1. Kelly Kearns Invasive Plants Coordinator WI Dept. of Natural Resources Kelly.kearns@wi.gov 608-267-5066

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. “Round 1” the species that were listed when the rule was established were widely recognized invasive species with little commercial value.

7. 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

8. Wisconsin Invasive Species Council (WISC) and WDNR developed: assessment process listing criteria list of species to be assessed draft rules Literature reviews developed Species Assessment Groups (SAGs) conducted assessments and made recommendations for each species Extensive public input and revisions - 5 year process

9. 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

11. Prohibited – 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

12. Plants.……..……………………..….… 73 Prohibited ……27 (10 are aquatic) Split P/R ………12 Restricted …….34 (3 are aquatic) Aquatic Invertebrates ……….….. 11 Terrestrial Invertebrates …..……. 8 Algae/ Cyanobacteria ……..……… 6 Terrestrial Vertebrates………....… 4 Funguses …………………………..……. 1 Fish & Crayfish……… all non-native fish are regulated

13. “Round 2” – Some species assessed have some level of commercial use: - Ornamentals - Forage - Turf - Bees - Biofuels - Food/herbs

14. assessed 133 plant species 20 prohibited/ 28 restricted/ 2 split 50 recommended for regulation 83 recommended for non-regulation Also 22 aquatic plants and alga recommended

15. 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 Nordine Japanese barberry – exempt all cultivars except Brand’s top 25 seed producers Amur corktree – exempt male cultivars + seedlings for rootstock

16. 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

17. Comprehensive rule covering all taxa groups Taking it slow – lots of input from stakeholders SAG process – discussion of difficult issues Timing - stakeholder input in winter Round 1 –focusing on the obvious invasives and the less commercially important species first Informal public listening sessions Focusing on voluntary compliance

18. Lack of legal authority for years Difficult species to address – e.g., reed canary grass Getting involvement from certain sectors SAG members not showing up (early burn season in 2012)

19. 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 codes Could be used for helping to standardize assessment and listing process