Integrated Invasive Species Management Planning for Ecological Conservation

1. Invasive Species Management Planning Art Gover Rachel Wagoner Wildland Weed Management Crop and Soil Science College of Agricultural Sciences

2. Resources • http://vm.cas.psu.edu

3. Problem • Invasive plant species impact ecological processes, natural heritage, and operations of PA State Parks • Problem is increasing • Resources extremely limited

4. Planning Premises • Existing Resources only • no additional staffing • no additional funding • Identify ‘transferable’ resources through landscape management audit • mowing reduction is primary target

5. Planning Approach • Site value • ecological • cultural • recreational • Invasive Species • behavior • how difficult to replace

6. Planning Template • The Nature Conservancy • http://www.invasive.org/gist/products.html • Subsequently revised by PSU/DCNR

7. Priority Index (0 to 14) • Additive Categories • Stewardship Value (4) • Invasive Species Extent (3) • Invasive Species Impact (3) • Restoration Success (4) • Multiplier • census value of 0 or 1 • drops out non-present, non-threatening spp. • allows retention non-present, but threatening species to emphasize monitoring

8. Priority Index • Each matrix is completed assuming the species is present in each location • The Census layer then accounts for actual presence

9. Planning Challenge • No dedicated Resources Management staffing • Paradigm Shift – ‘Invasive Species Management IS Maintenance’ • Integrate Operations/Maintenance and Environmental Ed. capabilities

10. Example:Canoe Creek State Park

13. ‘Stewardship’ Value

15. Invasive Species Extent

16. ‘Presque Isle Variation’

18. Species Impact

19. Restoration Effort

20. Species Presence • 0 or 1 rating • 1=present, or imminent threat • 0=absent • At Canoe Creek, no absent species assigned a ‘1’

21. Priority Index

23. Priorities • European alder (Alnus glutinosa) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) • Mary Ann’s Creek CRA • Canoe Creek CRA • Canoe Lake • Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) • Mary Ann’s Creek CRA • Canoe Creek CRA

24. Prescriptions and Timetable • ‘Bundle’ species • maximize species spectrum during operations • i.e. treat all autumn olive and Lonicera while targeting European alder

26. Results • Methodical process that identifies knowledge gaps, areas of uncertainty • Avoids ‘Paralysis by Analysis’ • Flexible – allows post-analysis ‘tweaking’

27. ‘Stewardship’ Issues • Natural Resource based • Does not (yet) fully account for value of ‘visibility’ of ISM effort • Have Extent and Restoration Effort become the same question? • Combine, then add a Cultural Value factor

28. Cultural Value • Visibility to visitors • Educational opportunity • Recreational value • Volunteer engagement

29. Acknowledgements • PA DCNR, Bureau of State Parks • Resources Management Section