Why Wisconsin Needs a New Noxious Weed Law

Jerry D. Doll and Kelly Kearns*

At both the national and state level, concern is growing about non-native species that threaten the stability of native or more desirable plant communities. The terms used to describe such species are "invasive exotics" and "invasive plant species." You and I know them as noxious weeds. The issue was brought front and center in early 1999 when President Clinton signed an Executive Order that created a National Invasive Species Council with the charge to address any and all issues concerning invasive species. Key goals and words in the Order are coordination, planning, ecosystem-based, recommendations for international cooperation, maintenance of native species, monitoring impacts from invasive species and establishment of a coordinated and up-to-date information-sharing system. Once the Council and its advisory board are "up and running," we fully expect that it will not only be visible but more importantly, productive. Wisconsin will be much better positioned to participate in the national noxious weed efforts if we create a new, much more comprehensive program. However, this is only one reason to move in this direction.

The Wisconsin Situation

Wisconsin has had a noxious weed law on the books for many years. Three species are listed as noxious weeds statewide: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), leafy spurge ((Euphorbia esula) and field bindweed ((Convolvulus arvensis). In addition, municipalities and counties can declare other species within their boundaries as noxious. Any person having any of these noxious weeds on their property is to destroy them by killing the above ground portion of the plant and preventing them from maturing to the flower stage. Municipalities are to appoint a weed commissioner who is responsible for enforcing the law. Residents are given five days written notice to remove their noxious weeds. If they neglect to do so, the weed commissioner can destroy the weeds and charge the costs of the work to their property tax bill. Public land managers are to destroy noxious weeds on properties under their control. Highway maintenance patrolmen are responsible for noxious weed containment on federal, state and county highways.

The current law has had some positive effects. In particular it has brought awareness to the issue of invasive weeds and has been a useful tool to educate citizens about preventive practices and integrated management concepts. Some communities have developed systems to control these weeds. Many highway departments and landowners have been especially vigilant about trying to control Canada thistle and leafy spurge is now getting similar attention in some areas.

So why do we need to replace the current law? Very simply, the old law has not worked and the list of the law’s shortcomings that follow far exceeds the benefits mentioned above.

None of the three designated noxious weeds have been eradicated, and for at least two of them, populations have increased despite extensive long-term control efforts. It is unrealistic to expect that widespread weeds that are very difficult to control can be eradicated, or even contained.

There are no standards for local additions to or enforcement of the law, resulting in inconsistent enforcement and local noxious weed declaratio

Many municipal weed ordinances have been written that confuse the issue of grass cutting heights or aesthetics with noxious weeds. Some are written such that any vegetation over a certain height (generally eight inches) must be cut. Many unintentionally preclude the use of native or ornamental grasses, wildflowers and forbs.

No state agency has been given any authority or responsibility in any aspect of this law. Therefore, statutory revisions (through both houses of the state legislature) are required to add or subtract weeds to or from the state lis

Currently we have no method to determine which municipalities have appointed weed commissioners and no means of communicating with or providing those that have with training opportunities.

Additional problems with the existing noxious weed law are that no base funding or state-funded staff time have been appropriated to implement it. Nor is there any statewide effort dedicated to weed prevention, management or education.

Activities to Date

A group of 18 people (called the Weed Law Technical Advisory Committee) representing a wide range of interests and organizations was identified in the fall of 1998 and met regularly during 1999. Many ideas and opinions were presented and developed into draft proposals that were reviewed and edited several times. Structures and strategies used in other states’ successful invasive weed programs were used as idea sources and for inspiration. In September 1999, the draft proposal was made available for public review and comment. The responses received have been reviewed and many of the concerns and suggestions will be discussed and incorporated into the proposal. A public forum will be held in late February to receive ideas and address concerns and answer questions people have about the proposed invasive plant program.

Key Aspects of the Noxious Weed Proposal

The goal of the current effort is to: Protect the agricultural and natural resources of the state from invasive, noxious weeds for the mutual benefit of citizens and the environment by emphasizing education, prevention and cooperation between landowners and governmental agencies. Specific objectives are to:

replace the out-of-date and dysfunctional weed laws (Wis. Statutes 66.96 and 66.955) with a program that addresses invasive plants

provide funding and staffing to allow a state weed program to work

educate citizens about the significance of the problem and instill ownership for taking action

develop invasive plant identification and management guidelines

develop a review process to designate plants to the appropriate noxious weed category

establish the authority and mechanisms to enforce the rules

Noxious weed categories. One of the most needed changes in the current law is to have flexibility in how invasive species need to be handled. It makes no sense to have a widely distributed weed like Canada thistle designated a noxious weed as defined under the present law. The new proposal would create multiple categories of invasive plants. Current thinking has lead us to propose the following categories.

1.  Statewide Prohibited Noxious Weeds. The intent of this category is to prevent further infestations of those plants which are known to be extremely invasive in similar latitudes or environments to Wisconsin, and for which it is feasible to prevent or stop the spread in the state. These species either are not yet established in Wisconsin, or have only localized infestations. For example, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) could have fallen into this category about 25 years ago. Land owners and managers must control existing populations. Where short-term eradication is impossible, local, county or state weed officials will cooperate with the landowner or land manager to develop a vegetation management plan which addresses containing the species and long term eradication of the prohibited noxious  weed. Wherever necessary, municipal, county and state weed officials will provide technical assistance to help land owners and managers deal with these species on their properties. These plants, their seeds or other propagules may not be sold, offered for sale, distributed, planted, cultivated, transported or be found as contaminants in seed, nursery stock, forage or equipment within or coming into Wisconsin. Hopefully financial assistance will be available at the state level to eradicate these species. Possible examples: yellow starthistle (Centaureasolstitialis) and Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum).

2.  Local Noxious Weeds.

A.  Locally Prohibited Noxious Weeds. This category gives municipalities and counties the right to prevent infestations of noxious weeds into areas where the species are not yet prevalent and where it may be possible to contain their spread or eradicate them. A county or municipality may list any weed as locally prohibited. The Noxious Weed Council may encourage known invasive species to be declared "locally prohibited" but the decision is made at the local level. All restrictions listed above for statewide prohibited noxious weeds apply to locally prohibited species. Possible examples: garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula).

B.  Locally Contained Noxious Weeds. This category allows municipalities and counties to require efforts to contain existing or expanding infestations of known noxious weeds. Local weed ordinances may mandate the prevention of seed development or vegetative spread. Possible examples: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).

3.  Statewide Restricted Noxious Weeds. The intent of this category is to prevent the importation of known invasive species into Wisconsin and to prevent further spread or introduction of these invasive plants beyond their current areas of infestation. This category replaces the current nuisance weed law which prohibits the sale, distribution and planting of purple loosestrife and multiflora rose in the state. In cooperation with the nursery and associated industries, time lines will be developed for removing statewide restricted species found in commercial trade. The distribution of statewide restricted plants is too widespread to mandate eradication but control efforts are recommended for these species where they occur. Possible examples: oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), purple loosestrife, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum).

4.  Voluntary Management. Land owners and managers will be encouraged to voluntarily cooperate to contain existing infestations, to prevent introduction into areas not currently infested, and to inform the public about the threats caused by species in this category. These plants are currently too widespread and abundant in some areas of the state to realistically expect eradication or statewide control. The primary emphasis will be to educate the public to be able to identify and control these species. Possible examples: wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa).

5.  Watch. Weeds in this category are known or suspected to be invasive in similar latitudes or environments elsewhere in North America, or in localized areas in Wisconsin. We have insufficient information to determine if they should be listed as noxious weeds in Wisconsin. Thus, their rate and areas of spread must be monitored by surveys and other techniques. These species are targets for research to learn more of their biology and ecology. There are no legal restrictions for plants in this category. Its primary purpose is to alert the Noxious Weed Council of potential threatening species and to help prioritize research needs. Possible examples: porcelain berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata) and diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

Noxious Weed Council. At present no group is designated to monitor the status of invasive plants in Wisconsin. The new proposal includes the creation of a Noxious Weed Council whose primary purpose is to develop and analyze the scientific findings, economic impacts and other criteria to evaluate which species should be added to or removed from any of the designated weed categories. Council members will be jointly appointed by the Secretaries of the DNR and DATCP, based on recommendations from the organizations involved. All Council members will be knowledgeable about weed issues and/or plant species.

It is important that the Noxious Weed Council have a balanced representation of all major parties affected by the designation of noxious weeds. The following composition is recommended:

Voting Members will be selected to represent the nursery industry; the seed industry; arborists, landscape contractors and landscape architects; the restoration/native landscaping community; the agricultural community; the lakes’ associations; counties and municipalities; environmental and conservation organizations; public lands; large private land owners (utilities, industrial, forests, etc.); small private landowners; and tribes.

Non-voting advisory members will be appointed from the DATCP, the DNR, the UW system, aquatic/wetland plant management groups, and federal agencies. The role of non- voting members is to assist in the development of scientific findings, economic impacts and other criteria related to designating a species to the appropriate noxious weed category; share information on the species of concern; and represent their agency.

The State Noxious Weed Category Designation and Revision Process. Another critical change needed in the current law is to have the ability to routinely modify the designated species in each category. The new program proposes the following procedure.

1.  The review process. The Noxious Weed Council will meet at least annually to consider changing species designated to any of the noxious weed categories. For each species proposed to be moved/added to or removed from the "prohibited" or "restricted" noxious weed categories, a member of the Council or an outside expert will be assigned the task of writing a "draft scientific findings" for the species in question. These findings will provide the background information that can be found about the species including distribution, abundance, habitats invaded, rates and methods of invasion, economic importance and potential impact of listing, delisting and changing weed categories, health concerns, control methods and additional references. Findings can also be developed for species proposed for the "locally contained," "voluntary management" or "watch" lists, but they are not mandatory.

2.  Adding or removing weeds in any category. A petition may be submitted to the Noxious Weed Council by any three residents of the state to have one or more species added to or removed from any of the designated weed categories. The petition must include the following:

scientific and common names of the plant

current known status and distribution of the plant in Wisconsin

known or suspected ecological, economic or health impacts of the plant

potential economic impacts of adding, removing or changing a plant’s designated category

other information that may assist the Council in its evaluation of the plant, including but not limited to: bibliographic references to the species, names of persons familiar with the plant, and impacts and status of the plant elsewhere in North America.

Rule making authority. The DNR and DATCP are jointly granted rule-making authority to appoint and oversee the Noxious Weed Council. The DATCP is granted rule-making authority to maintain and revise a noxious weed list based on the Council’s actions and to enforce these rules. DNR is granted rule-making authority to manage aquatic and terrestrial weeds, to conduct research, monitoring, prevention and control policies, to develop cooperative ventures and conduct education regarding invasive plant management. The UW Cooperative Extension Division is granted authority to develop and implement invasive plant training for municipal weed commissioners and county weed inspectors and to coordinate the development and implementation of a statewide invasive plant education program.

Staffing needs. Several people will be employed or appointed to carry out the objectives of the noxious weed program. The proposal currently includes the following personnel.

Weed Commissioner. The local official appointed to enforce the local, county and state weed laws.

Weed Coordinator. A person in the DNR who coordinates statewide efforts on weed inventory, prevention, research and education.

Weed Education Coordinator. A person in the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service who is responsible for training county Weed Inspectors and municipal Weed Commissioners and for coordinating statewide efforts on invasive plant education.

Weed Inspector. The county official appointed to assist, train and oversee local weed commissioners.

Weed Program Manager. A person in the DATCP who coordinates statewide efforts on weed prevention, control, research and enforcement.

Staff members and their duties. Three people will provide staff support to the Council, in addition to their other duties, to carry out the mission and objectives of the state noxious weed program:

1.  Weed Program Manager in the DATCP. A statewide Weed Program Manager will focus on enforcement of statewide noxious weed regulations and assist counties and municipalities in local enforcement issues. As the DATCP staff person to the Noxious Weed Council, this position will be responsible for developing administrative rules and policies regarding designated noxious weeds in DATCP, including the listing of such weeds. The Weed Program Manager will maintain a list of registered local county and municipal weed contact persons and will also monitor invasions of new agricultural weeds and develop a database on the distribution of significant agricultural weeds.

2.  A Weed Coordinator in the DNR will focus on prevention, containment and management of ecologically invasive plants. The coordinator will gather and disseminate information about these species, their distribution, ecology and means of spread, as well as all currently known control methods. The coordinator will develop and maintain a database on the distribution of these species and coordinate efforts to monitor and contain new invasions. This person will coordinate the development and implementation of the statewide Ecologically Invasive Species Management Plan. The coordinator will also work closely with the weed educator to develop and implement education and outreach efforts. As the DNR staff person to the Noxious Weed Council, this person will be responsible for writing all administrative rules and policies regarding noxious weeds in the DNR.

3.  A Weed Educator in UW Extension will develop and implement a statewide Invasive Plant Education Plan in cooperation with interested parties throughout the state. The plan is to encompass the need to inform the public about the scope of the issue; means of weed identification, detection and prevention; control methods; regulations; and empowering citizens to take action. The plan will be updated at least every five years. The educator will work extensively with cooperators and volunteers to implement this program. This person will develop and distribute educational materials and work with the media to get statewide distribution of information on invasive plants. The educator is also responsible for training local and municipal weed officials. The weed educator is the UWEX staff person to the Noxious Weed Council and will serve as a liaison between the Council and faculty, staff and students in the University system and other agencies.

At the local level, counties will designate and register a county weed contact person and appoint a County Weed Inspector to enforce county weed ordinances. Local municipalities will designate and register a municipal weed contact person and appoint a municipal weed commissioner to enforce local weed ordinances.

Timetable. The Technical Advisory Committee plans to obtain legislative approval of the new noxious weed program as part of the state’s biennial budget process. If we are successful, the new program should be launched sometime after July 1, 2001. Nothing is life is certain and this is particularly true in the realm of politics. Nevertheless, the groundwork is laid and there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic at this point. If we fail to reach all the objectives, we should at least succeed in having the issue of invasive plants receive long overdue attention.

Comments/Input welcomed. There is ample time to voice your support, concerns, fears, and ideas regarding the plan to recreate a noxious weed law in Wisconsin. Contact either of the authors of this paper or check the DNR web site at this URL: www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er. There you will find the full draft of the current version of the proposal, an executive summary and a comment sheet. We will announce the details of the public forum planned for late February as soon as they are finalized. We welcome your participation in the process.

Summary

If change is a characteristic of modern day life, the current Wisconsin noxious weed law is no longer close to being modern. The law has not changed since it was created decades ago. As a consequence, rather than try to change our present law, it is much wiser to start anew to create a fresh and dynamic noxious weed program. This paper reviews the key elements of a plan to do just that. The important changes we hope the new program accomplishes are to 1) create multiple categories of noxious weeds rather than one, 2) develop a mechanism whereby species can be added, removed or moved within the categories each year, 3) emphasize education and voluntary efforts as critical components in the effort to prevent, contain, and control noxious weeds, and 4) establish three funded positions and a Noxious Weed Council to carry out the objectives of the program. The road to success is rocky and perhaps filled with land mines. Our current efforts are to diffuse potential land mines by meeting and working with any impacted parties early on to address their concerns. The process is moving forward and we hope to report on a fruitful outcome at this conference in two years!

Acknowledgments

The contributions of the Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Committee are gratefully acknow-ledged. The names and affiliations of the TAC members are as follows.

Kelly Kearns (Team Leader), DNR Bureau of Endangered Resources
Dan Wilson (Facilitator), UW Extension Washington Co.
Laurie Albano, Boerner Botanical Gardens, Milwaukee County Parks
Chris Boerboom, UW Madison, Agronomy Dept.
Bob Dahl, DATCP, Nursery Program Manager
Jerry Doll, UW Madison, Agronomy Dept.
Gregory Long, Wis. Nurseryman’s Association and Wis. Landscape Federation
Scott Loomans, Legislative Aide to Rep. DuWayne Johnsrud
Dennis Lund, representing the Wis. Farm Bureau.
Susan Murray, Wis. Chapter of American Society of Landscape Architects
Eugene Roark, Wis. Woodland Owners Association, The Nature Conservancy
John Shipley, Municipal Weed Commissioner, Sun Prairie
Richard Stadelman, Wis. Towns Association
Dick Stark, DOT, Bureau of Highway Operations
Jack Trautman, Wis. Landscape Contractor's Association
Don Vorpahl, Wild One's Natural Landscaping
Laurie Weiss, UW Extension Milwaukee Co. Commercial Horticulture Agent
Mike Yanny, Wis. Nurseryman's Association

* Endangered Resources Bureau, Wis. Dept. Natural Resources, 101 Webster St., Madison, 53707.
  Proceedings. 2000 Fert. Aglime & Pest Man. Conf. Vol. 39. Pages 306-312.