Transcript PowerPoint Slides

6) Management
c) Control
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized
Ecological impacts
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized
Ecological impacts
Economic impacts
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized
Ecological impacts
Economic impacts
Management constraints
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized: Ecological, economic, management
constraints
• How to make decision:
Judgment
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized: Ecological, economic, management
constraints
• How to make decision:
Judgment
Precedence
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized: Ecological, economic, management
constraints
• How to make decision:
Judgment
Precedence
Formal analysis
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized: Ecological, economic, management
constraints
• How to make decision: Judgment, precedence, formal analysis
• Types of formal tools:
Environmental Assessment (EA/EIS)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized: Ecological, economic, management
constraints
• How to make decision: Judgment, precedence, formal analysis
• Types of formal tools:
Environmental Assessment (EA/EIS)
Cost-benefit analysis
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Types of information utilized: Ecological, economic, management
constraints
• How to make decision: Judgment, precedence, formal analysis
• Types of formal tools:
Environmental Assessment (EA/EIS)
Cost-benefit analysis
Expert opinion techniques
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Ranking system used by National Park System
Uses primarily numerical rankings
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Ranking system used by National Park System
Uses primarily numerical rankings
Written in outline format
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
• Ranking system used by National Park System
Uses primarily numerical rankings
Written in outline format
Has 2 main sections of quantitative information plus a third
qualitative factor
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System – Basic structure:
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance Within Park
B. Ease of Control
C. Side-Effects of Chemical/Mechanical Control Measures
D. Effectiveness of Community Management
E. Biological Control
III. URGENCY
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
1. Distribution:
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
1. Distribution: Concern ↑ as species is found in more
undisturbed, natural habitats
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
1. Distribution
2. Abundance: Concern ↑ with ↑ numbers & sizes of
populations
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
1. Distribution
2. Abundance
3. Effects: Concern ↑ with ↑ ecological impacts
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
1. Distribution
2. Abundance
3. Effects
4. Significance: Concern ↑ as species threaten things
that are special about the park
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact
1. Distribution
2. Abundance
3. Effects
4. Significance
5. Visuals: Concern ↑ with ↑ visual impact
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
1. Distribution
2. Abundance
3. Effects
4. Significance
5. Visuals: Concern ↑ with ↑ visual impact
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
1. Ability to complete reproductive cycle: Screening
tool
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
1. Ability to complete reproductive cycle
2. Mode of reproduction: Concern ↑ with seed
production, and if both vegetative & seed
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
1. Ability to complete reproductive cycle
2. Mode of reproduction
3–5 How fast an the population grow: Concern ↑ with ↑
ability to reproduce vegetatively or by seed
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
6. Dispersal: Concern ↑ with ↑ ability for long distance
dispersal
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
6. Dispersal
7. Germination: Concern ↑ with ↑ ability to germinate
under variety of conditions and hence colonize new
sites
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
6. Dispersal
7. Germination
8. Competition: Concern ↑ with ↑ competitive ability
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest
1–5 Reproduction
6. Dispersal
7. Germination
8. Competitive ability
9. Impact elsewhere: Concern ↑ with known ability to
have an impact elsewhere
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest – total possible
of 50 points
1–5 Reproduction
6. Dispersal
7. Germination
8. Competitive ability
9. Impact elsewhere
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
A. Current Level of Impact – total possible of 50 points
B. Innate Ability of Species to be a Pest – total possible of 50
points
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance Within Park: Easier to control as number &
size of populations ↓
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control: Easier to control as seed viability ↓
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control: Easier to control as seed viability ↓;
when vegetative regeneration is small
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control: Easier to control as seed viability ↓;
when vegetative regeneration is small; when effort
required is small
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control: Easier to control as seed viability ↓;
when vegetative regeneration is small; when effort
required is small; & when propagules are not nearby
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control
C. Side-effects: Easier to control if don’t expect more
problems to occur from the control treatments
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control
C. Side-effects
D. Community Management: Easier to control if can
incorporate into day-to day management
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control
C. Side-effects
D. Community Management
E. Biological Control: More desirable to use biological
control
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
A. Abundance
B. Ease of Control
C. Side-effects
D. Community Management
E. Biological Control
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
High
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
Low
High
6) Management
c) Control
Prioritizing control – From Hiebert in Luken & Thieret (1997)
•
Ranking system used by National Park System
I. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT – Total possible 100 points
II. FEASIBILITY OF CONTROL – Total possible 100 points
III. URGENCY – Qualitative (HML)
Low
High