CWMA/CISMA

• Definition

• Why

• 5 characteristics

• How-to

• Where we are

• What’s next and who’s interested

Definition

Partnership across jurisdictional boundaries to manage invasive

species in a defined area

Why?

• Communication

• Strategic plan

• Prioritize species

• Inventory, map, monitor

• Coordinate management

• $

• Landscape approach to protecting LWR

Cooperative Weed Management Areas

USFWS

TNC

TNC

1. Defined geographical area distinguished by a common geography, invasive species problem, community, climate, political boundary, or land use.

2. Involvement or representation of the majority of landowners and natural resource managers in the defined area.

3. Establishment of a steering committee.

4. Commitment to cooperation.

5. Development of a comprehensive plan that addresses the management or prevention of one or more invasive species.

What are the five basic characteristics?

Where we are

USFWS

TNC

TNC

1. Defined geographical area distinguished by a common geography, invasive species problem, community, climate, political boundary, or land use.

2. Involvement or representation of the majority of landowners and natural resource managers in the defined area.

3. Establishment of a steering committee.

4. Commitment to cooperation.

5. Development of a comprehensive plan that addresses the management or prevention of one or more invasive species.

Chemical reps

Adjuvants

Helicopter flight

LWR helicopter survey 2008

Comparison with previous years

All-

223 points

1433 acres

Most occurrences were small

Size class % of occurrences

<1 acre 56

1-10 acres 34

11-50 acres 6

51-100 acres 3

100+ acres 1

Most were climbing some trees

Density % of occurrences

Single tree 7

Ground level 4

Scattered Mixed Light 55

Scattered Mixed Heavy 30

Dense canopy 4

Comparison

among 3 years of

survey points

within a convex

hull polygon of

overlapping

surveyed area

What we would hope to see over time (given

treatment)

Fewer points

Smaller acreage infestations

Fewer “dense” infestations

Number of points in convex hull

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2004 2006 2008

No

. o

f L

yg

od

ium

po

ints

Contingency analysis acreage by year

Pearson’s Coeff. 5.776 P=0.2165 no difference

Acre

age

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

2004 2006 2008

Year

Very low

Low

High>10 ac

1-10ac

<1 ac

Contingency analysis cover class by year

Pearson’s Coeff. 10.496 P=0.0053 2004 more dense points

Cover_

cla

ss

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

2004 2006 2008

Year

Low

High

dense

sp

ars

e

What does this mean?

Spread but reduced cover suggests treatment works

Treat and re-treat

We’re not out of the woods on the Lake Wales Ridge

What’s next?

Helicopter survey outlook

Objectives

tracking across time

finding unknown locations

How

survey by air? ground?

funding

When: 2010? 2011?

Who wants to help with planning

What’s next?

CISMA

Lygo survey

What else:

Topics?

Field trip?

ID workshop?

Report from FLEPPC?