of observations in the MISIN and national scales. system.
“Data Flow” Detection
Status • Currently the general public can report on 10 species of terrestrial plants North American Global Invasive Invasive Species • Currently developed using ESRI ArcGIS Server for mapping services Species Network (NAISN) and Information • Data viewer developed using ESRI Flex API Agencies Nonindigenous Network (GISIN) Aquatic Species (NAS) • Backend spatial database developed using ArcSDE /Oracle 11g N
NGO’s National Global Overview • Uses Accepted Data Standards • Contributions from experts and citizen scientists Citizens • Interactive map-based data entry M I S • Agencies can contribute volume data • Integrated field identification training modules
1 Role of Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) in citizen monitoring, mapping, collecting and validating phragmites data Amos Ziegler, Michigan State University
Detection Data Viewing
Online Reporting • Garlic Mustard • ESRI Flex API • Multiflora Rose • Dame’s Rocket • Simplified interface • Japanese Knotweed • Black Swallow-wort • Query tools • Pale Swallow-wort • Japanese Barberry • Address lookup • Phragmites • Common Buckthorn • Glossy Buckthorn
Education Education
Integrated “Live” Maps • Currently 48 species factsheets
• Links to additional external resources
• Cross referenced by family, duration and habit
• Aquatic species online summer 2011
Training New Data Form
• Flash based training modules • Mixing multimedia and instruction
• Integrated quizzes will test knowledge of material • Material can be review and quiz repeated
2 Role of Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) in citizen monitoring, mapping, collecting and validating phragmites data Amos Ziegler, Michigan State University
Future Directions
2011 • Expansion to include aquatic invaders • Expansion to include new insect invaders (SWD and BMSB) • Early Detection Email Alerts • National and Global Database Linkages (USGS NAS and GISIN)
Beyond • Continued Development of Region Partners • Structured Survey Module • Mobile Data Reporting (iPhone App)
3 Mapping Phragmites in St. Clair Flats using aerial photos, Google street view and Bing oblique imagery Robb MacLeod, Ducks Unlimited
Mapping Phragmites in St. What Methods are Being Used to Clair Flats using Aerial Locate and Map Phragmites? Photos, Google Street View, Aerial Photo Interpretation using: and Bing Oblique Imagery SEMCOG 2005 1 foot imagery NAIP 2005 1 meter imagery
Rob PaigePaigeRob Bing Oblique Imagery Robb Macleod Google Street View Ducks Unlimited 734734--623623--20002000
SEMCOG 2005 1 Foot NAIP 2005 1 Meter
Bing Maps Pictometry Bird’s Eye 6 Google Maps Street View Inch Oblique
1 Mapping Phragmites in St. Clair Flats using aerial photos, Google street view and Bing oblique imagery Robb MacLeod, Ducks Unlimited
What Methods are Being UUsedsed to What Methods are Being UUsedsed to Locate and Map Phragmites? Locate and Map Phragmites? Field Verification: Field Verification: Not a lot of commission errors, but some omission errors mostly related to: Roadside survey of mapped areas Time difference (2005 to 2010) Sparse areas in fields and ditches Ditch clearing
2 Mapping Phragmites in St. Clair Flats using aerial photos, Google street view and Bing oblique imagery Robb MacLeod, Ducks Unlimited
How Could the Use of These Results:Results: Methods be Expanded?
Phragmites Methods easily repeatable for other areas with potential for identifying Project Area very small patches Time consuming (expensive) for 12,300 acres of large areas Phragmites has been mapped. Dependent on Google and Bing imagery (availability and acquisition date) and other existing imagery
How are Treatment Sites being What Approaches Have You Recorded and Mapped? Used for Data Access and Maintenance? Two sites are being treated as part of Download at web site with map this project. viewer: Mapping procedures http://glaromaps.ducks.org/StClair_Phragmites/ currently do not Data will be maintained at web site track treatment sites. No planned update to mapping
3 Large-scale invasive phragmites mapping Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute
Mapping Monotypic Stands of Invasive Project Objectives Phragmites in the Coastal Great Lakes
Map current invasive Laura L. Bourgeau-Chavez, Richard Powell, Phragmites extent for Identifyyjyj major environmental Liza Jenkins, Colin Brooks, Kirk Scarborough, Kevin Riordan, Zach Great Lakes coastal zone drivers of Phragmites australisaustralis distribution Laubach •• Remote Sensing •• Field Work Michigan Technological University •• ValidationValidation Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI) Ann Arbor, MI and AssessAssess Martha Carlson Mazur and Kurt Kowalski Provide vulnerable areas USGS Great Lakes Science Center decision to new invasion support tool Ann Arbor, MI March 29, 2011
2010 Development of Mapping Methods Presentation Overview for U.S. Coastal Great Lakes Basin
• Project goal: Develop methods for creating a • Sensor: PALSAR (10-20 m distribution map of invasive Phragmites for management resolution) and control—decision support – ~ 87 (70x70km swath) 3- date image stacks are • Solution: Use Satellite Remote Sensing-SAR required (spring, summer, – SAR technique developed from GLCWC pilot study for mapping fall triplicates) landscape indicators (SOLEC), Preliminary analysis of 2008 • Ancillary Data: PALSAR funded by USFWS over Lake St. Clair – Landsat • Methods: Field and Remote Sensing – air photos (NAIP 2009, 2005, and DHS 2008 • Early Results: Preliminary Maps Lakes Huron, Erie, border flight) Michigan & Ontario • Area of Interest: 10 km • Decision Support: Development of publicly accessible inland from the coastal zone tool to assess vulnerability and aid land managers in • Target: Monotypic stands Phragmites australis, ½ acre allocating resources mmu 4
Why use Synthetic Aperture RADAR (SAR)? Initial GLCWC Study Area • SAR can differentiate wetland species based on: – Inundation/water level patterns (HH) Phragmites – Vertical Structure (HH) – Soil moisture (HH) – Biomass (HV) • Seasonal (spring summer fall data) – Phenological variation Lake St. Clair – Water level cycles TyphaTypha
11 Large-scale invasive phragmites mapping Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute
2004 Initial Research: MultiMulti--SARSAR Sensor Composite 2008 PALSAR Three Date Color Composites and Maximum Likelihood Classification 17 April 2008, 9 Oct 2007, 28 July 2006, 26 May 2008
Radarsat Oct 98 JERS Aug 98 JERS Mar 95 Dickinson Island Harsen’s Island Upland Forest
Lake St. Cattail/Scirpus Clair beds Lake St. Clair Wet meadow- sedges Water Prairie
Phragmites 22.7 km Low Return Multi-sensor L- and C- Harsens dominant Low Return band radar composite Island, USA L-HHL-HV 3 3 Date Date Composite Composite Phragmites 1 depicts the biomass and Phragmites 2 2809 July Oct. 2006 2007 flooding differences Typha 1 between the various 0926 Oct. May 2007 2008 Phragmites 3 emergent wetlands in Phragmites 4 Cattail dominant 1717 April April 2008 2008 this delta Typha 2 Wapole Phenological differences in vegetation Woody Med Biomass Island, CAIsland, CA and flood condition help discriminate Woody High Biomass 23.6 km ©CSA 1998 ©NASDA 1995-8 ©GD-AIS 2003 different wetland ecosystem types
PALSAR Phragmites Map 3 Season PALSAR Mosaics Preliminary Validation
Field Observation user's Phragmites Shrub Typha Prairie sum accuracy Phragmites 14 1 2 0 17 0820.82 Shrub 0 2 0 0 2 1.00 Typha 0 0 8 0 8 1.00 Prairie 0 0 0 2 2 1.00
SAR Map Map SAR sum 14 3 10 2 29 producer's accuracy 1.00 0.67 0.8 1.00 0.90
Note that the misclassified pixels for Phragmites were small areas of shrub or Typha within a larger Phragmites dominated area, thus the error is likely due to resolution (20 m in this case), 10 m resolution may resolve this error and is being investigated.
Field Component Field Component
• Measurements taken: • Field data: – GPS locations • Center – Needed 377 randomly • Perimeter edges selected validation locations (.5 acre) for 95% – Photos with GPS tag confidence level per basin – VttiVegetative – Summer 2010 target: total composition/species of 375 for entire GL basin – Wetland type – Opportunistic training data – Average height (3) locations collected – Density (stems per area) – Current water level/date- • First Field Season: May- time Oct 2010 – Recent changes/treatments
22 Large-scale invasive phragmites mapping Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute
••775775 unique field site visits. from radar … ••459459 validation, 316 training ••Phragmites observed at 29% of Lake Huron sites. (228 of the 775). … to Phragmites MappingMapping • 24% Validation sites • 38% training sites
••OnlyOnly NWI "Palustrine"Palustrine Emergent" polygons used to generate random points for validation sites of these, only 47% were documented as emergent in the field observations Image: MTRIImage:
Preliminary Potential Western Basin of Lake Erie Phragmites Maps
Potential Monotypic Phragmites Potential Monotypic Phragmites
Decision Support Tools for Management Saginaw Bay
••PublicallyPublically accessible ••ClickableClickable and zoomable ••ShowingShowing locations of Phragmites and vulnerable areas given different waterwater-- level scenarios, nutrient loading, and landland--useuse influences.
Potential Monotypic Phragmites
33 Large-scale invasive phragmites mapping Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute
Project Mapping Status
• Lake Huron • Steps remaining ••RedRed areas most vulnerable – Preliminary products – Full accuracy assessment to invasioninvasionto (validation points) complete – Final product generation for ••EarlyEarly attention key to • Lake Ontario Lakes Erie, Ontario, Huron, Michigan (May-July 2011) control -- tool helps – Preliminaryyp complete managers focus resources • Lake Michigan • Outreach/Sharing – Preliminary complete Products MTRI project website • Lake Erie (http://mtri.org/phragmites.html) – Preliminary complete – Jpeg of 3 season radar image mosaics for 4 lakes • Lake Superior – 2010 Site Visit Field Data in – preliminary map on hold for Google Earth reevaluation of mapping – 2010 Site Visit Geotagged Field Photos in Google methods Earth
Contact Info Example Site Map • Laura Bourgeau-Chavez – MTRI Research Scientist [email protected] 734-913-6873 • Colin Brooks – MTRI Environmental Science Lab Manager [email protected] 734-913-6858 •MTRI www.mtri.org Michigan Tech Research Institute 3600 Green Court, Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48105
22
WebWeb--basedbased Data Entry Example Field Data Sheet Used to manage spatial, attribute, and image data collected by field teams
Web Browser
Output Web Products Server (shapefiles, KML, etc.)
Spatial Database
44 Large-scale invasive phragmites mapping Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Michigan Tech Research Institute
Field Data Results
• Conducted 770 Site Visits between May – October 2010 • Validation Sites • 110 with Phragmites • 348 other land cover types • Training Sites • 114 with Phragmites • 198 other land cover types •Site Visits From the Field Data GIS:GIS:Data – Classified vegetation / ecosystem Validation point type and Field of View (FOV) for Digital Photos for a – GPS Points H-66 Phrag site. – GPS encoded photos Corresponding GPSGPS--encodedencoded • Over 3,000 GPS-encoded photos photo shown – Creating kml of these photos for distribution above for highlighted FOV .
55 Breakout Session Reports and Discussion
Breakout Session Reports and Discussion Building Capacity to Implement Large-Scale Phragm ites Management and Control Amy Derosier Steve Beyer Mark Sargent Mike Donovan
Thanks to everyone for being so engaged!!
Building Capacity to Implement Large-Scale Building Capacity to Implement Large-Scale Phragmites Management and Control Phragmites Management and Control
What strategies are working? What’s not working? •Bringing together diverse partnerships •Getting lower income communities engaged •Working with townships (and counties) •Absentee landowners •Having local champions (engage hunter groups, other locals) •Lots of disparate efforts – lack of coordination in some areas •Cooperative Weed Management Areas •Lack of resources and databases at county level (equalization office) •Talk about different values •Concerns over sustainability •Coarse scale inventory to help prioritize •Funding (duh ) •Focus on EDRR
Building Capacity to Implement Large-Scale Phragmites Management and Control
What do we need to move forward? •Coarse filter inventory and GIS mapping •Educate state and federal regulators and legislators Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive •Targeted outreach materials – legislators, local leaders, hunters Phragmites Management and Control •Better highlight and show successes •More/ better leadership from the state
1 Breakout Session Reports and Discussion
Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Phragmites Management and Control Phragmites Management and Control
Current Regs/Permitting Process – what’s working, how to streamline What clarity needs are there for permitting/regulations between •Ability to combine projects under single permit is helpful, consider ways to biological, chemical, and mechanical control? combine even more •Biological control is really its own animal, involves USDA and MDARD •Work with DEQ staff to “preview” permit; get tips on what is needed – •Chemical and mechanical control activities are related pre-consultation/pre-application meeting •When applicants are seeking permit for one type of control, provide •Have multiple examples of “acceptable” applications/approved permits information about other alternatives •Consider permit durations and ability to combine chemical and mechanical permits •“White Hat” project considerations •Develop general permit for inland lake treatment similar to permit for Great Lakes treatment •Outreach and education to landowners
Role of Policy and Regulations in Invasive Phragmites Management and Control
What tools do practitioners need to assist in permits/regulations? •Different challenge of addressing phragmites in areas where it is first invading as opposed to treating large, established stands – need a simple method to work with landowners quickly Case Studies in Collaborative Management at •Compile examples of how groups have overcome particular barriers the Local Level
Case Studies in Collaborative Management at Case Studies in Collaborative Management at the Local Level the Local Level
Partners Starting Collaboration Maintaining Collaboration • Depend on location/need • Local champion • Celebrate success • More the better • Local stakeholder led process • Funded full-time champion • leverage resources/$ • Education and outreach • Social media • different values • Bio l. – socilial – econ. ItImpacts • Pu blica lly vi sibl e wor k • Three categories •Relevant • action •Community problem • funding/authority •values • support
2 Breakout Session Reports and Discussion
Case Studies in Collaborative Management at the Local Level
Tools Needed • 5 year spraying/mowing permit • Easier permit process •Examples: Locating & Documenting Invasive Phragmites • ordinances • resolutions PliTPopulations, Treatments, &S& Successes • grant proposals • mapping • Economical small quantities of herbicides • University leadership
Locating & Documenting Invasive Phragmites Locating & Documenting Invasive Phragmites Populations, Treatments, & Successes Populations, Treatments, & Successes
Inventory – mapping and documenting Treatment Tracking – documenting, mapping, monitoring, sharing •Presentations •Capacity will be developed in MISIN •What are others doing •Most are documenting for their projects •Issues •Issues •Documentation (contributing to a common inventory) •Documentation and monitoring require resources •Early Detection •DEQ permit mining •Looking Inland •Privacy rights for private land owners •Cost •Should funding agencies require it
Locating & Documenting Invasive Phragmites Populations, Treatments, & Successes
Data Systems – Contributing, Access, Maintenance •MISIN •Many know about MISIN, few are contributing •Issues •Tracking absence •Funding for long-term maintenance
3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invasive Plant Research Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Invasive Plant Outline Slide Research/Demonstrations . Mission
Al Cofrancesco . Ecosystem Restoration Technical Director . Invasive Species Impact Enggpineer Research and Development Center; Vicksburg, MS . Proposed Project at Times Beach March 30, 2011 . Implications to other mission areas . Overview of TAG . Questions
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® BUILDING STRONG®
Ecosystem Restoration Mission CIVIL WORKS MISSIONS: Water Resources Development Act of 1986
Navigation Restore significant ecosystem Flood Damage Reduction function, structure, and dynamic processes that Ecosystem Restoration have been degraded
. Nationally and regionally significant . Wetlands, riparian and other floodplain and aquatic systems
BUILDING STRONG® 4 BUILDING STRONG®
Mission Areas that will benefit from the Invasive Species Problems management of Phragmites australis in the Great Lakes
• Ecosystem Restoration --- Invasive species inhibit our ability to restore significant ecosystem function, structure, and dynamic processes that have been degraded Melaleuca Waterhyacinth • Navigation --- Invasive species hamper dredging operations and limit the beneficial use of dredge material
Hydrilla Arundo
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invasive Plant Research Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Phragmites Management Technologies Times Beach • Chemical (Available) Proposed Work Site • Mechanical (Available) • Burning (Available) • Biological (Not Available) • Flooding (Available)
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
Phragmites Phragmites
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
Proposed Management Approach Navigation
. Physical Treatments ► Mowing ► Multiple Mows . Chemical Treatment ► Ground treatments using spray/wick application ► Primarily fall applications ► One and Two - year applications evaluated . Biological Treatment ► None at the present time . Combinations of Chemical and Physical Treatments . Long Term Assessment Protocol
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invasive Plant Research Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dredging Operations Material is moved from the dredge to a containment facility
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
Facilities Can Become Dominated By Invasive Species Containment Facilities
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
Need To Utilize The Material Establishment of Native Plant Communities Beneficially (Small Plantings)
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invasive Plant Research Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Establishment of Native Plant Communities Elders Point East
(Large Plantings) 3 Years Pre-Construction 1.5 Years Post Construction October 2003 November 2007
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
USDA-APHIS regulates the introduction of Questions Biological Control Agents impacting plants. APHIS has a Technical Advisory Group composed of 17 organizations (US, Canada, & Mexico) that provide input on these introductions. The Question addressed is- “How Safe Is The Agent?”
BUILDING STRONG® BUILDING STRONG®
4 Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
Michigan’s Aquatic Outline Invasive Species • History of the Aquatic Invasive Program Species State Management Plan Phragmites Symposium March 30, 2011 • Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Sarah LeSage, Aquatic Biologist • State Managgpement Plan update AiIiSiPAquatic Invasive Species Program C Cdioordinator Michigan DEQ •Moving Forward
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan Species State Management Plan
1996 1996
MI’s first AIS State MI’s first AIS State Management Plan Management Plan
•Prevent new introductions •Limit the spread •Abate the effects
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan Species State Management Plan
1996 1996
MI’s first AIS State MI’s first AIS State Management Plan Management Plan “The purpose of the plan is to •Prevent new introductions •Prevent new introductions outline an imppglementation strategyy •Limit the spread •Limit the spread for AIS control in the State of •Abate the effects •Abate the effects Michigan and provide direction…” •Information and Education •Information and Education •Research and Monitoring •Research and Monitoring •Regulation and Policy •Regulation and Policy
1 Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan Species State Management Plan
1996 1996 2002
MI’s first AIS State MI’s first AIS State Plan Update Management Plan Management Plan
•Prevent new introductions •Prevent new introductions •Summary of •Limit the spread •Limit the spread accomplishments •Abate the effects •Abate the effects
•Information and Education •Information and Education •Research and Monitoring •Research and Monitoring •Regulation and Policy •Regulation and Policy
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan Species State Management Plan
1996 2002 1996 2002
MI’s first AIS State Plan Update MI’s first AIS State Plan Update Management Plan Management Plan
•Prevent new introductions •Summary of •Prevent new introductions •Summary of •Limit the spread accomplishments •Limit the spread accomplishments •Abate the effects •Abate the effects •Stakeholder/public input •Stakeholder/public input •Information and Education •Information and Education •Research and Monitoring •Research and Monitoring •Similar organizational •Regulation and Policy •Regulation and Policy structure
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan Species State Management Plan
2002 1996 2002 Many more projects!
Plan Update MI’s first AIS State Plan Update Many more discussions! Management Plan
•Summary of •Summary of 2008 Michigan’s call •Prevent new introductions ttito action on aqua tic accomplishments •Limit the spread accomplishments •Abate the effects invasive species •Stakeholder/public input •Stakeholder/public input •Information and Education •Information and Education Phragmites Symposium •Research and Monitoring •Similar organizational •Research and Monitoring •Similar organizational •Regulation and Policy structure •Regulation and Policy structure
2 Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan Species State Management Plan
1996 2002 Many more projects! 1996 2002 2010
MI’s first AIS State Plan Update Many more discussions! MI’s first AIS State Plan Update The Great Lakes Management Plan Management Plan Restoration Initiative •Summary of 2008 Michigan’s call •Summary of •Prevent new introductions ttito action on aqua tic •Prevent new introductions •Limit the spread accomplishments •Limit the spread accomplishments •Abate the effects invasive species •Abate the effects •Stakeholder/public input •Stakeholder/public input •Information and Education Phragmites Symposium •Information and Education •Research and Monitoring •Similar organizational •Research and Monitoring •Similar organizational •Regulation and Policy structure •Regulation and Policy structure Limited funding for projects and staff!
History of Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive The Great Lakes Species State Management Plan Restoration Initiative Focus area: 1996 2002 2010
Invasive species MI’s first AIS State Plan Update The Great Lakes Management Plan Restoration Initiative •Prevent new introductions •Summary of •Limit the spread accomplishments •AIS program •Abate the effects cohesiveness •Stakeholder/public input •Information and Education •Update the Plan •Research and Monitoring •Similar organizational •Regulation and Policy structure •Implement priority activities
AIS Program Tasks – Coordination State of Michigan AIS team • Lead Core Program • USFWS grant management • Department of Environmental Quality • Coordination with federal programs and with other Great Lakes states Program – Water Resources (Sarah LeSage and Eric Bacon) priorities • Program evaluation • Department of Natural Resources • Coordination with terrestrial invasive species program – Fisheries (Tammy Newcomb, Todd Grischke, • Sustainable funding development • Update AIS SMP Christian LeSage) • Legislation – Wildlife (Sue Tangora) – Early Detection and Rapid Response – Recreation ((gJason Fleming)) • Monitoring and assessment (early detection) • RidRapid assessmen t/idt/rapid response CtibttContribute to a Geograp hiIfhic Informa tion – Law Enforcement (Steve Huff) System database and maps for species • Department of Agriculture – Education, Outreach, and Training • Stakeholder input coordination – Pesticide and Plant Pest Management (Mike Bryan) • Staff training for prevention, early detection rapid response, and best management practices • Office of the Great Lakes (Roger Eberhardt, Matt • Develop prevention and control best management practices Preisser, Emily Finnell) • Coordinate educational programs/activities D. Evaluation • Monitoring and assessment • Others – Regulation – Department of Transportation • Compliance and enforcement • Project Planning (Bethany Matousek) • Chemical treatment permits • Ballast water control permits – Forestry and Attorney General • Administration of Part 413, Transgenic and Nonnative Organisms, of the NREPA: update list of prohibited species list, prohibited species permits, etc. • Develop a clean list of species
3 Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
AIS Program Tasks Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species – Coordination • Lead Core Program State Management Plan: Update 2011 • USFWS grant management • Coordination with federal programs and with other Great Lakes states Program priorities • Program evaluation 1996 2011 • Coordination with terrestrial invasive species program • Sustainable funding development • Update AIS SMP MI’s first AIS State • Legislation Management Plan – Early Detection and Rapid Response “The purpose of the plan is to • Monitoring and assessment (early detection) outline an imppglementation strategyy • RidRapid assessmen t/idt/rapid response CtibttContribute to a Geograp hiIfhic Informa tion •Prevent new introductions System database and maps for species •Limit the spread for AIS control in the State of – Education, Outreach, and Training •Abate the effects • Stakeholder input coordination Michigan and provide direction…” • Staff training for prevention, early detection rapid response, and best management practices •Information and Education • Develop prevention and control best management practices •Research and Monitoring • Coordinate educational programs/activities D. Evaluation • Monitoring and assessment •Regulation and Policy – Regulation • Compliance and enforcement • Chemical treatment permits • Ballast water control permits • Administration of Part 413, Transgenic and Nonnative Organisms, of the NREPA: update list of prohibited species list, prohibited species permits, etc. • Develop a clean list of species
AIS Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Vector & Pathway Approach Species State Management Plan: Tourism and Development Maritime Commerce Cruising Vessels Update 2011 Ballastwater Ecotours Hull etc. Fouling Float Planes and Helicopters Agency Activities Focus: Fish Stocking Research and Assessment Water Recreation Prevention Harbor etc. Construction Boating Road Side Maintenance Diving and other Gear Fishing Tournaments Organisms in Trade Pets/Aquarium Fishing Aquatic Plants Equipment Habitat Restoration Live Bait Permitted Activities On-line Purchase Charter Fishing Live Food Fish Shoreline etc. Modifications Aquaculture Wetland Restoration Adapted From the Lake Superior AIS Plan
AIS Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive AIS Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan: Species State Management Plan: Update 2011 Update 2011 Existing Efforts: •GLRI Action Plan How you can help: •Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy •Keep doing good work •MI G reat L ak es Pl an •Remain involved •Lake Superior AIS Complete Prevention Plan •Participate in our stakeholder process or •Proposed Plan for the Prevention, Detection, public comment period- this fall? Assessment, and Management of Asian Carps in Michigan Waters •Contact us at any time! •Existing/pending lake biodiversity conservation strategies. •Early Detection Rapid Response work •This Phragmites Symposium!
4 Michigan’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program Sarah LeSage, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
Take Home: •We have an Aquatic Invasive Species State Management Plan •W’We’re in t he process o f up dat ing it •Phragmites management is part of the Plan •We Need your input!
Sarah LeSage [email protected] 517-241-7931
5