Initial Coordination Meeting Synopsis
May 15-17, 2007: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Participants:
Science team
Carrie Reinhardt Adams, Dept. of Environmental Horticulture, University of Florida,
Julie Sorenson, Dept. of Environmental Horticulture, University of Florida
Susan Galatowitsch, Dept. of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota,
Eric Lonsdorf, Davee Center for Epidemiology and Endocrinology Lincoln Park Zoo
Clint Moore, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, University of Georgia
USFWS
Hal Laskowski, USFWS Region 5 Regional Biologist
Frank Durbian, Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge,
Rachel Laubhan, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
Kyle Kelsey, Madison WMD
Ron Bell, Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Rich Walters, NGPC/Rainwater Basin
Melinda Knutson, Biological Monitoring Team
Vicki Sherry, MN Valley
Rick Speers, Mingo
Pauline Drobney, Neal Smith
Tim Yager, McGregor
Eric Nelson, Winona District
Kristine Askerooth, Tewaukon NWR
Karen Harvey, Port Louisa
Additional participants
Anne Pierce, Minnesota DNR
Basil Ianone, Dept. of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota
Day 1 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007) RCG in the field, introduction to frame-based models and
the Adaptive Management (AM) process
On the first day of the workshop, held at the University of Minnesota Arboretum in Chaska MN,
participants shared knowledge of reed canary grass (RCG) context and behavior, coordinators
discussed the application of Adaptive Management, and the science team presented the concept
of frame-based models.
The first stop was Spring Peeper Meadow, a wetland restoration demonstration, where
participants and the science team discussed the efforts that have contributed to RCG control and
native species establishment at this site. Sue Galatowitsch and Julia Bohnen, UM Arboretum
biologist, detailed the restoration practices employed here to control RCG and establish native
species.
After lunch, Hal Laskowski emphasized the significance of this project as a collaborative effort
and described the importance of the AM process. The group moved to a study site where Julia
Bohnen has been managing a wet meadow that has been invaded with RCG. This restoration
effort provided material and discussion points to introduce frame-based modeling.
Refuge personnel described their personal experiences with RCG management in the context of
the frame-based model. The science team then demonstrated how this knowledge will be used to
improve the model, and eventually to inform the decision-making process for managing RCGinvaded sites.
Participants then moved to a conference room for presentations detailing the AM process and the
project website. The first presentation by Clint Moore provided a more detailed description of
AM and managing uncertainty, as well as an overview of a similarly structured AM project on
managing piedmont pinelands for the endangered Red Cockaded Woodpecker. Eric Lonsdorf
presented the elements of decision structure and led a discussion on objectives identification for
this project. Carrie Reinhardt Adams then demonstrated the project website, and solicited ideas
from participants on website improvement and data sharing.
Day 2 (Wednesday, May 16) – Management, constraint discussion, organizational structure
Objectives for the second day of the workshop, held at Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge, included defining switches between frames for the frame-based model, identifying
uncertainty associated with transitions between frames, developing management scenarios, and
discussing logistic and funding constraints.
Workshop participants were divided into expert groups and each group focused on a specific
frame within the model. Group members worked together to evaluate proposed rules and
switches for the group’s respective frame, as well as identify areas of uncertainty that this
exercise revealed. Then, each expert group exchanged their results with the expert group of the
corresponding frame. For example, the Wet Meadow group discussed their results with the
Mixed Wet Meadow group. Following this activity, all participants identified biological
uncertainties (gaps in knowledge of the RCG-invaded system), and categorized these as high,
medium, and low priority, based on the relevance of the uncertainty to the management decisions
regularly made at their refuges.
The participants were divided into two groups, one group consisting of refuge personnel and the
other group containing regional representatives. Refuge personnel described their questions
regarding specific management actions at their refuges, and discussed the scope of effort that
would be feasible. This information formed the basis for experimental design for this project.
The regional representatives discussed resource allocation issues and monitoring strategies. From
this discussion, several important points emerged, including 1) there is an immediate need to
estimate cost of treatment and time required for monitoring, and 2) funds required for individual
refuges to participate may be based on the experiment chosen. The conclusion of the monitoring
discussion was that the best monitoring strategies will be efficient and simple enough to be the
basis for a long-term monitoring plan. Also, monitoring methods should have low variability
with observer, . Concerns were raised with respect to the botanical expertise required for the
study; one solution may be to have the regional coordinators arrange for botanists to identify
pressed specimens.
The day wrapped up with Hal Laskowski’s discussion of communication and organizational
structure for the project. Frank Durbian and Rachel Laubhan will handle individual questions
from refuges in their respective regions, and when more discussion is needed, they will contact
Carrie Reinhardt Adams for collaborative problem-solving to address the issue. Hal also noted
the significance of the project as a demonstration of the Adaptive Management approach, which
has the potential to increase the efficiency of management efforts.
After conclusion of the meeting, the science team evaluated the information collected from
participants during the first two days of the workshop. Several experiments were designed to
address frequently encountered management scenarios. The experiments were planned to focus
on key biological uncertainties that participants identified as relevant, and to be within the scope
of feasible effort. The aim is to implement treatments in a standard way across refuges to
maximize the information gained from the exercise; therefore an effort was made to create
treatments that applied in many situations across the study region.
Day 3 (Thursday, May 17)—Management scenarios, monitoring, next steps
Objectives for the final day of the workshop, also held at Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge, included further increasing the group’s knowledge regarding the AM process, obtaining
feedback regarding the initial design of the experiments, and discussing monitoring strategies for
these experiments.
Eric Lonsdorf demonstrated an example of how participating in the AM process can reduce
uncertainty and aid in management decisions. He emphasized that reducing biological
uncertainty will affect the management of RCG and desirable vegetation. Clint Moore then
further elaborated on the AM process. He presented the management scenarios, which the
science team developed based on the information obtained from the refuge personnel during Day
2. The four management scenarios included:
1) Mixed RCG and wet meadow vegetation, where community composition is nearly
dominated by RCG
2) Mixed RCG and wet meadow vegetation, where community composition is nearly
dominated by wet meadow vegetation
3) A forest floodplain, where a gap in forest vegetation has been invaded by RCG to form a
nearly monodominant stand.
4) A forest floodplain, where an intact forest overstory exists, but the understory is
dominated by RCG.
Following Clint Moore’s presentation, Sue Galatowitsch depicted specific examples of where
these management scenarios could be implemented by refuge staff. During Sue Galatowitsch’s
presentation, Nita Fuller attended the workshop. She expressed her enthusiasm regarding this
project and progress of the participants.
After the presentations, the participants were divided into four groups to determine specific
monitoring techniques for each of the four proposed management scenarios (see 1-4 above).
Each group discussed the minimum monitoring scheme for the management scenario, as well as
a monitoring scheme where the allowed resources were doubled. The groups presented their
ideas about their monitoring strategies, and participants commented on these ideas. This
discussion formed the basis for the monitoring strategies incorporated into the study plan for this
project.
Participants then forwarded ideas for the project website, including:
• Post pictoral methods descriptions for monitoring and management implementation.
• Include a link to the Shorebird Study Plan, the DOI website on Adaptive Management,
and the recent Hovick and Reinartz 2007 article on RCG in floodplains.
• Create lists of refuges participating in each of the four experiments.
• Send email notification when the website is updated with pertinent information.