IPC Minutes October 2024

Minutes – Invasive Plant Council Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Attendees: Victoria Wallace (UConn), Dustyn Nelson (CNLA), Denise Savageau (Environmental Planner/non-profit environment association), Rose Hiskes (representing CAES in place of Jatinder Aulakh), Darryl Newman (Planter’s Choice Nursery, LLC), Connie Trolle (Bantam Lake Protection Association), Eileen Underwood (Dept. of Ag), Bill Moorehead (CT DEEP)

Absent: John Silander

Non-voting attendees: Josh Tracy, Paul Aresta (CEQ), David Laiuppa, Holly Kocet (Newtown Conservation Commission), Nick Velseboer (CEQ), Mary Hogue (Pollinator Pathway/Sustainable Fairfield), Elaine George, Alyssa Siegel-Miles (notetaker)

A. Call to order. Victoria Wallace called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

B. Approval of Minutes: June 6, 2023

  • Motion to accept minutes by: Nelson. Second by Savageau. All approve. Minutes approved.

C. Updates from Council members

C. Trolle: concern with lakes. Hydrilla has been found in interior lakes. Found in CT River. DEEP did not update permit with EPA. Working on monitoring invasive with drones.

D. Savageau: White House put up a new paper on climate change resilience; ecosystem services. Has not translated into legislation yet. It is a good reference when speaking to CT legislators. A group is working on CT legislation.  Looking at climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem services.  No such existing legislation. Discussed National Climate Resilient Framework.

D. Nelson: Nursery industry is working on developing a self-ban on Callery pear. It is on pause because CIPWG is working on recommendations. If it is not taken up by legislature in the next session, the industry with resume the work on a self-ban. There may be some cultivars that are less/not invasive that will still be permitted.  More info/research needed.

R. Hiskes:

  • Plant Science day was held at CAES. Aquatic invasive species office is up and running. Technicians working with him. New pathologist in S. Windsor.
  • Had two floating fragments of Hydrilla where she lives.
  • There was a Clean, Drain, Dry intern last summer but not this summer.

V. Wallace:

  • Invasive Plant Coordinator position: Search committee has been reviewing applications. Getting ready for round one of interviews.  Candidate should be hired by end of year, maybe sooner. Had 50 applications.
  • Native Plant and Pollinator conference – November 2. Will be close to 300 attendees.
  • Wallace and staff worked with Pete Picone at DEEP to update the Native Plant Availability List, which had last been updated in 2005. All CT registered nurseries were asked to supply their native plant list so that we could collect and develop the list. We intend to survey nurseries and update the list later this winter.
  • UConn CAHNR searching for Greenhouse Educator.

D. Newman: no report. Supports the inclusion of quackgrass.

B. Moorehead: no report. He spoke with V. Wallace and P. Picone about the proposal to move forward Callery pear to invasive plant list.

E. Underwood: no report

 

Old Business

Wallace:

  • Subcommittee had been formed by CIPWG, with 6 members. Met about 5 times since June. Developed recommendations for CIPWG steering committee, which met last week. Steering committee approved the recommendations of the subcommittee.
  • Invasive Plant lists posted on CIPWG website, along with 9 criteria; last updated 2018.
  • CIPWG Subcommittee will review the potentially invasive and research list plants annually to assess if any species should move to invasive or potentially invasive list.
  • CT State Statutes mandate a two-component process in listing invasive or potentially invasive plant species, and any prohibition thereof:
  • Criteria for invasive species listing: cipwg.uconn.edu/criteria-for-listing
  • “Invasive” species must meet the nine criteria to be so listed.
  • “Potentially Invasive” species must meet the first 5 criteria and one of the remaining 4 to be so listed.
  • The review will evaluate whether each species meets the 9 criteria for invasive species listing with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for each criteria.
  • Reviewed Invasive Plant Lists of nine Northeast states (New England + NY, NJ, PA)
    • Spreadsheet with each state’s list of invasive species, compared them to CT, identified what was on other states’ lists but not on ours.
  • Next, CIPWG Subcommittee decided on which plants from the CIPWG research list should be reviewed, based on the comparison with other states, our own expertise and knowledge of the species, and initial review of literature.
    • Actinidia arguta – hardy kiwi
    • Aralia elata – Japanese angelica tree
    • Elymus repens – quackgrass
    • Phellodendron amurense – Amur corktree
    • Pyrus calleryana – Callery pear
    • Wisteria floribunda – Japanese wisteria
    • Wisteria sinensis – Chinese wisteria
  • A spreadsheet was developed based on the nine criteria for invasiveness and filled it in based on the review of literature to identify which of these plants met each criteria. After careful review and discussion, the CIPWG Subcommittee determined the recommendations to be brought to the CIPWG Steering Committee, then to IPC, to be:
Species evaluated: Recommendation:
Actinidia arguta Keep on Research List
Phellodendron amurense Keep on Research List
Wisteria floribunda Move to “Potentially Invasive” List
Wisteria sinensis Move to “Potentially Invasive” List
Aralia elata  Move to Invasive List
Elymus repens Move to Invasive List
Pyrus calleryana

Move to Invasive List

D. Savageau – Question about “seed” in the statutes – can that be changed, made to and/or?

  • It is a statutory requirement.
    • Several aquatic species don’t spread by seed.
    • We could ask for that to be changed in our annual report.

Many plants can be classified as meeting this requirement if they spread via roots, with a propagule that breaks off and creates a new plant.

D. Nelson – has spoken with many growers. A 3-year time period for phase out of Callery pear would be workable for the industry.

  • Statute on the books says that a business can be fined no more than $100 per plant for infraction, but there’s no enforcement.

D. Newman – It should be a priority for the new Invasive Plant coordinator to reach out to the industry, make sure they know that Callery pear is no longer allowed, once it is prohibited by CT legislature.

  • DEEP will not enforce it; the organization is underfunded.
  • Coordinator can also develop marketing pieces, with Dept. of Ag and CNLA, CIPWG.
  • Need to provide a list of viable alternatives to Callery pear.
  1. Moorehead – Aralia: many thought that they had Aralia spinosa, which is native to US from NY south and west. It was eventually determined that they had Aralia elata, not A. spinosa. It is easy to tell apart when in flower and fruit.
  2. spinosa – panicle that stands up above the top leaves. A. elata hangs down.

Twig character – Brown and hairless in A. spinosa. Grey and hairy in A. elata.

Size of seeds – Much bigger inside the fruit in A. spinosa than in A. elata.

He has not seen the native one in CT. All identified specimens have been proven to be A. elata, not spinosa.

Votes on each species:

Motion to move Callery pear to invasive plant list with a 3 year industry phase out period. Motion made by D. Nelson.  R. Hiskes seconds.

  • Motion passes.

Motion to move quackgrass to invasive list made by D. Newman.  D. Nelson seconds.

  • Motion passes.

Motion to move Aralia elata to invasive list made by D. Newman.  B. Moorehead seconds.

  • Motion passes.

Motion to move Wisteria floribunda to potentially invasive list made by R. Hiskes. C. Trolle seconds.

  • Motion passes.

Motion to move Wisteria sinensis to potentially invasive list made by C. Trolle.  R. Hiskes seconds.

  • Motion passes.

Votes:

Victoria Wallace: votes yes to all motions

Dustyn Nelson: votes yes to all motions

Denise Savageau: votes yes to all motions

Rose Hiskes: votes yes to all motions

Darryl Newman: votes yes to all motions

Connie Trolle: votes yes to all motions

Eileen Underwood: votes yes to all motions

Bill Moorehead: votes yes to all motions

 

Protocol to Determine Amendments to the Invasive Plant List

  1. Requests for review can be submitted via this form on the CIPWG website: cipwg.uconn.edu/criteria-for-listing
  1. CIPWG Subcommittee annually reviews the plants that are on the CIPWG research list, as well as any public recommendations through the above-mentioned form, to determine if plants should:
    • Stay as is
    • Be added to the research list
    • Move forward to the invasive or potentially invasive list

CT State Statutes mandate a two-component process in listing invasive or potentially invasive plant species, and any prohibition thereof:

  • Criteria for invasive species listing: cipwg.uconn.edu/criteria-for-listing
    • “Invasive” species must meet the nine criteria to be so listed.
    • “Potentially Invasive” species must meet the first 5 criteria and one of the remaining 4 to be so listed.

The review will evaluate whether each species meets the 9 criteria for invasive species listing with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for each criteria.

  1. CIPWG Subcommittee brings review results to CIPWG Steering Committee for discussion at annual fall meeting.
  2. CIPWG representative presents results to Invasive Plants Council.
    • The listing of these species as invasive or potentially invasive is based on a majority vote of members of the Invasive Plants Council.
    • Invasive or potentially invasive species may subsequently be designated as prohibited (import, export, sale or purchase) by two-thirds vote of the Council, but also taking into account: potential sales value of the plant, costs of eradication, environmental costs, and impact on property value costs.
    • The vote/recommendations will be sent to legislature through the IPC annual report.

Questions/discussion:

  • Once we send the recommendation to the environment committee, do we need to give them language for how to amend the statute?
    • Wallace will look at how it was done in the past. She spoke with Rep. Gresko last summer and has the connection to move it forward. Will reach out to make sure it is on his radar.
  • New invasive plant coordinator should include outreach education on newly listed invasive species (e.g. explain identification of quackgrass).
    • Is there importance to distinguishing between “invasive” and “potentially invasive”? It confuses the public and they are treated the same.
  • State statute does not differentiate between inv. and potentially invasive.
  • To clarify, state statute says that state agencies cannot move/plant these plants – it’s not automatically prohibited for everyone.
  • We need to be clear about what we’re asking legislature to do.
  • Denise, Dustyn will look at the statutes to make sure we understand everything correctly.
  • It would be good to separate out the Potentially invasive (P) plants on the list and be able to view the list that way. V. Wallace says that could be done in her office.
  • Newman proposes that P invasive should not be banned, so that there’s a clear distinction between invasive and Potentially invasive.
  • Moorehead says “Potentially invasive” is misnamed. We do know these are invasive, they just are more invasive in certain habitats and may not be in others. Think of potential as “given the right scenario,” not “maybe”.
  • Some plants listed as P invasive are invasive in some environments but not others, e.g. Sycamore maple is very invasive on the coast but not in other environments.
  • Legislation has to be written in a way that is black and white. Not nuanced.
  • We may need to fix statute language to be more clear.
  1. New Business
  • 2024 Meeting dates and times:
    • Wednesday, February 14, 1-3 pm
    • Thursday, June 20, 2-4 pm
    • Wednesday, October 16, 2-4
  • Wallace will follow up with Rep. Gresko about filling the IPANE seat on the council.

    Meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm