Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Invasive ...

Chapter 4: Spartina Control and Management<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Third</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> on Invasive SpartinaTable 1: Priority risks to <strong>the</strong> Tasmanian Rice Grass Management Program and summary <strong>of</strong> key management responses.Priority Risks to Program SuccessLack <strong>of</strong> key stakeholder support formanagement programEfficacy <strong>of</strong> control techniques is lessthan 90%Actual and perceived toxicologicalimpact <strong>of</strong> herbicide on <strong>the</strong>environmentActual and perceived impact <strong>of</strong> ricegrass removal to environmentActual and perceived impact <strong>of</strong>herbicide on survival growth andmarketing <strong>of</strong> commercial Pacificoysters, Crassostrea gigasLack <strong>of</strong> funds to continueimplementation <strong>of</strong> managementprogramExponential increases in area <strong>of</strong> ricegrass infestationsManagement Responses• Develop and review area-based Management Plans with stakeholders• Establish regional ‘champions’ and establish appropriate mechanisms forongoing communication• Include experienced weed management persons in management team• Identify key variables and establish system to monitor performance or teammembers and conduct annual review <strong>of</strong> control technique efficacy• Commission risk assessment on toxicological risks <strong>of</strong> herbicide to <strong>the</strong>environment• Develop targeted monitoring program• Provide scholarships/funding to encourage student research on <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong>herbicide to non-target organisms• Commission risk assessment that considers toxicological effects <strong>of</strong> herbicideon juvenile and adult C. gigas• Conduct field and laboratory-based research on effects <strong>of</strong> herbicide on C.gigas• Demonstrate commitment to program objectives, wise use <strong>of</strong> funds andaccountability• Seek key opportunities for media releases• Identify priority areas for control• Develop realistic seasonal goals for priority control areas and developsystematic approach to reduction <strong>of</strong> infestationsmechanisms were used to engage stakeholders in developing<strong>the</strong>se plans: 1) identifying and involving champions, 2)convening regional meetings, and 3) holding targetedstakeholder meetings. Trusted community members whowere well-informed on coastal natural resource managementissues assisted with outreach to <strong>the</strong> local communities wheregrass infestations occurred, and identified <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong> localstakeholder interests to be considered in developing <strong>the</strong>seplans. Champions for <strong>the</strong> intertidal oyster industry were alsoidentified and involved to ensure that <strong>the</strong>ir interests,concerns and potential contributions were clearlyrecognized/understood.In collaboration with <strong>the</strong>se champions, regionalmeetings were organized to seek community and industry, inparticular <strong>the</strong> oyster industry, support for recommendedmanagement objectives, proposed control techniques andfield-based operations. Stakeholder contributions during<strong>the</strong>se meetings were very useful for identifying coastalaccess points, preferred periods for control activities andpriority areas for control. Regional meetings providedvaluable input to <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> area-basedmanagement plans, including agreement on <strong>the</strong> roles andresponsibilities <strong>of</strong> relevant stakeholders.In some cases regional meetings were followed up withmore targeted stakeholder meetings to better understandspecific stakeholder concerns about <strong>the</strong> potential ecologicaleffects <strong>of</strong> various control techniques. These meetings <strong>of</strong>tenrequired substantial preparation and time but were importantfor generating broad stakeholder support for <strong>the</strong> program.Media releases and a quarterly newsletter keptstakeholders informed <strong>of</strong> rice grass management progress.Media opportunities were sought to highlight <strong>the</strong>achievement <strong>of</strong> key management program milestones.Environmental monitoring and targeted research.During <strong>the</strong> mid 1990s <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> NaturalResources, Victoria, Australia, conducted a range <strong>of</strong> studiesthat investigated <strong>the</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> control techniques and <strong>the</strong>irecological impacts. The studies collectively pointed to <strong>the</strong>highly selective post-emergent herbicide Fusilade as <strong>the</strong>preferred means <strong>of</strong> controlling rice grass infestations.Similar studies by <strong>the</strong> DPIWE in Tasmania also pointed toFusilade as an environmentally responsible, safe, and costeffectivetechnique. However, Fusilade is not licensed foruse in <strong>the</strong> coastal environment. In 1998 <strong>the</strong> DPIWE used<strong>the</strong>se research findings to support an application for an <strong>of</strong>flabelpermit to use Fusilade to control rice grass inTasmania, which was later approved that year by <strong>the</strong>National Registration Authority for Agricultural andVeterinary Chemicals.Initially, DPIWE voluntarily restricted its use <strong>of</strong>Fusilade to <strong>the</strong> very small infestations (e.g., Derwent Riverand St Helens sites) pending <strong>the</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> anindependent environmental risk assessment on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>- 244 -