Kelly Kearns Invasive Plants Coordinator WI Dept. of Natural Resources [email protected] 608-267-5066 Developing Consensus on Invasive Plants – Wisconsin’s Experience with Regulation
Jan 03, 2016
Kelly Kearns
Invasive Plants Coordinator
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
608-267-5066
Developing Consensus on Invasive Plants –
Wisconsin’s Experience with Regulation
Weed Law Technical Advisory Committee (93-04)
Statute passed giving DNR authority to classify and regulate invasive species (2001)
WI DNR and Invasives Council started working on rule (2004)
NR 40 Rule (Round 1) authorized and in effect (2009)
NR 40 Round 2 anticipated to be in effect late 2014
History of Wisconsin’s Rule
Goals of a comprehensive invasives rule
1. Alert public about and contain/eradicate new invasives 2. Minimize the spread of existing Invasives
3. Minimize hardship the rule may cause
Goals of the Assessment and Rule-making Process
1. Use best science and information available
2. Involve stakeholders throughout process
3. Take socio-economic concerns into account
4. Establish reasonable and effective regulations
5. Transparency
Non-indigenous species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Wisconsin Statutes 23.22)Plants (terrestrial and aquatic)Animals (vertebrates and invertebrates)Disease-causing organisms
Definition of “Invasive Species”
Selecting Species to Assess – Round 1 of NR 40
Focused on species:Known to be ecologically invasive species
Known invasive elsewhere, likely to cause significant impacts
No significant value to a sector of society
Economically important species put on the pending list to be assessed in NR 40 Round 2
Overview of the Process
Wisconsin Invasive Species Council (WISC) and WDNR developed:assessment process listing criteria list of species to be assessed draft rules
Literature reviews developedSpecies Assessment Groups (SAGs)
conducted assessments and made recommendations for each species
Extensive public input and revisions- 5 year process
Assessment Criteria*Current status and distribution
Establishment potential and life history traits
Damage potential
Socio-economic impacts (of the species invasiveness and of potential restrictions)
Control and prevention potential*Criteria are included in the state statute authorizing rule development
Categories of Invasive SpeciesProhibited – Not yet in the state or established in
pioneer stands only, potential to eradicate and prevent, high potential for environmental damage if widely established.
Restricted – Already established in the state, high environmental impacts
-------------------------------------------------------------------*Caution – More information needed, uncertain of
level of potential harm*Non-restricted – Socio-economic benefits of
species high, environmental impacts of invasion variable
*Pending – Species not yet assessed or listed, but will likely be assessed for future rule revisions
Species Regulated in Round 1
Plants .……..……………………..….… 73 Prohibited ……27 (10 are aquatic)Split P/R ………12Restricted …….34 (3 are aquatic)
Aquatic Invertebrates ……….….. 11 Terrestrial Invertebrates …..……. 8 Algae/ Cyanobacteria ……..……… 6Terrestrial Vertebrates………....… 4 Funguses …………………………..……. 1Fish & Crayfish……… all non-native fish are regulated
Rule Revision
“Round 2” – Some species assessed have some level of commercial use:
- Ornamentals- Forage- Turf- Bees- Biofuels- Food/herbs
assessed 133 plant species
Terrestrial Plant Recommendations– Round 2
20 prohibited/ 28 restricted/ 2 split
50recommended for regulation
83 recommended for non-regulation
Also 22 aquatic plants and alga recommended
All var, cv, hybrids regulated like the parent species unless specifically exempted
Cultivars discussed by SAGs. Recommendations made based on literature + observations of viable seed production Euonymus – exempt all cultivars except
NordineJapanese barberry – exempt all cultivars
except Brand’s top 25 seed producersAmur corktree – exempt male cultivars +
seedlings for rootstock
Dealing with cultivars, varieties, etc.
Phase-out Compromise
Growing marketable sized trees and shrubs requires several years
Adding a phase-out period would allow time for compliance 5 years for trees and shrubs 3 years for vines and herbaceous plants
This would only apply to restricted species
This would only apply to plants already in the state
Comprehensive rule covering all taxa groups Taking it slow – lots of input from
stakeholdersSAG process – discussion of difficult issuesTiming - stakeholder input in winterRound 1 –focusing on the obvious invasives
and the less commercially important species first
Informal public listening sessionsFocusing on voluntary compliance
Successes
Lack of legal authority for yearsDifficult species to address – e.g., reed
canary grassGetting involvement from certain sectors SAG members not showing up (early burn
season in 2012)
Challenges
Task group of National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils
Creating draft of criteria and procedures for developing local, state or regional invasive plant lists
Primary use is for “green” building codesCould be used for helping to standardize
assessment and listing process
ASTM Invasive Plant Listing Standard