INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

February I, 2005

The Honorable Andrea Stillman
State of Connecticut
Senate Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106

The Honorable Richard Roy
State of Connecticut
House of Representatives
Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Senator Stillman and Representative Roy:

This letter with attachments constitutes the second annual report of the Invasive Plants Council established pursuant to PA 03-136.

The Council

The nine-member Council, which includes representatives of government, the nursery industry, scientists and environmental groups has met ten times since the first annual report dated February 26, 2004. Department of Environmental Protection Deputy Commissioner David K. Leff has continued as Chairman, Vice Chairman John Anderson from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station resigned from the Council effective November 12, 2004 at the same time he stepped down as Director of the Station. Dr. Louis Magnarelli, who is also the new Director of the Station, succeeded him on the Council and as Vice Chairman. The Council wishes to thank Dr. Anderson for his efforts in dealing with invasive plants and for his many years of public service in putting science to work for the people of Connecticut. The Council also wishes to thank former Environment Committee Clerks, Emanuel Merisotis and Michael Bloom for their enthusiasm and invaluable assistance to the Council.

Council Activities

The Council engaged in wide ranging discussions on identification, control, and eradication of invasive plants (see Minutes, Attachment #2). Among the issues discussed were additional plant bans, enforcement of PA 03-136 and PA 04-203, sterile cultivars research, how the law affects commerce in plant parts from banned plants, federal bills on invasive plants, taxes on invasive plants, The Nature Conservancy’s Invasives Eradication Project in northwest Connecticut, pre-emption of municipal ordinances on invasives, education of planning and zoning commissioners, development of an educational pamphlet, how to handle new candidates for the invasives list, and the use of invasives in historical plantings.

The Council heard the following presentations:

• Rob Dietter, Dietters’s Water Gardens, North Haven – Sale of aquatic plants
• Sue Merrow – Former 1^st Selectman of East Haddam – Lake association efforts
• Nancy Balcom, CT Sea Grant – Aquatic species
• David Wrinn -Attorney General’s Office – Legal affects of plant bans
• Bob Heffernan, CT Green Industries – Economic value of invasives
• Connie Millane, Millane Nurseries – Burning bush euonymus
• Fred Platt, Robert Baker Company – Economic impact of plant bans
• Mark Sellew, Prides Corner Farms, Plant bans
• David Richards, Clinton Nurseries – Economic & practical effects of plant bans
• Greg Schaan, Imperial Nurseries – Affect of plant bans
• Chuck Newman, Planters’ Choice Nursery-Affect of plant bans
• Eric Mosher, University of Connecticut – Affect of land use changes on invasives.

The Council made three field trips:

1. Robert Baker Companies and Imperial Nurseries, were visited on July 19.
2. Several field sites in Mansfield and Tolland including Eagleville Preserve, Nye­ Holeman State Forest and several sites on University of Connecticut property were inspected under the direction of Dr. Leslie Mehrhoff.
3. The University of Connecticut’s Plant Science Research and Education Facility was visited to review the work of Mark Brand in developing sterile barberry cultivars.

The Council held a public forum on December 13, 2004 soliciting input from Connecticut residents on the past activities of the Council and on ideas for actions the Council should take or recommend to stop or abate the introduction and spread of invasive plant species. There were ten speakers, most of whom were associated with the nursery industry.

The Council participated in the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group Symposium held on October 7, 2004. Deputy Commissioner Leff and Dr. Mehrhoff were among the speakers.

Accomplishments

The principal accomplishments of the Council were recommendations that lead to passage of PA 04-203, An Act Concerning Fines for Banned Invasive Plants (see Attachment #3). The act eliminated the prohibition on “possession” of banned plants since those who had them growing on their land through no fault would be in violation and instead prohibited “transplanting” such plants. The act also bans an additional 54 invasive plants staffing October 1, 2004, and another 20 starting October 1, 2005. This brings the total number of banned invasive plants to 81. The Act also extended from May 5, 2004, to October 1, 2005, the prohibition on municipal regulation of sale or purchase of invasive plants. Finally, the act made it clear that the $100 fine for violations of the law is $100 per plant.

The Council established a process for submitting candidate species for review as to whether they should be listed as “invasive” or potentially invasive” (see attachment #4).

Recommendations

The Council reiterates the following specific recommendations for legislation that were included in its February 26, 2004 report:

1. Provide funding to the Council to publish the list of invasive and potentially invasive plants.
2. Provide funding to the Department of Environmental Protection for emergency response to new invasive plant infestations.
3. Authorize the Department of Agriculture to inspect for invasive plants in pet shops and at other locations already inspected by the Department of Agriculture, and to enforce invasive plant laws during these inspections.
4. In Section 8(a) of PA 03-136 delete the word “move” to ensure that removal of listed invasives for eradication or educational purposes is not subject to the sanction of the law.

The Council also recommends that the General Assembly:

1. Remove Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce) from the ban provisions of PA 04-203 because it will not over-winter and is therefore not invasive.
2. Authorize the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to inspect for sale or cultivation of invasive plants at nurseries and other locations the Station already inspects under Chapter 426.
3. Extend from October 1, 2005 to October 1, 2006 the prohibition on municipal regulation of sale or purchase of invasive plants (the vote on this matter was: 3 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstention).

Next Steps

Over the next few months, the Council will discuss and may make recommendations on the following:

1. Enforcement and use of fines,
2. Education of planning and zoning commissioners and other targeted audiences,
3. A boating fee similar to that in Maine and New Hampshire to fund control of aquatic species,
4. Taxes or other fees to generate income to deal with invasives,
5. Clarifying the use of plant parts from banned plants,
6. Municipal regulation of invasives,
7. Banning additional plants,
8. Developing an invasives control calendar,
9. Developing a list of invasives consultants and contractors,
10. The status of cultivars of invasive plants.

Conclusion

The Council again wishes to express its gratitude to the General Assembly for increasing awareness of invasive species issues and creating the Council to further such work. The visits of several legislators to our meetings have been greatly appreciated. We welcome any further opportunity to provide information and guidance to the Environment Committee and the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

David K. Leff

Chairman

 

INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP JANUARY 2005

Dr. Louis Magnarelli (Co-Chair)
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
123 Huntington Street
P.O. Box 1106
New Haven, CT 06504-1106
203-974-8440

Mr. David Goodwin
149 Schroback Road
Plymouth, CT 06782
dgoodwin@planterschoice.com
860-945-6588

Mr. Bruce Gresczyk
Acting Commissioner
Department of Agriculture
165 Capitol Avenue
Room G-29
Hartford, CT 06106

Mr. Paul Larson
Sprucedale Gardens
20 East Quasset Road
Woodstock, CT 06281
Pjlarson.clan@juno.com
860-974-0045

Mr. David K. Leff (Chair)
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127

Mr. Tom McGowan
59 Beach Street
Litchfield, CT 06759

Leslie J. Mehrhoff, Ph.D.
Director, Invasive Plant Atlas of
New England
George Safford Torrey Herbarium
University of Connecticut
Box U-43
75 North Eagleville Road
Storrs, CT 06269-3043

Dr. Mary Musgrave
Professor and Head,
Department of Plant. Science
University of Connecticut
1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4067
Storrs, CT 06269

Mr. David Sutherland
The Nature Conservancy
55 High Street
Middletown, CT 06457

Invasive Plants Council Minutes January 13, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk , Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff, Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland.

Absent: Mr. McGowan

The Meeting was called to order at 10:38 AM by Chairman Leff in Room 1A of the Legislative Office Building.

Chairman Leff had the members of the council introduce themselves to members and the audience.

There was a motion by Dr. Anderson to approve the minutes of December 23, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Mark Brand from the University of Connecticut gave a presentation on current research he is conducting on cultivars. He is studying approximately 40 cultivars of Japanese

Barberry and 10 cultivars of Winged Euonymus. He and his assistants are collecting fruit from plants and planting them to see what grows and how it grows. They are studying how light, and location affects how these fruit grow. They are also testing to see what characteristics the seedlings have. Their preliminary findings are that fruit from green cultivars can yield green and purple plants and that purple cultivars can yield purple and green plants. Shade tends to increase the likelihood that a green plant will grow. He stated that it is commonly believed that these plants are spread by wild Turkey. Dr. Mehrhoff noted that Rough Grouse and many songbirds also spread these plants.

Yi Li from UCONN gave a presentation on his work of taking a biotech approach to combating invasive plants. He is working on a method of genetically modifiying plants so that they have a gene added that will increase production of Auxin, a plant hormone. This increased hormone production will cause the plant to not produce pollen, and thus not produce seeds. This method has worked with tomatoes so he feels it will work with other plants as well. He is also working with using an enzyme that would destroy the RNA of the plants, which would also lead to no pollen production. If you combine both of these methods you end up with a super-sterile fruit, which still produces good fruit.

Mark Brand also noted that they are working on a non-genetic method of making sterile cultivars, they are working with using toxin that inhibits cellular mitosis and thus produce sterile seeds. He also noted that it is very difficult to identify cultivars. They are starting to use a technique called amplified fragment length polymorphism to identify cultivars using DNA.

Cultivars Discussion:

Continued discussion from previous meeting about footnote to be added to the invasive plant list. Dr. Anderson suggested that the footnote be abbreviated because it is too long to be considered a footnote and probably won’t be read. He suggested that no example and no suggestion from the council be included. There was consensus from the council to make these changes.

The subcommittee working on the footnote reported suggestions for minor changes to the footnote including in the 3^rd sentence adding the words “are commercially available “and in the 2^nd sentence using the word “that” instead of “which.”

There was a motion by Mr. Goodwin to adopt the language of the footnote (asterisk). The motion was seconded by Dr. Anderson. The motion carried on a voice vote.

There was a discussion about what plants on the invasive list would bear this asterisk. Mr. Goodwin suggested 6 plants to be asterisked: Acer platanoides (Norway Maple), Berberis thunbergii (Japanese Barberry). Euonymus alatus (Winged Euonymus), Rosa rugosa (Rugosa Rose), Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (Porcelainberry), Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle.) There was a motion by Mr. Sutherland to accept these plants to be asterisked. The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson. The motion carried on a voice vote.

The council began a discussion on herbaceous plants to be added to the invasive list. Mr. Goodwin asked whether Veronica (European speedwell) should be included on the list. Dr. Mehrhoff noted that it was very difficult to distinguish between European Speedwell and our native Veronica. There was a consensus of the council to remove European Speedwell and Silver Hairgrass from the invasive list. The council also agreed to remove Wild Garlic and Themberg’s Geranium as well.

Chairman Leff asked if there were asterisks to be added to the herbaceous plants on the list. Mr. Larson suggested three plants to be asterisked: Lysimachia nummularia (Moneywort), Lysimachia vulgaris (Garden Loosestrife), Miscanthus sinensis (Eulalia). There was a consensus of the council to asterisk these three plants.

Dr. Mehrhoff noted that he knows of one other plant that should be added to the invasive plant list, he will bring information on that plant for the next meeting.

There was a motion by Dr. Anderson to add the herbaceous plants and grasses to the invasive plant list with the asterisks noted. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mehrhoff. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Chairman Leff asked if there was anyone on the council who felt the need to have a public hearing on the list before it is published. The consensus was that the council meetings have given ample time for the public to learn about the potential list.

Chairman Leff announced speakers for the next meeting: Sandy Breslin from Audubon CT

Donna Ellis from the Invasive Plants Working Group

Comm. Grescyk will discuss the Dept. of Ag. Work with Pet Shops in CT.

The council will also have discussions on Education Issues, the Ban List, and the Municipal Pre-Emption.

The council agreed to the following meetings:

February 10^th 10:00 AM (Room lB) February 26^th 10:00 AM (Room lB) March 11^th 10:00 AM

March 25^th 10:00 AM

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes January 29, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Comm. Gresczyk, Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff, Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent: Mr. Goodwin

The Meeting was called to order at 10:10 AM by Chairman Leff in Room lA of the Legislative Office Building.

Chairman Leff had the members of the council introduce themselves to members and the audience.

Chairman Leff distributed two recent articles on Invasive Plants for the Council’s information.

There was a motion by Dr. Anderson to accept the minutes of January 13, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson. There was a correction offered by Mr. Larson to change “how these fruit grow,” to “how these seedlings grow.” The minutes were approved as corrected by a voice vote.

Comm. Grescyk spoke on the activities of the Department of Agriculture with regard to invasive plants. The Department has no current policy about investigating pet stores for selling invasive plants. He assured the council that the department stands ready to assist in this effort. They usually send someone to each pet store twice a year to check on; condition of the store, pet lemon law issues, certificates and licenses. Dr. Mehrhoff offered to help train Department staff if necessary.

Chairman Leff started a discussion on the report to the Environment Committee. The council agreed to delay the report so that it could be done properly. It was noticed that the deadline for the Environment Committee to conclude its business for the 2004 session is March 1ih.

Donna Ellis from the Invasive Plants Working Group spoke about biological controls of invasives. She pointed out that these controls are really about controlling, not eradicating. There is research being done on Garlic Mustard, Japanese Knotweed, Milfoil, Multiflora Rose and others. She spoke specifically about work being done _on Purple Loosestrife. There are beetles that they are using to try and fight purple loosestrife. They started a program in 1996 to put these beetles in infested areas to see how they could control purple loosestrife. They have over 300,000 biological agents in over 40 sites around Connecticut. She showed before and after pictures to illustrate the success they have had. They are currently recruiting “farmers” to grow beetles for them to be used in this project.

Sandy Breslin from Audubon CT spoke on National Audubon’s efforts on invasive plants. National Audubon has two publications addressing invasive plants primarily concerned with the impact they have on bird habitat. At the Audubon’s Greenwich Center they have the mile-a-minute plant that they are fighting. Audubon CT is in the process of hiring a part-time staffer just to work on this problem.

Chairman Leff started the discussion on what the “final” invasive Plant List would look like. Dr. Mehrhoff distributed suggestions he had on what the list should look like. The consensus of the council was to use Dr. Mehrhoff s suggestion of a dagger notation for plants not already naturalized in CT.

There was a motion by Dr. Mehrhoff to add Tansy Ragwort onto the invasive List. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sutherland. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Comm. Grescyk and Dr. Anderson voiced concerns about not including plants that are invasive on farms. Dr. Mehrhoff pointed out that the statute clearly states the list should only pertain to natural places that are minimally maintained. He also said the council needs to make a distinction between noxious weeds and invasive plants.

Mr. Larson made a motion to put an asterisk on Robinia psueudoacacia (Black Locust). The motion was seconded by Dr. Anderson. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Comm. Grescyk voiced concerns over the inclusion of Reed Canary Grass on the list. He said that this is a very common crop on farms in CT. Mr. Sutherland and Dr. Musgrave agreed to develop language to present to the council on how to deal with agriculture related issues.

Dr. Musgrave also suggested that maybe the council consider adding a cover page to the list that would offer explanation of the list. This issue was tabled until next meeting.

Ban List:

Chairman Leff started the discussion on developing a ban list. Comm. Grescyk asked questions about how this list would be implemented. Mr. Sutherland suggested that such a list might be phased in to give growers a chance to adjust. Dr. Mehrhoff stated that he is concerned about people’s livelihoods and he understands that this must be considered in finding the best solution for CT. Mr. Sutherland pointed out that he feels landscaping is a luxury, agriculture is a necessity. Mr. McGowan stated that he is also sympathetic to the nursery industry, but he hasn’t seen any evidence of economic impact (on the industry) of banning aquatic plants and maybe that’s where the council should start. Dr. Anderson agreed with this assessment of aquatics. He also pointed out that the economic impact of what these invasives do in our state is quantifiable. The rest of the ban list will be much harder to quantify the impact. Bob Heffernen (in the audience) from the Green

Industries said that cut flowers vs. potted plants is an issue to keep in mind. Would banning a plant mean they couldn’t be sold as a cut flower?

Chairman Leff pointed out that the ban list will be only a recommendation and that the General Assembly will make the ultimate decision on these plants.

Dr. Mehrhoff noted that some of the cut flowers could be very problematic, especially the ones that are actually seed pods.

Mr. Sutherland suggested that the council identify the plants which would be the biggest economic impact on the industry and let’s do research to really. Educate the council on what the economics are.

Chairman Leff asked Mr. Larson to prepare ballpark estimates on what the economic impacts of the ban list would be.

Comm. Grescyk asked the council to consider the export potential of CT plants. He asked how banning these plants would impact the growers because nationally these plants will still be in demand. Mr. Larson asked the council to consider what the goals of the ban list would be. Mr. Larson suggested that if the law does prohibit the moving and possession of the banned lists this would mean if a plant grew on your land you are in violation. Even if you dig it up to eradicate this plant you are technically in possession.

There was a discussion about the future location of meetings. Members are concerned about the location of meetings in the LOB because of parking issues during the legislative session.

Mr. Larson suggested that the council look into funding recommendations for the council. Dr. Anderson suggested that the council bring this issue up with the Chairs of the Environment Committee.

Chairman Leff asked to move the time of the March 11^th meeting to 1:00 PM. There was a consensus to make this change.

There was a motion by Mr. Larson to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Dr. Anderson. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes February 10, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk , Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent: Dr. Mehrhoff

The Meeting was called to order at 10:06 AM by Chairman Leff in Room 1B of the Legislative Office Building.

Chairman Leff had the members of the council introduce themselves to members and the audience.

There was a motion by Mr. Goodwin to approve the minutes of January 29, 2004. Dr. Anderson suggested changing the word “cellular” to “molecular.” The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson. The minutes were adopted as amended by voice vote.

Gregory Bugbee from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station gave a presentation about efforts at the experiment station to control invasive weeds in lakes.  stated that most invasive plant problems in lakes are caused by people planting the plants close to the lake or by boat trailers spreading the weeds from lake to lake.

They have worked on Variable-leaf watermilfoil in Bashan Lake in East Haddam. They have had success with using herbicide in the water. They have also worked on Fanwort in Lake Quamipaug in Guilford. There they used mechanical removal techniques and found that the weeds grew back the following season very well. They have also done work on the Moodus Reservoir.

Dr. Jason White from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station gave a presentation on techniques to control invasives in lakes. The possible options are sediment control, water level draw down, harvesting, biological control, putting down a bottom barrier, and herbicides.

They have focused their work on herbicides. They are working on using minimal amounts of herbicides. After applications they conduct tests to find out how much herbicide is present in the water. They obtain Dr. White discussed two herbicides (2, 4- D) and (Fluridone). 2,4-D is effective especially in the Ester formulation. It kills plants in 2-4 weeks. Fluridone disrupts photosynthesis and takes longer to work. It is used in much smaller concentrations for longer periods of time, so it has its benefits. Mr. Goodwin asked about cost. 2,4-D is about $200 an acre. Fluridone costs about $1600 an acre. Dr. Musgrave asked about the impact on fish and Dr. White explained that they have found no evidence of them accumulating in fish.

Dr. Charles Vossbrinck from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station spoke on identification processes for invasive plants. He uses DNA sequencing to identify two genes. Once the plant is isolated the information is deposited in Genbank. Mr. Larson asked about the timetable for identification and Dr. Vossbrinck explained that it is usually less than three days.

Finalization of Invasive Plant List:

Dr. Musgrave and Mr. Sutherland presented language for the cover of the report. Chairman Leff suggested adding a sentence to explain what invasive plants are. There was discussion and the consensus was that this sentence was not needed.

There was a motion by Dr. Anderson to finalize the list with the cover language presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGowan. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Chairman Leff began a discussion of the Ban List with asking if anyone was interested in having public hearings. Mr. Goodwin thought that having public hearings would be a good thing. Mr. Sutherland thought that since the legislature would have to ban the plants, they would have public hearings. Chairman Leff suggested having industry (Aquatic Plants) people come in to explain the economic impact of banning aquatics.

Municipal pre-emption: There was a discussion about the sunset provision in the current statute. Mr. Sutherland asked about the council’s earlier discussion of how the pre­ emption impacts local land use commissions. Chairman Leff suggested that the council consider recommending to the legislature that the sunset be delayed for a year. There was a motion by Dr. Anderson to recommend changing the deadline to the end of session next year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodwin. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Chairman Leff suggested that he come up with a draft report to the Environment Committee. There also should be a letter to state agencies explaining the invasive list. The council came to a consensus that the report should contain lists of speakers heard, the invasive plant list and the following recommendations:

1. Funding for Publishing of Council Lists
2. DEP Fund for emergency response
3. Authorize the Department of Agriculture to investigate pet shops for selling invasive plants
4. Change the Date of the Sunset in current law
5. Change the language of current law to say “transplant” instead of move and delete “possess.”

Mr. Sutherland suggested this report should include a status report on the progress of producing a ban list. Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Larson agreed. Mr. McGowan suggested the council look at the fine issue. This needs to be clarified. Chairman Leff noted that the courts will interpret this issue. Mr. McGowan said maybe the council could express their confusion on the fine issue in the report to the Environment Committee. There was no consensus on this issue. Chairman Leff explained that he would develop a draft report and distribute it to the members of the council so they could submit corrections and suggestions before the next meeting.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes February 26, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk (Melanie Attwater substituting), Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff, Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent:

The Meeting was called to order at 10:10 AM by Chairman Leffin Room 1B of the Legislative Office Building.

There was a motion by Dr. Anderson to adopt the minutes of February 10, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodwin. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Chairman Leff started a discussion on the report to the Environment Committee. He stated that the report is the same as what was mailed to members except that the Department of Agriculture wanted the request for authority to extend to anywhere, they inspect, not just in pet shops.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked why the language for the front cover of the list was not included. Chairman Leff explained that he did not have a copy of the final language when the report was printed. Dr. Musgrave said she would forward a copy to the Chairman, and it will be added to the report.

Mr. Sutherland expressed concerns with the pre-emption extension in the report. Even though he voted for the extension he said he is reserving the right to withdraw his support at a later date based on the progress of a ban list.

Chairman Leff stated that he thought it was unlikely that the council could come up with thoughtful suggestions in time for the current legislative session.

Dr. Mehrhoff said that he was concerned that the language change in recommendation 5 would set researchers up to be in violation. Chairman Leff noted that this discussion had come up before and that the current law gives exemptions for education and research and this does not impact that exemption.

Ms. Attwater made a motion to send the report to the Environment Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGowan and carried on a voice vote.

Ms. Attwater again expressed the concerns of Comm. Gresczyk about the inclusion of Reed Canary Grass on the invasive list. This is plant extensively by farmers and is concerned about the impact on them: Dr. Mehrhoff said that the list is a scientific document and this plant is invasive.

Mr. Sutherland expressed concerns that the list should explain what the council is. Dr. Anderson said that the Public Act is cited, and the act explains what the council is. There was consensus on this issue.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked when it would be ok to distribute the list. Chairman Leff said that as soon as the report has been delivered to.the Environment Committee it would be fine to distribute it.

Presentations:

Rob Dietter from Dietter’s Water Gardens in North Haven gave a presentation on the water garden industry. He has a 4-acre nursery in North Haven where he supplies 12 garden centers around the state. He stated that of the 30 species he sells six of them are on the invasive list. Water Hyacinth is a very important plant to him. He does not believe that it is winter hardy, this is what makes it so profitable for him, and so he doesn’t understand why this plant is on the list. He sells $15 to $20 thousands of water hyacinth a year.

Dr. Anderson asked how certain he was of the products he sells. Mr. Dietter said that he is 100% sure of what they sell. Dr. Mehrhoff asked about Parrotfeather, which Mr. Dietter sells. Mr. Dietter stated that he also does not feel this over winter. Mr. Goodwin asked about Fanwort. Mr. Dietter said that it is more of an aquarium plant and that he does not sell it because it wouldn’t be profitable to grow.

Dr. Musgrave asked if Salvinia was a problem for his nursery and Dr. Mehrhoff asked if such contaminants were eliminated before they were sold. Mr. Dietter said that each year his decontamination gets better, but it is not 100% yet.

Sue Merrow from the Lake Associations in East Haddam gave a presentation on the lakes in her town’s efforts to control invasives. Bashan Lake, Lake Hayward and Moodus Reservoir. She stated that if you ask residents the. number one threat to the enjoyment of their lakes the answer would be invasives.

She noted that Lake Hayward does not have gasoline engines and still has a big fanwort problem. Mr. Goodwin asked if the lakes test for nitrate levels. She said yes and that the two lakes are stable but the reservoir has too high levels. Mr. McGowan asked how native species are faring in the lake. She noted that Fanwort has pushed out most other species. Fanwort has been a problem for about 10 years now.

Ms. Merrow stated that each lake spends about $8-$10 thousand a year on efforts. The last time an herbicidal treatment was tried it cost over $50 thousand.

Chairman Leff discussed the next few meetings. He said that the next few meetings would be about the ban list and pre-emption. Mr. Sutherland asked if industry was ready to give a presentation on economics of Euonymus and Barberry. Mr. Larson said that the industry is working on it. They have some numbers that they might be able to share. Mr. Goodwin said that he is hoping to poll growers to see where the market is headed.

Mr. McGowan asked if the council could address the issue of mail order sales. Dr. Anderson noted that this is very difficult to do because of interstate commerce concerns.

Dr. Anderson asked if the council would consider reducing the frequency of meetings. He also suggested that the council consider taking field trips during the warmer month to get a better handle on these issues. The council agreed that after the March meetings reducing the number of meetings and taking field trips for meetings might be a good idea.

There was a motion by Mr. Larson to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodwin. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 AM.

Submitted

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes March 11, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk, Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff, Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave (Donna Ellis sat in for Dr. Musgrave), Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent:

The Meeting was called to order at 10:11 AM by Chairman Leff in Room 1C of the Legislative Office Building.

Chairman Leff started the meeting by introducing Rep. Pat Widlitz (Chair of the Environment Committee) to say a few words to the council. Rep. Widlitz explained the two bills under consideration in the Environment Committee. She also explained the history of these bills as well. Members expressed concerns over the language of these bills and did not understand why the Environment Committee was not waiting for the Council to issue their recommendations on plants to be banned. Rep. Widlitz thanked the council for their work and asked the council to do what they could to produce a list by the end of the legislative session so the bill under consideration could reflect the input of the council.

Nancy Balcom from CT Sea Grant gave a presentation on their work on Aquatic Species. They are developing a management plan that they plan to have to the Governor by the Fall of 2004. Their focus is on all Aquatic Nuisance Species (animals and plants.) They hope to start implementation of this plan by 2005 and have it fully operational by 2009. Their goal is to eventually coordinate with the Northeast Regional group and the Federal group.

Nancy Murray from the CT DEP spoke briefly to the council on CT Sea Grant’s work.

David Wrinn from the Attorney General’s Office spoke about the issue of restricting interstate commerce through a ban. He said that such a ban is possible if you are careful in how it is done. Certain questions must be answered such as: Is the ban truly to protect the state’s environment? What level of impact does the ban have? Does it apply the ban unfairly? Will it completely stop commerce?

The council posed hypothetical scenarios to Attorney Wrinn which he attempted to answer.

Mr. McGowan presented a resolution to recommend banning certain plants. Mr. Goodwin suggested that the resolution be amended to allow for a two-year phase out of yellow iris. There was consensus on the phase out. Dr. Anderson asked if the Council had made a decision about having public hearings before the council recommends banning plants. Chairman Leff noted that the council had not made a decision to hold hearings. Mr. Sutherland stated that the legislature would have hearings on any plant ban, so it is unnecessary for the council to hold hearings.

Mr. Larson asked about Watercress and what the ban would mean for grocery stores selling it as food. Chairman Leff suggested that the ban be on viable plants. There was agreement on this issue.

Mr. McGowan made a motion to adopt the resolution recommending the banning of aquatic plants with the conditions of the yellow iris ban will have a 2 year phase in and watercress (and yellowcress) would be banned only as a viable plant, not as a food item. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mehrhoff. Mr. Larson asked what the effective date would be of a ban and Chairman Leff noted that most bills such as this have an Oct. 1 effective date. The resolution was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.

There was a motion be Dr. Anderson to accept the minutes of February 26, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson. The minutes were adopted by a voice vote.

There was a motion by Mr. Larson to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Sutherland. The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes March 23, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk (Melanie Attwater sitting in for Commissioner), Mr. Larson, Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent: Comm. Leff

The Meeting was called to order at 2:05 PM by Dr. Anderson in Room 1C of the Legislative Office Building.

Dr. Anderson had members introduce themselves before introducing Sen. Don Williams (Co-Chair of the Environment Committee). Sen. Williams addressed the council and thanked them for their work. He outlined the legislative schedule and stressed to the council that he is looking for a comprehensive list from the council before the end of session. Council members asked if a list of the majority of plants, excluding some that might be too complicated and too controversial to decide upon in such a short time period, would be acceptable. Sen. Williams said that he was looking for a good faith effort. Rep. Pat Widlitz (Co-Chair of the Environment Committee) also briefly addressed the council thanking them for their work.

Dr. Anderson asked members in the audience to introduce themselves.

Bob Heffernan from the CT Green Industries addressed the council on the issue of economic impact of banning certain plants. He stated that banning the plants listed in the bill before the legislature would have over an $18 million sales impact, and this was being very conservative. He submitted written testimony to the council outlining cost of each plant with significant sales.

Connie Millane of Millane Nurseries in Cromwell spoke to the council. He stated that they have over $300,000 worth of Burning Bush in the fields right now. He says he has never seen it to be invasive in all the years they have grown it.

Fred Platt from Robert Baker Company addressed the council. This bill would have an $2.5 – $3 million impact on his company. He spoke of the loss of jobs and tax revenues to the state on the plants that they wouldn’t be able to sell. He stressed that working with live products is very different than any other type of industry.

Mark Sellew from Farms in Lebanon spoke to the council. He showed pictures of plants that have been growing on the side of the road to show that there are no seedlings growing. Mr. Sellew stressed that their buyers might abandon them entirely if they are not able to provide them with the plants they want in the fall.

David Richards from Clinton Nurseries spoke as well. He stated that he doesn’t believe this bill will impact the problem of invasives. They have over 380 employees. They feel that the plants in the bill amount to 7% of their sales but banning them would possibly cause 17-24% drop in revenue because of loss of customers due to unavailability of certain plants.

Greg Schaan from Imperial Nurseries in Granby addressed the council. They are in the process of getting certified to send plants to Canada and as part of that process they were inspected to show that their barberry cultivars are not invasive in their fields. This ban would cause them to lose 30 employees.

Chuck Newman from Planters’ Choice Nursery in Newtown spoke to the council. Most of their plants are sold in state. They would lose 50-60 employees because of this bill. They grow Burning Bush and Barberry. He said that 3 years to clear their inventory would not be enough time.

Mr. Larson stressed that 3-5 years for a phase out would be a minimum needed by the industry.

Dr. Mehrhoff said that he is very much in support of education issues and that the industry can really help with education. He offered to take any industry-representative on a field trip to show them the invasiveness of these plants. He asked Mr. Heffernan if the plants on his list were the only ones that the industry would object to banning at this moment. Mr. Heffernan said yes.

Mr. Sellew stated that the answer to all of these problems were sterile cultivars. Please don’t kill the market before they arrive. Once these plants are banned it will be impossible to have the public convinced of sterile cultivars.

Mr. Sutherland asked what the current market for Barberry and Burning Bush are. They said that demand is on the increase. Mr. Platt stated that they cannot grow enough of either plant to meet demand.

Dr. Musgrave asked why there are no native plants that they can substitute for these plants. Mr. Sellew said that there is no real alternative for barberry but there are a few for burning bush. He also said that the industry could not lose burning bush. Mr. Larson followed up with saying that at this time there are no real alternatives for barberry or burning bush that could make up the market loss.

Dr. Musgrave asked if the plants they grow produce seeds in the fields before they are shipped. Mr. Millane answered that burning bush does not produce seeds before they sell it but Mr. Sellew stated that barberry can produce seeds before they ship it.

Mr. Sutherland asked how much are instate growers accounting for instate sales of these plants. Mr. Schaan said probably less than 50% are grown in this state.

Dr. Anderson stated that he thought it would be best to have Chairman Leff at the meeting before they make decisions on how to proceed with the ban list.

Mr. McGowan stated that the council needs a plan to deal with these plants. Donna Ellis (sitting in for Dr. Musgrave) said that researchers should be included in the solution.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked if the council would consider a motion to ban all of the non­ controversial plants right now. The consensus of the council was to wait until the next meeting to vote on these plants.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes March 31, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk, Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff, Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent:

The Meeting was called to order at 1:40 PM by Chairman Leff in Room lA of the Legislative Office Building.

Dr. Anderson gave a brief synopsis of what happened at the previous meeting. Chairman Leff said that from the minutes it appeared that Dr. Mehrhoff had offered a motion to ban non-controversial plants. Dr. Mehrhoff said yes he had suggested such a motion and industry people asked for time to consider this proposal.

Dr. Anderson expressed concerns that the council would be voting on large groups of plants at a time when the council should be considering them more 6n an individual basis to see what the impact of each plant is. He understands the time constraint put on the council by the Legislature but he is concerned that there is not an adequate process to judge these plants. Dr. Anderson also asked what the council would do if a plant is banned filed then research shows that a certain cultivar is not invasive. Chairman Leff noted that legislation is needed to ban the plants and legislation would be needed to pull cultivars off the list.

Comm. Gresczyk stated that he could not support banning certain plants and therefore was unsure if voting on plants individually would make sense or not.

Mr. Larson pointed out to the council that the council heard testimony at the previous meeting that banning plants would kill the cultivar development process. Banning plants and then finding a cultivar that is not invasive would ruin potential sales for this cultivar. Public education will lag behind in this aspect and the public won’t buy the invasive plant.

Mr. Larson made a motion to add an asterisk to the following plant: Frangula alnus Mill (Glossy buckthorn). The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodwin and passed on a voice vote. Dr. Mehrhoff noted that while he supported this change he thinks the council should not do this often because the invasive list has been published and distributed and it is not in the council’s best interest to have numerous versions of the list in circulation.

Dr. Musgrave asked what the ban would mean and how it would be enforced. Chairman Leff stated that the current language of the bill before the legislature would protect innocent homeowners. Mr. Sutherland stated that a ban will do well to educate people.

He agrees that enforcement will be a problem. Comm. Grescyzk stated that it is hard for him to believe that such a ban would have any affect given the ability of birds and the wind to disperse the plants already out there.

Dr. Mehrhoff suggested that the council approach the issue on a category basis and identify just the plants that are economically important. Dr. Anderson agreed with this approach.

Mr. Larson offered a list of plants that he would like to reserve from being recommended to be banned.

Mr. Larson made a motion to recommend all the plants on the invasive list with the exception of:

1. Acer ginnala
2. Acer platinoides
3. Robinia psueudoacacia
4. Berberis thunbergii
5. Euonymus alatus
6. Frangula alnus
7. Rosa rugosa
8. Ligustrum ovalifolium
9. Ligustrum vulgare
10. Ampelopsis brevipedunculata
11. Lysimachia nummularia
12. Lysimachia vulgaris
13. Ornithogalum umbellatum
14. Miscanthus sinensis
15. Phalaris arundinacea

The motion included a recommendation to extend the municipal pre-emption by two years. Comm. Grescyzk seconded the motion.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked what plants are the industry giving up in this list that are commercially viable. Mr. Larson says that there are a few with minor impact on the list that the industry has determined are not worth fighting for. Mr. Goodwin suggested that the green industries are taking too much of the blame on this issue. Mr. Sutherland asked what did they think would happen in the next two years to make him feel better about this extension. Mr. Goodwin said that they think it is possible for cultivars to be shown to be non-invasive. Mr. Larson stated that the industry has committed to funding research. Mr. Sutherland noted that the research will not cover all the cultivars, what about the ones that are left?

Mr. Sutherland stated that he could not support the current motion. Mr. McGowan also stated that he couldn’t support the motion. He wants to know the economic impact of plants excluded from the ban but not previously outlined by the industry. He is also interested in not acting too hastily. Chairman Leff also asked for numbers from the industry on the impact of the plants not previously stated. Mr. Larson stated that getting these figures would be very hard to do for the next meeting given the time of year and how busy the businesses involved are.

Chairman Leff also asked Mr. Sutherland if it would be possible to get figures from the Nature Conservancy on money they spend every year to eradicate invasives.

Dr. Mehrhoff stated that there are some plants on the list (aquatics) that the council have already recommended banning. Mr. Larson offered an amendment that would exclude the plants that were recommended to be banned previously. Comm. Grescyzk seconded the amendment, which passed on a voice vote.

Dr. Mehrhoff stated that he could support the extension but he cannot support the list part of the motion. Chairman Leff stated that he felt there weren’t enough votes to pass this motion and thought the council should wait until next meeting, when there was more information from the industry, to vote on the motion.

Comm. Grescyzk asked for the council to vote on the motion. Mr. Goodwin concurred. Comm. Grescyzk called the question. The motion to call the question failed. There was discussion about whether members were feeling pressure to vote on something before the end of the legislative session. Mr. Sutherland moved to table the original motion. Comm. Grescyzk again stressed that the council should vote on the motion. Mr. Sutherland thought that the current motion would not satisfy the legislature. There was a vote to table, the motion was tabled on a 5-4 roll call vote.

There was a motion by Mr. Sutherland to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGowan. The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis

Clerk- Environment Committee

Invasive Plants Council Minutes April 16, 2004

Present: Dr. Anderson, Mr. Goodwin, Comm. Gresczyk, Mr. Larson, Comm. Leff , Dr. Mehrhoff, Dr. Musgrave, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. McGowan

Absent:

The meeting was called to order at 1:15 PM by Chairman Leff.

There was a motion by Mr. Goodwin to approve the minutes of March 23, 2004. The motion was seconded by Dr. Anderson. Mr. Larson wanted to note that Mark Sellew is from Pride’s Corner Farms in Lebanon. He also noted that his statement about the industry needing 3-5 years lead time was for woody plants not for trees, this would need even longer. The minutes of March 23^rd were adopted, as. amended, by a voice vote.

There was a motion by Mr. Larson to adopt the minutes of March 31, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodwin. Chairman Leff asked that the second sentence in the last paragraph of page 1 be deleted. Mr. Larson noted that the term in the 5^th paragraph “invasive plant” should be “non-invasive cultivar.” The minutes of March 31^st were adopted, as amended, by a voice vote.

Chairman Leff noted that there was a motion “on the table,” from the last meeting. Mr. Larson said that he felt it would be more appropriate to start from scratch and distributed a new written motion. The motion was seconded by Comm. Grescyzk. The motion was (what follows is the final version of the motion):

I present the following motion:

I move that the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council recommend to the Environment Committee of the legislature that the following species of plants be added to the existing list of seven species of plants already banned in Connecticut.

Centaurea biebersteinii
Cirsium arvense
Cynanchum louseae
Cynanchum rossicum
Datura stramonium
Elsholtzia ciliata
Euphorbia cyparissias
Euphorbia esula
Froelichia gracilis
Glechoma hederacea

Acer pseudoplatanus
Ailanthus altissima
Paulownia tomentosa
Populus alba
Amorpha fruticosa
Berberis vulgaris
Eleagnus angustifolia
Eleagnus umbellata

Ligustrum obtusifolium
Lonicera x bella
Lonicera maackii
Lonicera morrowii
Lonicera tatarica
Lonicera xylosteum
Rhamnus cathartica
Rosa multiflora

Rubus phoenicolasius
Celastrus orbiculatus
Lonicera japonica
Pueraria montana
Aegopodium podagraia
Alliaria petiolata
Cardamine impatiens

Heracleum mantegazzianum
Hesperis matronalis
Humulus japonicus
Impatiens glanulifera
Kochia scoparia

Lepidium latifolium
Lychnis flos-cuculi
Lysimachia vulgaris
Onopordum acanthium
Polygonum caespitosum
Polygonum cuspidatum
Polygonum peifoliatum
Polygonum sachalinense
Ranunculus ficaria
Rumex acetosella
Senecio jacobaea
Silphium perfoliatum
Solanum dulcamara
Tussilago farfara
Valeriana officinalis
Arthraxon hispidus
Bromus tectorum
Carex kobomugi
Glyceria maxima
Microstegium vimineum
Phragmites arundinacea
Poa compressa

The adoption of this recommendation will bring the total number of species of plants banned in Connecticut to eighty-one. Eight of these species are currently present in the nursery trade and an immediate ban would have a significant adverse economic effect on nurseries within the state. Because of this, the effective date of this ban for the following eight species would be October 1, 2005.

Lonicera tatarica
Lonicera xylosteum
Lonicera japonica

Ligustrum obtusifolium
Aegopodium podagraria
Lysimachia vulgaris

The remaining plants on the list in this motion would be banned effective October 1, 2004.

In addition to the recommendation for banning additional species of plants, it is recommended that the municipal preemption in Sec. 8., paragraph (b.) be extended to October 1, 2005.

Continued efforts by the Council in the future months could then be focused on the remaining fifteen species on the state list of Invasive Plants which have not yet been fully addressed by the Invasive Plants Council. Also to be addressed would be public education efforts on invasive plants.

It is also recommended that the wording of Sec. 8., paragraph (a.) in the existing law, P.A. No. 03-136, be amended such that the word “move” is replaced with the word “transplant”, and the word “possess” be deleted from the text.

Paul C. Larson
(860) 974-0045
April 15, 2004

Dr. Mehrhoff asked what plants are on the list that are currently in the “trade.” Mr. Larson responded that the eight plants outlined as needing a phase in.

Commissioner Leff suggested removing the names of aquatic plants from the motion because the council had already recommended these plants to be banned. (This was done in the final version of the motion.)

Mr. Sutherland stated that he would be voting against the motion. He said that it seems as if the council is taking a step backwards from the discussions they had a few meetings ago. He was under the understanding that there would be only 7 exempted plants and that total has grown to 15. He also noted the amount of time and money The Nature Conservancy has spent on dealing with this problem. ($1.75 million)

Chairman Leff noted that P.A. 03-136 says that the council may consider sales impact and clean up.

Mr. Goodwin cited a report that states that some cultivars are non-invasive. Dr. Mehrhoff says that he read the report differently. Just one cultivar is said to be noninvasive not the other and the report clearly states that the species is invasive.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked if there is more research being done than he is aware of that would show progress in the next two years.

Dr. Musgrave expressed concern that being “under the gun” from the Environment Committee has changed the focus of the council. She will support the motion and hopes that the council will return to more thoughtful discussions on the remaining plants.

Comm. Grescyzk stated that he believes in the work of the council and that the council’s work should continue after the passing of this motion. He also stated that he supports the motion.

Mr. Larson said that he agrees with Dr. Musgrave. He feels that this list represents the low hanging fruit and that the rest of the “fruit” are open to discussion.

Mr. McGowan wanted to make sure that there was language in the motion to state that the council would be considering the rest of the plants. (This language is in the final motion.)

Mr. Goodwin said that the council will continue its work.

Dr. Mehrhoff stated that he is less convinced than others about the amount of research being done. He wants to know what will the industry commit to if research says that cultivars are invasive?

Chairman Leff asked if Mr. Larson would be willing to change his motion to ask for only a 1 year extension on the pre-emption. Mr. Larson said that he doesn’t think this will change votes and he doesn’t want to go through the process of getting an extension next year.

Chairman Leff stated that the council has worked well so far but that a deadline will provide the incentive for the council to continue to work hard. Chairman Leff also stated that he feels the Council should think more about the tax issue. Such a tax could support a fund that could support efforts at the Agricultural Experiment Station, help with preventing new invasions, and fund eradication efforts among other things.

Mr. Sutherland stated that he hopes the council will continue and that they don’t submit to pressure.

Dr. Anderson questioned why Mr. Sutherland could not support this motion as a start with the understanding that the council will revisit the other plants. Mr. Sutherland said that the extension of the pre-emption was a major problem for him. Mr. Larson noted that Mr. Sutherland wouldn’t support the motion if they changed it to 1 year extension.

Mr. Larson agreed that the motion should be changed to include language regarding the council’s intension to revisit the remaining 15 plants.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked why not add language that if research shows other plants are invasive then they should be banned. Mr. Larson says that future decisions will be based on future information, we can’t make that decision now. Mr. Larson pointed out that no doors are being shut at this point, everything is still up for discussion.

Chairman Leff stated that his personal opinion is that it is better to get half a loaf than none at all. This motion will be good progress. He feels that banning all of them would be an ideal solution but it just won’t happen. These invasions did not happen overnight and the solutions won’t happen overnight either.

Dr. Mehrhoff stated that he couldn’t support the list part of the motion.

Mr. Goodwin stated that he felt this motion was a good first step.

Mr. Larson proposed an amendment to delete the plants that were already recommended and change the deadline for pre-emption to October 1, 2005. (This language is in the motion provided above.) The motion was seconded by Comm. Grescyzk and adopted by voice vote.

The original motion (as moved by Mr. Larson and seconded by Comm. Grescyzk) passed on a 7-2 roll call vote with Mr. Sutherland and Dr. Mehrhoff voting no.

Mr. Sutherland distributed information on the work that The Nature Conservancy has done to combat invasive plants recently.

Chairman Leff noted that he received a letter about an upcoming event by the Invasive Plant Working Group to take place in October.

Chairman Leff stressed that the industry should really consider the idea of a tax. Comm. Grescyzk noted that agriculture makes up for 10% of the land in CT. Any work that the Council could do to develop eradication methods would be a great help. Mr. Larson said that it was his hope that the council spend more time on investigating education issues and developing an education strategy.

The next meeting of the Council was set for June 21, 2004 at 10:30 at a location TBD.

Rep. Widlitz (Co-Chair of the Environment Committee) thanked the Council for their hard work and dedication.

There was a motion by Comm. Grescyzk to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodwin. The meeting was adjourned at 2:39 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emanuel Merisotis
Clerk-Environment Committee

INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 21, 2004

Council Members Present: Comm. Leff, Comm. Gresczyk, Mary Musgrave, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Sutherland, Dr. Mehrhoff, Mr. Magnarelli

Members of the Public Present: Sandy Breslin, Donna Ellis, Robert Heffernan, Karen Weeks, Grace Nome, Harold Nome, Bonnie Burr, Betty McLaughlin

Absent: Mr. Larson, he had to fix a broken irrigation system.

The meeting was called to order at 10:45 A.M. by Chairman Leff.

Chairman Leff introduced Louis Magnarelli to the council. He will be replacing John Anderson. Chairman Leff asked if there were any volunteers for nominating a new Vice Chair to the committee. Seeing none, Chairman Leff nominated Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Goodwin to form a committee to nominate the next Vice Chair of the committee.

There was a motion by Chairman Leff to approve the minutes of April 16, 2004. There was no second because not all members had received copies. The motion was taken off of the table by Chairman Leff.

Chairman Leff discussed how the council made significant progress over the last year and hopes that the council will continue to do the same.

Chairman Leff talked about what steps in the future need to be taken in the planning process. He asked what kind of role education should play. With this being an election year, how will the changes in the General Assembly affect the council? Is the best policy banning versus non-banning invasive plants? Should we consider a tax? He proposed that for the next meeting that council members bring some “creative ideas” to the table to deal with these issues.

Mr. Sutherland discussed how we could put reading material together to educate the public regarding invasive plants.

Chairman Leff said another issue is that the council needs to alert planning and zoning committees about invasive plants in their municipality.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked how can we keep up on the federal issues that will affect Connecticut? Are there any bills right now that are pending that will give us funds? If we do receive funds, how do we access those funds?

Chairman Leff asked if the conservancy is following bills in D.C.?

Mr. Sutherland said we are trying to. He also mentioned that Senator Lieberman may have a bill that would benefit Connecticut.

Chairman Leff asked if Mr. Sutherland would put on a presentation about happenings in D.C. that could affect the State of Connecticut and the council.

Mr. Sutherland is intrigued with the idea of taxing invasive plants. How would they be administered?

Mr. Goodwin said that he would rather see a tax than a ban on invasive plants.

Dr. Mehrhoff suggested that the public needs to supply the council with documentation if they have a potential candidate, i.e. a plant that should be deemed invasive.

Chairman Leff agreed with Dr. Mehrhoffs statement and asked him to write up guidelines that would alleviate this problem.

Chairman Leff and the council decided on when other meetings would take place. They decided on September 13, 2004, October 12, 2004, November 8, 2004 and December 13, 2004.

he council then discussed taking some field trips during the summer months. Mr. Heffernan proposed having the council take a bus ride from the Capitol to nurseries in Granby and Suffield. They decided on Monday, July 19, 2004. Another field trip they discussed is to visit the campus of the University of Connecticut and check out the new Biotech building. While the council was there, Dr. Mehrhoff would show them some plantings around campus. For now they just decided on the month of August.

Chairman Leff then discussed the potential problem of historical plantings. He brought up a situation in Harkness Memorial State Park where landscapers have made plantings and some of the plantings are on the list of invasive plants. One example is Sycamore Maple. He went on to ask the council if there is any interest in pursuing this. If so, do we need guidelines?

Mr. Goodwin stated that if you allow landscapers or others to do this that it could open the door for the public in a negative way.

Mr. Sutherland said that are you marring the experience of being in a historic garden if an invasive plant has to be removed?

Chairman Leff asked if the council wants to pursue this any further. In addition, if the council gets any inquiries then they will bring it up again.

Chairman Leff stated that there in no old business but there is some new business to discuss.

Dr. Mehrhoff talked about how we need to find out what research is out there regarding invasive plants. We have to have a better idea of what is going on out there. We need to come up with a list of invasiveness versus non-invasiveness. What data are we looking for? What information do we really need? He went on to say that plants that were on the first list are being sold and that storeowners are not aware that plants they are selling are invasive. What we need to do is write up a letter to storeowners that plants they are selling are illegal. Do we need to pass legislation to give power to the Commissioner of the Departmènt of Agriculture?

There was a motion by Commissioner Grescyzk to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr.Goodwin. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 A.М.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael Bloom
Clerk- Environment Committee

INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

Council Members Present: Comm. Leff, Comm. Gresczyk, Mary Musgrave, Paul Larson, David Goodwin, Dr. Magnarelli, Dr. Mehrhoff, David Sutherland

Members of the Public Present: Donna Ellis, Sandy Breslin, Karen Weeks, Betty McLaughlin

Absent: Thomas McGowan

The meeting was called to order at 1:33 P.M. by Chairman Leff.

Mr. Sutherland discussed the nomination of Dr. Magnarelli as Vice Chair. Dr. Magnarelli stated that if he were elected that he did not want to assume rank until Nov. 12, 2004. Therefore, if Commissioner Leff could not make the October 12 meeting that Dr. Anderson would have to be called to chair the meeting.

Mr. Sutherland made a motion for Dr. Magnarelli to be Vice Chair of the Invasive Plants Council. Dr. Mehrhoff seconded the motion. The Invasive Plants Council voted 8 -0 in favor of having Dr. Magnarelli as Vice Chair as of November 12, 2004.

Ms. Ellis discussed how there are a few more openings for the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group Symposium to be held on the campus of the University of Connecticut on October 7, 2004.

Chairman Leff then turned to the minutes from the last meeting and had a few corrections. Not everyone had a copy of the minutes so Chairman Leff suggested they hold off the voting till the members have had a chance to look them over.

Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Larson discussed the field trip to two Connecticut nurseries that took place on Monday, July 19, 2004. They were pleased with how many legislators showed up for the field trip. Mr. Goodwin stated that he thinks people learned something because they saw first hand the situation and the problem that invasive plants can cause.

Dr. Mehrhoff then talked about the field trip he led to several sites on and around the campus of the University of Connecticut. The 6 sites which were chosen were either state or publicly owned land which showed that everybody shares the problem of invasive plants.

Chairman Leff commented on the variety of invasive plants that he saw on that field trip and was amazed.

Mr. Goodwin asked if there had been a marked difference in animals in the area where invasive plants are invading?

Dr. Mehrhoff said that scientists are starting to study that issue. He said he has noticed increases in bird populations. For instance, Robbins which feed on Oriental Bittersweet may be staying during winter which would change their biology. But there has been no official studies done.

Mr. Sutherland discussed how The Nature Conservancy has a project in Northwest Connecticut. The project involves eradicating 5 species, primarily Barberry, and noted that native wildflowers were moving in once the Barberry was eradicated. He also said that there was a study that showed ground nesting birds were being shoved out of their habitats by invasive plants.

Ms. Musgrave asked a joint question for Mr. Sutherland and Dr. Mehrhoff. The question was when Barberry comes in, exactly how did it get there?

Dr. Mehrhoff said that most places that are heavily disturbed, like stop 6 (Nye-Holman State Forest) on our field trip. As to what and why it is so heavily disturbed, I don’t know.

Mr. Sutherland noted that Eric Mosher, a graduate student at UCONN, has been doing work on what is the history of a certain area and how did invasive plants get in.

Dr. Mehrhoff said that Eric used aerial photos for several years to determine changes to the land.

Dr. Magnarelli asked a question regarding re-invasion potential. What invasive plant would have the greatest potential in coming back into an environment that it was once eradicated from?

Dr. Mehrhoff brought up how gravel piles don’t grow anything but then Autumn Olive starts to sprout due to Starlings and once food is present in the habitat then other invasive plants sprout such as Burning Bush, Oriental Bittersweet and Multiflora Rose to name few. He went onto say that there are different issues at hand here and the situation is very complex.

Mr. Sutherland noted that The Nature Conservancy will be looking at that very issue out in Salisbury where they have a project underway.

Mr. Goodwin asked if burning the land is a viable option.

Dr. Mehrhoff said it varies from site to site. He also said that that tactic has been used before.

Chairman Leff then discussed the accomplishments of the council. For instance, establishing a list of invasiveness and changing of legislation.

The members of the council then discussed how coverage of their meetings on CT-N has raísed some awareness and that hopefully future meetings will be covered as well. The members then discussed that they need to push the Department of Agriculture to go after pet shop owners who sell invasive plants. In addition, they need to publish the list of invasive plants for the public to see. Finally, they need funding for printed materials such as a brochure stating that invasive plants are out there, you need to stop releasing them and that it is now illegal to sell them.

Mr. Sutherland then discussed what was going on in Washington D.C. He noted there were a few bills that were being discussed in Congress and that SB144 had the best shot at getting past. In fact, it did pass the Senate but has been put on the shelf by the House of Representatives. He said it would come back next year and that we should let our Connecticut legislators know that this bill is very important to us and needs to be passed. There was also H.R. 1080 and H.R. 1081 which centered around aquatic species, would have set up outreach programs and early detection but the bill was basically dead.

Mr. Sutherland went onto say that the Farm Bill includes some money for invasive plants and that the Transportation Bill may include money on plant control.

Paul Larson then mentioned how in the minutes from the last meeting that Tom McGowan was neither listed as present or absent. In addition, the minutes from the April 16 meeting were not passed.

Chairman Leff then discussed how he would like to hold a public hearing, open to the public as well as members in the industry, to come in and suggest ideas regarding the issue of invasive plants that the council may not have thought of. The members all thought it would be a great idea and that it should be held at the Legislative Office Building. They talked about bringing in press to cover the event. All of the members agreed that people who want to testify should summarize their ideas so that they can get to as many people as possible. The council tentatively agreed on having the hearing on December 13, 2004.

Chairman Leff then discussed how there are still issues that are not being addressed. One issue is regarding education programs specifically targeted toward planning and zoning commissions. Is this something we still want to pursue? What is the role of municipalities when it comes to invasive plants?

Dr. Mehrhoff brought up how we should pursue a pamphlet, like the one that is being distributed by the Massachusetts Bays Program. He then went onto say that he hoped the council pursues the list of questions which he raised on a handout. The handout was distributed to the council during the meeting. The idea of a tax should be brought up as an alternative.

Dr. Magnarelli stated that the idea of a tax is something that he believes the public should discuss and maybe the public hearing on December 13 would be the perfect venue.

Chairman Leff stated how funding is the central issue.

Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Larson asked how much revenue is being generated by the selling of invasive plants?

Dr. Mehrhoff said that the Department of Revenue Services should be in on these discussions.

Commissioner Gresczyk agrees that retail needs to be involved.

Commissioner Leff and Mr. Sutherland had to leave at this point due to prior engagements.

Dr. Magnarelli assumed the leadership position. He asked if there was any other discussion.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked if the council wants to pursue adding non-vascular plants to the list of invasive plants?

Dr. Mehrhoff asked if the council wants to pursue adding non-vascular plants to the list of invasive plants?

Dr. Mehrhoff made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Larson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 2:47 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael Bloom
Clerk – Environment Committee

INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL MINUTES ОСТОВЕR 12, 2004

Council Members Present: Comm. Leff, Dr. Musgrave, David Sutherland, Tom McGowan, Dr. Magnarelli

Members of the Public Present: Donna Ellis, Marie Lipski

Absent: Paul Larson, David Goodwin, Dr. Mehrhoff, Comm. Gresczyk

Chairman Leff called the meeting to order at 12:05 P.M.

Chairman Leff immediately discussed how at the last meeting Paul Larson raised the point that the council had not approved the minutes of the June 21s meeting.

Chairman Leff then turned his attention to the minutes of the September 21 meeting. He edited two sentences on the 3rd page, 2nd paragraph. In the second sentence, after the word “push”, the words “for legislation authorizing” should be added. In the very next sentence after the word “need”, the words “obtain funding to” should be added.

Mr. Sutherland wasn’t sure if he had said the following statement at the end of 3rd paragraph on page 2, so he asked that that sentence be deleted.

Chairman Leff asked if there was a motion to approve the minutes of the September 21s meeting. Dr. Magnarelli made a motion. Mr. McGowan seconded the motion. Theminutes were approved unanimously.

Chairman Leff then asked the council if they had any changes to the minutes of the June 21s meeting. There were none. He asked if there was a motion to approve the minutes of the June 21 meeting. Mr. Sutherland mad a motion. Mr. McGowan seconded the motion. The minutes of the June 21s meeting were approved unanimously.

The next topic of discussion was the Symposium that was held a week ago at the University of Connecticut.

Chairman Leff said it was great to see such a diverse crowd of people that were all interested and affected by the issue of invasive plants. He said that he saw people at the symposium with public policy backgrounds, people from state and federal agencies, and people from the academic world to name a few.

Ms. Ellis said the symposium went very well and commented on the amount of information that was available at that symposium.

Dr. Magnarelli asked what other states are doing regarding the issue of invasive plants.

Chairman Leff said that he wasn’t completely sure and that they would reach out to states once “we get our house in order.”

The council discussed a few states that may be passing legislation like Delaware, Rhode Island, Colorado and New York.

The council then discussed their upcoming forum on December 13, 2004. They discussed who should be notified about the forum. Dr. Magnarelli said their needs to be newspaper coverage.

Chairman Leff said that people wanting to testify should submit testimony before hand.

Chairman Leff decided to skip discussing prioritization of Issues for future discussions because not enough council members were present.

The Council then discussed their meeting schedule for next year. They decided on January 18, February 15, March 15, April 12, May 10 and June 14. All meetings will be at 1:30 P.M. in the LOB.

Chairman Leff asked if there was any new or old business. Seeing none he asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. McGowan made the motion. Mr. Sutherland seconded the motion.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael Bloom
Clerk – Environment Committee

INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2004

Council Members Present: Dr. Mehrhoff, Comm. Gresczyk, Dr. Magnarelli, David Goodwin, David Sutherland, Comm. Leff, Tom McGowan, Paul Larson

Members of Public Present: Donna Ellis, Bob Heffernan, Bonnie Burr, Eric Mosher, Sandy Breslin, Marie Lipski, Linda Kowalski

Chairman Leff called the meeting to order at 10:36 A.M.

Chairman Leff immediately discussed if there were any edits to the minutes from the lastmeeting. Seeing none, he asked if there was a motion to approve the minutes. Comm. Gresczyk made a motion and Dr. Magnarelli seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Eric Mosher of the University of Connecticut gave a presentation on the question are there significant relationships between different patterns of land use change and the distribution of invasive woody plants?

The council then reviewed their meeting last month with Dr. Mark Brand of the University of Connecticut.

Comm. Leff said the presentation by Dr. Brand was fascinating, however, it struck him how, with regards to his research, there is nothing on the immediate horizon for commercialuse. The only thing the council could take out of that meeting was to insure that his team’s research is able to continue for years to come.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked if Dr. Brand talked about invasiveness or non-invasiveness of the cultivars?

Ms. Ellis replied that the research is still ongoing so they are hesitant to conclude anything at this time.

Comm. Leff asked how the council feels about the idea of a tax as opposed to a ban. said it would be tough sledding but it is possible. Is there serious interest?

Mr. McGowan asked how would it work?

Comm. Leff replied that a percentage of the sales of the particular invasive plant would get thrown into a fund. The fund could be used to combat the problem of invasive plants through education.

Mr. McGowan asked if the Department of Revenue Services had any issues with this.

Comm. Leff replied that DRS’s issues would involve computers and that it would mostly be a technical issue.

Mr. Goodwin stated that he prefers a tax to a ban.

Dr. Mehrhoff asked what the nursing industries opinion is. He said he talked to people and they didn’t like the idea of a tax.

Mr. Goodwin asked what is the alternative?

Comm. Leff asked is there something the council can propose that philosophically makes sense?

Mr. Heffernan said that the industry does not have a big objection at this time. He also said that the tax would be more effective at the retail level.

Mr. Sutherland said that the tax could generate a lot of money but you don’t want to generate too much money or we will attract attention from the state.

Mr. Heffernan noted that the sales of plants are already subject to a 6% tax at the retail level.

Comm. Leff says that in the future the council needs to reiterate its recommendations about enforcement to store owners and education to planning land use commissions.

Dr. Mehrhoff said that guidelines be circulated to people being invited to speak at the December forum so that they don’t suggest any plant to be put on the invasive list and catch the council off guard with some random plant. What they would like to have happen is the guidelines be circulated so that the public can see if the plant they were going to talk about meets those guidelines.

Ms. Ellis asked if there was going to be a public announcement?

Comm. Leff says that he is not sure if the newspaper is the best outlet. He said to the council that if you have access to a newsletter then go for it. He will be writing a press release on behalf of the DЕР.

Comm. Leff then went on to saying that the council’s annual report is due on January 1, 2005. It will comprise of a review of the council’s successes, field trips, recap of their meeting in December and priorities for 2005.

Mr. Sutherland discussed the legislation that has passed on the federal level. He noted that just because the bill was authorized that it doesn’t mean anything until you have the money. However, the passing of SB 144 does help and that is was important that it passed.

Dr. Mehrhoff then talked about the questions that he has raised before and said that come January we really need to think about these questions seriously. The questions will be attached to this email.

Ms. Ellis raised the point about how certain invasive plants can be used in decorating (such as a Christmas wreath) and said is it OK if you use only part of the invasive plant? Interpretation of the law could be an issue.

Comm. Leff agreed and said the wreath can do damage by spreading its seed so maybe we need more specificity when it comes to the law. He suggested that we put that topic on the agenda for January.

Dr. Magnarelli suggested that because the CT Experiment Station works closely with the nursery industry that the station take responsibility for inventory.

Comm. Leff asked if there was a motion to adjourn the meeting. Comm. Gresczyk made a motion and Mr. Sutherland seconded the motion.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:21 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted.

Michael Bloom
Clerk – Environment Committee

 

 

Substitute Senate Bill No. 547
Public Act No. 04-203

AN ACT CONCERNING FINES FOR BANNED INVASIVE PLANTS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Subsection (e) of section 2 of public act 03-136 is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from assage):

(e) The council shall report, in accordance with section 11-4a, to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the environment on or before February 1, [2004] 2005, and on January first annually thereafter, concerning the council’s accomplishments of the past year and recommendations for the upcoming year, including, but not limited to, recommendations to prohibit the import or export, retail sale or wholesale and purchase of any invasive or potentially invasive plant listed pursuant to section 22a-381b. In reporting recommendations to prohibit the import or export, retail sale or wholesale and purchase of any invasive or potentially invasive plant, the council shall also submit the names of any plant considered for such recommendation, information relating to any findings made pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and the vote of each council member on such recommendation.

Sec. 2. Section 8 of public act 03-136 is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2004):

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance adopted by a municipality, no person shall import, move, sell, purchase, Ipossess,] transplant, cultivate or distribute any of the following invasive plants: (1) Curly leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton crispus); (2) fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana); (3) eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum); (4) variable water milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum); (5) water chestnut (Trapa natans); (6) egeria (Egeria densa); [and] (7) hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata); I. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. ] (8) common barberry (Berberis vulgaris); (9) autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata); (10) Bell’s honeysuckle (Lonicera xbella); (11) amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii); (12) Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii); (13) common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica); (14) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora); (15) Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus); (16) garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata); (17) narrowleaf bittercress (Cardamine impatiens); (18) spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii); (19) black swallow-wort (Cynanchum louiseae); (20) pale swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum); (21) leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula); (22) Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis); (23) perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium); (24) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum); (25) mile-a-minute vine (Polygonum perfoliatum); (26) fig buttercup (Ranunculus ficaria); (27) coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara); (28) Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum); (29) common reed (Phragmites australis); (30) sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus); (31) princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa); (32) white poplar (Populus alba); (33) false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa); (34) Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia); (35) wineberry (Rubus phoenicolasius); (36) kudzu (Pueraria montana); (37) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense); (38) jimsonweed (Datura stramonium); (39) crested late-summer mint (Elsholtzia ciliata); (40) Cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias); (41) slender snake cotton (Froelichia gracilis); (42) ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea); (43) giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum); (44) Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus); (45) ornamental jewelweed (Impatiens glanulifera); (46) common kochia (Kochia scoparia); (47) ragged robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi); (48) Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium); (49) bristle knotweed (Polygonum caespitosum); (50) giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense); (51) sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella); (52) ragwort (Senecio jacobaea); (53) cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum); (54) bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara); (55) garden heliotrope (Valeriana officinalis); (56) hairy jointgrass (raxon hispidus); (57) drooping brome-grass (Bromus tectorum); (58) Japanese sedge (Carex kobomugi); (59) reed managrass (Glyceria maxima); (60) Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa);and (61) tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance adopted by a municipality, on or after October 1, 2005, no person shall import, move, sell, purchase, transplant, cultivate or distribute any of the following invasive plants: (1) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); (2) forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides); (3) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica); (4) goutweed (Aegopodium odagraia); (5) flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus); (6) pond water-starwort (Callitriche stagnalis); (7) European waterclover Malea quadrifolia); (8) parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum); (9) brittle water-nymph (Najas minor); (10) American water t Jelumbo lutea); (11) yellow floating heart (Nymphoides peltata); (12) onerow yellowcress (Rorippa microphylla); (13) watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum), except for watercress sold for human consumption without its reproductive structure; 14) giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta); (15) yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus); (16) water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes); (17) border privet Ligustrum obtusifolium); (18) tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica); (19) dwarf honeysuckle (Lonicera xylosteum); and (20) arden loosetrife (Lysimachia vulgaris).

b)] (c) From June 26, 2003, until [May 5, 2004] October 1, 2005, no municipality shall adopt any ordinance regarding the retail sale r purchase of any invasive plant.

d) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars per plant.

Approved June 3, 2004

 

CONNECTICUT INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING A CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR COUNCIL REVIEW

Please Note: Be familiar with Connecticut Public Acts 03-136 and 04-203. Make sure that the species you are submitting to the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council for consideration as an INVASIVE SPECIES or POTENTIALLY INVASIVE SPECIES meets the criteria included in PA 03-136, Section 3. Only one species per form. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Clearly label and put contact information on all attachments.

Please provide the following information about the species you are considering.

Scientific name________

Common name (if known)_______

Native range*
* By definition in PA 03-136, an Invasive or Potentially Invasive Plant in Connecticut cannot be
indigenous (native) to Connecticut.

Is this species naturalized in Connecticut? Yes No How do you know? (i.e. Does the species exist and reproduce without cultivation in Connecticut?)

Documentation of invasiveness in Connecticut or elsewhere (include references, reports, official invasive plant lists, photographs or other forms of documentation)

lease explain, in a paragraph or two, why you feel this species should be listed as INVASIVE or POTENTIALLY INVASIVE in Connecticut. Include at least one location in Connecticut where this species is dominant and/or disruptive in minimally managed habitats. You should include directions to where someone from the Council can see a Connecticut occurrence. (If the species is not currently reported from Connecticut, you must explain why you think this plant’s establishment and spread in Connecticut should be anticipated.)

Do you have an idea how the species got to the place(s) to which you refer? If yes, please explain.

Verification: Please include photographs, digital images, or a dry specimen for verification. If the identification cannot be determined from furnished materials, you will be contacted for more information. Put all your contact information on photos submitted. Photos will not be returned. Contact information:

Your name:

Email address:

Mail address:

Telephone number (day and night if different – circle best time to reach you):

Affiliation or experience (not required):

Affiliation or experience (not required):