LOf '°N ITUijaj Id 'aassei^enex aivj aS^soj STL CLLS X^S^d Seapro 4 / c Control and Release P/U FLORIDA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL Officers Ken Langeland -Chair Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants 7922 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 352/392-9614 kal@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Tony Pemas -Immediate Past Chair Everglades National Park 40001 SR 9336 Homestead, FL 33034 305/242-7846 tony_pemas@nps.gov Dan Thayer -Treasurer SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6129 dthayer@sfwmd. gov Amy Ferriter -Editor SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6097 aferrite@sfwmd.gov Jackie Smith -Secretary DEP -Invasive Plant Management 3111-B13 Fortune Way Wellington, FL 33414 561/791-4720 smithjl@mail.state.fl.us Directors Mike Bodle SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6132 mbodle@sfwmd.gov Hillary Cherry Botany Dept. University of Florida 220 Bartram Hall P.O. Box 118526 Gainesville, FL 32611 352/336-2623 hcherry@ufl.edu Francois Laroche SFWMD Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 561/682-6193 flaroche@sfwmd. gov Brian Nelson SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksvifle, FL 34609-6899 352/796.7211 brian.nelson@swfwmd.state.fl.us Alison Fox UF -Agronomy Department Post Office Box 110500 Gainesville, FL 32611-0500 352/392-1811 ext.207 amfox@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Dennis Giardina USFWS 377019th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34117 941/657-7637 dennis_giardina@fws.gov Christine Sutter SRWMD 9225 CR 49 Live Oak, FL 32060 904/362-1001 sutter_c@srwmd.state.fl.us Phil Waller BASF Corporation 6651 Englelake Drive Lakeland, FL 33813 863/619-6255 wallerp@basf.com Committee Chairs By-Laws Dennis Giardina CAST Representative Ken Langeland Editorial Amy Ferriter Education Hillary Cherry FNGAjFLEPPC Liaison Doria Gordon P.O. Box 118526 Department of Botany University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352/392-5949 dgordon@botany.ufl.edu Legislative Phil Waller Membership Andrea Van Loan Division of Forestry 1911 SW 34 Street Gainesville, FL 32608 352/372-3505 x 429 vanloaa@doacs.state.fl.us Merchendise vacant Nominations Tony Pemas Program Kathy Burks FDEP 3915 Commonwealth Blvd ms710 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850/487-2600 kathy.burks@dep.state.fl.us Plant List Dan Austin/Kathy Burks Florida Atlantic University Dept, of Biological Sciences Boca Raton, FL 33431 561/297-3327 daustin@fau.edu Publications Dan Clark 7922 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 352/392-6894 danclark@ufl. edu Research John Volin Florida Atlantic University 2912 College Ave. Davie, FL 33314 954/236-1115 jvolin@fau.edu Ad Hoc Standard Operating Procedures Bob Doren National Park Service Florida International University SERC-OE148 University Park Miami, FL33199 305/348-6721 dorenr@fiu.edu Local Arrangements JB Miller Florida Park Service 1000 Faver Dykes Rd. St. Augustine, FL 32086 904/794-5959 millerjb@aug.com Training Jim Duquesnel P.O. Box 487 Key Largo, FL 33037 305/451-1226 jpcrsp@reefnet.com Vendors Phil Waller Task Forces Australian Pines Robert Egan Habitat Restoration Resources 224 NE 47 Street Pompano Beach, FL 33064 954/788-8018 gardengateway@yahoo.com Brazilian Pepper Dean Barber 5882 South Semeron Blvd. Orlando, FL 32822 407/275-4004 barberl@mail.state.fl.us Carrotwood Chris Lockhart Habitat Specialists, Inc. P.O. Box 3116 Boynton Beach, FL 33424-3116 561/738-1179 chris .lockhart@ habitatspecialists.com Dioscorea Mike Bodle Grasses Gerald "Stinger" Guala, Fairchild Tropical Garden 11935 Old Cutler Rd. Miami, FL 33156 stinger@fiu.edu Lygodium Amy Ferriter/Tom Fucigna Skunkvine Brian Nelson Chinese Tallow Greg Jubinsky / Cheryl McCormick 3915 Commonwealth Blvd. MS710 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850/487-2600 greg_jubinsky@dep.state.fl.us Melaleuca Francois Laroche The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council has not tested any of the products advertised or referred to in this publication, nor has it verified any of the statements made in any of the advertisements or articles. The Council does not warrant, expressly or implied, the fitness of any product, advertised or the suitability of any advice or statements contained herein. Wildland Weeds SPRING 2001, Volume 4, Number 2 Table of Contents 4 Opinion 8 Are we on the cusp of a significantly enhanced national effort to counter bioinvasion? by Faith Campbell 13 Preventing the introduction of potential weeds as ornamental plants in Australia by Craig Walton 16 NAEPPC Meeting at NAA by Brian Bowen 18 Internodes 18 Mark Your Calendar Visit these websites: Florida EPPC's: www.fleppc.org Tennessee EPPC's: www.webriver.com/tn-eppc California EPPC's: www.caleppc.org Wildland Weeds (ISSN 1524-9786) is a quarterly publication of the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) Wildland Weeds is published to provide a focus for the issues and concerns regarding exotic pest plant biology, distribution and control. To become a member of the Florida EPPC and receive the Council newsletter and Wildland Weeds Magazine, contact the Treasurer. For advertising information contact: Outdoor Tech, Inc., 6791 Proctor Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32308, Phone 850 668-2353, Fax 850 668-2664 Debra Tarver Charter Advertisers: SePRO, Griffin, Dow Agrosciences, Riverdale, Invasive Plant Control, Brewer International, Timberland Enterprises, Inc., American Cyanamid, Helena Direct editorial inquiries to Amy Ferriter, Editor Wildland Weeds Magazine: 3301 Gun Club Rd. West Palm Beach, FL 33406 aferrite@sfwmd. gov Editorial Board Mike Bodle Jim Cuda Roger Hammer Ken Langeland Steve Manning Dan Thayer Cover Unfortunately, the United States does little to prevent the introduction of potential weeds. Extensive screening exists for plant pests, but essentially none exists for pest plants. WILDLAND WEEDS 3 opinion A new kind of invasive pest has slipped into the woods and swamps of South Florida. This pest is well camouflaged. On first encoun¬ ter, it is welcomed by most land manag¬ ers. Yet this pest ultimately causes the worst environmental damage I've ever encountered. If not monitored closely, this pest can destroy the very natural resources we all strive to protect. Heed my warnings before it's too late, or you too may see your favorite wildland haunts visited by this destructive nudnik. I regret to report that it's not just a South Florida problem, either. If it is not already, this pest will soon be a national problem. This problem must be corrected without delay, before public confidence in our resource management skills is perma¬ nently harmed. What is this awful pest and how did it get here? Believe it or not, we (us; that is, invasive plant managers) introduced it and we are responsible for it - it is us! We have done a good job of educating the general public and our legislators about the invasive plant problem in this country. We can finally see our efforts paying dividends from the local board rooms to the highest levels in our Federal government. In Florida, the Legislature has appropriated millions in recent years to fund control programs. We have devel¬ oped solid management programs and set out to destroy these pests with the best of intentions. So what's the problem and where did we go wrong? We have unwittingly created an industry to do battle against these pests where no indus¬ try existed previously, and we have done so without establishing the appropriate performance standards for excellence. With governmental acceptance of low bids for contractual labor, and no uniform standards for training and experience, we have put our natural treasures in the hands of untrained laborers. This has not always been the case, but it has been the recent trend. I'll give two examples, both in Palm Beach County. While these stories are true, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. We'11 call the first site Dimpled Chad Park. Dimpled Chad Park was purchased as part of a larger "greenway" project which connects a series of natural areas owned by various local and state agencies. The property Non-ta native: herbicide damage to What is this awful pest and how did it get here? Believe it or not, we (us; that is, invasive plant managers) introduced it and we are responsible for it - it is us! contains wetlands that are critical to the health of Florida's first Federally designated Wild and Scenic River. Shortly after acquisition, a contractor was hired to control invasive plants on the property. Herbicide applications controlled most of the invasive plants. Unfortunately, control also extended to most of the surrounding native forbs and trees (top photo). Apparently, application approach and herbicide overspray caused the damage. The second site we'll call Butterfly Ballot Park. Butterfly Ballot Park was purchased as mitigation for a nearby 4 SPRING 2001 oper was required to treat the invasive pest-plants (mostly Brazilian pepper) on this property as a con¬ dition of their permit. To save money, day-labor¬ ers were hired and instructed to "kill anything with red berries." Oops! At last count, 5,155 native trees were chopped down and herbidded (see photo). The company is facing a fine of up to $2.6 million for their mistake. Lack of supervi¬ sion and qualified help the culprit. These are only two recent examples from a long list of growing prob¬ lems. We can fix these prob¬ lems, but we must do it col¬ lectively. We must insist that only qualified companies get this work. We must develop educational resources so more companies can Non-native Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) with mature red fruit. advance cadres of qualified staff. For instance, Florida is in the final phase of developing a certification program for invasive plant control in natural areas. Once established, we should all insist that only applicators certified for this Native dahoon holly (Ilexcassine) with mature red fruits. development. One of the botanical jewels of the property is (or should I say, was) the large number of mature dahoon hollies (Ilex cassine). The devel- photo: www.newleafgraphics.com PRODUCT PORTFOLIO Arsenal Stalker Plateau Oasis Sahara Pendulum BASF Corporation PRODUCT USES • Invasive Plant Control • Brush Control • Baregrouncl • Turf Management • Basal Applications • Pre-emergent Con¬ trol • Aquatic EUP • For More Information on How to Solve Your Vegetation Problems Call Phil Waller (863) 619-6255 WILDLAND WEEDS 5 new category be allowed to bid and implement this work for us. We may have to pay more in the short term, but the returns are invaluable. As environmentalist Richard Moyroud said after surveying the damage at Butterfly Ballot Park, "It's like someone going into a museum and slashing up the paintings.can you replace that?" The stump of a large dahoon holly, left- it was mistakenly cut and treated with a herbicide. Mix of native dahoon holly, wax myrtle, myrsine and red bay, above - all dead or dying from a herbicide application intended for exotic Brazilian pepper. We all know that you can't. Only we can bring a halt to such failures. As leaders in this field, we must insist that this growing industry meet the highest standards. These standards will, of necessity, raise the bar to another level. Getting there will be no small feat. I think we have no choice. - Dan Thayer, dthayer@sfwmd.gov Helena Ad 2 / c P/U 6 SPRING 2001 Invasive Plants 4/c full page new negs here WILDLAND WEEDS Are we on the cusp of a significantly enhanced national effort to counter bioinvasion? Faith Campbell American Lands Alliance 726 7 th St. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Phytodoer@aol.com The answer depends on whether the people President-elect George W. Bush appoints have any familiarity with this issue. The new secretary of agriculture, Ann Veneman, has worked on Medfly and other issues in California - so we can hope for an understanding ear there. The other major player, the Congress, will remain in Republican control, although with a narrowed majority. Of course, many Republicans are concerned about invasive species. Prime examples are Governor Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho and his col¬ leagues in the intermountain states, where rangeland weeds cost the live¬ stock industry millions of dollars annually. More broadly, however, I think we can expect a Republican administration and congress to be more skeptical of government programs, and less willing to adopt regulations that restrict activities by economic interests. I anticipate that any Republican-led program will focus on those invasive species that harm economic interests including the aforementioned range- land weeds. There may be consider¬ ably less interest in those introduced organisms that threaten natural areas. Recent years have seen a much- heightened awareness of the costs imposed by bioinvasion — including but not limited to within the federal government. Much of the credit for this progress goes to Don Schmitz, Phyllis Windle, Jim Carlton, and others who organized the 1997 letter to Vice President Gore that was endorsed by more than 500 scientists. It was this letter that led to adoption of Executive Order 13112, creation of the Invasive Species Council and Advisory Com¬ mittee, and preparation of the draft invasive species management plan that was released for public comment in October. While we are all probably seeking more! from the Council and Plan, these developments still repre¬ sent major steps forward. he "system" is now poised to act — although probably less boldly that we wish. The "system" is now poised to act — although probably less boldly that we wish. At this crucial moment, the federal administration is changing hands and the Congress is distracted. So, once again, the burden is on us to make sure the process moves forward instead stagnating. The Exotic Pest Plant councils, their members, and other concerned organizations and people need to begin immediately to educate officials in the new administra¬ tion and the Congress. The draft management plan unfor¬ tunately does not yet provide a strong rationale for curbing bioinvasion. Even the economic costs are downplayed. Therefore, we must remind decision¬ makers that the present federal control effort pales beside the need. Federal spending — now $631.5 million (GAO 2000)— constitutes less than half of 1% of the $137 billion in annual losses tallied by Dr. David Pimentel and col¬ leagues of Cornell University (2000). International trade is the principal "pathway" by which damaging invad¬ ers enter the U.S. yet our Nation's trade policy is dominated by efforts to increase the $50 billion earned annually by agricultural exports (Seattle Post- Intelligencer) rather than to protect us from an increase in the $90 billion cost imposed by animal weeds, plant pests, and animal diseases introduced by trade (Pimentel et al.2000). The Plan also does not specify how the National Invasive Species Council and concerned public will exercise oversight to ensure that the agencies comply with the Executive Order. One obvious lapse is the failure of any agency to carry out its duties under Section 2(3) of the Executive Order. This section says no agency may authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote introduc¬ tion or spread of invasive species unless, "pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions." It is particularly important that those agencies that introduce and recommend plants for various uses comply with this require¬ ment. Among such agencies are the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Ser¬ vice, Cooperative State Research, Edu¬ cation, and Extension Service, Agricul¬ tural Research Service, and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. The evidence is that these agencies have some progress to make. Horti¬ cultural Guides issued through the 8 SPRING 2001 extension program of the University of Missouri are still recommending Hall's, Tatarian, and Amur honey¬ suckles (Lonicera japonica 'Halliana', L. tatarica, L. maakii), wintercreeper {Euonymus fortunei), and other species known to be invasive. From the perspective of the EPPCs, one of the strongest aspects of the draft management plan is its promise to close various pathways for deliberate introductions for horticultural plants, pets, aquatic animals used in aquacul¬ ture and mariculture, etc. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee that assists the Council felt strongly that the screening mechanisms for various tax¬ onomic groups or geographic regions should conform to common principles; it therefore recommended formation of a joint government-committee task group to ensure that this occurs. Unfortunately, top federal officials have not put the same priority on clos¬ ing off such deliberate introductions. Will this position result in a change to the Plan? Will agencies simply drag their feet? The EPPCs should be prepared to educate all levels of the administration, as well as the Congress, on the importance of curb¬ ing deliberate introductions. Our hand is probably strengthened by the fact that considerable prepara¬ tory work has already been done with regard to pre-import screening of horticultural imports. Scientists and representatives from Exotic Pest Plant councils met in 1997 with representa¬ tives of the nursery trade to increase communication and discuss ways to reduce the introduction of invasive species. Government officials and the trade have studied the systems devel¬ oped by Australia and New Zealand. The USDA is planning a workshop with the horticultural industry in January 2001. With this start, I believe a screening system for plants should be operational well before the deadline of January 2007 set in the draft plan. Soon, I hope, people involved in pro¬ tecting natural areas — governmental and non-governmental — will join the negotiations. Parallel discussions in some states and regions have resulted in agreement on in short lists of plants that should be removed from the trade. If the government does limit its SePro 1/2 B/W FasTest p/u efforts to those species that cause harm to economic interests, this will perpetuate a longstanding challenge to those of us concerned about the impact of "weeds" (and "plant pests") on natural systems — wildlands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has tradi¬ tionally confined itself to protecting agriculture. This stance has been rein¬ forced by the committees to which the agency reports in Congress. While there has been a little progress in recent years, my perception is that some in the APHIS leadership and probably many of the staff are not willing to expand APHIS' efforts to control wildland weeds unless the agency is guaranteed significantly more money. The draft management plan released in October 2000 contains no specific mechanism to improve protection for natural areas from such introductions. The Plan does promise to ask Congress for more funds — but realizing this promise might be difficult. Even if more money is made available. Con¬ gress might continue to focus on pro- WILDLAND WEEDS 9 tecting agriculture. If that is the case, weeds and pests that invade primarily natural areas will continue to enter the country and spread without an effective response. The draft plan does not provide for applying screening procedures to the hundreds of invasive plant and animal species that are already in trade. The only strategy to reduce use of such plants—or to prevent the spread of weeds from one state to another is a recommendation to expand access to supplies of seeds of native plants. This approach enjoys considerable support in the Advisory Committee and Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). In addi¬ tion, the U.S. Department of Transpor¬ tation, Florida DoT, and University of Florida are sponsoring a workshop on techniques for growing seeds of native plants in coming months. The draft plan commits the govern¬ ment to few specific steps to improve early detection. The Advisory Com¬ mittee pushed strongly for concrete steps to bring about faster assessment and dissemination of information about newly detected invaders. The Committee also stressed the important role that the public can play by report¬ ing new infestations. Again, those of us working on "weeds" may be ahead of the "plan". For several years FICMNEW has been developing an early detection system for invasive plants. Working from the recommendations of a workshop held in June 2000, FICMNEW will write a draft implementation plan and actively seek input from weed organizations during the first half of 2001. Meanwhile, CSREES has stated its intention to develop programs to train people to detect invasive species. The program would be modeled on the Master Gardeners program; CSREES staff would develop the content, while land grant universities would it carry out. Don Schmitz' proposal to create a leading institution modeled on the Center for Disease Control is not men¬ tioned in Plan. Such a center could be valuable from many points of view — raising awareness, providing advice, and pointing fingers at those agencies that fail to prevent introductions or respond to newly detected invaders. Some activists believe such a center would function best if it were not part of government — rather, an independent watchdog. This approach would require an appropriate institution to obtain funding probably from foundations. Until a center is created, can nongov¬ ernmental organizations including the EPPCs work together to carry out some of the tasks? There remains the difficult question of ensuring that information spurs needed action. It iswidely agreed that T here remains the difficult question of ensuring that information spurs needed action. agencies need more funding for rapid response, and that the funds must be accessible on a priority basis, not tied to a particular species or agency. The Plan calls for legislation to create such a fund, but postpones submitting the proposal to later years. The Advisory Committee and Council staff have agreed instead to get that legislation drafted by January 2001. That would just be the first step, however. Con¬ cerned non-governmental organiza¬ tions and individuals must carry out an active campaign to persuade the Congress to adopt the legislation. To address control of established invasive species, the plan relies heavily on grants and cost-share programs. This approach is popular; Senators Craig (R-ID) and Daschle (D-SD) introduced a bill to establish such a program in the final weeks of the 106th Congress, and expect to re-introduce the bill early in the new Congress. This approach is probably more useful for "weeds" than for some other categories of invaders (e.g., forest pests). However, we must all be vigilant to ensure that the program applies sound criteria in selecting recipi¬ ents and requires follow-up monitoring and reports on the projects' results. Furthermore, will the Congress fund both the cost-share program for private lands and the federal land-managing agencies? These agencies still need substantial new money to address weeds and other invaders on lands under their jurisdiction — which include some of America's conservation "crown jewels". In the international arena, the Plan calls for close cooperation with the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP), which aims to 1) build countries' capacities to address the invasive species issue; 2) develop best practices for prevention and control in various scenarios; 3) provide useful information through a global clearing house, facilitating research that unites agricultural and biodiversity concerns; and 4) promote cooperation with interna¬ tional bodies that have responsibili¬ ties in this area including the Inter¬ national Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Maritime Organization (IMO). One of the "best practices" initia¬ tives will be a global workshop on horticultural plants, which will be cosponsored by The Missouri Botanical Garden, The Royal Botanical Garden at Kew, and perhaps others. Sarah Reichard is one of the experts planning the meeting. The purpose of this work¬ shop is to begin developing codes of conduct for botanical gardens, nurser¬ ies, and landscape architects, to discuss screening methods, and to promote identification of non-invasive alterna¬ tives for particular invasive plants. The Plan ignores several opportuni¬ ties to address invasive species, most notably the March 2001 meeting of the scientific body for the Convention on the Conservation of Biodiversity, which will focus on invasive species. The Plan and APHIS put great emphasis on "engaging" states and affected industries but say little about interacting with the public more broadly, environmental conservation groups etc. The public will provide the funds; it must also understand and 10 SPRING 2001 cooperate with the Plan if it is to suc¬ ceed. Furthermore, the public can help in numerous other ways, including by • alerting authorities to new introduc¬ tions • participating in volunteer control and management efforts • raising awareness about invasive species problems and solutions. In addition, the public is concerned about the environmental ramifications of control techniques, such as use of herbicides and pesticides, and must be consulted about programs that rely on these methods. The Research section of the Plan recognizes the importance of strength¬ ening agencies' "core" programs and the need for both basic and applied research. Some consider the Plan to be weak on technology transfer. FIC- MNEW plans a conference on weed control techniques in the coming year. I would like to see greater emphasis on developing and testing "exclusion" methodologies for pathways in addi¬ tion to ballast water, among them living plant imports as vectors of forest pests. The Plan should also provide for research into the economic impacts of invasive species and the cultural or societal choices that promote imports of foreign goods — goods that can either be invasive themselves (e.g., plants and pets) or be vectors for pests and disease organisms. The Plan also delays the outreach or education effort while assembling a marketing team to design a major national program. Surely a number of ongoing programs should be continued, even expanded, during this hiatus? The aquatic invasive species informa¬ tion system tied to Sea Grant colleges appear to warrant emulation. I hope the designers will remember the need to educate the business executives, economists, politicians, and trade offi¬ cials who are promote programs and actions that contribute to invasive- species problems worldwide. Meanwhile, agency activities pro¬ ceed and include some promising developments. APHIS & the Department of Interi¬ or's U.S. Geological Survey Biological Research Division are jointly develop¬ ing a system to accept reports of new weed infestations on the Web, or via telephone or fax. This system will allow for various levels of credibility — voucher specimen, photograph, publication in a peer-reviewed journal, or even hearsay report. The report will be validated before being acces¬ sioned. Once the report is accepted, notices would be sent interested people, perhaps by a listserve. APHIS is also trying to develop or adapt "invasive¬ ness models" for use in assessing likely weediness of plant species. The agency has contracted with the Weed Science Society of America to develop a list of 40 top-priority weeds. The contrac¬ tor is trying to include natural area concerns. SOURCES: Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, D. Morrison. Enviromental and Economic Costs Associ¬ ated with Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. Bioscience Vol. 5 No. 1 (Janu¬ ary 2000). Seattle Post-Intelligencer. December 1,1999. U.S. scales back its estimate for farm exports. United States General Accounting Office. 2000. Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species. GAO/RCED-OO-219. August 2000. limbcrland Enterprises, Inc. Renewing the Environment Vegetation management programs and control products for Aquatics, Forestry and Roadway/Utility Rights of Way. SOLUTIONS - SERVICE - SATISFACTION FLORIDA OFFICE 3705-10 S.W. 42nd Ave Gainesville, FL 32608 (352) 375-2601 (O) (352) 375-3123 (FAX) CORPORATE OFFICE P.O. Box 557 Monticello, AR 71655 (870) 367-8561 WILDLAND WEEDS 11 Dow Agroscience Ad B/Wp/u 12 SPRING 2001 Craig Walton AQIS Plant Quarantine Policy Branch, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, GPO 858, Canberra ACT 2601. Telephone: 02 6272 5564. Australia carries out assessments of weed potential on all new plant imports. New ornamental plants in particular are assessed as they are the major source of new naturalised plants that , in time, may become weeds that impact on our environment. Why does AQIS regulate plants? The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is the Com¬ monwealth agency responsible for car¬ rying out the government's plant quar¬ antine policies. Substantial changes have occurred in these policies in the last five years. They reflect the rising awareness of the impact weeds have in Australia, including the impact of exotic plants on non-agricultural ecosystems, and changes in plant quar¬ antine standards at an international level. What is a weed? Only plants that do not occur in Australia, and which are assessed to be quarantine pests, can be prohibited importation under international agree¬ ments. A'quarantine pest' is defined as 'A pest of potential economic impor¬ tance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled'. The definition of a pest includes weeds. The government now requires that (1) the potential environmental impacts of new species, varieties and lines of plants should be assessed including their propensity to become weeds, and (2) that regulations governing plant importation be based on a permit¬ ted list approach. These actions will prevent new weed introductions. Ornamental plants as new weeds Many of the plants introduced into Australia over the last 200 years have been beneficial to us and ecologically benign. But a small percentage has run rampant. Gaining a foothold in areas disturbed by human activities, they have moved into natural areas where they may radically alter the ecosystems they have invaded. 65% of the plants that have naturalised in Australia over the last 25 years have been introduced deliberately for ornamental purposes (Groves 1997). The sources of these introductions include botanical gardens, govern¬ ment and private nurseries and pri¬ vate importers. Ornamentals turned invaders Some examples of plants imported for ornamental uses that have become or have the potential to be serious weeds are the aquatic plants hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and water hya¬ cinth ( Eichhornia crassipes ), creeping plants such as bridal creeper ( Myrsi- phyllum asparagoides) and rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora ), and garden plants such as Miconia ( Miconia cal- vescens), brooms ( Cystisus spp. and Genista spp.), blackberries ( Rubus fruticosus ) and lantana ( Lantana spp.). A new approach to plant imports New legislation under the Quaran¬ tine Act, resulting from a review of quarantine in 1996, will prohibit all plants until assessed and/or permit¬ ted. The need for weed assessment relates only to new plants; all plants already growing in Australia will generally continue to be permitted. Seed imports are permitted if the spe¬ cies or genus is listed on the existing plant permitted list. Live plant material, either rooted stock or tissue culture, is permitted, with conditions, if listed on the same list. All plants not on this list, however, will be prohibited until they have been assessed for weediness. The permitted list stands at over 4000 taxa and will be reviewed and added to over the next two years to make it a list of all plants naturalised in Australia. How does AQIS assess plants? The assessment of new plants for addition to the permitted list is a three- step process. Firstly, the taxonomic WILDLAND WEEDS 13 status of a new introduction is checked. If the species is a synonym, variety or line of a permitted species it can be imported unless it has characteristics that may alter its weed potential, such as herbicide resistance. A species that is not listed proceeds to the second step, the weed risk assessment. AQIS has assessed new plants for weed poten¬ tial since 1991, and the Weed Risk Assessment system (WRA) adopted in August 1997 is a measure for strength¬ ening the pre-entry assessment of new plant imports. The WRA system The WRA is a question-based scor¬ ing system, in which 49 questions are asked about the new species. The questions include details of the plants climatic preferences, biological attri¬ butes, reproduction and dispersal methods. A minimum number of ques¬ tions must be answered before an assessment is made. The WRA uses the responses to the questions to generate a numerical score. The numerical score determines an outcome: accept, reject or further evaluate for the species. Species which score further evalu¬ ate in the system proceed to the third tier assessment. This involves post¬ entry evaluation of species in green¬ houses or in field studies to examine more directly the weed potential (or verify the potential benefits) of the species. Prohibited plants may be imported for destructive analysis or research. Plants in breeding programs may have their status revised if invasive characters are removed during the program. The bottom line Under new legislation, all new plants imported into Australia will be assessed by AQIS for their potential to become weeds. The aim of these assessments is to reduce the number of ornamental plants that escape to become new weeds. Further reading Recent Incursions of Weeds to Australia 1971-1995, Groves, R. (1997). CRC for Weed Management Systems. The National Weed Strategy: A strategic approach to weed problems of national significance, (1997). Commonwealth of Australia. Weed assessment of new plant imports www.dpie.gov.au/ aqis / homepage / imadvice/implant/weedsl.htmls21 Eichhornia crassipes This material is reprinted with the permission of the Nursery Industry Asso¬ ciation of Australia. For more infor¬ mation visit the NIAA website: http:// www.niaa.org.au New Name! Growing Commitment! ProSource One formerly Terra Professional Products has a new name with a growing commitment to our customers. ProSource One is the exclusive source for all of your aquatic vegetation management needs. We offer the right products, reliable advice and dependable services to help make your aquatic program successful. Talk to your ProSource One aquatics vegetation management specialist. Aquatic Specialists Western Florida Polly Ellinor 1-888-813-0562 Eastern Florida Paul Mason 1-800-207-1408 14 SPRING 2001 SePRO full page 4/c Nautique p/u WILDLAND WEEDS 15 NAEPPC Meeting at NAA The National Association of EPPC's met at the 27 th Annual Natural Areas Conference in St. Louis on October 19, 2,000. Representatives were present from TN-EPPC, Mid-Atlantic EPPC, Michigan Invasive Plant Council, Wisconsin (newly forming EPPC), PacNW-EPPC, FLEPPC and CalEPPC. Updates on organization actions were given from state and regional orga¬ nizations. CalEPPC reported that their invasive species list had been recently revised and published. TN- EPPC reported that their list was being revised and nearly complete. Kelly Kearns reported that Wisconsin would be hosting a meeting in March and that they were in the process of estab¬ lishing an Invasive Plant Council. Nelroy Jackson, who is a member of the Invasive Species Advisory Com¬ mittee and a former CalEPPC BOD member, informed everyone about the up-coming 2 nd Annual National Weed Awareness Week February 26-March 2, in Washington, D.C. He encouraged all EPPC's participation to become more visible on the national front. A discussion of national issues gave rise to actions we decided were appropriate for NAEPPC to take. Jil Swearingen (Mid-Atlantic EPPC), who chaired this meeting, agreed to write a letter on behalf of the NAEPPC to the National Invasive Species Council. The letter is to inform the NISC about the purpose of EPPC and to express our support and interest in participating in the implementation of the National Management Plan. There was concern expressed at this meeting (and previ¬ ous meetings) about how EPPC's have been ignored as the issue of invasive species has risen to national promi¬ nence, and how we have not been recognized as a stakeholder by the feds. In writing this letter, we want to bring to the NISC's attention that the Exotic Pest Plant Council has much expertise to provide on all aspects of natural area weed issues and that EPPC wants to be recognized as a cooperating partner at the regional and state level. As a stakeholder, we should have a voice at the table in state and regional invasive species councils that the feds are trying to institute. We also decided to revise the 1995 MOU that established the NAEPPC. The revision will emphasize the orga¬ nization's purpose, and state EPPC's mission goals. The revised MOU will identify NAEPPC's focus on natural area and wildland weed issues. Mike Kelly, President of CalEPPC volun¬ teered to write the revision. It will be sent to all EPPC's for review and approval. The MOU will provide NAEPPC a formal legal documenta¬ tion that will describe our common interest. The MOU can be presented to the National Invasive Species Council, and it will have all participating EPPC organization's signatures. The mis¬ sion statement in the MOU will also provide the necessary framework for newly forming invasive plant councils to adopt if they choose to participate as a member of the National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils. The NAEPPC also agreed to host an invasive exotic pest plant symposium at next year's Natural Areas Con¬ ference at Cape Canaveral, Florida. As a Natural Areas Associa¬ tion Board member, I had the opportu¬ nity to participate with the local plan¬ ning committee for next year's NAA Conference to arrange our participa¬ tion. The Natural Areas Association and EPPC have many common goals and should collaborate in our efforts whenever possible. The NAEPPC meeting adjourned after approximately 2.5 hours. This particular meeting was difficult to schedule and conduct because of con¬ flicting events at the NAA conference. It occurred after daylong field trips. Because they ran late, conducting business at this meeting proved to be very challenging. We will rectify this problem at next year's meeting with appropriate planning. Our symposium next year at NAA should provide much interest and should be a springboard for a productive NAEPPC meeting. - Brian Bowen, Southeast EPPC Coordinator, nighttrainO@home.com. Brewer Ad P/U 16 SPRING 2001 Monsanto Ad 4 / C P/U WILDLAND WEEDS 17 Internodes XenoNET Weed Calendar now available on the Web An electronic calendar has been created to help us all keep track of important meetings, workshops and events related to invasive plants. To access the Weeds Gone Wild calendar, go to: http://www.eventcal.net / weeds_gone_wild You can select which month you want to view by selecting a month, a week or a day from the strip on the right hand side of the screen. If you wish to print a page: 1. Click somewhere on the actual calendar you want printed (on left¬ side of the screen) or you will print the strip of calendars on right. 2. Changing your fonts setting, through the "View" menu, to smaller or smallest, so you get the whole calendar on one page. 3. Go to Page Setup, in File menu, and select "landscape" orientation 4. Select Print, in File menu, and "only the frame selected" If you have important weedy events, please send Jil an email with all the pertinent information, including an email for a contact and a url to a web site for the event if available. Links to the Plant Conservation Alliance and the Alien Plant Working Group's "Weeds Gone Wild" web Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Coun¬ cil "2001 Conference: A Weed Odys¬ sey". Georgia Center for Continuing Education/University of Georgia, Athens. March 21-24,2001. Contact: Cheryl McCormick, cheryl@uga.edu. League of Environmental Educators in Florida (LEEF), annual conference, March 22-25, 2001. Leesburg, FL. Contact: eileen_ tramontana @district.sjrwmd. state.fl.us Association of Southeastern Biologists/Southern Appalachian Botanical Society/SE Chapter of Ecological Society of America/Tri- Beta: 62nd Annual Meeting, April 4-7,2001. New Orleans, LA. Contact: www.loyno.edu/~asb 41 st Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society, July page are provided at the top of the calendar. For more information, contact Jil Swearingen, U.S. National Park Service, 202-342-1443, ex. 218, jil_swearingen @nps.gov 12-15, 2001, Minneapolis, MN. Con¬ tact: David Tarver, davidptarver @worldnet.att.net. 16th Annual Symposium, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Septem¬ ber 12-14, 2001, St. Augustine, FL. Contact: Kathy Burks, kathy.burks @dep.state.fl.us 11 th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species, October 1-4, 2001. Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, Alexandria, VA. Contact: Contact: Elizabeth Muckle-Jeffs, pro- fedge@renc.igs.nebvwwaquatic-invasive- species-conference.org. 28 th Annual Natural Areas Con¬ ference, 2001: A Spatial Odyssey, October 3-6, 2001. Radisson's "Resort at the Port," Cape Canav¬ eral , FL. Contact vickie.larson- l@ksc.nasa.gov, www.natareas.org. MARK YOUR CALENDAR Join the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council! Annual Membership Dues Include: Quarterly magazine, Wildland Weeds • Quarterly newsletter Legislative updates regarding exotic plant control issues. Membership: INDIVIDUAL Student - $10 • General - $20 Contributing - $50 • Donor - $51-500 INSTITUTIONAL General - $100 • Contributing - $500 Donor - $501-$10,000 • Patron - $10,000 or more Wildland Weeds subscription - $15/year (does not include other membership benefits ) Name: Address:, Telephone:. e-mail:. Membership type:_ Mail to: Dan Thayer, 3301 Gun Club Rd„ West Palm Bch., FL 33406 18 SPRING 2001 Zeneca Full page 4/C New negs here WILDLAND WEEDS 19 Griffin 4 / C P/U from 20 SPRING 2001