What Is This Integrated Vegetation Management, This IVM .
What is this Integrated Vegetation Management, this IVM– Now, Today, and into the Future?Christopher A. NowakABSTRACTIntegrated Vegetation Management, or IVM, has been touted over the past few decadesas the approach for rights-of-way vegetation management. It is an approach based onIntegrated Pest Management systems at its core, but also includes the necessaryadministrative and institutional structures and components to create a full managementsystem. IVM was central to the development of the existing American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) A300 Part 7-2006 Vegetation Management standards and theInternational Society of Arboriculture best management practices. IVM has continued toevolve over the last decade, with examples of expanded emphasis of work on: 1) broadassessment of environmental impact, 2) building social awareness and responsibility; and3) elevated focus on safety and reliability of service. The time is right to redefine IVMand bring it in its new form to the public, regulators, and practitioners so it can be fullyengaged and applied on rights-of-way (ROW) across the world. This paper presents ahistory of IVM, its current state and use by ROW industries, and possible future change.A bibliography of key references is provided that every ROW vegetation manager shouldread, along with this paper.Keywords: Integrated Pest Management, IPM, IVM history, managementsystemINTRODUCTION“Integrated Vegetation Management” is the phrase that has been used by the electricutility industry and other allied rights-of-way industries and institutions (such as roadside,railroad and pipeline) to describe the processes and procedures to manage right-of-way(ROW) vegetation. The phrase reflects a systems approach to vegetation management,where a variety of management components – those processes and procedures needed toperform vegetation management – are integrated together to produce desired, sustainablechanges in the managed right-of-way.Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) is defined as (ANSI 2006; ISA, via Gardener2007):a system of managing plant communities in which compatible andincompatible vegetation is identified, action thresholds are considered,control methods are evaluated, and selected control(s) are implemented toachieve a specific objective. Choice of control methods is based on
effectiveness, environmental impact, site characteristics, safety, securityand economics.This definition seems short in terms of capturing fully the breadth and depth of IVM. Inthe ANSI standard (ANSI 2006), some added dimension to IVM is presented as “Thereason for Integrated Vegetation Management”:to promote sustainable plant communities that are compatible with theintended use of the site, and discourage incompatible plants that may poseconcerns, including safety, security, access, fire hazard, utility servicereliability, emergency restoration, visibility, line-of-sight requirements,regulatory compliance, environmental, or other specific concerns.Yet, even with this addition, the ANSI definition still shorts the full portrayal of IVM.Consider the following new, extended definition (new text in italics; text from ANSI orISA in normal font):IVM is a system for making decisions and applying vegetationmanagement treatments based on a series of components and stepsconsistent with principles and practices of Integrated Pest Management(IPM). It is used to systematically, yet with an artistry that best comes withexperience, understand, justify, choose amongst, selectively apply, andmonitoring different types of treatments, with an overall goal of elicitingsite-specific, ecosystem-sensitive, economically-sensible and sociallyresponsible treatment effects that lead to refined achievement ofmanagement objectives and continuous improvement in practice. Choiceof vegetation management action is based on effectiveness, environmentalimpact, site characteristics, safety, security and socioeconomics. IVM ismeant to promote sustainable plant communities that are compatible withthe intended use of the site, and uses combinations of treatments (usuallychemical and biological) to control, prevent and otherwise discourageincompatible plants that may pose concerns, including safety, security,access, fire hazard, utility service reliability, emergency restoration,visibility, line-of-sight requirements, regulatory compliance,environmental, or other specific concerns. The key steps of IVM consistentwith IPM are: 1) gaining science-based understanding of pest andecosystem dynamics; 2) setting management objectives and tolerancelevels based on institutional requirements and broad stakeholder input; 3)compiling a broad array of treatment options that are combined in variousways to produce desired plant communities, including biological,chemical, manual, mechanical, cultural and physical methods, andapplying them in concert on a site-specific basis to foster prevention ifpossible, and control of the pest problem with an emphasis on biologicalcontrol; and 4) monitoring the system to determine when treatments areboth necessary and how effective they were in achieving desired plantcommunities and meeting objectives. IVM is considered a sustainableendeavor for management of a specific ROW site because of its balancedconsiderations and actions upon both socioeconomics and environment.2
A long, complex definition – but this is needed to fully portray IVM today. Key elementsand aspects added to the ANSI and ISA definitions were: clearly connecting IVM to IPM;presenting sustainability as a guiding principle; and referencing the complexity, fullnessand artistry that requires a professional in its application.This new definition is a bit cumbersome. Consider the following hyper-short definition:Integrated Vegetation Management is tantamount to Integrated PestManagement with plants as the pests, and application considerate ofsustainability principles and practices.How did all this develop, this IVM as portrayed by these definitions, the long and theshort of it? How did we get here? And, what possibly can be next?IVM reflects the current state of the evolution of professional ROW vegetationmanagement. As a profession, it is important to regularly reflect on where we have been,where we are going, and what is next for work endeavors. Such reflection leads toelevated practice of vegetation to the betterment of the company or the institution that isresponsible for the right-of-way and for society as a whole for they are affected by ROWvegetation management in many direct and indirect ways. It is the purpose of this paperto provide some information and thoughts on IVM, specifically providing some thoughtprovoking ideas and references to address: How did we get here? Where are we now?What next? The paper is meant to be a primer for the novice vegetation manager on ahistory of IVM, a treatise for the non-utility stakeholder so they can appreciate therichness and depth of development of vegetation management practice, and a synthesisfor the experienced vegetation manager so they can continue to grow and add to theevolution of IVM with their work and thought energies.“Where Have We Been?” to “Where Are We Now?” – A GeneralHistory of IVMAfter reading literature and having many discussions with various thought leaders inROW vegetation management, the following history of IVM was developed that is aperspective, my perspective. This history is framed by four different eras, each defined asperiods with consistent management focus, specifically on the objectives of managingpower line right-of-way vegetation. There are many other ways to organize the history ofIVM, but this approach has worked (e.g., as a presented paper at the ROW10 conference)to share ideas and stimulate discussion. The era framework reflects and celebrates whatwe – the right-of-way industry and particularly the electric utility industry – haveaccomplished over the past 100 years.NOTE: I count myself as one of the “we”, as many of you readers should. I have notmanaged a power line right-of-way, but I have worked on them as a scientist, enjoyedthem as a citizen, and been otherwise affected by them in many positive and productiveways.3
Era #1: 1890s through the 1950sElectricity was first transmitted in the late 1800s, and with it came the need to managevegetation. From the 1890s through the 1930s, vegetation was maintained by the handcutting of undesirable plants, mostly trees. In the 1940s, after the machinations of warwere shifted to a focus of producing societal goods and services, herbicides weresynthesized and mass manufactured for utility use to kill undesirable plants. Immediately,the question arose: “Should herbicides be used to broadcast-treat power line rights-ofway with the use of phenoxy herbicides to shift plant communities to grasses and othermonocots?”, or “Should herbicides be targeted at individual, undesirable plants and thedesirable, low-stature plants left untreated?”. These questions have only recently beenresolved as not being one or the other, but some possible combinations of both dependingon the right-of-way condition and situation. Science-based answers to these questionsbegan in the northeastern United States with the work of Frank Egler and WilliamNiering, and soon after them William Bramble and W. Richard Byrnes. Their“Gamelands 33” study, which began in 1953, was the first, long-term, rigorous,replicated, manipulative field experiment on ROW. It has run since and produced a largeportion of today’s understanding of the cost and effectiveness of vegetation management.Research from Gamelands 33 provided a first inkling that ROW could produce a diversesuite of values and services. The focus of the work was on testing the effects of variousmechanical and chemical treatments on ROW plant communities and game animals.In Era #1, for the period 1890 through the 1950s, maintenance of vegetation on powerline corridor rights-of-way was all about safety and reliability (with a small inkling aboutanimals and the environment from Gamelands 33), and the managers of those days did it.Era #2: 1960s through the 1970sHigh efficacy and low cost of herbicides lead to their broad scale and often indiscriminateuse. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was common for herbicides to be applied across longexpanses of ROW, edge-to-edge using helicopters. This meant problems with drift and avariety of overspray on sensitive ecological features that we recognize today, such asriparian areas. Yet, despite the possible high degree of control of problem plants withsuch broad use of herbicides, severe electric transmission outages and blackouts occurredin the mid-1960s that raised concern for mismanagement of vegetation on ROW. The1960s was also the time when publics shifted their societal focus from economy toenvironment – it was the decade of the environmental movement. This trigger point intime was punctuated with Rachel Carson’s book on the misuse of pesticides SilentSpring (1962).In the 1970s, societal concerns about human health and safety, and the environment,resulted in increased regulations on the ROW vegetation management industry. Federaland state agencies instituted legal strictures that forced expanded use and considerationsfor management planning, best management practices to protect water quality, andrequired training and education on herbicide use and associated certifications forapplicators.4
In Era #2, for the period 1960 through the 1970s, maintenance of vegetation on powerline corridor rights-of-way was all about safety and reliability, but was expanded toinclude regulations and considerations for the environment driven by societal concerns and the managers of those days did it.Era #3: 1980s through the 1990sIn the 1980s, vegetation management on power line corridors was unknowingly beingdeveloped and applied in ways consistent with classic Integrated Pest Managementprinciples and precepts. Since 1959, the core principles of IPM have included: 1) basic,science-based understanding of the biology and ecology of the pest organism and theecosystem within which it occurs; 2) development of tolerance levels based onstakeholder desires that aid in deciding when, or when not to treat the pest; 3) pestmanagement aimed at preventing the presence and development of the pest; 4) pestmanagement aimed at controlling, and not extirpating, the pest; 5) integrated use ofbiological control as a way to reduce and balance use of chemical methods; and 6)monitoring the pest to provide information to aid in management decisions. ROWvegetation management is in many respects “pest” management, where the pest for ROWvegetation management has been tall-growing trees and other plants (we have seen arecent expansion of the types of pests on ROW to commonly include noxious andinvasive, exotic plants, too). New herbicides were being introduced – the biosynthesisinhibitors (e.g., glyphosate, and a variety of imidazoline and sulfonylurea herbicides) –that broadened and deepened the manager’s toolbox, and provided chemicals for use thathad near 100% efficacy with a wide variety of plants. These new herbicides elevated theopportunity to selectively remove undesirable plants while causing only minimaldisturbance to the desirable plant community.In the 1990s, the core components of IPM were expanded and ordered to better capturethe breadth and complexity of ROW vegetation management, and to make IVM a fullmanagement system. The new IVM management system encompassed the professionaldiscipline, and included commitments to continuous improvement through expansion ofmonitoring to include not just the pest, but the whole functioning of the managementsystem. IVM was being recognized as a complex of management considerations,decisions and activity with a commitment to improvement and elevated practice overtime.In the 1990s, forestry and other allied disciplines and professionals embraced newconcepts of ecosystem management and sustainability. Ecosystem health and integrity,biodiversity conservation, and elevated stakeholder involvement in management definedthe change. Forest certification – formal accounting, branding and marketing systems fordefining sustainable forest management practices – became a force for professionalaccountability. Utility vegetation management – IVM – was soon to be caught up in thesechanges.5
In Era #3, for the period 1980 through the 1990s, management of vegetation on powerline corridor rights-of-way was all about safety, reliability, regulations, environment, andsocioeconomics, but was expanded to include considerations for integration andmanagement systems and inklings of sustainability and we did it!Era #4: 2000s through the 2010s (Present, and a Bit into the Future, too)In the opening decade of the new millennium, IVM emerged as a fully developing systemthat was codified into standards (ANSI A300) and best management practice guidelines(International Society of Arboriculture). Understanding and commitment to IVM rose toa high level. But, that was set back some with a series of blackouts, especially the easternNorth America blackout. This event – which was traced to mismanaged vegetation andgrid system failures – resulted in new, severe federal regulations meant to guarantee thatsafety and reliability were assured, always and everywhere. In many sectors of theindustry, these new regulations caused a drop back to earlier eras of vegetationmanagement (referred to as “backsliding” in professional vegetation management bymany in the industry). It is only now that companies are embracing once again the fullmeaning and application of IVM.Presently, IVM is expanding to be set in a program of larger more encompassing systems,stakeholder considerations, and documented planning so as to be more readily sustainedin its application, in both time and space. Accreditation programs are expanding or beingdeveloped to recognize full, proper and sustainable performance of IVM (e.g., see paperby J. Goodfellow, this conference). Accreditation and other means of formal review andaccounting is part of what is being referred to in management principles as “sociallicensing” – society scrutinizes and holds to accounts those that affect their lives.In contemporary Era #4, for the period 2000 through the present, management ofvegetation on power line corridor rights-of-way was all about safety, reliability,environment, socioeconomics, integration, management systems, but was expanded tofully include considerations for sustainability and accountability and we are doing it!SummaryUpon reflection, over the course of the last 100 years of vegetation management onpower line ROW, it can be concluded that ROW vegetation management has been and is:1) complex, with increasing complexity over time; 2) broad in terms of the types ofissues, concerns and other information needed to make sustained management decisions,with breadth also increasing over time; 3) long standing – ROW vegetation managementhas unfolded now for over 100 years; and 4) responsive, in that the profession has indeedchanged over time as knowledge and society have changed.Where Are We Going? A Pendulum Assessment of ROW10 and theFuture of IVM6
Before continuing on with reflection and thinking about what is next for power linecorridor vegetation management, and IVM in specific, a review of those agents of changeassociated with the passage of one era to the next, is presented as follows, with specificattention to those factors and forces of change that might have bearing on the future.Agents of change for this paper were grouped into six categories: 1) administrative; 2)environmental; 3) regulatory; 4) socioeconomic; 5) systems; and 6) science / technology.While all six operate during an era, it appears that only some factors and forces of changeoperate to really drive an era and cause a change to a new era (Figure 1). Clearly, theROW industry has been responsive. IVM as a professional endeavor is the result ofgrowth and development of vegetation management over a long period. Changes invegetation management have been both episodic and continuous. Episodically, there havebeen events such as blackouts that have triggered an expansion of regulations. Expansionof knowledge through work experience and long-term research is a more continuousagent of change. What we have today, after the various episodes and progressivedevelopments. is a complex management approach that has shifted from a single focuson safety and reliability to a broader, systems approach. This does not mean that safetyand reliability are minimized or marginalized. Not at all as these foci will always be first.But, how they are provided for has become more complex.It is broadly recognized that management and other human affairs are regularly shiftedand pushed by forces and factors that, over short periods of time, come from onedominant agent of change, and then later often shift to being pushed by another, oftenopposite, force or factor – like a pendulum (Figure 2). Science and technology associatedwith socio-economics can push on management for decades, and then be pushed back byscience and technology associated with the environment. The pivot-point, or hinge, forthe pendulum is the constant presence and force of people through administrations andinstitutions. They form the necessities of management, such as “staying solvent and inbusiness” and “following the law”. While some of these necessities may change overtime, they are omnipresent.For ROW vegetation management, the pendulum has been pushed back and forth overthe course of the last 100 years. In Era #1, the pendulum was pushed to the right asthrough forces and factors associated with economics nearly alone. In Era #2, thependulum was swung back with society’s interest in the environment, and today it seemsthe pendulum may be coming back again.A snap-shot of where the profession is at in terms of forces and factors was studied byevaluating all of
Institute (ANSI) A300 Part 7-2006 Vegetation Management standards and the International Society of Arboriculture best management practices. IVM has continued to evolve over the last decade, with examples of expanded emphasis of work on: 1) broad assessment of environmental impact, 2) building social awareness and responsibility; and 3) elevated focus on safety and reliability of service. The .
Earth's terrestrial photosynthetic vegetation activity in support of phenologic, change detection, and biophysical interpretations. Gridded vegetation index maps depicting spatial and temporal variations in vegetation activity are derived at 16-day and monthly intervals for precise seasonal and interannual monitoring of the Earth’s vegetation.
Pasco County - 30% Native vegetation required. Polk County - Recommends native vegetation and includes native vegetation on the recommended plant list St. Lucie County - 50% Native vegetation or waterwise landscape required - Existing, native trees, vegetation and other natural features shall be preserved to the extent practicable.
ABSTRACT/RESUME In this paper, two different methods for fractional vegetation cover (FVC) retrieval from CHRIS (Compact High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer) data based on vegetation indices have been analyzed. The first method uses NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation
This plan provides concepts for vegetation management within the structural framework of the General Management Plan Amendment. It tiers from the GMPA, and is an intermediate step between the GMPA and future site-specific action plans. The vegetation mosaic of the Presidio offers a unique management challenge - each type of vegetation
Shrubland Introduction . driving forces controlling vegetation dynamics. Precipita-tion and temperature are important climatic factors limit-ing the distribution of the vegetation and determining its structure and composition. Vegetation structure is defined . a biotic or abiotic origin,
Native vegetation learing ssessment guidelines 3 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Content 1. Introduction 4 . 3.2 Measuring the biodiversity value of native vegetation 8 4. Applications 12 . Aboriginal culture includes relationships to native . vegetation and the land. These relationships hold physical, social, spiritual .
1.1.2.3 Pre-closure Baseline Vegetation Monitoring Baseline vegetation monitoring for the MPPC at Salty Lagoon pre -closure of the artificia l channel was undertaken in March -April 2011 by GeoLINK. This is referred to in this report as 'baseline vegetation monitoring'.
In the 26 years since 有iley publìshed Organic 1于ze Disconnection Approach 色y Stuart Warren，由自approach to the learning of synthesis has become while the book Ìtself is now dated in content and appearance' In 唱Tiley published Organic and Control by Paul Wyatt and Stuart 轧Tarren. Thís muc如柱。okís as a
