Docstoc

Final Interior - readers sp

Document Sample
Final Interior - readers sp Powered By Docstoc
					WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS
 Collecting, Sharing and Using Information




                               Charles Valentine Riley
                                Memorial Foundation
                                         COVER PHOTOGRAPHS
                  Top center: Yellow star thistle (J. Asher, Bureau of Land Management, DOI)
                       Left center: Leafy spurge (Agricultural Research Service, USDA)
                              Right center: Spotted knapweed (Weeds of the West)
                     Bottom left: Downy brome (John Randall, The Nature Conservancy)
                                  Bottom right: Saltcedar (Weeds of the West)

                                   A brief description of each photo follows:

Yellow starthistle – Centaurea solstitialis, was introduced from southern Europe and the Mediterranean
region in the mid-1800s. It has become a serious weed pest throughout the western U.S. This weed now
infests more than 20 million acres of rangeland in the western U.S. where it has greatly reduced forage
production for livestock and disrupted natural ecosystems.

Leafy spurge – Euphorbia esula, is a Eurasian perennial that was brought to northeastern North America as
an ornamental in 1829. Since then, it has spread to some 3 million acres in 29 states. Leafy spurge can reduce
land values by interfering with livestock grazing lands, wildlife habitat and associated recreation, rangeland
plant diversity and native plant reproduction.

Spotted knapweed – Centaurea maculosa, is a native Eurasian perennial that arrived in the U.S. through
contamination of alfalfa and soils in ballast water in the late 1800’s. To date, it has been identified in over
326 counties in the western U.S. and is present in every county of Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
Spotted knapweed can increase soil erosion and reduce biodiversity, wildlife and livestock forage.

Downy brome – Bromus tectorum, often called cheatgrass, was probably independently introduced on
several occasions from southwestern Asia. Its adaptive nature allows for a broad ecological scope, including
the sagebrush steppe and Pacific bunchgrass region, where it dominates more than 100 million acres, the
semi-desert of the southern Great Basin, the coniferous forest zone of the Rocky Mountains and localized
areas of eastern Montana and Wyoming. Through facilitation of wildfires and competitive exclusion of native
species reproductions, cheatgrass has substantial adverse effects on rangeland vegetation and the wildlife it
supports.

Saltcedar – Tamarix spp., were introduced to the U.S. in the early 1800’s from Asia as ornamentals for stabiliz-
ing eroding stream banks or to use as wind breaks. Now saltcedar occupies over 1 million acres of arid and
semi-arid areas in the southwestern U.S. Its successful invasion of nearly every drainage system in this area
has led to a decline in native riparian plant populations by limiting the number of suitable germination sites
and increasing salinity.
 WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS
COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION
          Proceedings of a Workshop




                       Phoenix, AZ
                   September 6-7, 2000




           United States Department of Interior

          United States Department of Agriculture

                Riley Memorial Foundation




                             i
                             Published by

            Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation
                       2229 Countryside Drive
                    Silver Spring, MD 20905-4520


                           September 2001


                       In collaboration with the

              United States Department of the Interior
                         1849 C Street, NW
                       Washington, DC 20240

              United States Department of Agriculture
                14th and Independence Avenue, SW
                       Washington, DC 20250


                         Editorial Committee

          Danielle Bruno, Idaho Department of Agriculture
           Rob Hedberg, Weed Science Society of America
   Ron Hiebert, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior
         Eric M. Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture
 James Olivarez, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Gina Ramos, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior
       Richard L. Ridgway, Riley Memorial Foundation (RMF)
   Steve Schoenig, California Department of Food and Agriculture
          Ronald E. Stinner, North Carolina State University
                        Jennifer Vollmer, BASF


                          Steering Committee

             Tom Dille, RMF and Francis and Associates
          Ralph Grossi, RMF and American Farmland Trust
               John Gordon, RMF and Yale University


           Electronic copies are available on the Internet at

         http://www.invasivespecies.gov/other/range.pdf


                Paper copies may be purchased from:

                   U. S. Department of Commerce
               National Technical Information Service
                        5285 Port Royal Road
                         Springfield, VA 22161
                    Accession No. PB2001-107838


                                   ii
                                                                                 CONTENTS

Sponsors and Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ iv
A Message from the Governor of Idaho.......................................................................................................................                           v
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................................................             1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................      3
A View from the Invasive Species Advisory Committee – Nelroy Jackson.............................................................                                                      5
Overviews of Selected Federal Programs.................................................................................................................                                5
             Bureau of Land Management – Tim Reuwsaat, Gina Ramos, and Kathie Jewell......................................... 5
             Forest Service – Jim Olivarez and Rita Beard................................................................................................                              6
             National Park Service – Ron Hiebert........................................................................................................... 7
An Overview of State Inventory and Mapping Programs – Eric Lane and Glen Secrist.........................................                                                              8
Selected State Inventory and Mapping Programs....................................................................................................... 10
             Montana – Barbra Mullin.................................................................................................................................. 10
             Idaho – Danielle Bruno..................................................................................................................................... 12
             California – Steve Schoenig and Pat Akers...................................................................................................... 14
Selected Local Projects.................................................................................................................................................. 15
Selected Multi-State Projects......................................................................................................................................... 17
Inventories and Data Standards – Rita Beard, Danielle Bruno and Eric Lane........................................................ 18
Quality Assurance and Accuracy – Ron Stinner......................................................................................................... 19
Sharing Data..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
             Privacy................................................................................................................................................................ 21
             Scale.................................................................................................................................................................... 22
             Integration.......................................................................................................................................................... 23
             National and Regional On-Line Databases..................................................................................................... 25
             Practical Considerations.................................................................................................................................. 25
Views from Non-Federal Stakeholders......................................................................................................................... 26
Issues, Impediments and Opportunities...................................................................................................................... 27
Principles and Leadership – Tom Dille........................................................................................................................ 28
Outcomes, Needs and Suggestions............................................................................................................................... 30
Selected References........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Acronyms......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Program Advisory Committee....................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A—Institutions and Interests Represented................................................................................................ 36
Appendix B—Posters, Displays and Demonstrations................................................................................................ 37
Appendix C—Selected Mapping and Database Resource Persons.......................................................................... 38
Appendix D—Participants............................................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix E—On-Line Databases Containing Information on Invasive Plants......................................................... 42
Appendix F—Program..................................................................................................................................................... 45




                                                                                          iii
                                                Sponsored by

                                    United States Department of Interior
                                   United States Department of Agriculture
                                    Lucile and David Packard Foundation
                                              Dow AgroSciences
                                                  Monsanto
                                                    BASF
                                         Riley Memorial Foundation




                                              Acknowledgements

The unselfish personal contributions by the members of the program advisory committee and the workshop
participants are gratefully acknowledged as is the direct financial support and in-kind contributions provided
by the sponsors and the substantial in-kind contributions provided by a number of organizations.

Special appreciation is extended to Erin Grossi, Linda Wadley and Valerie Berton for their assistance in
collecting, assimilating and editing the proceedings.




                                                      iv
v
vi
                                                                      COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Western rangeland weeds such as yellow starthis-           state-level programs. Presently, three states
tle, leafy spurge, Canada thistle and Russian knap-        (California, Idaho and Montana) have developed
weed are causing tremendous losses to agricultur-          and are actively implementing statewide noxious
al industries, including both crop and livestock           weed inventory and mapping programs. Colorado
production, and to environmental resources on              is just beginning its program and several other
private lands. Concurrently, many public lands             western states are actively investigating opportu-
managed by federal agencies are being steadily             nities. Existing state inventory and mapping
invaded. As a result, these lands held in the public       efforts share a number of similarities but also
trust are experiencing reductions in commodity             exhibit unique characteristics that address the
yields, recreational opportunities, biodiversity and       conditions and needs of the individual states. As
ecosystem function.                                        these programs demonstrate their capacity to
                                                           address management needs, it is likely that other
Selected Federal Programs. Over 20 federal agen-           western states will incorporate mapping efforts
cies are involved with invasive species; nine of           into statewide weed management programs.
these agencies with specific interests in western          Ultimately, such efforts may help to catalyze a
rangeland weeds were represented at the work-              truly regional approach to weed control through-
shop. Three agencies have responsibility for man-          out the West.
aging invasive plants on especially large amounts
of public land. Tens of millions of acres infested         Selected Projects. Three local weed mapping proj-
with noxious weeds are scattered among the 264             ects and three multi-state invasive pest projects
million, 192 million and 83 million acres under the        provided important insights into the challenges and
purview of the Bureau of Land Management                   successes associated with such efforts. A combi-
(BLM), U.S. Forest Service (FS) and National Park          nation of early involvement of landowners in plan-
Service (NPS), respectively. These agencies all            ning data collection efforts and technical assis-
have programs specifically targeted towards inva-          tance from outside the county or district was key
sive plants, with BLM and FS having major respon-          to development and use of local mapping efforts.
sibilities on rangeland. However, grazing is also          In the three multi-state projects reviewed, valuable
permitted on over 100 NPS units and invasive               leadership from federal agencies was evident. The
plants are of concern on most units. Each agency           Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA)
has an inventory and mapping program with                  component of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
emphasis being placed on the unit, state and               involves four federal agencies, three state agen-
regional levels by NPS, BLM and FS, respectively.          cies, at least five counties, and some local manage-
However, all three agencies have plans for some            ment areas. Mapping in the CWMA, much of it fully
information to be integrated into national agency          computerized with assistance particularly from
databases, and realize that sharing detailed weed          the NPS, is becoming an increasing part of setting
inventory, treatment and monitoring information            management priorities, recording treatments and
with local and state governments is essential to           evaluating progress. In the two other multi-state
have efficient, on-the-ground weed management              projects, a regional database on exotic plant distri-
programs.                                                  butions and an aerial detection survey on insects,
                                                           disease, and other disturbances to forested
State Inventory and Mapping Programs. Sixteen              ecosystems provided useful perspectives on
contiguous western states that are members of              methodologies that have other applications.
the Western Governors’ Association share com-
mon interests in the management of noxious                 Overarching Data Issues. Discussion of data
rangeland weeds. To address the significant eco-           standards, quality assurance and accuracy and
nomic and environmental impacts inflicted by               data sharing provided workshop participants with
these invasive, nonnative species, western states          a range of opportunities from which they might
have designed and are implementing a variety of            select specific “pieces” that could be useful to


                                                       1
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


individual and/or group efforts. Efficiency of col-          • Private landowner involvement, including
lection, processing and sharing of data can be sub-            private users of public lands
stantially enhanced through the use of a common              • Developing mapping capacity
language that can be defined through standards.              • Privacy
The standards developed under the auspices
                                                             A wide range of impediments and concerns as well
of the North American Weed Management
                                                             as opportunities for dealing with those impedi-
Association provide such a common language. The
                                                             ments and concerns were identified for each issue.
use of this common language is being encouraged
                                                             Examples of opportunities for removing impedi-
and accepted by many of those who are collecting
                                                             ments include increased involvement of the pri-
data on invasive weeds. However, how that com-
                                                             vate sector at the local level, additional technical
mon language will be used will vary since the
                                                             assistance with mapping and developing trust by
scope and accuracy of data will depend on intend-
                                                             involving landowners in the collecting and use of
ed use. For instance, land owners and weed man-
                                                             data. Also, there appears to be a need to establish
agers often will need precise information as to
                                                             unambiguous exemptions to the release of data to
location and density, whereas regulators may be
                                                             third parties by federal and state agencies that
more interested in distribution over large areas
                                                             will prevent, directly by name or indirectly by geo-
and changes over time. Use of a common language
                                                             graphical description, identifying individual own-
is particularly important for sharing data in elec-
                                                             ers of property. Also, adopting a scale for report-
tronic databases. The desirability of sharing data
                                                             ing data that will avoid identifying individual own-
is widely recognized, but the development and
                                                             ers can be particularly useful in dealing with priva-
acceptance of protocols for sharing of data, partic-
                                                             cy concerns. The guidance provided prior to the
ularly through extensive integration of databases,
                                                             workshop that “... we always have to strike a bal-
is in its infancy. A range of issues related to priva-
                                                             ance between the resources that we are expending
cy and ownership as well as the availability of
                                                             on data gathering, data management, data access
technology and resources will determine what
                                                             and data use with the need to get stuff done on
data can and should be shared.
                                                             the ground.” ... proved to be highly relevant to
                                                             discussions in the breakout groups as well as
Non-Federal Stakeholders. Six non-federal stake-
                                                             throughout the workshop.
holders, representing agricultural interests and
state fish and game agencies, interacted with par-
                                                             Principles and Leadership. The need to move
ticipants throughout the workshop. The message
                                                             forward in addressing how to apply technology, to
was clear that they agreed broadly about the seri-
                                                             involve all stakeholders and to understand their
ous problems being caused by invasive plants and
                                                             needs and concerns was emphasized in the con-
other invasive organisms and that they supported
                                                             cluding observations. Operating principles and
mapping invasive weeds if it is “done right.”
                                                             leadership for moving forward were highlighted.
However, views expressed indicated that there
                                                             Three operating principles include:
was a critical need to clarify the circumstances
under which the federal government is likely to              • Use processes that already have been identified
take action or encourage others to take action.              • Involve the public
The concerns about actions of governments, par-              • Remember one size does not fit all
ticularly the federal government, varied from
                                                             Key elements that must be provided by leadership
“some” concern to a strong desire for farmers and
                                                             are:
ranchers to receive “rock solid protection.”
Although adequate representation existed to iden-            • Vision
tify concerns of non-federal stakeholders, repre-            • Alignment (moving in the same direction, but
sentation was not adequate to quantitatively                   not necessarily in lock step)
access attitudes.                                            • Motivation

Issues, Impediments and Opportunities. In-                   Outcomes, Needs and Suggestions. A major
depth discussions in four breakout groups tended             outcome from the workshop was the extensive
to coalesce around three issues:                             exchange of information among workers with


                                                         2
                                                                       COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


similar interests. Some were synergised to improve          • Streamline systems so that there are more
what they were doing; some refined their plans                compatible databases so that sharing and
to initiate electronic-based programs; and some               integration of data are more feasible
began to learn about the many possibilities for the         • Utilize at the operational level a minimum
first time.                                                   number of basic elements from uniform
                                                              standards
Many opportunities and needs for improving pro-             • Develop or refine state and federal agency
grams were identified. The two greatest overall               strategic and implementation plans to provide
needs were increased capacity at all levels and               more specific guidance for on-the-ground
increased inputs from non-federal stakeholders.               actions
Carefully designed mapping efforts can contribute           • Increase resources available at all levels
to more effective utilization of resources for pre-
venting and controlling noxious weeds. However,             In addition to encouraging increased inputs from
it also was clear that, with hundreds of millions of        non-federal stakeholders at the local level, there is
acres of land threatened and tens of millions of            a need for an overall quantitative understanding of
acres already infested, the current total capacity is       how users of both private and public lands view
not adequate to deal with the problem. Total                noxious weeds and how they should be managed.
capacity needs to be increased to take full advan-          Specifically, the needs in question could be
tage of mapping and related database efforts.               addressed by the following actions:
Some approaches to building capacity include:               • Conduct a quantitative professional survey of
• Increase emphasis on the development of                     users of public and private lands in the western
  CWMAs to increase the interaction among                     states to assess attitudes and of state agencies
  local, state, tribal and federal agencies                   and state-level interest groups to assess their
• Expand capability to conduct field surveys and              activities and interests
  produce associated computerized maps                      • Analyze results of the surveys to develop
• Increase technical assistance to local programs             guidance for federal, state, tribal and local
  and to on-the-ground federal personnel                      organizations and develop policy options,
• Provide additional cost-sharing for local map-              including possible incentives, for improving the
  ping programs from state and/or federal sources             management of noxious weeds on private and
                                                              public lands




                                               INTRODUCTION
Western rangeland weeds such as yellow starthis-            and private land ownership mosaic common to
tle, leafy spurge, Canada thistle and Russian knap-         the region. The opportunities for increasing coop-
weed are causing tremendous losses to agricultur-           eration and collaboration on information systems
al industries including both crop and livestock             associated with western rangeland weeds are
production. Concurrently, many public lands                 perhaps unique because of these circumstances.
managed by federal agencies are being steadily              Thus, western rangeland weeds were selected by
invaded. As a result, these lands held in the public        the Riley Memorial Foundation for special empha-
trust are experiencing reductions in commodity              sis in exploring ways to enhance collecting, shar-
yields, recreational opportunities, biodiversity and        ing and using information on invasive species.
ecosystem function. Consequently, every state in
                                                            The Western Rangeland Noxious Weeds Workshop
the West has noxious weed management programs
                                                            was organized to bring together state weed coordi-
that endeavor to enhance the financial and techni-
                                                            nators, federal weed management specialists,
cal resources available for weed management and
                                                            weed mapping systems administrators, represen-
to assist in coordination across the diverse public



                                                        3
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


tative local weed management supervisors, select-         always commensurate with the use that we are
ed non-federal stakeholders and others concerned          going to be putting them to.” Paul Gertler, Western
with the management of invasive plants in western         Governors’ Association
rangelands on both private and public lands. The
purpose of the workshop was to provide opportu-           “...we always have to strike a balance between the
nities for participants to:                               resources that we are expending on data gather-
                                                          ing, data management, data access, data use with
• Enhance the understanding of weed manage-               the need to get stuff done on the ground.” Tom
  ment programs at all levels and of the status           Hebert, Capitolink, LLC
  of mapping and databases
• Explore existing mapping systems that enhance           “Simplistic or user-friendly databases on the inter-
  weed management efforts                                 net are not necessarily a virtue. They can lead to
• Develop a more extensive understanding of               misinformation, disinformation or misinterpreta-
  how local, state and federal mapping systems            tions.” N. Marshall Meyers, Pet Industry Joint
  are or will be implemented in the future                Advisory Counsel
• Discuss some of the complexities of mapping
                                                          Persons representing nine federal agencies, 18
  efforts including privacy concerns, data quality
                                                          state agencies and tribes, eight local jurisdictions
  and limitations on data gathering at the local
                                                          and eight different private sector organizations
  level
                                                          and interests participated in the workshop
• Confer among colleagues about the possibilities
                                                          (Appendix A). Over 30 formal presentations were
  of sharing mapping data across jurisdictional
                                                          made; four breakout groups provided the opportu-
  boundaries to develop powerful management
                                                          nity to have in-depth interactions on key issues;
  tools
                                                          and 13 posters, displays and demonstrations
• Review the principles associated with organiza-
                                                          (Appendix B) served as the focal point for an
  tional function and collaboration
                                                          evening reception that provided a venue for exten-
As the 19-member program advisory committee               sive informal discussion. Twenty-three database
began to design the workshop program, the need            and mapping resource persons were identified
for some refinements in terminology became                who are in a position to provide information on
apparent. Although the term “invasive plant” is           databases and mapping and identify additional
accurate, the term “noxious weeds” was preferred          resource persons (Appendix C). Representatives
as being more meaningful, particularly at the local       of organizations from production agriculture par-
level. Also, although distributional databases are        ticipated in the opening and mid-day sessions. A
very close to computerized mapping, from an               panel of three representatives from the private
operational perspective the program committee             sector concluded the workshop, following reports
chose to design the program around mapping and            from the breakout groups. A total of 73 persons
inventories to be inclusive of what is happening
                                                          participated in the workshop (Appendix D).
broadly. The committee also chose to explore how
distributional databases and computerized map-            The range of topics covered by presentations,
ping is being used and can be used to support             panels, posters and in breakout groups included
operational programs. Also, immediately before            (1) the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, (2)
the workshop, participants were provided with             federal programs, (3) state programs, (4) selected
some quotes from the Invasive Species Stakeholders        special projects, (5) standardizing, collecting, pro-
Roundtable held on April 26, 2000, in Washington,         cessing and sharing data, (6) views from non-fed-
DC, (http://www.invasivespecies.gov/other/                eral stakeholders, (7) a review of issues and
stkhldr.pdf) as examples of private stakeholder           opportunities and (8) concluding observations.
inputs specifically related to collecting, sharing        The information exchanged at the workshop is
and using information:                                    summarized in these proceedings and includes a
“We need to make sure that the level of data that         final section on outcomes, needs and suggestions.
we are gathering and putting into databases ... is




                                                      4
                                                                       COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                 A VIEW FROM THE INVASIVE SPECIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                                                Nelroy Jackson
                                     Invasive Species Advisory Committee


The Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)              What is important to ISAC? The concerns of ISAC
consists of 32 members (http://www.invasivespec             can be summarized in the form of a slogan, “Do
ies.gov/ council/advisory.shtml) appointed by the           the doable.” Let’s take the resources that we have
U.S. Secretary of Interior. ISAC includes broad rep-        and focus them on getting things done, and let’s
resentation from industry, scientific disciplines,          focus as well on increasing resources and cooper-
academics, extension personnel, managers, as well           ation. No single entity can do this job alone. It
as technical personnel. Why are invasive species            takes the melding of federal, state, county, non-
important to such a broad range of interests?               government organizations and private efforts.
Invasive species are a threat to biodiversity. They         Communications on invasive species need to be
are particularly important in the western United            substantially increased within the federal govern-
States in terms of fire prevention, water recovery,         ment starting at the highest levels – the Executive
benefits to wildlife and grazing for livestock.             Office of the President and the Secretaries of the
Additionally, invasive species cost a lot of money.         most concerned Departments – and throughout
The economic problems associated with invasive              the more than 20 federal agencies (http://www.
species are increasing due to their spread by trav-         invasivespecies.gov/other/org.shtml) concerned
el, trade, tourism and transport. The world is very         with invasive species. In addition, we need com-
different from what it was 10 or 20 years ago in            munication between land managers and those aca-
terms of the volume of people who are moving by             demics that are composing the databases. Thus,
car or airplane and the amount of trade among               the important thing is communication in order to
states and countries.                                       “Do the doable.”




                          OVERVIEWS OF SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The nine federal agencies represented at the work-                   Bureau of Land Management
shop were Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Forest Service (FS), National Park Service              Tim Reuwsaat, Gina Ramos, and Kathie Jewell,
                                                                     Bureau of Land Management
(NPS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), Fish and Wildlife Service,          Damages to property and the cost to treat inva-
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,                 sive species rise every year. Weed inventory and
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S.            mapping data are important so that we can imme-
Air Force. All of these agencies have specific inter-       diately identify and attack invasive weed problems
ests and responsibilities related to invasive plants.       in order to lower costs. As part of BLM’s Partners
However, three of them perhaps have the greatest            Against Weed Strategy Plan (http://www.blm.gov/
responsibility for managing invasive plants on              education/weed/paws/) BLM’s overall objective is
public lands. Tens of millions of acres infested            to control and manage the presence of weed infes-
with noxious weeds are involved among the 264               tations on public lands and prevent any future
million, 192 million and 83 million acres under the         infestations. In FY-2000, BLM spent $7.2 million to
purview of BLM, FS and NPS, respectively.                   inventory, monitor and treat noxious and invasive
Therefore, representatives from these agencies              weeds on BLM-managed lands. By the end of FY-
were asked to provide overviews of their agencies’          2000, BLM had inventoried nearly 7 million acres
programs with special reference to mapping,                 of public lands for weed occurrences. By 2001,
inventories, and databases.                                 BLM expects to complete an inventory for weed



                                                        5
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


occurrences on another 7 million acres. Lands                Washington offices. The database system also will
inventoried to date for weeds represent only 12              include web-based entries for BLM cooperators
percent of the 264 million acres of public land that         and be accessible for their needs. BLM’s goal is to
BLM manages. We should be inventorying three                 be able to exchange weed inventory, treatment
times as much as we are annually.                            and monitoring information with the public, coun-
                                                             ty, state and federal agencies. Additional informa-
Approach. Tools such as mapping and inventory                tion on the BLM program is available at
are only part of the integrated approach to man-             http://www.blm.gov/weeds/.
age invasive and noxious weeds. A successful
strategy to accomplish our overall objective must                    The Forest Service Perspective
include an effective inventory and mapping sys-
                                                                      James Olivarez and Rita Beard,
tem populated with reliable data. A dependable
                                                                              Forest Service
inventory is essential to set priorities for weed
treatments and to make the most efficient use of             FS has been involved in the fight associated with
resources. Therefore, we must continually discuss            noxious weeds for over 20 years. However, an
data issues, common data standards and data col-             overall updated agency approach to dealing with
lections as we carry out the comprehensive inven-            noxious and nonnative invasive plants was devel-
tory and mapping for invasive species. As a coop-            oped and published in 1998 in “Stemming the
erator with county, state and other federal agen-            Invasive Tide” (http://www. fs.fed.us/r6/weeds/fs_
cies, BLM is committed to detect, report, control            strat_doc.pdf). In this particular discussion, we
and manage invasive species in a boundary-less               will deal primarily with noxious weeds efforts in
environment. From a national perspective, one                the National Forest System (NFS). Six of the eight
step is to work with FS and other agencies in the            NFS regions oversee lands in the western states
Department of Interior to use the same inventory             and each region has a noxious weed coordinator –
standards and protocols. BLM is already employ-              with two or three of these regions most active in
ing the standards developed by the North                     noxious weed management. Our best estimate is
American Weed Management Association                         that there are about 4 million acres of rangeland
(NAWMA). BLM is seeking agreement on using the               infested with noxious weeds in the NFS. About
same definitions and standards for reporting the             $5 million are allocated annually by NFS for its
variety of weed treatments that occur by each                noxious weed program. With limited resources,
agency. BLM’s long term goal is to share and                 allocation of resources between inventories and
exchange information between the federal agen-               mapping and weed control is a real challenge.
cies. We also are looking for ways to house that             However, inventory and mapping are essential,
information so that it is available to private, local,       since the resulting information is one of a three-
state and federal entities. By doing this, we are            component budget allocation formula that the
assured that there is a common format for evalua-            agency operates under. Thus, inventory and map-
tion, assessment and interpretation for all of the           ping not only play an important role in how funds
weed inventory and monitoring information that               are allocated within the agency, but also provide
is being reported among federal, state and local             information that we want to share with Congress
agencies.                                                    and our partners.

Inventory, Treatment and Monitoring                          Approach and Status. A key emphasis in the NFS
Information. Currently, inventory activities are             strategy in dealing with noxious weeks is partner-
underway by BLM in each state. Primary comput-               ships. That emphasis was launched in the early
erized database and mapping efforts in coopera-              1990’s with the NFS as a charter member in the
tion with state and local efforts are ongoing in the         greater Yellowstone effort. The memoranda of
states of Idaho, Montana and Oregon. By the end              understanding that we initiated and instigated
of 2002, BLM will deploy a bureau-wide database              have become models for other efforts and have
system that will link BLM field, state and                   led to subsequent guidelines for use with our




                                                         6
                                                                      COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


other partners like the BLM as well as state agen-                      National Park Service
cies. The Yellowstone effort also has provided the
basis for some of the mapping that is being done                              Ron Hiebert,
                                                                          National Park Service
now in other areas and in other versions of map-
ping and standards that are being pursued.                 NPS is very concerned about invasive species.
                                                           Weeds are considered one of the top threats to the
Computerized inventories and mapping with
                                                           natural resources that NPS is charged to protect.
extensive integration of databases and the inclu-
                                                           This includes weeds in rangelands. Although graz-
sion of treatment information is our goal. Further,
                                                           ing is not permitted in most parks, grazing is
FS needs a corporate database as well as opera-
                                                           authorized by enabling legislation in about 100
tional databases at the local level that can readily
                                                           units. Service-wide efforts to map, inventory and
be shared with partners. The FS corporate data-
                                                           manage invasive plants in parks thus include west-
base is intended to provide a total natural
                                                           ern rangelands.
resource information system known as TERRA,
which is just getting past the development stage.
                                                           General Approach. Noxious weed management in
This database has a vegetation and soils module
                                                           western rangelands is a priority for NPS. Although
within which we would like to incorporate our
                                                           NPS does not have a service-wide programmatic
weed inventory and mapping data. Efforts are
                                                           weed inventory and mapping program, individual
underway to draw heavily on the NAWMA stan-
                                                           parks are developing programs for weed invento-
dards and to integrate them into the vegetation
                                                           ry, mapping and management. There are many
and soil module of TERRA and to implement the
                                                           examples of excellent park-based programs includ-
use of these same standards in collecting data that
                                                           ing those in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
might be managed at the forest or regional level or
                                                           and Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
by partners. As FS mapping and inventory efforts
on noxious weeds are improved and expanded, we             All park managers are interested in new tools and
fully intend for the standards and databases to be         procedures to help them manage weeds. They rec-
useful to the states and the private sector as well        ognize the importance of cooperating with their
as the federal agencies, but the information and           neighbors. They recognize the value of quality
data must also be compatible with internal FS              inventory and mapping data and do support shar-
reporting needs.                                           ing information and working with other agencies,
                                                           states, counties, and private landholders. What
Currently, a variety of weed inventory systems
                                                           they want and expect from regional and national
exist in FS, including a lot of variable spread-
                                                           offices is for them to listen to their needs and to
sheets. However, perhaps 40 percent of the forest
                                                           be advocates for obtaining the needed technology
managers have Geographical Information System
                                                           and funds. NPS relies on the Biological Resources
(GIS) available and national inventory and moni-
                                                           Division (BRD) of the USGS and universities,
toring protocols have been developed and are
                                                           through the newly created Cooperative Ecosystem
being implemented.
                                                           Studies Units, for needed research, and protocol
                                                           and tool development to help us do the job of
Future Considerations. As we look to the future,
                                                           weed management more effectively and efficiently.
we will place increased emphasis on implementing
uniform standards, automation in collecting and
                                                           Activities and Plans. NPS has developed a strate-
processing data, efficient sharing of data at the
                                                           gic plan for invasive species management. That
local and state levels and contributions to the FS
                                                           plan, among other things, calls for the inventory
corporate database. Also, the pesticide database
                                                           and monitoring of nonnative plants. Specific goals
maintained by FS will be upgraded and considera-
                                                           and activities include:
tion will be given to adding release and distribu-
tion of biocontrol agents to one of the FS databas-        • Working with the service-wide inventory and
es. Additional information on the FS program may             monitoring program to initiate inventories to
be found by searching http://www.fs.fed.us/.                 gather information needed to make invasive




                                                       7
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


  plant management decisions. This is in progress           This is being done in many areas. Parks are
  as a major part of the Natural Resource                   active in weed management areas in regional
  Challenge in NPS. A $7.3 million increase to the          weed councils.
  NPS budget was approved by Congress in FY-              • Establishment of a national invasive species
  2000 to conduct biological inventories in parks.          coordinator. The coordinator has been
  A program is underway to compile inventories              employed.
  of all vertebrates and vascular plants in all NPS       • Establishment of four invasive species control
  sites with significant natural resources by 2004.         teams with plans for more teams. One of these
  A national database (NPSpecies) has been                  teams will be operating out of Carlsbad
  developed. Data fields will indicate if a species         Caverns National Park and will serve multiple
  is native or nonnative, when it was observed              parks in the Southwest.
  and exact location, if known. So, as part of this       • Development of a decision support system to
  effort, we should, at a minimum, have an inven-           help managers decide which weeds should be
  tory of the presence of nonnative plants that             given priority for management. The system is
  can be mapped within all parks. The data will             called the Alien Plant Ranking System (APRS)
  be available to the public on a web site. In              and includes databases on invasive species
  addition, if a park manager asks for distribution         characteristics, control and fact sheets. The
  and abundance surveys of specific weed                    system is automated and web based (http://
  species, and funds are available to support the           www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/aprs/aprs.
  work, this more detailed information will be              htm). The system is now being combined with
  gathered.                                                 the Southwest Exotic Mapping Program
• Developing standards for nonnative plant                  (SWEMP) to form the Southwest Exotic Plant
  inventories that would be used by all federal             Information Clearinghouse. The web site will be
  land management agencies. NPS has funded                  based at Northern Arizona University.
  projects and worked with BRD to develop
  inventory and mapping protocols. ARS is a key           Future Considerations. Biological Inventory with-
  cooperator in the leafy spurge control efforts in       in the National Resources Challenge will provide
  the Dakotas. Also, NPS is an active participant         data on the presence and absence of weeds in all
  in the development of mapping and data                  national parks. Multiple parks have active cooper-
  standards by NAWMA.                                     ative weed management programs and these are
• Supporting development of remote sensing and            expected to increase in number. Also, with the
  GIS technologies. An excellent example of the           establishment of a service-wide invasive species
  application of new technologies is the coopera-         coordinator and the expected additional invasive
  tion of ARS, National Aeronautics and Space             species control teams, weed inventory, mapping
  Administration and NPS in the mapping of leafy          and management efforts are expected to increase
  spurge in North Dakota.                                 significantly. Additional information on the NPS
• Creating partnerships with adjacent landholders         program is available at http://www.nps.gov/
  and with county weed districts to share resources       redw/exo-link.htm.
  in the preparation of landscape inventory maps.




              AN OVERVIEW OF STATE INVENTORY AND MAPPING PROGRAMS
                               Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture
                               Glen Secrist, Idaho Department of Agriculture

Sixteen contiguous western states that are mem-           nomic and environmental impacts inflicted by
bers of the Western Governors’ Association share          these invasive, nonnative species, western states
common interests in the management of noxious             have designed and are implementing a variety of
rangeland weeds. To address the significant eco-          state-level programs. Necessarily, these programs


                                                      8
                                                                         COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


may differ considerably to suit the specific circum-          current distribution of targeted species and the
stances and needs of each state. Factors such as              community’s objectives relative to those species.
the percentage of federal public lands, available
financial resources, local industries and stakehold-          As a means of providing technical support to local
ers help to shape each state’s program and the                communities and coordinating management
services it provides to citizens and local govern-            efforts efficiently and effectively across jurisdic-
ment as well as public land management agencies.              tional and property boundaries, the value of such
Regardless of specific differences in structure and           inventory and mapping programs has not been
function, each western state has a noxious weed               lost on western states. Consequently, there is wide
management program charged with administering                 interest among the states in the practical applica-
a state noxious weed law that may restrict the sale           tion of inventory, survey and mapping approaches
and distribution of specified species and typically           that benefit noxious weed management efforts.
provides for mandatory treatment of identified                However, as a few pioneering western states have
noxious weed species. In addition, they are                   learned, there are a number of considerations that
developing multi-stakeholder working groups to                may affect not only the effective development and
address noxious weed issues and are drafting                  implementation of such programs but also the
strategic plans that provide a framework for future           effective management of weeds on both public
action. These programs, usually located in the                and private lands.
state departments of agriculture, endeavor to
enhance the financial and technical resources                                  Data Standards
available for local, regional and statewide weed              In order to share information across jurisdictional
management efforts and provide coordination                   and property boundaries, individuals and organi-
across the diverse public/private ownership mosa-             zations that wish to map noxious weeds must
ic that characterizes the states of this region.              agree upon common data standards so that like
                                                              information can be collected and exchanged effi-
       Role of Inventories and Mapping                        ciently. The array of data that can be acquired
Increasingly, states are developing and implement-            when mapping noxious weeds is staggering as well
ing programs to inventory and map noxious weeds               as the methods by which individuals collect and
as part of their efforts to enhance the technical             record such information. Of particular concern in
resources available to local communities. More                recent years has been the methods by which the
importantly, such programs may also provide a                 large federal land management agencies, especial-
critical decision-support system that facilitates             ly the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
the development and management of cooperative                 Management, intend to collect inventory and map-
noxious weed management efforts across the land-              ping data. Historically, federal agencies have tend-
scape of public and private lands. As a source of             ed to pursue very individualized courses of action
objective information regarding the location and              and develop databases that fit agency-specific
severity of targeted noxious weed species, such               needs but not the needs of the broader communi-
mapping programs can provide local governments                ty of federal natural resource managers or the
and other partners (state and federal land man-               states in which data are collected. Similarly, coun-
agement agencies, local non-governmental organi-              ty weed supervisors have also tended to collect
zations, private citizens) with a means to under-             such information in a vast array of different ways,
stand the distribution of targeted species across a           resulting in data that are very different and hence
local landscape. Developing a shared understand-              difficult at best to share and collectively under-
ing of this distribution is often a pivotal factor that       stand. States have quickly realized the need for
allows a community to collectively design and                 data standards that will allow diverse partners to
implement an effective management plan for its                share compatible inventory and mapping data.
lands, one that incorporates appropriate levels of            The development of the North American Weed
management (eradication, containment, suppres-                Management Association's core data standards
sion) for every landowner depending upon the                  may provide a solution to this thorny problem.




                                                          9
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


                       Scale                                 property’s condition. Given the acrimony that
                                                             other natural resource issues, such as threatened
As most individuals with mapping and weed man-               and endangered species, have caused among pri-
agement experience understand, mapping is a tool             vate landowners and the government, mapping
to be used in service of achieving one’s manage-             provides an opportunity to either aggravate such
ment objectives. If one’s mapping efforts are not            concerns or to help resolve them through a more
thus aligned, either too little data will be gathered        productive relationship.
to provide the information sought or too much
data will be gathered. Both result in a loss of time            Status of State Inventory and Mapping
spent gathering data of little use. However, the                               Programs
data needed to help make management decisions
typically varies according to scale. Consequently,           Presently, three states (California, Idaho and
the data needed by the state to facilitate manage-           Montana) have developed and are actively imple-
ment at a regional or state level differs from that          menting statewide noxious weed inventory/map-
required by a landowner or manager to implement              ping systems. In addition, Colorado is just begin-
management actions at a property-specific level.             ning its program and several other western states
States have struggled with the need to balance               are actively investigating opportunities to develop
local needs with state or regional needs. Careful            programs similar to those already in existence.
consideration of the use to which data will be put           Like the state weed management program of
is required in each state if states are to provide           which they are a part, existing state inventory/
useful guidance to local weed managers but also              mapping efforts share a number of similarities but
assist in the coordination of watershed or                   also exhibit unique characteristics that address
statewide efforts.                                           the conditions and needs of the individual states.
                                                             As these programs demonstrate their capacity to
      Non-Federal Stakeholder Concerns                       address the management needs of local communi-
                                                             ties and to develop more coordinated, statewide
Ongoing and developing weed inventory/mapping                control efforts, it is likely that other western
efforts have revealed a variety of concerns related          states will incorporate their own mapping pro-
to the collection, management and presentation               grams as an integral component of a statewide
of data that involve private lands. To varying               weed management program. Ultimately, such
degrees, private landowners in these states have             efforts may help to catalyze a truly regional
voiced concerns about sharing data about their               approach to weed control throughout the West.




                    SELECTED STATE INVENTORY AND MAPPING PROGRAMS
Almost any jurisdiction involved with noxious                may provide useful models for others and should
weeds uses maps of one kind or another, and most             provide some insight of how information from
local jurisdictions that have weed management                these programs may be shared with other
programs are preparing maps manually, with a lim-            jurisdictions.
ited number of local jurisdictions beginning com-
puterized mapping efforts. The need for invento-                             State of Montana
ries and mapping systems to support weed man-
agement efforts is becoming increasingly evident                             Barbra Mullin,
                                                                 Weed Coordinator, Montana Department of
with the every-increasing magnitude of the weed
                                                                               Agriculture
problem on rangeland. At least three western
states are active in developing statewide mapping            The Montana mapping program began in the mid-
programs and others are initiating such efforts. A           1980’s, when land managers, weed districts and
review of three of the more advanced efforts that            landowners recognized the need for mapping stan-
are underway in Montana, Idaho and California                dards that would allow easy comparison of data


                                                        10
                                                                      COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


compiled from different entities. Standards were           Scope and Approach. Montana has 56 counties
developed that included the type and scale of              and 92 million acres of land. A little less than one-
base maps, how to designate infested areas on              third of Montana is federal land, with about 9 per-
maps, symbols for percent cover and codes for              cent in state land, and the rest is private lands.
weed species. These standards were not widely              The Montana mapping system was designed to
adopted and used until they were incorporated              allow this variety of land managers to use map-
into the “Guidelines to Development of Weed                ping methods that fit their situation, but could
Management Areas in the Greater Yellowstone.”              also be adapted for use within the statewide data-
                                                           base. These methods include hand mapping, GPS
Purpose. The purpose of the Montana Noxious                mapping and computer mapping. Many counties
Weed Survey and Mapping System is to help                  are still using hand maps because, while they have
Montana resource managers map and manage                   GPS units, they don’t necessarily have the time or
weeds by successfully implementing a standard-             the staff to collect GIS data. Most counties with
ized statewide mapping system. The objectives              mapping programs use 1:24,000 U.S. Geological
are to develop and maintain a statewide spatial            Survey (USGS) base maps with mylar overlays.
database for weed management, to calculate the             This makes it fairly easy to track the weeds over
total number of acres infested, to determine how           time at the county or weed management area
fast noxious weeds are spreading, to evaluate the          level. These county maps are generally fairly
usefulness of new technology, both Global                  accurate. Adding this information to the statewide
Positioning System (GPS) and Geographical                  system requires the time and effort to digitize,
Information System (GIS) for weed mapping and              scan or on-screen draw the information.
to provide training and technical support.
                                                           Technical Support and Inputs. The Montana
Standards and Accurate Mapping. Montana                    program has allowed for the provision of technical
mapping standards were formalized and adopted              support to the counties, including equipment soft-
in the mid-1990’s through a Cooperative Extension          ware purchases at a reduced rate through the uni-
publication and weed mapping workshops and                 versity system, training in standardized mapping
training. At that time there was wide variation            procedures, training on equipment use and soft-
found in maps and acreage figures submitted to             ware operation and import of county-generated
the Montana Department of Agriculture. Accurate            data into the state system. To date, 22 of 56 weed
mapping and a reliable estimate of infested acres          districts, Montana Department of Agriculture,
in the state are critical when justifying expendi-         Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
ture of state and county tax dollars on weed man-          (MDFWP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
agement programs. Early funding for the Montana            U.S. Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Indian Affairs
Noxious Weed Trust Fund grant program was sup-             and several other groups have staff who have
ported by the use of maps showing spotted knap-            participated in training workshops. At this time
weed moving into eastern Montana along road-               we have received limited data into the statewide
ways and leafy spurge spreading across the state           system from 15 Montana weed districts, MDFWP
along waterways.                                           and BLM. One limitation in developing this system
                                                           is time constraints most land managers and coun-
A standardized mapping system also can be used             ty weed personnel have in developing and provid-
to show change over time. It is useful to see weed         ing the information to the state level. The informa-
distribution and trends over time and across the           tion required and system development for the
state and to determine if weed management pro-             Montana mapping standards is good, but at this
grams impact those trends. This information helps
                                                           time information provided to the state is very
to understand the biology of the invasion process          limited and doesn’t cover the whole state. It is
and determine how weeds actually spread. It also           expected that over time additional information
aids in the prediction of areas that may be subject        will be included in the system and will provide
to weed invasion, to assess the economic impact            accurate maps of weed infestations in Montana.
of weed invasions and to increase public aware-
ness of weed impacts.


                                                      11
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


Section-Based Maps. There is an immediate need                               State of Idaho
for statewide maps that give an overview of weeds
in Montana but specific input into the state sys-                           Danielle Bruno,
                                                                 Idaho State Department of Agriculture
tem is slow, so a section-based weed mapping pro-
gram has been designed to serve the immediate              Under the State of Idaho noxious weed law, the
need. In 1998, county weed districts were asked to         Director of Agriculture is responsible for coordi-
provide infestation information on five Category 1         nating efforts, collecting and disseminating infor-
noxious weeds to the section level within their            mation and establishing requirements for the
counties. Infestation information was requested on         county weeds superintendents. The counties are
leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Russian knap-              responsible for maintaining a coordinated pro-
weed, sulfur cinquefoil and Dalmatian toadflax.            gram, notifying land owners of uncontrolled nox-
Every county weed district was sent a map of               ious weeds on their property and controlling nox-
their county and requested to indicate if each             ious weeds as necessary. Therefore, counties are a
weed was present, absent or unknown in each sec-           major source of on-the-ground weed information.
tion. All of the maps were then sent back to the
state. While these maps do not give accurate               Goal and Approach. The goal of the Idaho State
acreage estimates, they do provide good trend              Department of Agriculture (ISDA) mapping pro-
information on where weeds are located, where              gram is to promote the use of mapping technolo-
they are moving in the state and what may be               gies at the local level. This is done by providing
happening on the landscape level. The section-             funding for cost-share programs for development
based map information was combined with esti-              and use of GPS and GIS technologies at the county
mated acreage figures provided by counties to              level. This simple statement encompasses a big
provide some limited information on infestation            program. What you have to do is kind of nudge
sizes. Section-based maps are currently being              them along a little bit at a time. There is a lot of
developed for all newly invading species in the            interest in this technology. Several local agencies
state (Category 2 and Category 3 weeds).                   have bought the $200 GPS units and are using
                                                           them. Many people are using computers personal-
Status and Future Considerations. At this time,            ly as well as professionally. Therefore, the fear of
the Montana Department of Agriculture is main-             technology that was there five years ago is not
taining the section-based maps and BLM is                  quite as strong, but you’re still dealing with that
maintaining the statewide standardized mapping             superintendent that has been there for 20 years. I
program. Currently all data input to the statewide         often say “Hey, come on; push a button. You can
system from counties, state agencies and local             do it.” There is resistance to change.
landowners is supported by a grant from the                In addition to initial training, there has been a
Montana Noxious Weed Trust Fund grants pro-                heavy need for providing support. Support can
gram. Limited resources at the local level will            be nothing more than a phone call. It really has
always limit the development of a mapping                  helped a great deal. Returning all phone calls and
program. At best, maps will be developed for               e-mails in as timely a manner as possible is impor-
Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs)                  tant. Timely communication has been one of the
and areas of critical concern. It is important to          most important steps to moving the programs for-
balance information required from the local level          ward technologically. Technical support has really
with what is needed at the state level. In Montana,        gone a long way in keeping programs on track and
if, over time, the section-based mapping program           keeping momentum.
can be combined with the more specific statewide
information, reliable information will be available        Standards. Another very important part of the
for use at the state level. Additional information         Idaho program has been the establishment of
on the Montana program is available at                     state-wide standards for mapping and monitoring
http://www.montana.edu/places/mtweeds/.                    that are to be used by all cooperating agencies
                                                           and partners. And yes we “steal” with pride. The



                                                      12
                                                                         COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


Montana standards and the North American Weed                 Eight counties used mapping and resource grade
Management Association (NAWMA) standards                      GPS units last year. Those are $3,000 to $5,000 GPS
have been very useful. Every program will do a                units. So many local agencies are trying to be
little modification for its own use, but basic stan-          more sophisticated than the cheap outdoors units.
dards have been very integral. The Idaho baseline             Several more counties have requested funds for
set of standards are pretty simple. Five things are           the more versatile GPS units next year. Five coun-
asked: (1) What is it? (2) Where is it? (3) How big           ties are actively using GIS for mapping on a county
is it? (4) Approximately how dense is it? and (5)             level. That is in addition to what is being done by
When did you look at it? Standardized recording               their federal agency partners.
has actually been the more difficult part. The
                                                              In 1999, Shelly High School incorporated weed
same standards are used regardless of what level
                                                              mapping into its solutions curriculum and is
of technology a group is using, all the way from a
                                                              involved in several county mapping programs. In
paper map and a field notebook to using a GIS.
                                                              fact, the school is the primary data source for
Continuity really helps with data transfer and no
                                                              Bingham County. There are five more schools
one feels left out. But, standardization does take a
                                                              involved in that program now. Also, the Students
lot of effort. Sometimes, people will stray a little
                                                              Investigating Today’s Environment (SITE) program
bit and you have to stay on top of it. Ensuring that
                                                              developed a range plants native and noxious unit
developed standards are compatible with national
                                                              for teachers to incorporate in the classroom. SITE
standards and used by all cooperators is very
                                                              has been really great at getting the word out to
important. Because Idaho is heavily federally
                                                              Idaho’s teachers about mapping.
owned, there must be federal buy in. If the federal
agencies have a national standard, they must
                                                              Challenges. There are still some difficulties to
adhere to it. So, it is important that Idaho stan-
                                                              overcome with the mapping program. Balancing
dards fit federal standards to the extent feasible.
                                                              local requirements with state and national needs
There is flexibility even in the most rigid of things,
                                                              is an important issue. Proving the importance of
but you have to work hard to get there.
                                                              mapping, that it is not taking time away from
                                                              killing weeds, is another important issue. The cost
Scope and Status. In the state of Idaho, land uses
                                                              of using GPS and GIS can be prohibitive. Being
are approximately 41 percent rangeland, 38 per-
                                                              able to hire that extra technical person makes all
cent forest and 14 percent agriculture, so natural
                                                              the difference. Keeping all partners adhering to
resource commodities are very important. There
                                                              the standards is a challenge. As mentioned before,
are 44 counties and approximately 1.2 million
people in the state according to the 1997 census.             standardization involves taking time just going
Idaho has 35 plants listed as noxious by the state.           around and making sure everybody is still doing
Idaho doesn’t have different categories of noxious            the same thing. Even after a great first year,
weeds; all state-listed weeds are to be controlled.           momentum can be killed by a small problem in the
                                                              second year. Issues of data storage and use of
As of August 2000, there were 24 recognized                   information from private lands has become formi-
CWMAs in Idaho with at least four more being                  dable, especially when you talk about web pub-
formed. Nearly 70 percent of the state is covered             lishing. How do we protect the rights of peoples’
with CWMAs. The CWMAs are required to have                    information we are keeping? Field reviews and
annual operating plans, and they are all creating             audits of the grants is another challenge. We have
base maps. The best advantage Idaho has had                   suddenly become financial officers as well as weed
with the CWMAs is that they combine the best of               scientists. Appeasing those requiring immediate
the technological management of the federal agen-             gratification can be difficult. Building local capaci-
cies with the best of the on-the-ground expertise             ty takes time, and that has been a hard sell. Lastly,
of the local guys. The local guys may not own a               we must continue to cast aside and break barriers
computer, but their federal agency partners do.               that limit or impede full statewide cooperation
So, partnerships can be used to get local efforts             and coordination of weed management activities.
on GIS. Partnerships with tax assessors who use               Just saying, “Well, I’ll do my part, you do your part
GIS has also been beneficial.                                 and we’ll call it cooperation” is not cooperation.


                                                         13
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


Building an integrated program and ignoring the              • Retirements are looming at CDFA and most
jurisdictional boundaries, like the weeds do, is dif-          seed banks outlast even the young biologists
ficult but it can be done.                                   • Successes more impressive at the population
                                                               level
Future Considerations. ISDA will continue to sup-            • Exact information needed to charge landowners
port the use of mapping technologies on the local              appropriately
level. It will continue to emphasize and support             • Distribution information is necessary for
the need for storing all weed inventory and moni-              planning and fund raising
toring information in GIS. ISDA will continue to             • There is a need to analyze what factors are
develop inventory and mapping standards and                    correlated with eradication success
promote the use of these standards by all parities
                                                             Information in Database. Each weed record in
involved in weed management. ISDA will also con-
                                                             the database contains the following “core” infor-
tinue to promote cooperation and coordination
                                                             mation about each infestation:
between all parties involved in noxious weed man-
agement. Additional information on the Idaho pro-            •   Genus and species
gram is available at http://www.agri.state.id.us/            •   Latitude and longitude (centroid or perimeter)
animal/weedintro.htm.                                        •   Gross acreage of coverage
                                                             •   Net acreage of coverage
               State of California                           •   Ownership
                                                             •   Date
          Steve Shoenig and Pat Akers,
    California State Department of Agriculture               •   Collector
                                                             •   Voucher information
The California Department of Agriculture (CDFA)              •   Derived info added later including eradication
has a fully operational GIS and GPS system for                   status
noxious weeds supported by an infrastructure of
13 field-based biologists and three technical state-         Additional extensive data are entered into the
wide support staff. Computerized databases con-              database for each management activity. A manage-
vertible to maps exists for 2,000 populations of the         ment record is entered for every visit to a weed
40 most important noxious weeds (“A”-rated) in               infestation for any reason.
the state. For 1,200 populations, information is             For the weeds not covered by CDFA’s “A”-rated
available to sharply focus eradication efforts and           database, little information is currently in elec-
to prioritize other management actions. Location             tronic form. A major initiative is underway to
data are GPSed, hand digitized or converted from             establish local weed GIS databases associated
external records and added to an ArcInfo cover-              with the 42 Cooperative Weed Management Areas
age. Other data are entered into an Access data-             (CWMAs) in the state (http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/wma/).
base from field forms. Data is primarily collected           The draft Idaho noxious weed strategic plan was
by CDFA or county employees. Work is under way               used as the basis, about three years ago, to write
to allow web-digitizing and reporting using Arc              a California strategic plan that served as a guiding
IMS Internet mapping software.                               framework for a $5 million legislative appropria-
                                                             tion that now provides cost sharing to local
Needs Addressed. The CDFA “A”-rated weed data-               CWMAs. A coordinated implementation of ArcView
base was created to address the following needs              GIS by the CWMAs will hopefully fill in the major
of the Weed and Vertebrate Program:                          gaps in knowledge of weed distributions for anoth-
• Managers need rapid access to data to run                  er tier of exotic invaders.
  programs more efficiently and strategically
  from headquarters                                          Major Obstacle. The major obstacle to creating
• Biologists need to become more like managers               local or shared databases of invasive noxious
  and bring in collaborators                                 weeds is the lack of funding for trained personnel
                                                             to conduct surveys and enter the data into data-




                                                        14
                                                                       COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


bases. The technology for displaying and deliver-           of state lands for invasive weeds. Additional infor-
ing the information requires a small fraction of the        mation on the California program is available at
resources compared to the systematic inventory              http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/wma/.



                                       SELECTED LOCAL PROJECTS
Moderator:                                                  are sent to property owners each year to encour-
  Roy Reichenbach, Wyoming Department of                    age them to control noxious weeds on their prop-
   Agriculture                                              erty. These letters stimulate many requests for
                                                            information and assistance. For the total effort to
Contributors:
                                                            be effective, rapid response is critical to requests
  Rod Cook, La Plata County, CO
                                                            such as “So I have this weed, what do I do?”, “Tell
  Nyleen Troxel-Stowe, Socorro Soil and Water
                                                            me about your program,” and “Can you come out
    Conservation District, NM
                                                            and show me the weed, since I don’t know what it
  Bill Bellah, Dawes County, NE
                                                            looks like?” A web site (http://co.laplata.co.us/wee
Perspectives of the role of inventories and map-            ds/) has been established which aids in respond-
ping in the management of noxious weeds have                ing to requests, but having essentially the same
been provided by representatives from three fed-            information available on paper and personal con-
eral agencies and five state-level weeds special-           tact are still essential for effective communication.
ists. In order to provide perspectives from all lev-        Thus, use of mapping with the aid of GPS and Arc-
els, three individuals were asked to share their            Info, letters to individual property owners, multi-
experiences with collecting data and producing              ple approaches to providing information and a
maps at the local level.                                    modest amount of funds for materials available for
                                                            land owner assistance has resulted in substantial
La Plata County, CO. The noxious weed manage-               increases in action by property owners to manage
ment program in La Plata County was initiated in            noxious weeds. For instance, one local coopera-
l992, one year following the passage of the                 tive has reported a four-fold increase in sales of
Colorado noxious weed law in 1991. About one-               weed control materials over the last four years.
half of the slightly over one million acres in the
county is private land and about one-half is public         Socorro Soil and Water Conservation District,
land. The county program is concerned primarily             NM. Although the Socorro Soil and Water
with the 30,000 parcels of private lands. Each year,        Conservation District has been in existence for
the entire county road system, involving about 600          some time, its focus on noxious weed management
miles of road, is mapped. Being familiar with the           is relatively recent. Inventory and mapping efforts
biology of the plants to be mapped and the condi-           were increased substantially with employment of a
tions under which they are most visible is critical.        part-time person primarily for that purpose in
For instance, yellow toadflax does not bloom in a           1999. The District encompasses primarily the cen-
drought and Russian knapweed and yellow toad                tral irrigated valley of Socorro County and con-
flax are quite visible as the snow melts in the             tains an extensive ditch and river system. The
spring, but much less visible as the grass begins           District is managed by a very active board of
to “green up.” These same weeds become more                 seven local residents.
visible again in the fall when the grasses become
golden.                                                     The mapping effort in the Socorro District has
                                                            evolved from the point that some unbudgeted
Geographical Information System (GIS) and Arc-              funds became available, with the realization that
View have been in use for five years and are criti-         more needed to be known about where the weeds
cal to the mapping of over 4,000 weed infestations          were, but without a specific strategy of how to
a year. They also are critical for preparation of           proceed other than to hire a temporary range
individual maps to go with over 3,000 letters that          technician/noxious weed person. As an excellent


                                                       15
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


person who loves to map weeds began working,                 Dawes County, NE. Modest funding has been allo-
considerable excitement was generated and uses               cated to weed management by the commissioners
for the data began to become apparent. A key ele-            in Dawes County for a number of years. However,
ment in development of the mapping effort was                the emphasis during most of these years has been
the involvement of a lot of different people. Early          on application of herbicides. Mapping weeds in
on, the Natural Resources Conservation Service               Dawes County is very much in its infancy, begin-
was very helpful by providing a truck for use by             ning primarily in 1999 with the employment of a
the range technician.                                        weed superintendent who had a particular interest
                                                             in mapping. Since county funds were very limited,
Initial efforts included use of GPS and ArcView.             funds were obtained through grants to purchase
The ArcInput database was based primarily on                 GPS equipment and ArcView software. Because of
the Southwest Exotic Mapping Program web site.               the very limited budget which supports one full-
Data that could be downloaded from our GPS                   time employee at a minimum level, striking a bal-
equipment were augmented with paper records.                 ance between spraying weeds and mapping has
Collecting noxious plant data in the Socorro                 been a real challenge.
District is not without its challenges. Since most of
the noxious plants are along ditches and streams,            The Nebraska weed law provides a lot of authority
access can be very difficult and working condi-              for local jurisdictions to take action, such as going
tions very unpleasant: mosquitoes, snakes,                   on land to survey without permission from the
swamps, hot weather. Some weeds such as                      land owner and to actually control weeds on pri-
Russian knapweed and perennial pepperweed                    vate property if the land owner does not after
often grow beneath salt cedar, so a lot of extra             receiving notice, and seizing land if payment is not
effort is needed to “dig through” salt cedar to find         made. However, resources are not available, at
these other noxious weeds. Also, in the Socorroc             least in Dawes County, to implement the provi-
District satellite coverage is not always adequate,          sions of the law. Therefore, noxious weed control
particularly between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.                 is, for all practical purposes, a volunteer program.
However, a deep desire to reduce damage caused
by weeds prevailed and preliminary map of key                One approach to collecting data that can be used
noxious weeds in the District was completed in               in mapping in a situation where resources are very
the fall of 2000.                                            limited is to loan GPS units to land owners and
                                                             encourage them to collect data. There has been
Practical uses for the maps are becoming evident.            considerable interest in Dawes County among land
In one instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service          owners in these units. Initially, attempts were
(FWS) had the opportunity to obtain some funds               made to ask land owners to collect too much data,
for control of salt cedar. A polygon map showing             but if they are asked to provide only two or three
both old and new stands of salt cedar was pro-               observations this approach can be useful.
duced by the Socorro district within three days to           However, some validation is required and this
enable the FWS to take advantage of the funds and            approach alone is not likely to be adequate to set
to effectively manage a targeted control effort.             priorities for spraying by the county or to encour-
There was adequate interest expressed by the                 age land owners to take action. The desired bal-
District board members and other land owners in              ance in the allocation of the limited resources
the mapping effort prior to its being initiated to           between data collection, mapping and weed con-
have confidence that the effort would be of practi-          trol has been the source of considerable disagree-
cal use for land owners. But once the District-wide          ment in Dawes County. However, there is signifi-
preliminary map was produced, land owners are                cant recognition that noxious weeds are a serious
now requesting assistance in developing manage-              problem. Therefore, conditions for building capac-
ment plans based on personalized maps. Thus, the             ity for a balanced weed program that has land
mapping capability will be invaluable in designing           owner support exist, and there is evidence that
and producing maps for individual land owners                technical assistance from the state level could be
upon which to base management plans to be                    very helpful in that regard.
implemented by those owners.



                                                        16
                                                                       COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                                  SELECTED MULTI-STATE PROJECTS
Moderator:                                                  ping is still involved with digitizing being done by
  Carol Spurrier, Bureau of Land Management                 the NPS. The involvement of the federal agencies
                                                            has been critical in helping provide local partici-
Presenters:
                                                            pants with both equipment and training. Mapping,
   Craig McClure, National Park Service
                                                            much of it fully computerized, is becoming an
   Noel Poe, National Parks Service
                                                            increasing part of setting management priorities,
   Kathryn Thomas, U.S. Geological Survey
                                                            recording treatments and evaluating progress.
   Andy Mason, U.S. Forest Service
                                                            The Team Leafy Spurge project to use biological
Overviews of how federal groups such as the
                                                            controls to control leafy spurge throughout the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S.
                                                            Little Missouri River Watershed is another exam-
Forest Service (FS), and the National Park Service
                                                            ple of an effective partnership initiated by USDA’s
(NPS) and of how selected states are using inven-
                                                            Agricultural Research Service and Animal and
tories and mapping to support weed management
                                                            Plant Health Inspection Service but with extensive
as previously described provides a useful frame-
                                                            involvement of the National Park Service through
work to review some examples of how several
                                                            the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
jurisdictions are working together with a focus
on a specific area and some technologies and
                                                            Southwest Cooperative Mapping. The Southwest
approaches that might have broader application.
                                                            Exotic Plant Mapping Program (SWEMP) is a
Included here are special projects involving a
                                                            Colorado Plateau Field Station (CPFS) program
national parks, a regional database, a project eval-
                                                            designed to develop a regional database of exotic
uating new technologies, and aerial survey-based
                                                            plant distributions for the Southwest (which con-
database for insects and diseases. A number of
                                                            sists of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado Plateau
additional special projects were displayed as               portions of Utah and Colorado). The purpose of
posters that are listed elsewhere (Appendix B).             this project is to develop and distribute informa-
                                                            tion on exotic plant species distributions, as well
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Team Leafy                as to provide information on the status of exotic
Spurge. The Cooperative Weed Management Area
                                                            species distributions on the Colorado Plateau and
(CWMA) component of the Greater Yellowstone
                                                            the greater Southwest. This is accomplished
Ecosystem is briefly described as an example of a
                                                            through a network of collaborative partnerships
truly effective partnership with a major mapping
                                                            that contribute to data collection, compilation,
component in which the NPS plays a lead role.
                                                            and distribution. The program is based on the
Also, the development or expansion of three state
                                                            cooperation of the CPFS and collaborators. CPFS
programs have evolved from this effort. The cur-
                                                            personnel are responsible for collating exotic
rent effort evolved from a low technology mapping
                                                            plant species field data into a master regional
project within the Henry’s Fork Weed Management
                                                            database, generating Geographic Information
Area, which was completed in 1994. Presently,
                                                            System (GIS)-based distribution maps, and main-
weed management activities within the                       taining these data on the Internet. Collaborators
Yellowstone area involves four federal agencies,            are voluntary entities who are responsible for
three state agencies, at least five counties, and
                                                            collecting exotic plant species field data and sub-
some local CWMAs. A total of 17 units report into
                                                            mitting these data to CPFS. These collaborators
the cooperative effort. The managers of the units
                                                            include state and federal agencies, tribal govern-
make up the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating                ments, universities, private consulting firms, and
Committee, which jointly allocates funds for spe-           other interested parties (http://www.usgs.nau.edu/
cial projects and supports an executive coordina-           swemp/).
tor. Geographic Information System (GIS) and
Global Positioning System (GPS) are involved in             Aerial Surveys. Aerial detection surveys are wide-
mapping most of the area, although manual map-              ly used for collecting and reporting data on insect,



                                                       17
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


disease, and other types of disturbances to forest-          Monitoring Program Manager for approval and
ed ecosystems. Forest Health Protection and the              implementation. The Aerial Survey Standards
Aerial Survey Standards Working Group of the                 Working Group has facilitated the development of
Forest Health Monitoring Program have been                   three documents to assist in the implementation
working for the past several years on the develop-           of these standards. These documents, Forest
ment and implementation of data collection and               Health Monitoring Aerial Survey Standards, A
reporting standards for insect and disease aerial            Guide to Conducting Aerial Sketchmapping
surveys conducted by FS units and their cooperat-            Surveys and Aerial Survey Geographic Information
ing partners in state and federal agencies. The pri-         System Handbook, in addition to a number of
mary purpose of these standards is to permit the             appendices to the Aerial Survey Geographic
upward reporting and analysis of data collected by           Information System Handbook, are available
FS field units and their state cooperators. The first        electronically (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/
iteration of these standards was implemented                 id/id_guidelines.html).
through a letter signed jointly by the Forest
Health Protection Director and the Forest Health             A number of the principles associated with
Monitoring Program Manager on May 20, 1998.                  standards, coding, collating and interoperability
The Aerial Survey Standards Working Group,                   associated with aerial surveys of forest insect and
composed of both federal and state personnel,                disease damage may be useful as systems for
continue to add to and refine these standards.               mapping weeds are further developed. Perhaps
Recommendations for additions and changes to                 of particular interest is that useful data on such
the standards are submitted each year to the                 invasive plants as salt cedar and Russian olive can
Forest Health Monitoring Work Group for discus-              be collected in aerial mapping surveys conducted
sion and/or amendment, and then on to the Forest             primarily for other purposes.
Health Protection Director and Forest Health




                                INVENTORIES AND DATA STANDARDS
                                        Rita Beard, U.S. Forest Service
                               Danielle Bruno, Idaho Department of Agriculture
                                Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture


What is a noxious weed inventory? Inventories are            The basic inventory has to incorporate informa-
conducted on many different levels and for many              tion about the location, distribution and extent of
different reasons. The local weed manager is very            that species across the landscape. As the North
interested in exactly where a weed is and what               American Weed Management Association
growth stage it is in so that he or she may effec-           (NAWMA) mapping subcommittee began to review
tively control the plant. A research scientist may           the needs of all user groups, from the concerned
be interested in weed population locations in a              citizen to the federal agency head, some common
basin over time for developing spread models. A              needs arose. Everyone was interested in answer-
national program manager is interested in gross              ing three basic questions: “What is it?” “Where is
acreage estimates across several weed control                it?” and “How bad is it?” Of course, the more spe-
districts for budgeting purposes. No one wants to            cific the needs of a user group, the more detailed
spend time collecting data they do not need for              and more accurate the inventory needs to be. The
their own purposes. Conversely, you don’t want               NAWMA standards do not limit the amount of
to get back home and analyze the data that has               information that can be collected. They only
been collected and discover that necessary data              define the minimum information that all user
is lacking.                                                  groups are interested in.



                                                        18
                                                                        COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


Although the NAWMA standards subcommittee                    dards provided common definitions, so an acre is
was able to break down what all user groups were             an acre to people in different parts of the world.
interested in into three seemingly simple ques-              The standards allow us to tap into the core infor-
tions, they have proven to be quite difficult to             mation that is necessary to develop landscape-
standardize. In the weed world, “What is it?” is the         level maps developed from information extracted
weed species. There are several ways to record a             from a variety of local, national and international
weed species. There are also several ways to                 jurisdictions. Today’s databases are much more
record “Where is it?” and more ways to define                sophisticated than before. They are very capable
“How bad is it?” NAWMA has striven to adopt stan-            of converting hectares to acres or plant scientific
dards that allow for the greatest flexibility and            names to plant codes if you know what conversion
greatest ease of use while working within the con-           factor to use. The NAWMA standards are a way of
fines of differing international measuring systems           defining the exchange format. If you know what
while still maintaining comparable data. Although            you are receiving from another party, you can con-
much can be done with conversion factors, the                vert it into the proper format to fit into your data-
data collected must still be apples and not oranges.         base. If you are creating a new database, using the
                                                             NAWMA standards in the design stage means less
The NAWMA standards are a way to define a com-
                                                             need for converting information later. The map-
mon language. The goal is to compare apples to
                                                             ping standards are available on the Internet at
apples and oranges to oranges. The NAWMA stan-
                                                             http://www.nawma.org/selection_page.html.



                                QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCURACY
                                                 Ron Stinner,
                                         North Carolina State University

Let me suggest several different views about what            obviously, monitoring the spread of regulated
quality assurance and accuracy should address.               pests.
These are merely hypothetical, and I ask your
indulgence for any apparent misrepresentation.               The regulators’ quality assurance and accuracy
                                                             standards must focus on a smaller group of
                    Regulators                               species, those for which it has regulatory authori-
                                                             ty. Their concerns must consider both public and
If you are a state or federal regulator, your goal           internal information. Their quality assurance and
is to prevent, detect and eliminate invasive or              accuracy protocols must differentiate between the
noxious species for which you have regulatory                two sources, utilizing both, and also providing
authority. You may also provide risk assessments             appropriate information to both internal and
and warnings about potentially harmful species. In           external stakeholders.
this role, species distribution becomes relatively
more important than densities. With an agency                                 Weed Managers
such as Animal and Plant Health Inspection
                                                             If you are a weed manager (a state coordinator,
Service, which must also deal with trade facilita-
                                                             county weed manager or work for a management
tion, incorrect or tentative identifications that are
                                                             agency), your goal is to manage key weed infesta-
incorporated in public databases or publications
                                                             tions; in the West, generally over large areas. To
could lead to serious economic consequences for
                                                             do this, you need access to both locations and
both the U.S. and its international trade partners.
                                                             numbers. You’re not generally interested in low
On the other hand, internal agency information on
                                                             infestations, unless they represent the first
new invaders is critical, even if identification is
                                                             alert for a new invader. You have an interest in
tentative. Historical distributional information is
                                                             historical data, but more for the purpose of
key to risk assessments, pathway analyses and,



                                                        19
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


demonstrating that you have obtained your man-              an “endangering” species is easier and tactically
agement goals. Your historical interests are thus           feasible with minimum potential harm to the
more local, except where you are watching an                native species.
expanding weed population. Misidentifications by
partially trained individuals are not a serious con-                 Marketers of Seeds and Plants
cern because you are going to send an experi-
                                                            Finally, if you are a nurseryman or seedsman, you
enced manager out to check and treat the area.
                                                            are very concerned with species listed as “inva-
When he or she finds the identification wrong,
                                                            sive” or “noxious” and certainly do not want
the manager will simply recognize the error.
                                                            misidentifications (of the ornamental species you
Misidentification in this situation does not have
                                                            sell, in particular). You also don’t want to be pre-
far-reaching ramifications. The key focus is on
                                                            vented from importing or transporting species
reports of higher densities of known noxious
                                                            that are already established in the destination
weeds over larger areas. This should be reflected
                                                            area, perhaps under another name.
in your quality assurance and accuracy proce-
dures. These procedures will emphasize broader
sampling of known weeds, often using summer                              General Considerations
hourly employees to be able to afford coverage.             Please note that I am not suggesting that a Bureau
                                                            of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service weed
                   Landowners                               manager is not concerned about historical distri-
                                                            butions, or that someone working for The Nature
If you are a landowner, you don’t generally care
                                                            Conservancy is focused on their lands exclusively.
about invasive species databases unless they
                                                            For all of these groups, it is a matter of the relative
describe point sources and your land is entered in
                                                            importance of specific types of information to
a database as one of those sources. Regardless of
                                                            their mission. Given a system of finite resources,
your concerns about invasive species, issues of
                                                            each organization establishes their data criteria
confidentiality and privacy can loom large. While
                                                            and standards relative to the importance of that
other groups may consider point source data as a
requirement for accuracy and quality assurance,             type of data to their responsibilities. A database
the landowner’s primary concern becomes the                 with high accuracy for one group may be inade-
filters used to aggregate public access to this             quate or inaccurate for another. An important
                                                            corollary to this is that a quality assurance pro-
information.
                                                            gram for one may well not work for another.
If you work for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) or
                                                            We must accept that intended uses drive the per-
other land conservation organizations, your goal
                                                            spective, scope and types of accuracy in these
will be to protect and preserve your natural
                                                            diverse databases. We must also recognize that
systems. Thus, the emphasis will be on managing
                                                            that the primary purpose of each of these data-
critical communities or endangered species. This
                                                            bases is to meet specific needs of the agencies
would involve careful monitoring of invasive
                                                            and organizations supporting the development
species at key locations. Correct identification at
these locations and information on historical               and implementation of these databases. For large
spread become foremost. Rapid information about             scale regulatory and management decisions, how-
the first invaders on your land, particularly in            ever, the sharing and integration of data are neces-
                                                            sary. If we can develop protocols that allow for
threatened communities, may be your primary
                                                            sharing, while at the same time noting the qualita-
concern. By the time large numbers occur (the
                                                            tive differences in the information content, we will
focus of the weed manager above) it may be too
                                                            achieve our goal for science-based decisions.
late to save the keystone species or community.
                                                            These protocols must include evaluation of the
Your quality assurance and accuracy standards               total information content by individuals experi-
will emphasize the importance of correct identifi-          enced in the management area of concern with
cation for low-density plants, both because of              increased sensitivity to, and knowledge of, the
endangered species, but also because of the                 individual data sets and the intended uses of the
importance of “first alerts,” when eradication of           information.


                                                       20
                                                                          COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                                                 SHARING DATA
Contributors:                                                  to that same information under the provisions of
  Ron Stinner, North Carolina State University                 this act.
  Pam Dandrea, Bureau of Land Management, DOI
                                                               FOIA is a broader act and is more likely to be
  Glen Secrist, Idaho Department of Agriculture
                                                               relevant to sharing data on invasive plants. FOIA
  Barbara Mullin, Montana Department of
                                                               allows any person, federal agency or state agency
    Agriculture
  Scott Peterson, Natural Resources                            the opportunity to request information from a fed-
    Conservation Service, USDA                                 eral agency. This act was passed because agencies
  Peter Rice, University of Montana                            were, on a day-to-day basis, making arbitrary deci-
                                                               sions about what they would release to or with-
Sharing of data occurs at many different levels:               hold from the public that they were serving. Based
individual, county, district, state, region, national          on what was asked, a person might get the
and international. In addition, several organiza-              information the next day or might not ever get
tions exist at most of the different levels. Therefore,        the information. So, Congress decided that they
sharing data takes on many forms. A review of                  needed to give federal agencies some guidelines
general aspects associated with privacy, scale and             on when they could and could not release
integration is provided, followed by comments                  information.
about on-line databases and some practical                     Congress and the courts have made it clear that
considerations.                                                the information that people request, if it falls with-
                                                               in the scope of what federal agencies are sup-
                       Privacy                                 posed to do, will be made available. Therefore,
                                                               information on noxious weeds collected on federal
A Federal Perspective. Everyone involved with                  land will be available under FOIA. However, infor-
databases – and especially private land owners –               mation collected or recorded by federal agencies
has concerns about privacy when it comes to                    about private lands may be protected under one
sharing data and other information, particularly               of the exemptions provided for in FOIA. The two
when the federal government is involved. There is              exemptions most relevant to data on noxious
often some degree of paranoia when people give                 weeds are the exemption that covers financial and
their personal information to the government                   commercial information and the exemption deal-
because “they don’t know what the government is                ing with privacy. These exemptions provide some
going to do with it.” Some comfort can be derived              means for protecting private information from
from the fact that all federal agencies are subject            being released. However, decisions on what infor-
to two acts that cover the collection of informa-              mation to release under FOIA are made on a case-
tion, how that information is maintained and used              by-case basis after weighing the privacy interest
and who and when access to that information is                 against the public interest. Release of information
allowed. These acts are the Privacy Act and the                at a scale that will not allow for the identification
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).                             of individual property owners is often a desirable
The Privacy Act is a rather narrow act that gives              approach to providing useful information to the
some special protections to private individuals.               public without jeopardizing the desire for privacy.
Under this act, individuals can request informa-               However, some federal agencies have judged that
tion that the government has collected on them-                legal land descriptions are not private informa-
selves. In relation to sharing information in data-            tion. Therefore, it may be possible for very site-
bases, a private land owner who has cooperated                 specific personal information to be derived by a
with a federal agency in collecting data on noxious            third party. This situation, combined with a gener-
weeds on his land over a period of several years               al uncertainty about what the federal government
can request that information under the Privacy                 is going to do with information, creates barriers to
Act, whereas, somebody else could not get access               sharing information.



                                                          21
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


People are much more likely to openly share infor-          sede functions of any government entity such as
mation if they understand how the information is            national forests, weed districts or soil conserva-
going to be used and particularly if they can see           tion districts. Rather, it integrates these entities
how they will benefit. Federal agencies often can           into a viable weed management program.
be most effective by developing partnerships with
                                                            Although the CWMA approach may resolve priva-
state and local groups. In these situations, cooper-
                                                            cy issues at the local level, there is also a need to
ative agreements or memorandums of understand-
                                                            have data available at the state, regional and
ing can be very useful so that everybody knows
                                                            national levels for planning and for the allocation
who has access to what information and what
                                                            of state and federal resources. Aggregation of data
they are expected to do with that information.
                                                            so that individuals will not be identified is general-
Thus, there are no big surprises as to who is
                                                            ly recognized as the best way to deal with privacy
releasing information and what kind of information
will be derived from the effort.                            concerns. However, acceptable procedures to
                                                            adapt this approach broadly do not currently
FOIA can also be useful to non-federal interests            exist. For example, a high-ranking state official was
in those cases where there is concern about the             not willing to enter into a collaborative arrange-
accountability. In this situation, FOIA may be the          ment for a state office of a federal agency to main-
best way for people to get access to what federal           tain a state-wide noxious weed database, appar-
agencies are doing and to hold them accountable.            ently based on the concern about “we don’t really
Using FOIA, citizens are allowed to check against           know what they might do with the information.” In
corruption and also find out what was done with             this case, there clearly is a need for some clarifica-
money allocations.                                          tion about how data collected by county workers
                                                            might be used by the federal agency, if that data
Some Non-Federal Perspectives. Most states
                                                            were to be part of a database managed by the
have some form of privacy and freedom of infor-
                                                            federal agency.
mation legislation or policy, and although protec-
tion by laws is important, cooperation, mutual                                      Scale
understanding and trust is by far the most effi-
cient approach to dealing with privacy issues.              A number of issues of scale are reviewed to pro-
Focusing on collecting and sharing data within the          vide background for those who are exploring
context of solving a problem will go a long way             approaches to sharing data from specific pro-
toward resolving issues. A number of specific               grams as well as refining collection protocols for
examples of how sharing data is being accom-                specific programs.
plished are reflected in a number of the presenta-
                                                            Probably the first issue related to scale is that of
tions on overviews of federal programs, examples
                                                            the system of measurement of scale: GPS (Global
of state mapping programs and in some case stud-
                                                            Positioning System) -based versus locational text
ies that have been summarized previously
                                                            descriptions. With modern GIS (Geographical
Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs)                   Information System) layers, conversion from GPS
are an example of how highly effective partner-             coordinates to GIS-based databases is technically
ships can function, including the development of            rather straightforward. The power of GIS analyses
local guidelines for sharing data, and provide a            is such that serious considerations should be
useful perspective on a process for dealing with            given to using this approach. However, in doing
the privacy issue: A CWMA brings together all               so, too much “legacy” information may be lost.
interested and concerned parties in a watershed             Also, the cost of conversion from text-based data
or geographical area for the purpose of combining           to GPS coordinates is prohibitive for most systems
expertise, energy and resources to deal with com-           and fraught with potential for error.
mon weed problems. It provides an open forum
for the concerns of all area citizens, landowners           Obviously, scale can be measured in meters or
and managers to be considered and dealt with                square miles, or records can contain only county
effectively. A CWMA does not diminish or super-             or state-level information. The finer the resolution,




                                                       22
                                                                        COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


the more costly the monitoring, or the smaller the           mation will be collected and how it will be used is
geographic area that can be monitored. In many               critical, because the landowners must have confi-
cases, multiple scales are appropriate – with fine           dence that only the aggregated data will be made
scales where endangered species or communities               available to others. The landowner must “trust”
are involved, and larger scales where wholesale              the manager of the data.
infestations are known. Unfortunately, there are no
textbook formulae to define either sample size or                               Integration
sample unit because they are objective-dependent.
                                                             Over time, more and more information on invasive
Again the specific goals of each user must be con-
                                                             plants will be placed in electronic form. The focus
sidered. In addition to spatial scales, if pathways
                                                             will need to be on using modern information
and risks are to be understood, time scales need
                                                             technology to collect, share and use information
to be included. Unfortunately, much of existing
                                                             in support of practical on-the-ground efforts.
distributional data do not include the time of first
                                                             However, some increased integration of databases
occurrence or observation, so that analyzing dis-
                                                             will be useful in making some management
tributional spread becomes difficult. However,
                                                             decisions and in the allocation of resources.
adding such information after the fact may
                                                             Integration likely will be most important for those
again be too costly, and for many objectives,
                                                             agencies responsible for managing large amounts
unwarranted.
                                                             of public lands. However, everyone involved
Scale also implies differentiating between intercep-         should have some awareness of the opportunities.
tion versus systematic monitoring reports.                   Therefore, this general overview of integration is
Interceptions in and around ports require inten-             provided.
sive sampling, often generating numerous museum
                                                             There are a number of issues tied to data integra-
specimens, but from a very restricted area.
                                                             tion and “interoperability,” not all of which deal
Indeed, museums often have larger collections
                                                             with technological problems. One of the main con-
of “rare” species than common due to selective
                                                             cerns is ownership. This is not an issue of “who
collecting, identification and curating. This may
prove a serious problem for regulators as these              gets credit” but rather relates to tracking responsi-
museums go online with their collection informa-             bility and providing the recognition required to
tion. Over larger areas there are often distribution-        attract and to keep the funding needed for sup-
al “holes” simply because no one has monitored               port of the individual data collection efforts.
sufficiently to know whether the species is present          Once databases are designed and established, the
in a region or not. This begs the issue of intensive         real cost is in populating the structure with infor-
versus extensive sampling, again a concern of dif-           mation, seeing that the information is reviewed for
fering magnitude among the stakeholders.                     “quality control,” and updating records to reflect
After all is said and done, however, from the                new information. There can be significant costs
reporting perspective, it may well be privacy con-           involved and many programs are concerned that
cerns that determine the scale, whether from the             their efforts will be overshadowed by larger pro-
private landowner who resents what he sees as                grams “using” their information without credit or
government intrusion or the conservation associa-            in ways unintended and unwarranted, given the
tion trying to protect the location of rare and              methodologies used to gather the data.
endangered communities. As previously men-                   From a practical standpoint, database integration
tioned, aggregation of data to a scale that will             can face technological barriers. A minor, but often
avoid identification of individual property owners           encountered problem relates to alterations in
can substantially alleviate privacy concerns. The            database structure itself after cooperative efforts
amount of aggregation desired will vary with the             have been established. If a new field is added or a
size of parcels of land in the program area, but in          field name changed, without cooperators being
some specific programs reporting by section (640             informed, the correct information will not be
acres) has been quite workable. However, involve-            passed and much reprogramming may be needed.
ment of landowners in the decision on what infor-



                                                        23
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


Even as simple an issue as data formats can be a            goals, but at the same time share either all or
major obstacle, particularly if databases are being         selected information with other stakeholders.
developed independently, as is often the case. All
                                                            The problem with such sharing is not technologi-
software does not allow for easy conversion. At
                                                            cal but practical. The “end use” of data is a critical
the last International Congress of Entomology,
                                                            issue. There is the very real danger of the misuse
there were at least 14 papers in six symposia deal-
                                                            or misinterpretation of information, particularly
ing with databases containing information on inva-
                                                            when it is abstracted, because of inadvertent loss
sive species. These papers ranged from descrip-
                                                            of key information attached to records when
tions of the “Species Analyst” program at Kansas
                                                            numerous records are searched are when only
State to separate global programs for three orders
                                                            selected fields are used for analyses.
of insects. The technology used included three
separate multimedia software packages, at least             There is not either a single or simple solution.
four separate database programs, and four almost            There will be no high-quality amalgamation of data
mutually exclusive Internet-based approaches.               for general use. The closest may be the linking of
Can such systems be interoperable? It may not be            museum databases consisting of selected speci-
possible or even desirable unless there is signifi-         men label information to provide distributional
cant funding for conversion and a demonstrated              maps, but there is a lack of detail, explanations
need to do so.                                              or caveats.
A range of approaches and software solutions are            An approach that may work to realistically and
currently used for sharing information on the               appropriately integrate key databases where there
Internet that are not necessarily interoperable. For        is a real justification for such interoperability, is
example, a number of museums are cooperating in             suggested. It represents an eight-step process for
using the “Species Analyst,” a set of tools that use        developing a “work plan” for approaching both the
the Z39.50 protocol, and most recently, the http            issues and the technology:
(or web) protocol. This is essentially a search
engine for museum records, with analysis tools set          • Identify specific program needs
on top of the data collection search engine. The            • Identify and justify sources of information
older version was developed pre-web and required            • Develop simple linkages and partnerships
its own server, but this approach set metadata                among the organizations responsible for the
standards, brought museums together and has                   information
allowed some interesting analyses.                          • Jointly define the level of interoperability
                                                              required with all partners
More recent web-based technology now offers a               • Jointly define the intended use of the informa-
plethora of solutions. The Center for Integrated              tion and limits to access with all partners
Pest Management at North Carolina State                     • Agree upon the approaches to be used for
University is currently running web pages that use            interoperability based on realistic funding
a wide range of technologies to search remote                 and availability of expertise
computers with diverse databases and text files,            • Agree upon development responsibilities
return the results, and put them in a new, com-               among all partners
bined database from which analyses can be made.             • Develop the needed software for both servers
These results are then organized, formatted and               and clients, and test the systems extensively
supplied to a browser from the server, all trans-
parent to the user. However, the technology is              This list is merely a broad protocol, and it does
very new and developing in-house expertise is               not provide the mechanism for linking large num-
difficult at this point. The advantage is that one          bers of databases. For most specific problems, the
group can develop the needed software with mini-            data that are both needed and of sufficient quality
mum information from cooperating database                   to provide accurate answers to those problems
providers and with no “metadata” standards. This            can be found in a reasonably limited set of data-
leaves the individual database owners free to               bases. Most likely, any efforts at integration
develop and maintain their databases for their              should begin by putting together small systems to



                                                       24
                                                                       COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


develop a better understanding of the divergent             distribution records in INVADERS. The INVADERS
needs and expectations of all stakeholders with             web site contains actual examples of how land
respect to data quality assurance, accuracy and             management and weed regulatory agencies
scale before we embrace wholesale “interoperabil-           are using these data to improve their weed
ity” as a justifiable endeavor.                             management programs. Noxious weed listings are
                                                            provided for all U.S. states and six southern tier
  National and Regional On-Line Databases                   Canadian provinces.The INVADERS database struc-
                                                            tures and web-based query interface are a general-
Two plant databases of regional and national
                                                            ized software design that can cover other regions
scope were discussed at the workshop with spe-
                                                            and/or provide a national/continental scale system
cial reference to sharing data. These databases,
                                                            for early detection, tracking and strategic manage-
although not designed to provide distributional
                                                            ment of invasive species (http://invader.dbs.
data to support specific weed management
                                                            umt.edu/).
actions, can be valuable sources of information to
design more site-specific inventory and mapping             Seventeen databases available on the Internet,
efforts.                                                    containing some information on invasive plants,
                                                            that may be of interest are listed in Appendix E.
PLANTS Database. The PLANTS Database is a                   Also, most web sites maintained by state depart-
single source of standardized information about             ments of agriculture contain some information on
plants. This database focuses on vascular plants,           noxious weeds.
mosses, liverworts, hornworts and lichens of the
U.S. and its territories. The PLANTS Database                          Practical Considerations
includes names, checklists, automated tools, iden-
tification information, species abstracts, distribu-        With the wide array of information technologies
tional data, crop information, plant symbols, plant         that are available, the opportunities for sharing
growth data, plant materials information, plant             data and other information are unlimited. The
links, references and other plant information.              intrigue and interest that can be generated for
PLANTS reduces costs by minimizing duplication              using these technologies must be balanced with
and making information exchange possible across             practical use. That practical use has two primary
agencies and disciplines. This site is best viewed          aspects:
with Netscape or Internet Explorer version 4.0 or           • Management (control and containment)
greater, with JavaScript, stylesheets, and frames             of noxious weeds on the ground
enabled (http://plants.usda.gov/plants/).                   • Resource allocation or acquisition –
                                                              “legislators like maps”
INVADERS Database System. The INVADERS
Database is a database of exotic plant names and            The challenge rests with involvement of all inter-
weed distribution records for five states in the            ested parties in making good judgments for what
northwestern U.S. The spatial and temporal                  approach and actions best fit specific situations.
spread of weeds can be displayed using historic




                                                       25
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                             VIEWS FROM NON-FEDERAL STAKEHOLDERS
Moderators:                                                    need to remember that this is a society that is
  Gordon Brown, U.S. Department of Interior                    governed by the people for the people. Short-term
  Frannie Decker, New Mexico Department of                     political agendas either reach short-term political
    Agriculture                                                failures or long-term actual failures. Bruce Taubert
  Tom Dille, Riley Memorial Foundation
  Tim Playford, Dow AgroSciences                               “Let me say that farmers and ranchers will be
                                                               reluctant until the goals ... to collect and use data
Contributors:                                                  are understood and until rock solid protections
  Ogden Driskal, Double Spear Ranch, Devils                    exist for private landowners and those who lease
    Tower, WY                                                  public and state trust land.” Jim Klinker
  Ray Holes, Lazy H Livestock, White Bird, ID
                                                               “Ranchers know that there is a problem, they want
  Jim Klinker, Arizona Farm Bureau
                                                               to do something about it. But, nobody likes feeling
  Jeff Menges, National Cattlemen’s Beef
                                                               that they have to do something because someone
    Association
                                                               signs something in Washington, DC, so they have
  Bruce Taubert, Arizona Game and Fish
                                                               to comply ... Once production agriculture is com-
    Department
                                                               fortable with the effort, I think we can be a power-
  Jennifer Vollmer, BASF
                                                               ful ally in the Congress and be extremely instru-
                                                               mental on making things happen on the ground.”
Non-federal stakeholders made presentations
                                                               Jeff Menges
throughout the workshop. A series of quotes from
those presentations are provided as a summary of               “Focus on the species that are agreed to be the
their views.                                                   ‘bad’ ones. Stop sending mixed messages ... There
                                                               is no profit to that for anyone. Stop telling our
“We see things happening (with invasive range-
                                                               hunters and anglers that many sport fish and
land plants) at a local level that are astounding. I’d
                                                               wildlife are the root of all evil. Start getting sup-
love to see it on a regional scale and take it past
                                                               port for massive efforts to halt the expansion ...
the state boundaries. There is no reason we
                                                               of truly “bad” organisms. There is no need to deal
should have a state boundary involved at all.”
                                                               with the species that are middle of the road right
Ray Holes
                                                               now.” Bruce Taubert
“... I came (to this workshop) wondering why the
                                                               “I would love to see a single mapping system (for
federal government should be providing the over-
                                                               rangeland invasive plants) with a single set of
all framework for the whole thing (invasive range-
                                                               standards ... I’m not sure that right now all of you
land plants). (However), because of (all of) the
                                                               guys can agree on a system and if you don’t agree
issues that go with it ... it looks to me like the fed-
                                                               on one, the private land owners sure aren’t going
eral government or agencies should be providing
                                                               to know which one to be a part of. You can’t make
(a) framework ...” Ogden Driskal
                                                               them be a part of it. It is a deal where people have
“Cattleman, property owners and farmers are                    to want to participate, and what you are doing
leery of legislation, executive orders and laws.               must be of value to them for them to want to
Sometimes they have good intentions, but some-                 participate.” Ogden Driskal
times the language, when it is implemented, will
                                                               “From the point of view of industry and those
come back and bite us. Because when it is imple-
                                                               we are working with ... land managers, the
mented, we find out that there was a hidden agen-
                                                               most important thing is a database that can be
da. This is the problem with the very vague and
                                                               searched. We don’t need data at the individual
broad language in the definitions in the Executive
                                                               owner level, we need county level data to guide
Order.” Jeff Menges
                                                               our salesmen. We need state and national level
“I suggest that today the emphasis on alien inva-              data to guide development of new products and
sive species is a policy looking for a process. We ...         continue existing products.” Jennifer Vollmer


                                                          26
                                                                     COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


“There is no question that from a rancher’s per-          venture that any game and fish agency in the U.S.
spective, there is definitely a weed problem. If          has been in, good science is the basis for suc-
plans for mapping out invasive weeds are done             cess.” Bruce Taubert
right, we can get a lot of support from people in
                                                          These quotes that come from those close to the
the country to implement it.” Jeff Menges
                                                          “grass roots” should be useful in guiding future
“Finance good science. What we do not know by             actions by all of those that can contribute to deal-
far exceeds what we do know. In every successful          ing with rangeland noxious weeds.




                            ISSUES, IMPEDIMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Facilitators and Reporters:                               • Opportunities
   Danielle Bruno, Idaho Department of                      - Involve private stakeholders early in the
     Agriculture                                              process of developing a weed mapping
   Frannie Decker, New Mexico Department of                   effort to promote and ensure comfort and
     Agriculture                                              cooperation
   Ron Hiebert, National Parks Service, DOI                 - Provide access to one universal mapping
   Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture              system that is useful to many landowners
   James Olivarez, Forest Service, USDA                       and provides opportunities to private
   Roy Reichenbach, Wyoming Department of                     stakeholders to understand and benefit
     Agriculture                                              from the system
   Tim Reuwsaat, Bureau of Land Management,                 - Growers are all familiar with Global
     DOI                                                      Positioning Systems since it is in the
   Ron Stinner, North Carolina State University               combines and used to collect weed data as
                                                              crops are raised and harvested – ask them
A number of issues surfaced in the breakout                   to contribute to the county map
groups and in other discussions that effect the             - When the county provides cost-share
operations of cooperative programs in general and             dollars, they should require a record/map
the development and sharing of information to                 of noxious weeds treated
support on-the-ground management of noxious                 - Focus on the issue as a problem to be
weeds specifically. The reports from the breakout             resolved by the group, not individuals
groups made it clear that serious discussions took          - Emphasize the use of mapping to make
place on how to address many of these issues to               efforts more cost-effective
improve weed management programs. Issues                    - Make providing information voluntary but
receiving the most attention were private                     also make it simple for data transfer
landowner involvement, developing local mapping             - Educate landowners about the impacts of
capacity and privacy issues.                                  weeds to promote action

       Private Landowner Involvement                           Developing Local Mapping Capacity

• Impediments                                             • Impediments:
  - Embarrassment factor of publicizing the                 - Lack of financial and staff resources
    weeds on one’s property                                 - Lack of will to implement mapping as part of
  - Fear of enforcement once weed locations                   a program
    are provided                                            - Lack of standard protocols that make it easy
  - Loss of local control of the information                  for people to start
  - Potential effects on land value/sale                    - Lack of decision-makers’ understanding that
                                                              mapping is a useful component of a weed
                                                              management program



                                                     27
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


• Opportunities:                                           • Impediments:
  - Promote value of weed mapping as part of                 - General distrust of government
    an integrated weed management program to                 - Lack of understanding of how information
    county weed supervisors, weed management                   will be used
    professionals and county commissioners
                                                           • Opportunities:
  - Build a better system that others will
                                                             - Develop cooperative agreements or memo-
    recognize and want to change over to
                                                               randums of understanding in association
  - Streamline systems so that there are fewer
                                                               with local, state and federal partnerships so
    databases that are incompatible
                                                               that everybody involved knows who has
  - Provide technical assistance and develop-
                                                               access to what information and what they
    ment to local programs
                                                               are expected to do with that information
  - Provide common data dictionary, standards
                                                             - Aggregate data for general distribution to a
    and other tools to simplify adoption and use
                                                               scale that will avoid identification of individ-
                                                               ual property owners
                     Privacy
                                                             - Establish unambiguous exemptions to the
Many of the privacy concerns are closely related               release of data to third parties by federal
to private landowner involvement. Therefore,                   and state agencies that will prevent, directly
involvement of landowners at the local level as                by name or indirectly by geographical
indicated above will alleviate many of the privacy             description, identifying individual owners
concerns. However, there are some impediments                  of property
and opportunities particularly related to state and
federal agencies that are worthy of note.




                                    PRINCIPLES AND LEADERSHIP
                                                 Tom Dille
                                         Riley Memorial Foundation


Why are we collecting all of this information?             More emphasis should be placed on how we use
What do we do with all of this information? I think        data and mapping to provide solutions to the key
that those questions lead the challenge. As a num-         needs and, as we move forward, spend more time
ber have said before, let’s not drown in informa-          using data. This must happen, and we must now
tion while starving for readily available wisdom.          involve all stakeholders. At this workshop and at
                                                           our earlier stakeholders roundtable, we have
We came here to discuss collecting, sharing and            heard some distinctly different views – yesterday
using information. A great deal was accomplished.          from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
The more we discussed the issues, the clearer it           and the Arizona Farm Bureau, earlier this year
became as to where we needed to go. At the
                                                           from the seed trade and turf and ornamental
beginning, we focussed on data collecting and
                                                           industries. We must listen to and involve these
mapping. And for those of you who have been
                                                           groups. We must also involve those stakeholders
involved from the beginning, I believe you would
                                                           at the local, state and national level to develop a
agree with me that a great deal of learning and
                                                           climate that will foster voluntary involvement. You
progress has been achieved on collecting and
                                                           can’t force people. You who work for agencies can
sharing. Then we began to talk about using all of
                                                           be told, “It is your job, do something.” But the pri-
this information and picture became a little less          vate stakeholders have to come on board through
clear.                                                     some kind of voluntary desire to be involved in




                                                      28
                                                                        COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


the data and mapping to address the invasive                 • Remember one size does not fit all. Create
species challenge.                                             an oversight committee that includes not only
                                                               the bureaucrats, but also the local people.
We must move toward addressing how to apply                    Remember when you are requesting financing
technology to address the issues of invasive                   to base it on your ability and capability to use
species. We have to involve all stakeholders and               it. Don’t overreach when you ask for money.
understand their needs and concerns. We tend to                And always remember, communicate,
get wrapped up with those that are involved in the             communicate, communicate, and build partner-
technology of data gathering and discrimination.               ships, build partnerships, build partnerships.
Most of us here understand this initiative. There
are some others who will be impacted, who don’t              Yesterday, somebody said, “... you guys are run-
understand the issues but are willing to learn, and          ning a 100-yard dash, (or that is what it appears
others who would have nothing to do with this                to be) but in reality you are actually in a 26-mile
matter that could torpedo our attempts to move               marathon.” That is a great summary. Before we
forward. If we don’t take the time to understand             take the next steps, it is critical that you make
their concerns and their needs, early in the process,        decisions on how to move forward with actions
we will pay dearly later on. So, ask for input before        that are well defined to deliver specific results.
making a decision. Insure interagency cooperation            Now if we get so wrapped up in pulling together
and linkages to coalitions. Involve local leader-            data and maps and we forget what we are going to
ship, organizations and stakeholders so that they            do with it, we could miss the whole point. So, you
become the engine that drives this machine.                  have to move forward with defining real issues
                                                             and not perceived wish lists.
There are three operating principles that I urge
you to keep in mind:                                         Finally, recognizing that the Riley Memorial
                                                             Foundation does not come up with conclusions
• Use processes now identified. These are the                and tell you what to do, we try to act as a catalyst
  processes that have been presented, discussed
                                                             to create a vehicle where people with different
  and suggested improvements reviewed. We also
                                                             views can come together and then move forward.
  learned about the key dos and don’ts from pro-
                                                             We’ll give input to people, but we won’t make the
  grams already in place or being put in place.              decision. It is up to others to provide the leader-
  Use those processes and build on them. Also,               ship. However, that leadership must provide three
  use those processes to help to create a vision             things:
  that is developed by not only national organiza-
  tions, but more importantly, with local input.             • Vision. Leadership must help create a vision.
  The vision cannot just be from the top down.                 We need a clear definition of where we want
  The top has the responsibility to get it moving.             to go. Why is that important? The problem is
  But the final vision has to have the input from              multi-faceted – involving individuals, multiple
  the local level.                                             disciplines, governmental agencies at local,
                                                               state and federal levels and impacting both the
• Involve the public. Educate and inform those                 private and public sectors. To move forward,
  in the general public so they will support                   there must be an idea of where we want to be
  solutions using good science. Folks, we are                  in the future.
  using science. We need to make sure that the
  public doesn’t say, “Oh, that is some of that              • Alignment. We must be aligned to move in the
  science connected to agriculture in general or               same direction. Alignment doesn’t mean all
  specifically food and fiber production, and that             getting in locked step and walking down the
  is bad.” Good science is what is going to get us             same road. Alignment means getting in a
  through this, both in the application, the data              harness – whether you’re connected with a
  collection and so forth. And we need to keep                 double tree to one end of the wagon or the side
  reminding people and educating on the value of               of the wagon – but at least you are in harness
  good science.                                                and you are moving in the same direction. It
                                                               just means that when we pull, we are going



                                                        29
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


  forward and not backward or getting stuck.                 order to motivate other people to help you do
  Alignment is to put together the multi-faceted             what needs to be done, you have to think about
  stakeholders organizations so that we move                 how to go out and get people interested in the
  forward together even though we may be                     principle.
  totally disconnected structurally.
                                                          There is a lot of good work underway, and there
• Motivation. You have to have motivation so              are many opportunities out there. Each of us
  that you create an environment where individu-          is in a position to contribute, and I urge you to
  als want to be part of the invasive species             approach your responsibilities with renewed vigor
  initiative and then become active participants.         and work with others. Do your part in dealing with
  Remember, motivation is not something that is           the ever-increasing threat from invasive noxious
  self-generated. You have to plan motivation.            weeds.
  That may not be your responsibility, but in




                             OUTCOMES, NEEDS AND SUGGESTIONS
                   Outcomes                               tion on inventories, mapping and computerized
                                                          databases, but within the context that “... we
A major outcome from the workshop was the                 always have to strike a balance between the
extensive exchange of information among workers           resources that we are expending on data gather-
with similar interests. Some were synergised to           ing, data management, data access and data use
improve what they were doing; some refined their          with the need to get stuff done on the ground.”
plans to initiate electronic based programs; and          Within this context it was clear that carefully
some began to learn about the many possibilities          designed mapping efforts can contribute to more
for the first time. Another major outcomes was the        effective utilization of resources for controlling or
realization that increased involvement of the pri-        preventing noxious weeds. However, it was also
vate sector will be critical to develop the condi-        clear that, with hundreds of millions of acres of
tions to get the involvement and support needed           land threatened and tens of millions of acres
to improve and expand noxious weed mapping                already infested, the current total capacity is not
and treatment programs.                                   adequate to deal with the problem. Total capacity
                                                          needs to be increased to take full advantage of
        Needs and Suggested Actions                       mapping and related database efforts. Some
Needs related to leadership, coordination, and            approaches to building capacity include:
increased technical assistance were evident but           • Increase emphasis on the development of
also evident was an increased commitment among              cooperative weed management areas to
both federal and state agencies to address some             increase the interaction among local, state,
of these needs. However, it was also evident that           tribal, and federal actions
the noxious invasive species problem is great and         • Streamline systems so that there are more
that those charged with dealing with the problem            databases that are compatible so that sharing
do not have the resources needed.                           and integration is more feasible when appropri-
Many opportunities for improving programs were              ate and desirable
identified, but perhaps the two greatest overall          • Provide technical assistance and development
needs were capacity building at all levels and              to local programs and to on-the-ground federal
needs for greater inputs from non-federal stake-            personnel
holders. The workshop focused on collecting,              • Utilize a minimum number of basic elements
sharing and using information with a concentra-             from uniform standards at the operational level




                                                     30
                                                                        COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


• Develop or refine state and federal agency                 • Conduct a quantitative professional survey of
  strategic and implementation plans to provide                users of public and private lands in the western
  more specific guidance for on-the-ground                     states to assess attitudes towards management
  actions                                                      of rangeland noxious weeds and of state agen-
• Increase resources available at all levels                   cies and state-level interest groups to assess
                                                               their activities related to invasive species and
In addition to encouraging increased inputs from
                                                               obtain views on the desired role of federal
non-federal stakeholders at the local level, there is
                                                               agencies
a need for an overall quantitative understanding of
                                                             • Analyze results of the surveys in an interactive
how users of both private and public lands view
                                                               mode to develop guidance for federal, state and
noxious weeds and how they should be managed.
                                                               local organizations and develop policy options,
Specifically, the needs in question could be                   including possible incentives, for improving the
addressed by the following actions:                            management of noxious weeds on private and
                                                               public lands




                                                        31
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                                        SELECTED REFERENCES
Clinton, W. J. 1999. Executive Order 13112 on              Reichard, S. E. 1997. Prevention of Invasive Plant
Invasive Species. February 3.                              Introductions on National and Local Levels. In
                                                           Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions, J.
Colorado State Parks, Colorado Department of               O. Luken and J. W. Thieret (eds.). Apringwe-Verlag.
Natural Resources, and Colorado Department of              New York.
Agriculture. 2000. Creating an Integrated Weed
Management Plan: A Handbook for Owners and                 Ridgway, R. L., W. P. Gregg, R. E. Stinner and A. G.
Managers of Lands with Natural Values. 341 pp.             Brown. 1999. Invasive Species Databases:
                                                           Proceedings of a Workshop. Workshop held on
Cooksey, D. and R. L. Sheley. 1998. Mapping                November 12-13, 1998, in Las Vegas, NV. Charles
Noxious Weeds in Montana. Montana State                    Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation, Silver
University Extension Service, Bozeman, MT. 24 pp.          Spring, MD. 50 pp., http://www.nbii.gov/
                                                           issues/invasive/workshops/proceeds_lv.html.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
(CAST). 2000. Issue Paper: Invasive Plant Species.         Scott, J.K. and F.D. Panetta. 1993. Predicting the
Number 13. February. 18 pp.                                Australian Weed Status of Southern African Plants.
                                                           Journal of Biogeography 20: 87-93.
Federal Interagency Committee for Management of
Noxious and Exotic Weeds. Pulling Together: A              Sheley, R. L. and J. K. Petroff, eds. 1999. Biology
National Strategy for Management of Invasive               and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds.
Plants. 1998. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing        Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 438 pp.
Office. 22 pp.
                                                           U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Forest Health
Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 1999.               Protection: Insect and Disease Aerial Detection
Idaho’s Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious                Surveys Standards and Guidelines. Forest Service.
Weeds. February. 22 pp.                                    http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/id/id_guide
                                                           lines.html.
Jacono, C. C. and C. P. Boydstun. 1998.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Databases for               U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Stemming
Nonindigenous Plants, Gainesville, FL, September           the Invasive Tide: Forest Service Strategy for
24–25, 1997. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological            Noxious and Nonnative Plant Management. Forest
Resources Division, Gainesville, FL. 27 pp.,               Service. 31 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/weeds
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/publications/plants/plant_w         /fs_strat_doc.pdf.
orkshop/npwrkshp/.
                                                           U.S. Department of Interior. 1998 Partners Against
Meyerson, L. A., K. A. Vogt, G. W. Dunning, and J.         Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land
C. Gordon, eds. 1998. Invasive Alien Species. A            Management. http://www.blm.gov/education
summary of a public dialogue exploring new solu-           /weed/paws/
tions to an old persistent problem. Yale School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven,             U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of
CT. May 6. 40 pp.                                          Agriculture. Undated. Guidelines for Coordinated
                                                           Management of Noxious Weeds: Development of
Randall, J.M. 1996. Weed Control for the                   Weed Management Areas. Bureau of Land
Preservation of Biological Diversity. Weed                 Management, National Park Service and Forest
Technology 10:370–381.                                     Service. 228 pp.




                                                      32
                                                                      COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000. Invasive             Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W.
Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to             Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee and R. Parker. 1999.
Address Harmful, Nonnative Species. Washington,            Weeds of the West. 5th edition. The Western
DC. August. 63 pp.                                         Society of Weed Science, Newark, CA, in coordina-
                                                           tion with the Western United States Land Grant
Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive Plants, Changing             Universities Cooperative Extension Services and
The Landscape of America: Fact Book. Federal               the University of Wyoming. 630 pp.
Interagency Committee for the Management of
Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW),                        Wyoming Department of Agriculture. 1999.
Washington, DC. 109 pp.                                    Coordinated Resource Management: Local People
                                                           Addressing Local Issues. Natural Resources
Wilson, C. L., and C. L. Graham. 1983. Exotic Plant        Section. 24 pp.
Pests and North American Agriculture. Academic
Press. New York. 522 pp.




                                                      33
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                                                ACRONYMS
AGFD     Arizona Game and Fish Department               NPS     National Parks Service, DOI

APHIS    Animal and Plant Health Inspection             NRCS    Natural Resources Conservation Service,
         Service, USDA                                          USDA

ARPS     Alien Plant Ranking System                     OSU     Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

ARS      Agricultural Research Service, USDA            RC&D    Research Conservation and
                                                                Development, USDA
BLM      Bureau of Land Management, DOI
                                                        RMF     Riley Memorial Foundation
BRD      Biological Resources Division, USGS
                                                        ROBO    Release of Beneficial Organisms in the
CDFA     California Department of Food and                      United States and Territories
         Agriculture
                                                        SDA     State Department of Agriculture
CPFS     Colorado Plateau Field Station
                                                        SEC     Office of the Secretary
CWMA     Cooperative Weed Management Areas
                                                        SITE    Students Investigating Today’s
DOI      U.S. Department of Interior                            Environment
FOIA     Freedom of Information Act                     SWEMP   Southwest Exotic Mapping Program
FS       Forest Service, USDA                           SSWCD   Socorro Soil & Water Conservation
                                                                District
FWS      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI
                                                        TAES    Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
GIS      Geographic Information System
                                                                Texas A&M Research and Extension
GPS      Global Positioning System                              Center

ISAC     Invasive Species Advisory Committee            TNC     The Nature Conservancy

ISDA     Idaho Department of Agriculture                UM      University of Montana, Missoula, MT

MDWFP    Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife           USAF    U.S. Air Force
         and Parks
                                                        USDA    U. S. Department of Agriculture
NFS      National Forest System
                                                        USGS    U.S. Geological Survey, DOI
NAWMA North American Weed Management
                                                        WGA     Western Governors’ Association
      Association
                                                        WSNCB   Washington State Noxious Weed
NCBA     National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
                                                                Control Board
NCSU     North Carolina State University,
         Raleigh, NC




                                                   34
                                                               COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                                   PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Rita Beard                                          Tim Playford
FS, USDA                                            IWAC

Bob Bolton                                          Gina Ramos
BLM, DOI                                            BLM, DOI

Danielle Bruno                                      John Randall
SDA-ID                                              TNC

Jason Campbell (Myra Hyde, alt.)                    Dan Sharatt
NCBA                                                SDA-OR

Frannie Decker                                      Steve Shoenig
SDA-NM                                              SDA-CA

Rob Hedberg                                         Carol Spurrier
WSSA                                                BLM, DOI

Ron Hiebert                                         Ron Stinner
NPS, DOI                                            NCSU

Alison Hill                                         Kathryn Thomas
FS, USDA                                            USGS, DOI

Eric Lane                                           Jennifer Vollmer
SDA-CO                                              BASF

Dianne Osborne
BLM, DOI




                                               35
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                                        APPENDIX A
                          INSTITUTIONS AND INTERESTS REPRESENTED

                                  Federal Departments and Agencies

Bureau of Land Management, DOI                          Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI                          Animal & Plant Health Insp. Serv., USDA
National Park Service, DOI                              Forest Service, USDA
Office of the Secretary, DOI                            Natural Resources Cons. Serv., USDA
U.S. Geological Survey, DOI                             U.S. Air Force, DOD




                                        State Agencies and Tribes

Arizona Department of Agriculture                       Nez Perce Tribe
Arizona Game and Fish Department                        North Carolina State University
California Department of Agriculture                    Oklahoma Department of Agriculture
Colorado Department of Agriculture                      Oregon State University
Idaho Department of Agriculture                         Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
Montana Department of Agriculture                       Washington Department of Agriculture
Montana State University                                Washington State Noxious Weeds Cont. Bd.
Nevada Department of Agriculture                        Western Governors’ Association
New Mexico Department of Agriculture                    Wyoming Department of Agriculture




                                             Local Agencies

Davis County, NE                                        Larimer County, CO
Freemont County, WY                                     Socorro Soil and Water Cons. District, NM
La Plata County, CO                                     El Llano Estacado RC&D, NM




                          Private Sector Organizations, Firms and Interests

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association                   Commercial data equipment suppliers
Arizona Farm Bureau                                     BASF
Ranchers                                                Dow AgroSciences
Commercial applicators                                  Monsanto Company




                                                   36
                                                                   COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                                       APPENDIX B
                          POSTERS, DISPLAYS AND DEMONSTRATIONS
Idaho/Oregon BLM Weed Database                          Cooperative Weed Mapping in the Greater
(also called Boise/Vale Weed Database)                  Yellowstone Area
Danielle Bruno, BLM/ISDA/FS, Boise, ID                  Craig McClure, Ann Rodman and Freya Ross,
and Bob Bolton, BLM, Lakeview, OR                       Yellowstone National Park, WY

La Plata County GIS Noxious Weed Mapping                Biological Control of Spotted Knapweed using
Rod Cook, La Plata County Weed Manager,                 Larinus minutus Gyllenhal at Fort Carson, CO
La Plata County, Southwestern CO                        G.J. Michels, Jr., D.A. Owings, B.L. Castleberry
                                                        and D.C. Dowdy, Texas Agricultural Experiment
Release and Monitoring of Aceria malherbae              Station, Texas A&M University System, Bushland,
Nuzzaci, a Gall-forming Eriophyid Mite, in Field        TX
Bindweed under Different Agronomic Practices
in the Texas High Plains                                Bingham County Weed Advisory Board Project
D.C. Dowdy, G.J. Michels, Jr. and D.A.Owings,           Paul Murbrook, Bingham County Weed Control
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,                  Agent, Blackfoot, ID, and Becca Winston, Winston
Texas A&M University System, Bushland, TX               Leavitt, LLC, Shelley, ID

Plants and Weeds                                        Video Mapping System
Larry Fowler, USDA, APHIS, Ken Harward, USDA,           Craig Novak, Red Hen Systems, Fort Collins, CO
NRCS, Information Technology Center, Scott
Peterson, USDA, NRCS, Mark Skinner, USDA, NRCS,         Ecological Area-wide Management
and Ron Stinner, North Carolina State University        (TEAM) Leafy Spurge
                                                        Noel R. Poe, Theodore Roosevelt National Park,
Salmon River Weed Management Area;                      Medora, ND
Landscape Approach to Invasive Weed
Management                                              Invaders Database System
Leonard Lake, Nez Perce National Forest and             Peter M. Rice, Lincoln Smith and Kerri Skinner,
Carl Crabtree, Idaho County Weed Supervisor,            Division of Biological Sciences, University of
Grangeville, ID                                         Montana, Missoula, MT

Weedmapper, Online Weed Maps Distribution               Various Mapping Strategies Used in Wyoming
Marc A. Laliberte, System Analyst, Department of        Kiana Zimmerman, University of Wyoming
Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University,           Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, Roy
Corvallis, OR                                           Reichenbach, Wyoming Department of Agriculture




                                                   37
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                                     APPENDIX C
                   SELECTED MAPPING AND DATABASE RESOURCE PERSONS
Rita Beard                        Jack Coulson                       Craig McClure
FS, USDA                          ARS, USDA                          NPS, DOI
Phone: (970) 295-5745             Phone: (301) 504-4318              Phone: (307) 344-2168
E-mail: rbeard@fs.fed.us          Email: bcdc@ars-grin.gov           E-mail: craig_mcclure@nps.gov
Terra/Tetra Database,             ROBO                               Greater Yellowstone Area
NAWMA Standards
                                  Ron Hiebert                        Barbra Mullin
Bill Bellah                       NPS, DOI                           MT-SDA
Davis County, NE                  Phone: (520) 523-0877              Phone: (406) 444-5400
Phone: (877) 439-4283 or          E-mail: ron.hiebert@nau.edu        E-mail: bmullin@state.mt.us
(308) 432-3056                    NPS Standards                      Montana Standards
E-mail: bella@panhandle.net
Local Mapping                     Kathie Jewell                      Scott Peterson
                                  BLM, DOI                           NRCS, USDA
Danielle Bruno                    Phone: (406) 896-5144              Phone: (225) 775-6280 ext. 11
ID-SDA                            E-mail: Kathie_Jewell@blm.gov      E-mail: speterson@trident.itc.
Phone: (208) 332-8529             MT BLM Database                    nrcs.usda.gov
E-mail: dbruno@agri.state.id.us                                      Plants Database
Idaho & Boise/Vale Databases      Marc Laliberte
                                  Oregon State University            Jim Pheasant
Bill Cheatum                      Phone: (541) 737-2498              Purdue University
CO-SDA                            E-mail: marc.laliberte@orst.edu    Phone: (765) 494-9853
Phone: (303) 275-5063             Weed Mapper                        Email: pheasant@purdue.edu
E-mail: wgcheatum@fs.fed.us                                          NAPIS/CAPS
Colorado Mapping Program          Eric Lane
                                  CO-SDA                             Noel Poe
Rod Cook                          Phone: (303) 239-4182              NPS, DOI
La Plata County, CO               E-mail: eric.lane@ag.state.co.us   Phone: (701) 623-4466
Phone: (970) 247-2308             NAWMA Standards                    E-mail: noel_poe@nps.gov
E-mail: cookrd@co.laplata.co.us                                      Roosevelt National Park
Local Mapping                     Andy Mason
                                  FS, USDA                           Gina Ramos
Diana Cooksey                     Phone: (970) 295-5840              BLM, DOI
University of Montana             E-mail: amason@fs.fed.us           Phone: (202) 452-5084
Phone: (406) 994-5684             Biological Control Standards       E-mail: gina_ramos@blm.gov
Email: dcooksey@montana.edu                                          BLM Standards, Boise/Vale
Montana Mapping System                                               Database




                                                38
                                                               COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


Peter Rice                      Ron Stinner                            Nyleen Troxel-Stowe
University of Montana           NCSU                                   SSWCD
Phone: (406) 243-2671           Phone: (919) 515-1648                  Phone: (505) 835-1710
E-mail: biopmr@selway.umt.edu   E-mail: Ron_Stinner@ncsu.edu           E-mail: sswcd@sda.org
Invaders Database               Multiple Databases                     Local Mapping

Steve Schoenig                  Kathryn Thomas
CA-SDA                          USGS, DOI
Phone: (916) 654-0768           Phone: (520) 556-7466 x235
E-mail: sschoenig@cdfa.ca.gov   E-mail: kathryn_a_thomas@
Calflora Database               usgs.gov
                                SWEMP Database




                                             39
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                                         APPENDIX D
                                         PARTICIPANTS
Pat Akers                         Dayna Dowdy           Nelroy Jackson
CA Dept. of Food and Ag.          TAES                  ISAC
Sacramento, CA                    Bushland, TX          Corona, CA

Bill Bellah                       Ogden Driskal         Kathie Jewell
Davis County                      Double Spear Ranch    BLM, DOI
Chadron, NE                       Devils Tower, WY      Billings, MT

Gordon Brown                      Jeanne Dye            Kim Johnson
SEC, DOI                          USAF                  Freemont County
Washington, DC                    Luke AFB, AZ          Lander, WY

Bob Bruce                         April Fletcher        Marilyn Johnson
RC&D, USDA                        FWS, DOI              BLM, DOI
Tucumcari, NM                     Albuquerque, NM       Phoenix, AZ

Danielle Bruno                    Larry Fowler          Jim Klinker
ID Dept. of Ag.                   APHIS, USDA           Arizona Farm Bureau
Boise, ID                         Raleigh, NC           Phoenix, AZ

Michael Carroll                   Joni Gerry            Christina Kuykendall
Larimer County                    USAF                  Nez Perce Bio Control Ctr.
Fort Collins, CO                  Beale AFB, CA         Lapwai, ID

Kirsten Christopherson            Paul Gertler          Marc Laliberte
USAF                              WGA                   OSU
Beale AFB, CA                     Denver, CO            Corvallis, OR

Rod Cook                          Greg Haubrich         Eric Lane
La Plata County                   WA Dept. of Ag.       CO Dept. of Ag.
Durango, CO                       Yakima, WA            Lakewood, CO

Ron Crockett                      Ken Henke             Lisa Lantz
Monsanto                          BLM, DOI              WSNCB
Monsanto, CA                      Cheyenne, WY          Kent, WA

Pam Dandrea                       Ron Hiebert           Andy Mason
BLM, DOI                          NPS, DOI              FS, USDA
Billings, MT                      Flagstaff, AZ         Fort Collins, CO

Frannie Decker                    Ray Holes             Larry Maxfield
NM Dept. of Ag.                   Lazy H Livestock      BLM, DOI
Las Cruces, NM                    White Bird, ID        West Jordon, UT

Tom Dille                         Roger Inman           Craig McClure
RMF                               BLM, DOI              NPS, DOI
Fort Collins, CO                  Worland, WA           Yellowstone NP, WY




                                                  40
                                               COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


Henry McNeel        Chad Prosser                       Glen Secrist
BLM, DOI            ARS, USDA                          ID Dept. of Ag.
Billings, MT        Sidney, MT                         Boise, ID

Jeff Menges         Dawn Rafferty                      R.B. Sleeth
NCBA                NE Dept. of Ag.                    RMF
Morenci, AZ         Reno, NV                           Paradise Valley, AZ

Brian Mihlbachler   Gina Ramos                         Carol Spurrier
USAF                BLM, DOI                           BLM, DOI
USAF Academy, CO    Washington, DC                     Lakewood, CO

Barbra Mullin       Roy Reichenbach                    Ron Stinner
MT Dept. of Ag.     WY Dept. Ag.                       NCSU
Helena, MT          Cheyenne, WY                       Raleigh, NC

Francis Northam     Tim Reuwsaat                       Jerry Sullivan
AZ Dept. of Ag.     BLM, DOI                           OK Dept. of Ag.
Phoenix, AZ         Washington, DC                     Oklahoma City, OK

Craig Novak         Peter Rice                         Bruce Taubert
Red Hen Systems     UM                                 AGFD
Fort Collins, CO    Missoula, MT                       Phoenix, AZ

James Olivarez      Dick Ridgway                       Kathryn Thomas
FS, USDA            RMF                                USGS, DOI
Missoula, MT        Silver Spring, MD                  Flagstaff, AZ

Debi Owings         Donna Ridgway                      Nyleen Troxel-Stowe
TAES                RMF                                SSWCD
Bushland, TX        Silver Spring, MD                  Socorro, NM

Elizabeth Peck      Ken Rogers                         Jennifer Vollmer
BLM, DOI            USAF                               BASF
Santa Fe, NM        Gila Bend, AZ                      Laramie, WY

Scott Peterson      Roger Rosentreter                  L.D. Walker
NRCS, USDA          BLM, DOI                           BLM, DOI
Baton Rouge, LA     Boise, ID                          St. George, UT

Tim Playford        Steve Sanchez                      Charles White, Sr.
Dow AgroSciences    BLM, DOI                           USAF
Fishers, IN         Saguache, CO                       Washington, DC

Noel Poe            Steve Schoenig                     Cheryl Wiersma
NPS, DOI            CA Dept. of Food and Ag.           USAF
Medora, ND          Sacramento, CA                     Luke AFB, AZ




                                    41
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS



                                 APPENDIX E
          ON-LINE DATABASES CONTAINING INFORMATION ON INVASIVE PLANTS
     (from http://www.invasivespecies.gov/databases/tpdb.shtml; additional databases can be found at
                 http://nas.er.usgs.gov/publications/plants/plant_workshop/npwrkshp/ and
                     http://www.nbii.gov/issues/invasive/workshops/proceeds_lv.html)


APHIS Regulated Pest List                                    Scope: It contains over 3,100 sight records of infes-
Host: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and             tations of EPPC Category I and Category II species
Plant Health Inspection Service                              in Florida public lands and waters. Nearly all of
Scope: This database contains fields such as                 the records are from local, state, and federal parks
pest type, order, family, scientific name, author,           and preserves; a few records document infesta-
common name, source, illustration, data sheet,               tions in regularly disturbed public lands such as
citation, update, comment, host distribution, and            highway or utility rights-of-way. Natural area man-
regulated site.                                              agers and other veteran observers of Florida’s nat-
                                                             ural landscapes submit these records, with many
CalWeed Database                                             supported further by voucher specimens housed
Host: California State Department of Food &                  in local or regional herbaria for future reference
Agriculture; California Interagency Noxious Weed             and verification.
Coordinating Committee; U.S. Bureau of Land
Management; University of California-Davis                   Exotic Plants of the South Florida Ecosystem
Scope: This database contains weed eradication               Host: The Institute for Regional Conservation
project profiles, including many invasive weeds, in          Scope: This database presents lists of exotic plant
California. Profile data include: targeted invasive          taxa on conservation lands in a 19-county area
name(s); targeted species for (re)introduction;              defined as the South Florida Ecosystem by the U.S.
project location; lead and participating agencies;           Fish and Wildlife Service. The South Florida
controls used; time frame for project; resource              Ecosystem is a larger area than that covered by
issues; and project contact information. Users can           the Floristic Inventory of Southern Florida.
view the data by project, by targeted invasive, by
county, or by control method.                                Federal Noxious Weeds Database
                                                             Host: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Crop Profiles Database                                       Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection
Host: U.S. Department of Agriculture                         and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science
Scope: This database profiles various crop species           and Technology
grown in the U.S., and includes data about the               Scope: This database has been derived from the
arthropod and plant pests that affect them, includ-          “Federal Noxious Weed Inspection Guide - Noxious
ing invasive species. Users can search by crop               Weed Inspection System.” The database contains
type, region, and/or key terms. Each crop profiled           fields such as scientific name, family name, syn-
includes listings of pest species and their potential        onym(s), common name(s), diagnostic character-
damage, monitoring techniques, pest life history,            istics, habitat, distribution outside of the U.S., dis-
and possible controls.                                       tribution within the United States (if applicable),
                                                             reason for listing as a Federal Noxious Weed
Exotic Plant Database [The Florida Exotic Pest               (FNW), what form of the plant is most likely to
Plant Council (FLEPPC)]                                      enter the United States, likely pathways of entry
Host: Florida EPPC; Florida Department of                    into the United States, general notes, photographs
Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Invasive                (if available) line drawings, distribution maps (if
Plant Management                                             available), etc.




                                                        42
                                                                       COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION


Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk (HEAR)                          region. The site also includes a state/provincial
Host: U.S. Geological Survey; University of Hawaii          noxious weeds query form, as well as a database
Scope: This web site provides technology, meth-             of biocontrol measures. Researchers may also
ods, and information to decision-makers, resource           submit their own data to the database.
managers, and the general public to aid in the
fight against harmful alien species in Hawaii. Its          National Agricultural Pest Information System
Harmful Non-Indigenous Species Database (HNIS)              (NAPIS): Public Access Site
offers data on plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate          Host: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and
invaders.                                                   Plant Health Inspection Service; Purdue University,
                                                            Entomology Department, Center for Environmental
Illinois Plant Information Network (ILPIN)                  and Regulatory Information Systems
Host: Illinois Natural History Survey; U.S.                 Scope: Search access to the full NAPIS database is
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service                   limited to employees of the USDA; however, impor-
Scope: ILPIN was designed to provide many differ-           tant information concerning plant pests, including
ent types of information about all of the vascular          invasives, is available from this public access site.
plant taxa found in Illinois. At this site, you can         The Pest Information section profiles hundreds of
search on a species (by scientific or common                pest species, and includes fact sheets; survey and
name), and retrieve all the information we have             distribution maps; regulations; related links; and
compiled on the species, as well as a map of its            photos. The State Reports section highlights spe-
known distribution among the counties in Illinois.          cific pest issues for each state.
Includes taxonomic, biologic, geographic, and
ecologic information on 3209 Illinois vascular              PLANTS Database
plant taxa.                                                 Host: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
                                                            Resources Conservation Service
Invasive Plants of Canada (IPCAN)                           Scope: The PLANTS Database includes names,
Host: National Botanical Services (Canada)                  checklists, automated tools, identification informa-
Scope: The IPCAN project compiles information on            tion, species abstracts, distributional data, crop
the biology, distribution and control of invasive           information, plant symbols, plant growth data,
exotic plants and for developing databases for              plant materials information, plant links, refer-
computer mapping and analysis. Data for inclusion           ences, and other plant information. The Invasive
in these national databases are derived from spec-          & Noxious section of the database provides a
imen records in national collections, from sight            Federal Noxious Weeds List; State Noxious Weed
records made by naturalists and professional                Reports; Invasive Plants of the U.S.; and
botanists and from published reports. These data-           Introduced Plants of the U.S.
bases not only provide a historical perspective on
the origins and rate of spread of invasives but also        Southern African Botanical Diversity Network
allow for the determination of possible correla-            (SABONET)
tions with climatic and other environmental and             Host: SABONET is a GEF (Global Environment
land use factors using geographic information               Facility) Project implemented by the United
systems (GIS).                                              Nations Development Programme (UNDP). South
                                                            Africa’s National Botanical Institute (NBI) is the
INVADERS Database                                           Executing Agency, responsible for the overall
Host: University of Montana                                 management and administration of the project. In
Scope: The INVADERS Database is a comprehen-                addition to the GEF/UNDP funding, the project is
sive database of exotic plant names and weed dis-           co-funded by the USAID/IUCN ROSA through the
tribution records for five states in the northwest-         NETCAB (Regional Networking and Capacity
ern United States. Users can query the system by            Building Initiative) Programme.
scientific or common name, or by geographic




                                                       43
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


Scope: SABONET is a capacity-building network of            Scope: This site provides a compiled national list
southern African herbaria and botanic gardens               of invasive plants infesting natural areas through-
with the objective of developing local botanical            out the U.S., background information on the prob-
expertise. The 10 countries participating in                lem of invasive species, illustrated fact sheets that
SABONET are Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi,              include plant descriptions, native range, distribu-
Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland,               tion and habitat in the U.S., management options,
Zambia and Zimbabwe; these countries cover an               suggested alternative native plants, and other
area of some 6 million square kilometres.                   information, and selected links to relevant people
                                                            and organizations.
Southwest Exotic Plant Mapping Project
Host: U.S. Geological Survey                                Weeds in New Zealand
Scope: A regional database of exotic plant distribu-        Host: Environment Bay of Plenty Regional Council,
tions for the Southwest (which consists of                  New Zealand
Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado Plateau por-               Scope: Terrestrial and aquatic plants in New
tions of Utah and Colorado). The purpose of this            Zealand
project is to develop and distribute information
on exotic plant species distributions, as well as           World Weeds Database
to provide information on the status of exotic              Host: Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford University
species distributions on the Colorado Plateau, and          (UK)
the greater Southwest.                                      Scope: The World Weeds Database displays infor-
                                                            mation on more than 2,400 weed species around
Weeds Gone Wild                                             the world, including non-native species, ranked
Host: Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant              according to the severity of infestation. Users can
Working Group                                               view data by country, plant, genus, or family.




                                                       44
                                                                     COLLECTING, SHARING AND USING INFORMATION



                                                APPENDIX F
                             “Collecting, Sharing and Using Information”
                            Western Rangeland Noxious Weeds Workshop:
                               Weed Management Information Systems


                                                 PROGRAM
                                            September 6-7, 2000
                            Bureau of Land Management National Training Center
                                 and Four Points Barcelo Hotel, Phoenix, AZ


                                        Wednesday, September 6

8:15 am   Opening Session, Washington Rooms,              10:20 am Break
          Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
                                                          10:35 am Federal Inventory and Mapping
          Introductions                                            Programs
            Tom Dille, Riley Memorial Foundation                   Moderator: Eric Lane, SDA-CO
            (RMF)
                                                                    FS
          Welcome                                                     James Olivarez, FS
           Marilyn Johnson, BLM                                     NPS
          Greetings from the Invasive Species                         Ron Hiebert, National Park Service
          Advisory Committee (ISAC)                                   (NPS)
            Nelroy Jackson, ISAC                                    BLM
                                                                      Gina Ramos and Kathie Jewell, BLM
8:30 am   Opening Remarks from State, Federal
          and Private Perspectives                        11:35 am Data Issues with Broad Applications
          Moderator: Tim Playford, Dow                             Moderator: Gina Ramos, BLM
          AgroSciences                                              NAWMA Standards and Sample Protocols
          A State Perspective                                        Eric Lane, SDA-CO and Rita Beard, FS
            Glen Secrist, State Department of                       Quality Assurance, Accuracy, Scale
            Agriculture, Idaho (SDA-ID)                             and Integration
          The BLM Perspective                                         Ron Stinner, North Carolina State
            Tim Reuwsaat, BLM                                         University (NCSU)
          The Forest Service Perspective
            James Olivarez, Forest Service (FS)           12:20 n   Box Lunch
          A Private Sector View of the Federal
          Responsibility                                            Introduction of Luncheon Speaker
            Jeff Menges, National Cattlemen’s Beef                    Gordon Brown, Department of the
            Association                                               Interior

9:20 am   Existing State Inventory and Mapping                      Luncheon Speaker
          Programs                                                    Bruce Taubert, Arizona Game and
          Moderator: Eric Lane, SDA-CO                                Fish Department

          State of California                             1:35 pm Privacy Issues and Freedom of
            Steve Schoenig and Pat Akers, SDA-CA                  Information Act
          State of Idaho                                          Moderator: Frannie Decker, SDA-NM
            Danielle Bruno, SDA-ID
          State of Montana                                          Federal Role
            Barbra Mullin, SDA-MT                                     Pam Dandrea, BLM



                                                     45
WESTERN RANGELAND NOXIOUS WEEDS


          State Role                                     3:45 pm Break
            Barbra Mullin, SDA-MT
          Private Rights                                 4:00 pm Collecting Locational Data at the Field
              Jim Klinker, Arizona Farm Bureau                   Level – Challenges
          Discussion                                             Moderator: Roy Reichenbach, SDA-WY

2:30 pm Case Studies of Selected Projects as a                    Obstacles to Collecting Data
        Prelude to the Poster and Demonstration                    Nyleen Troxel-Stowe, Socorro Soil &
        Projects                                                   Water Conservation District, NM
        Moderator: Carol Spurrier, BLM                             Rod Cook, La Plata County, CO
                                                                   Bill Bellah, Davis County Weed
          National Database for Aerial Surveys                     Control, NE
            Andy Mason, FS
          Weed Mapper: Yellow Starthistle in             4:30 pm Highlights of the Day – A Recap
          Jackson County, OR
            Marc Laliberte, Oregon State                 4:45 pm General Session Ends for the Day
            University
          Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem                  5:00 pm Meeting of Break-Out Group
            Craig McClure, NPS                                   Co-Moderators, Ponderosa Room,
          Theodore Roosevelt National Park                       Four Points Barcelo Hotel
            Noel Poe, NPS
          Southwest Exotic Mapping Program               6:00 pm Reception with Posters, Displays, and
          (SWEMP)                                                Demonstrations, Mesquite Ballroom,
            Kathryn Thomas, United States                        Four Points Barcelo Hotel
            Geological Survey



                                          Thursday, September 7


7:00 am   Breakfast served at Four Points Barcelo                   Eric Lane, SDA-CO
          Hotel                                                     James Olivarez, Forest Service, USDA
                                                                    Roy Reichenbach, SDA-WY
8:15 am   General Session, Washington Rooms, BLM                    Tim Reuwsaat, Bureau of Land
                                                                    Management, DOI
          Why do we need to share data?                             Ron Stinner, North Carolina State
          What are the possibilities?                               University
          Moderator: Ron Stinner, NCSU
          Introductory Remarks by Panel Members          11:00 am Breakout Groups Report to Workshop
            Glen Secrist, SDA-ID                                  Participants
            Peter Rice, Univ. of MT                               Moderator: Paul Gertler, Western
            Scott Peterson, Natural Research                      Governors’ Association
            Conservation Service, USDA
          Discussion                                     11:30 am Private Stakeholder Perspectives on
                                                                  Current Activities and Future Needs
9:15 am   Charge to Breakout Sessions                             Moderator: Tom Dille, RMF
           Tom Dille, RMF                                         Ray Holes, Rancher, ID
                                                                  Ogden Dristkal, Rancher, WY
9:30 am   Breakout Sessions                                       Jennifer Vollmer, BASF
          Facilitators and Reporters:
            Danielle Bruno, SDA-ID                       12:15 pm Closing Remarks
            Frannie Decker, SDA-NM                                Tom Dille, RMF
            Ron Hiebert, National Parks Service,
            DOI                                          12:30 pm Adjourn




                                                    46

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:9/10/2011
language:English
pages:56