We use grassroots efforts to kill grass roots! This overview of the successes and challenges of establishing the Northeast Michigan Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) will include topics like creating a scalable treatment program, working on public and private lands, prioritizing sites while including all landowners, and creating motivation to solve a problem that isn’t necessarily visible to often absent seasonal landowners. Ecologist Jennifer Muladore, who manages the Huron Pines Invasive Species Program and coordinates the Northeast Michigan CWMA, will lead group discussion and show visuals to help other invasive species program organizers boost their own program’s capacity for restoration success. This presentation was given by Jennifer Muladore, Ecologist, Huron Pines.

1. Sharing
Success:
The Northeast Michigan
CWMA
Jennifer Muladore | Huron Pines Ecologist
September 11, 2013

2. About Huron Pines
Conserving the forests, lakes,
and streams of Northeast
Michigan
› Nonprofit, 501(c)(3)
› 40 years in business
› 12 full-time staff plus
AmeriCorps program and
seasonal crew
› Projects include:
›
›
›
›
River restoration
Land stewardship
Watershed
planning
Kirtland’s Warbler
Initiative

3. Overview
› Background
and CWMA basics
› How do you solve a problem like phragmites?
› Scales and priorities
› Landowner motivation
› Other lessons and discussion

4. Background
What are Invasive Species?
› Live
outside their
historical distribution
› Potential to negatively
affect native plants of
the natural ecosystem,
the local economy, or
human health
› Don’t have to be from
other countries—even
native plants can get so
aggressive that they are
labeled invasive!

5. Background
What is a CWMA?
› Cooperative
Weed
Management Area
› Partnership that works
together to fight
invasive plants in a
defined area
› Governed by an
agreement that lays out
partner roles and
responsibilites
› Funding not always
required, but the
CWMA is helpful for
applying for it

6. Background
Key Points about the
Northeast Michigan CWMA
› Many
of our resources
are still high quality
› Early Detection-Rapid
Response: find invaders
fast and treat them
before they become a
big, expensive problem
› Priority species:
phragmites, garlic
mustard, Japanese
knotweed, purple
loosestrife, European
frogbit

9. Background
How are we different from
other efforts?
› Early
Detection-Rapid
Response
› Landowner focused
with regional goals
› Prioritized hotspots
› Combination of
outreach and
treatment
› SWAT Team!

10. Phragmites
The Campaign to End
Phragmites
› Phrag
is still an EDRR
species in most of
Northern Michigan
› There are many
special natural places
worth protecting
› Phrag is becoming
more visible to the
public in other places
› Funding is available
for phragmites
treatment

11. Phragmites
The Campaign to End
Phragmites: Components
› Inventory
(annual)
› Agency partnerships
› Cost-share to private
landowners
› Our staff does the
treatment except at
large properties
But…
With 467 miles of shoreline and hundreds of
inland lakes and streams, how do we choose
where to go first?

12. Prioritization
The 3-tiered approach: Sites
›
Highest priority: Keep invasive species out of high value sites and treat
outlier infestations whenever possible but especially near high value sites
›
›
›
›
Medium Priority: Contain or eradicate large source populations
›
›
Lands with endangered, threatened and special concern species or species of
greatest conservation need and/or high quality natural communities.
Lands that are currently managed as State parks, nature preserves, or in
conservation ownership.
Private lands bordering state parks, nature preserves or lands in conservation
ownership
Lands which include large blocks of landowners or single landowner with large
coastal properties.
Lowest Priority: Capitalize on treatment of any site where resources are
immediately available and success is likely
›
Individual privately owned properties without rare species, natural communities
and that do not border state parks, preserves or conservation lands will be
given the lowest priority.

13. Prioritization
The 3-tiered approach: Species
›
Highest priority: True Early Detection and Rapid Response
Garlic mustard, Japanese knotweed, phragmites, European frogbit, black
swallowwort, etc.
These species are not widespread in our service area and still have a
reasonable probability of being prevented from taking over region-wide.
›
Medium Priority: Watershed-Wide Control
Purple loosestrife, buckthorn, wild parsnip
These species are widespread but can be controlled in a larger area or
prevented from spreading to important habitats.
›
Lowest Priority: Site-by-site Removal
Autumn olive, spotted knapweed, mullein, burdock, thistles, queen anne’s
lace, ox-eye daisy, St. John’s wort
These species are considered noxious weeds and are heavily distributed
throughout Northeast Michigan, but they can be removed at important sites
where complete habitat restoration is taking place, or where rare species
are threatened.

14. Ownership
Public vs. Private Lands
Public Land Owners (2)
Private Land Owners (250)
Large parcels
Small parcels
Often multiple species, high
density in large areas
Usually one or two species, low
density or small area
Decisionmaker sometimes hard
to locate
Owner sometimes hard to locate
General good understanding of
need to remove IS
Often misinformed or uninformed
(but many well-informed,
enthusiastic!)
Multiple levels of red tape and
internal and external paperwork
Low paperwork individually,
willing to adapt to change
Willing to pay for work and
provide technical assistance
Willing to pay for work and
provide technical assistance
Usually not willing to work
beyond property lines
Often willing to group together or
pay for neighbors if needed

15. Motivation
Private landowner
characteristics in Northeast MI
› Many
2nd homes
› Full-time residents
some of the poorest
in the nation
› Many sites are
remote, close to
public land or
abandoned

16. Motivation
A Typical Invasion
Area invaded"
Widespread awareness"
Detection"
Introduction"
Eradication
simple
Eradication
feasible
Time"
Eradication
difficult
Only expensive LOCAL
management possible
Thanks to Ellen Jacquart, TNC and the MNFI!

17. Motivation
How we motivate landowners
› Offer
cost-share and
relief from red tape
› Push neighbor-toneighbor contact
and organization
› Continual print and
in-person education

18. Success

19. Lessons
What have we learned?
› Outreach
needs to be
constant, even to multiyear participants
› Landowners and
funding sources need a
“bridge” to help them
work toward mutual
goals
› Economic and political
issues influence even
the best-funded project
› Some people can’t be
convinced.

20. Lessons
What have we learned?
› Funding
is a puzzle
that we have to
piece together to
make all aspects of
the program work
each year
› Future challenge:
keeping the program
going as internal and
funder interests
change

21. Funders
2013 Puzzle Pieces
› Michigan
DEQ Coastal Management
Program (NOAA)
› National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
› Natural Resources Conservation Service
› North American Hydro
› Private Landowners
› U.S. Forest Service (GLRI)
› U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

22. Discussion
Questions for you
› What
are the local
values in your area?
› What activities will
best remove invasive
species and uphold
those values?
› What are some
barriers to total
eradication of
invasive species?
› What are you willing
to settle for?

23. Discussion
Questions for me?
Jennifer Muladore
Huron Pines
4241 Old US 27, Suite 2
Gaylord, MI 49735
(989) 448-2293 ext. 31
jennifer@huronpines.org
www.huronpines.org