Evaluation of Ranking Procedures. for Invasive Plants:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Evaluation of Ranking Procedures. for Invasive Plants:"

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Ranking Procedures for Invasive Plants: Application to British Columbia Brian Wikeem, P. Ag. Solterra Resource Inc. Prepared for: Val Miller Range Branch B.C. Ministry or Forests and Range March 2007

2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... IV INTRODUCTION... 1 WEED RANKING OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA... 2 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SYSTEMS... 3 Weed Ranking Systems... 3 Exotic Plant Ranking System... 6 Northern Prairie Alien Plants Ranking System... 6 Virginia Ranking Invasive Exotic Plant Species... 8 Australian Weed Assessment Guide... 9 NatureServe Criteria for Ranking Invasive Plants Alaska Weed Ranking Project Weed Risk Assessments Application of Weed Risk Assessments United Kingdom Non-native Risk Assessment Scheme Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP) Species Prioritization Algorithm Alberta Invasive Species Risk Assessment Tool EVALUATING WEED RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS Variable Objectives Questions and Content Scientific Knowledge Biological Characteristics Ecological Impact Subjectivity Scoring Procedures Abiotic and Autecological Features Strengths of Weed Risk Assessments Summary and Conclusions POTENTIAL RANKING PROCEDURES Unique Features Affecting Weed Populations in BC Review Objectives Potential Weed Rating System Environmental Tolerance Abundance and Distribution Management Feasibility Rationale for Provincial and Regional Ranking CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LITERATURE CITED BC Ministry of Forests and Range ii

3 APPENDIX Appendix 1. Glossary of terms Appendix 2. Exotic plant ranking system questions Appendix 3. Northern Prairie alien plant ranking system questions Appendix 4. Virginia ranking invasive exotic plant species questions and scoring Appendix 5. Australian weed assessment guide Appendix 6. NatureServe questions and scoring Appendix 7. Alaska weed ranking project questions and scoring Appendix 8. IAPP species prioritization algorithm Appendix 9. Alberta invasive species risk assessment tool questions and scoring Tables Table 1. Number of species listed by provincial government legislation and other sources in British Columbia...1 Table 2. Criteria and characteristics of highly ranked species...2 Table 3. Selected primary and secondary criteria used to rank invasive plants....4 Table 4. General characteristics of invasive plants...5 Table 5. Comparison among protocols of criteria and total number of questions asked....7 Table 6. Desirable information for conducting weed risk assessments...15 Table 7. Examples of questions and responses...20 Table 8. Potential criteria for ranking invasive plants in British Columbia Table 9. General guidelines for selecting weed ranking criteria Figures Figure 1. Potential priority matrix to rank invasive plants in British Columbia BC Ministry of Forests and Range iii

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report reviewed and evaluated selected invasive plant ranking (weed ranking systems) and weed risk assessment procedures from North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom to assess their relative application in British Columbia at both a provincial and regional scale. Eight procedures were specifically evaluated, but other literature and protocols were also reviewed to put the process of evaluating invasive plants into an historical and current context. The review revealed that numerous overlapping protocols are presently available and many are currently under development. The main findings and recommendations from the report are summarized below. Weed Ranking Systems were developed in the mid-1980s to screen innocuous invasive plants from those that could threaten national park resource values in the United States. Over the next decade, the original protocols were modified and applied in many similar settings throughout the United States. Weed ranking systems were initially designed to evaluate small areas. More recently, some protocols are applied to states (provinces) and countries. Most weed ranking systems were developed for conservations lands, and exclude agricultural lands and native plant communities outside conservation areas. Weed ranking methods combine professional opinion with scientific documentation to predict relative invasiveness among non-native plants based on a set of predetermined criteria. Generally, people with good taxonomic and ecological skills can reduce the number of weed species of potential management concern when the criteria for weed ranking are rigorously applied. Training will be required to ensure consistent application of these tools. Weed Risk Assessments were introduced in late-1990s, and blend weed ranking objectives with other legal, political, and policy issues involved with the prevention, introduction, spread, and control of exotic organisms into countries. Weed risk assessments are strictly technical evaluations that take no account of the potential benefits from new organisms being introduce into novel environments, although the process has been moving in that direction. Numerous guidelines have been developed that provide general direction on the content and methods for conducting weed risk assessments, but specific protocols vary considerably in scope and application. Weed risk assessments have become more comprehensive over time, and international risk analysis standards have been established to evaluate the effects of weeds and plant pests on the environment and biological diversity. BC Ministry of Forests and Range iv

5 The transition to more comprehensive analyses has not necessarily improved the weed risk assessment process, and in some cases has made relatively simple procedures cumbersome, confusing, and appearing imprecise. Weed risk assessments have been criticized as procedures that are narrowly focused, subjective, often arbitrary and unquantifiable, and subject to political interference. There is also widespread concern that they are severely limited in their ability to identify potential of invasive plants in new geographic environments because they lack of broad scientific principles or reliable procedures. Most weed risk assessments rely heavily on biological traits to determine invasiveness and to project impacts. The inability of invasive traits to predict actual invasions, however, has created skepticism, and some weed managers doubt they will ever be capable of predicting which species are invasive and where. Ecological impacts of weeds on plant community composition, structure, and ecological processes are the most pervasive criteria used in weed ranking and risk assessments. Although ordering invasive species is important for prioritizing management efforts, little is known about which species cause the greatest ecological impacts, or the relative effects of the same species from one ecological setting to another. Consequently, questions regarding impacts are of limited value for objective analysis until more information is available on the actual effects of weeds on ecological structure and processes. Risk assessments have used several approaches to scoring weed threats and impacts. Measures of uncertainty, and the option for assessors to record that answers are unknown, are common procedures used to compensate for the subjectivity introduced in these procedures. Until recently, most weed risk assessments have concentrated on native plant communities on conservation lands where disturbances may be minimized compared to other lands. Climate and habitat factors have not been used extensively in weed risk assessments, although climate-matching is gaining interest and application in some of these procedures. Similarly, environmental factors have only begun to infiltrate weed risk protocols recently. Weed risk assessments that are carefully documented and explain the logic of their rating systems are more likely to result in repeatable conclusions by different assessors, and allow public scrutiny and independent evaluation. BC Ministry of Forests and Range v

6 Weed risk assessments can provide a consistent and logical decision-making process for ranking exotic plants. Such an analytical framework encourages biologist and managers to consider the full range of factors and consequences of their decisions. Although all of the methods reviewed provide valuable information for conducting weed ranking elsewhere, the existing protocols ranged from highly specific to very comprehensive in geographical scope, organisms addressed, and the sophistication of questions and summary analyses. None of the applications reviewed appear satisfactory in their present format for application in British Columbia. The following conclusions and recommendations are submitted: o No weed ranking system presently exists in BC that is widely endorsed and systematically used. o A pragmatic and scientifically-based process for ranking invasive plants, and evaluating the relative susceptibility of habitats, would be a valuable management tool for the province. o None of the weed assessment tools reviewed is adequate in its present format to meet the needs of British Columbia. o A weed ranking system for British Columbia should account for the unique features of the province including its geographic size, and its diversity in climate, soils, and vegetation, and the requirements of invasive plants relative to ecological conditions in the province. o BC needs to be divided into management zones based on geographic separation, such as Ministry Forests and Range districts, or regional district electoral areas. Divisions should be based on anticipated management authority so that geographic areas and management responsibilities are linked. o Criteria for land uses with different management priorities, legal responsibilities, and government policies need to be considered in setting priorities. o Weed ranking needs to be linked to inventory and mapping so that weed lists can be updated at regular intervals based on actual data collected in BC. o Generally, invasive plant lists should be regarded as guidelines rather than a definitive list of ranked species. Weed lists should be considered living lists with the expectation that they will modified as more knowledge is gained, and as provincial, regional, and local priorities change over time. BC Ministry of Forests and Range vi

7 INTRODUCTION Although a host of non-native 1 plants have been introduced world-wide, most species have not become problems in their new setting (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993; Nelson 1994; Williamson 1996; Radosevich 2005). Those that do become pests, however, can be highly competitive, and affect the integrity and productivity of natural and agricultural ecosystems. Management of these species can be difficult, expensive, and often requires a long-term commitment. Therefore, land managers must direct financial and human resources to those species that are most likely to interfere with management goals and objectives. In 1994, Douglas et al. (1994) listed 553 non-native vascular plants as part of the British Columbia flora, and numerous introductions have occurred since (Rankin and Associates 2004). Presently, 82 of these species are covered in overlapping lists under three provincial statutes (Table 1), while management of the remaining species is at the discretion of those agencies or people responsible for Crown and private lands. Table 1. Number of species listed by provincial government legislation and other sources in British Columbia. Invasive Plant Designation Source Number Listed Weed Control Act 49 Forest and Range Practices Act 42 Community Charters Act 50 Ministry of Forests and Range Southern Interior Forest Region Invasive Plant Categories Ministry of Forests and Range Coast Forest Region Invasive Plant Categories Ministry of Forests and Range North West BC Invasive Plant Categories Ministry of Forests and Range North East BC Invasive Plant Categories Ministry of Forests and Range Invasive Alien Plant Code Index >120 1 See Appendix 1 for a glossary of technical terms. BC Ministry of Forests and Range 1

8 Many other invasive plant lists have also emerged in the province over the last decade that complement, or supplement, those covered under provincial legislation (Table 1), but no clear and consistent rationale for these lists has been documented. Each of these lists pertains to large geographic areas and a wide range of ecological conditions. While they are intended to provide general direction for classifying the possible risks and ecological threats of invasive species, there exists some debate on their veracity even under local conditions. In addition, no comprehensive system is presently available for ranking invasive plants at a provincial and regional level that is broadly accepted. Many protocols have been developed over the last two decades to assist in separating innocuous introduced species and those that may become harmful or damaging (Hiebert and Klick 1988; Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993; APCC 2002; Randall et al. 2003; Morse et al. 2004; DEFRA 2005; Pheloung 2007). The objective of this report is to review selected invasive plant ranking and risk assessment procedures used in North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom (UK) to evaluate their applicability for use in British Columbia at both a provincial and regional scale. WEED RANKING OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA Initially, weed ranking procedures were developed to provide resource managers with a pragmatic tool to classify the relative threat of non-native species to indigenous natural resources. These models sought to separate harmless exotic species from those deemed disruptive according to their innate ability to become a pest and the level of impact they might cause (Table 2). In addition, the process aimed to collect consistent and accurate information for establishing priorities and making management decisions (Heibert and Stubbendieck 1993). Table 2. Criteria and characteristics of highly ranked species. Primary Criteria Innate Ability as a Pest Significance of Impact Feasibility of Control Selected Characteristics for High Priority Species Highly fecundity, specialized dispersal abilities, ability to germinate in a wide range of environmental conditions. Occur in high quality natural areas, have large populations that invade and replace natural communities. Not widely distributed, small seed banks, and easily controlled with cultural, mechanical or chemical methods. BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2

9 Since their introduction, exotic plant ranking systems have undergone numerous modifications to adapt the process for use in other geographic regions and ecological conditions. Additionally, interest in listing and ranking invasive plants has gained international interest, and these protocols have been incorporated into other risk assessments with broader objectives (Heffernan et al. 1999; Hiebert et al. 1999; Morse et al. 2004; ANHO 2005). For example, the United States (US), Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have developed risk assessment procedures that are primarily directed towards controlling the importation, introduction, and spread of non-indigenous species into their countries (NRC 2002; DEFRA 2005; Pheloung et al. 1999; NWRAS Review Group. 2006). Weed risk components of these systems have been adapted to address the legal, political and regulatory issues surrounding transportation and importation of exotic species (Pheloung et al 1999; DEFRA 2005; NWRAS Review Group. 2006). Consequently, both the objectives for making these assessments, and the criteria for evaluation, have undergone significant changes in recent years (Table 3). REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SYSTEMS Weed Ranking Systems Weed ranking systems appear to have evolved from early work by Hiebert and Klick (1988) who constructed a method to classify invasive plants based on a model developed at Point Reyes National Seashore (Self 1986). Between 1989 and 1991 this procedure was applied in numerous national parks across the United States, and revised based on the experiences and recommendations of users and expert reviewers (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993). Most weed ranking methods combine professional opinion with scientific documentation to predict relative invasiveness among species based on a set of predetermined criteria (Hiebert and Klick 1988; Dunster 1990; Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993; Hiebert 2001). Early experience indicated that applying these systems could greatly reduce the number of weed species of potential management concern when the criteria were diligently applied by a person with good taxonomic and ecological skills (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993). Plant characteristics related to weediness (Table 4) were considered the principal attributes that enabled weeds to invade habitats and form persistent populations, BC Ministry of Forests and Range 3

10 Table 3. Selected primary and secondary criteria used to rank invasive plants. Primary Criteria Innate Ability (Invasive Traits) Impact (Environment, Economic, Social) Feasibility of Management and Control Abiotic Factors Distribution and Abundance Disturbance Ecological Types External Introduction and Spread Introduction and Spread Land Use Practices Secondary Criteria Seed production, viable seed, average seed mass, interval between seed crops, long flowering and fruiting period, evidence of reproductive failure in native habitat. Asexual reproduction, small genome size, biennial or annual. Relative growth rate; produces spines, thorns, burrs, parasitic, pathogenic. Allelopathic, unpalatable, causes allergies, toxic to animals. Geophytic, hybridization, self-fertilization, minimum generative time. Tolerates mutilation, cultivation, fire. Other species in genus occur in area of interest. Tolerates range of conditions or stressful conditions. Affects ecosystem processes, community structure, and community composition. Competes with native plants and animals. Genetic impacts, creates fire hazard. Grows on other vegetation; forms dense thickets. Impact agriculture infrastructure, affect agriculture operations, potential risk to forestry operations. Obstructs vision or movement, diminishes aesthetic appeal. Well controlled by herbicides; biocontrol agents available; cultural/mechanical control possible. Climatic suitability, soil requirements, light requirements. Current global distribution. Current local distribution, proximity distribution in adjacent jurisdictions, trend in distribution, naturalized beyond native range, garden disturbance weed, weed of agriculture or forestry, environmental weed. Extent and kind of disturbance. Requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish. Aquatic, riparian, grassland, shrub land, forest land, other. Capable of surviving in transit, likelihood of detecting at entry point, likelihood of introduction into country, re-introduction, or dispersal from human pathways. Species listed elsewhere (province/state, country). Propagules dispersed intentionally, dispersed unintentionally, persistent seed bank. Capable of longdistant dispersal, wind-dispersed, buoyant and water-dispersed, animal-dispersed. No known predators (native or non-native); capable of surviving in transit. Conservation areas, native ecosystems outside conservation areas, agricultural, forestry, parkland, pasture, rangeland (non-arable grazing), roads and trails, utility corridors, other. BC Ministry of Forests and Range 4

11 Table 4. General characteristics of invasive plants. 1 Capable of germinating in many environments. Continuous seed production throughout the growing season. High seed production and long viability of seeds in the soil seed bank. Ability to reproduce both sexually and vegetatively. Ability to self-fertilize. Ability to cross-pollinate easily by a variety of vectors such as insects and wind. Adaptations for short- and long-distance dispersal. Rapid growth from the vegetative phase to flowering. If a perennial, vigorous vegetative reproduction or regeneration from fragments. If a perennial, resistance to being broken from ground easily. Ability to compete vigorously with other plant species by special means such as rosettes, rapid growth, or chemical properties (allelochemicals). 1 Modified from Baker (1974). but potential impacts, and feasibility to control populations, were also regarded as important factors for making management decisions. Those species considered to be the greatest threat, and most easily controlled, were given the highest priority for management; while benign species that were virtually impossible to control were regarded as a low priority. This information was used to formulate control and management decisions for the areas surveyed (Hiebert and Klick 1988; Dunster (1990, cited in White et al. 1993); Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993; Hiebert 2001). Initially, weed ranking systems were designed for making evaluations on relative small areas such as specific sites, or individual national parks. More recently, the scope of these procedures has broadened significantly, and some applications are now used to survey entire states (provinces) and countries (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993; Morse et al. 2004). BC Ministry of Forests and Range 5

12 Exotic Plant Ranking System This system was among the first published and widely circulated weed ranking protocols developed (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993). Designed primarily for US National Parks and small areas dominated by native vegetation within parks, the system has been adopted and revised for use primarily in conservation areas throughout the United States. The system was developed as an analytical approach for decision-making, and with the hope of reducing subjective decisions for weed control, which were often based on incomplete knowledge (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993). The procedure contains 24 questions for each weed species organized into two main sections: 1) Significance of Impact, and 2) Feasibility of Control or Management. The significance of impact section is divided further into the Current Level of Impact and Innate Ability of Species to Become a Pest (Table 5; Appendix 2). Each question has a variable number of multiple choice answers which are independently scored on a relative scale ranging from 0 to 15 points. Each of the two main sections is based on a scale of 100 points. Species that score more than 50 points for Significance of Impact are regarded as seriously disruptive and require management intervention, while species that score high in the Feasibility of Control section will be easier to manage than those with low scores. A final question relating to urgency of action ranks plants as high, medium or low. Northern Prairie Alien Plants Ranking System The Alien Plants Ranking (APR) system was cooperatively developed by the US National Parks Service, University of Minnesota, and the US Geological Survey. Based on earlier prototypes prepared by the National Parks Services (Hiebert and Klick 1988; Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993), this computer-based system was modified for application in grassland parks in the central United States (Hiebert et al. 1999). Like the previous protocol, it is designed to help identify invasive species that are currently affecting grassland sites, and other invasive species that may be a high risk in the future. The system also evaluates the feasibility of control of each species, which helps managers compare the cost of control against potential impact. The APR system contains 23 questions for each weed species known to occur at, or near, the area of interest (Table 5). The questions are organized into three sections: 1) Current BC Ministry of Forests and Range 6

13 Table 5. Comparison among protocols of criteria and total number of questions asked. Criteria US National Park Service 1993 Northern Prairie 1999 Virginia 2001 Australia 2002 NatureServe 2004 Alaska 2005 United Kingdom 2005 BC IAPP 2006 Alberta 2007 Invasive Attributes (Biological Traits) Impact (Environment, Economic, Social) Feasibility of Management and Control Abiotic Factors (climate, soil, light) 2 2 Current Distribution and Abundance Disturbance and Land Use Yes n/a n/a Yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Introduction and Spread 35 6 Trend in Distribution and Abundance 7 Total Questions > Uncertainty No No No No No No No No Yes 1 Exact number of questions difficult to determine because of the number of modules in the scheme and sub-questions. BC Ministry of Forests and Range 7

14 level of Impacts, 2) Potential of the Species to be Invasive, and 3) Feasibility of Control Including Costs (Appendix 3). Multiple-choice answers are provided for each question with the associated scores variably ranging from 0 to 10 points depending on the weighting given to the question. Unknown is provided as a response for all questions and does not enter into the final scoring for a species. Scores are tallied within the computer program, and an on-screen summary report can be produced or a hard copy printed. The program provides electronic fact sheets for each weed species. In 2000, this system was expanded to 25 questions and the web-based system was linked to GIS and quantitative sampling systems (Hiebert 2001). Virginia Ranking Invasive Exotic Plant Species Beginning in 1991, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) began compiling a list of invasive plants species to create awareness among land managers and the public (Heffernan et al. 2001). By 2003, the list had undergone several revisions and invasive species were classified based on three main criteria: 1) Invasive Rank, 2) Physiographic Rank, and 3) Habitat Requirements (VDCR 2003). Invasiveness Rank classified species as highly invasive, moderately invasive, and occasionally invasive based on cumulative impact on natural areas, effects on other species, potential to disperse and invade native habitats, distribution and abundance, and difficulty to manage. Physiographic Rank was determined by dividing the state into three physiographic regions and assigning each plant to regions where they occurred. Habitat Requirements focused on light and moisture requirements to provide a broad indication of their adaptation to different environments. Adaptation to light was partitioned into full sun, partial sun or shade; and moisture categories included hydric, mesic and xeric. Although not regulatory, the list provides managers with a relative ranking of invasive species, a regional assignment of where they may be problematic, and basic habitat information regarding species adaptation to abiotic habitat features (Heffernan et al. 2001; VDCR 2003). This appears to be the first time habitat conditions were introduced into an invasive plant ranking procedure. In 1999, the VDCR List of Invasive Species was combined with a modification of the Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI) ranking criteria (Randall et al. 2001) to study 11 non-native species in Virginia (Heffernan et al. 2001). Four components were used to rank species invasiveness representing aspects of the species biology, ecology, and potential for management: 1) Impacts on Native Species, Habitats, and Ecosystems, BC Ministry of Forests and Range 8

15 2) Biological Characteristics and Dispersal Ability, and 3) Distribution and Abundance in Virginia and the U.S., and 4) Management Potential (Appendix 4). Although the protocol contains a series of 14 multiple-choice questions among the four components (Table 3), some questions are comprised of an additional series of queries. For example, the first question (Biological Characteristics) under Section 2 of the protocol (Appendix 4) contains a checklist of 14 biological traits that cumulatively contribute to the species overall aggressiveness. Species with three or more of these traits are classified as Extremely Aggressive. In general, scoring for this procedure is convoluted and complicated. Each question is answered as insignificant, low, medium, or high; and each category is further assigned a weighted score. The answers to each question are converted to weighted scores to tally sub-ranks for each area, and these in turn are adjusted to new weighted scores to provide an overall rank for the species. A greater weighting is placed on those criteria that most strongly demonstrate impact on native plant and animal habitat, and biological characteristics; whereas less emphasis is focused on distribution, abundance, and difficulty of control. Species invasiveness is ranked as insignificant, low, medium, or high. Comments and supporting references are provided for each question. References include published research articles, internet sources, databases, and personal communications from field biologists or land managers. Australian Weed Assessment Guide This guide was developed as a tool to help make standard, informed decisions on weed control priorities in South Australia. The protocol consists of 12 questions to compare the relative importance of various weeds under different land use conditions in recognition that the same weed species may respond differently to various practices (Table 3; Appendix 5). The questions are divided into three categories: 1) Invasiveness, 2) Impacts, and 3) Potential Distribution (Appendix 5). Invasiveness focuses on the relative rate of spread among species, with weeds that disperse faster having a higher priority for control. Impacts are related to the economic, environmental and social effects resulting from weed invasion, and Potential Distribution predicts the total area the weed could eventually cover. A sequence of multiple choice responses is presented for each of the 12 questions. Scores are attached to each of the alternatives, which are ranked from high to low. A fifth category, Don t Know, is also included for those questions where a subjective BC Ministry of Forests and Range 9

16 judgment cannot be made. A score, ranging from 0 to 10, is assigned to each of the criteria, and the product of the three scores determines the Weed Importance Score out of Weeds can be assessed separately for various land uses, so that the most important weeds can be identified in different management situations. These include aquatic, crop/pasture rotation, forestry, irrigated crops and pastures, native vegetation, non-arable grazing, perennial horticulture, and urban. NatureServe Criteria for Ranking Invasive Plants Two drafts of this procedure were reviewed (Randall et al. 2003; Morse et al. 2004). This protocol was developed for biologists to evaluate the effects of individual invasive plants on native plant communities within a specified geographical region (country, state (province), ecological region, and site). The second draft states that it is designed to make the process of assessing and listing invasive plants objective and systematic, and to incorporate scientific documentation of the information used to determine each species rank (Morse et al. 2004). The method focuses on native plant communities in conservation areas. It is not intended for evaluating weed species that grow in cultivated areas, or on disturbed sites outside cultivation. Two questions are asked before a survey is conducted to determine whether these criteria are met. If an invasive plant grows outside cultivation, but not in native plant communities, it is ranked as insignificant (Appendix 6). This protocol integrates previous weed ranking criteria developed by the US National Park Service (Hiebert and Klick 1988; Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993; Hiebert 1997) with a synthetic approach to explaining relationships among invasive plants and ecological responses based on models (Parker et al. 1999). The procedure consists of 20 multiple-choice questions organized into four categories: 1) Ecological Impact on Ecosystem Processes, Communities, and Native Species; 2) Current Distribution and Abundance; 3) Trend In Distribution and Abundance; and 4) Management Difficulty (Appendix 6). Five answers are possible for each of the 20 questions; four pertaining to the physical, biological, ecological, or economic response to the questions, and the fifth is Unknown (Table 3). Unknown is recorded when the evaluator is unable to respond to the question because of lack of information. Evaluators are asked to record comments and the sources BC Ministry of Forests and Range 10

17 of information used to arrive at conclusions for each answer in a citation format. This may include publications, internet sources, expert opinion, and other sources. The ranking for a species is determined in a three-step process. First, scores are assigned to each question within sub-rank categories and then tallied to produce a sub-rank score within each of the four categories. Each of the four sub-ranks, however, is weighted differently depending on the perceived importance of the category. For example, the highest weight is credited to Ecological Impact and the lowest weighting is given to Management Difficulty. The final score is produced by summing the weighted sub-rank scores to provide the overall invasive rank (I-Rank) for the species. Each species is then placed in one of the four I-Rank categories: high, medium, low, or insignificant. Although the protocol was originally designed to assess invasive plants in large, contiguous, and ecologically diverse regions, NatureServe states it can be adapted to discrete regions (such as states, provinces, or smaller geographic areas). NatureServe is now using this protocol to assess the effects on biodiversity of nearly 3,500 exotic plant species established outside cultivation in the United States (Morse et al. 2004). In 2004, the NatureServe method was tested in British Columbia by ranking 36 nonnative plants inhabiting coastal communities (Rankin and Associates 2004). Based on this review, the authors concluded that the method forced careful and relatively objective consideration of a wide range of factors involved in assessing invasive plants but further refinement of the protocol would likely be necessary to apply the process on a regional basis. The following observations and conclusions were drawn that are pertinent to this report: The scope of the process is comprehensive with respect to the organisms involved; international, national and regional scope; and the potential policy and political issues addressed. The ranking process is subjective. A sound risk assessment procedure with clear priorities is a necessary first step in managing invasive plants. Actions should be based on a clear direction, and the best scientific and socioeconomic information available. Changes would be necessary before the process could be adopted by BC. Alaska Weed Ranking Project This protocol is a cooperative project among the Alaska Natural Heritage Program, several US federal agencies including the Forest Service, National Park Service, BC Ministry of Forests and Range 11

18 Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative Extension Service, and the Geological Survey. The protocol is a web-based system that appears to have elements of both the National Park Weed Ranking System and the NatureServe model although no references are provided. The procedure is divided into two sections. The first section (Climatic Comparison) correlates the potential climatic suitability of each species to one of three eco-geographic regions in the state (Appendix 7). The second section (Invasiveness Ranking) contains 21 questions assembled into the same (but reworded) four sections as the NatureServe protocol: 1) Ecological Impact, 2) Current Distribution and Abundance, 3) Distribution, and 4) Feasibility of Control (Table 3). Two to four scaled answers follow each question, and Unknown is allowed when the assessor cannot select an answer among the choices provided. No score (including 0 ) is applied for Unknown. The total score for each of the four sections varies from 40 points for Ecological Impact to 10 points for Feasibility to Control (Appendix 7). The total score for a species is the sum of the total points for all four sections out of 100 possible points. This value is converted to a decimal fraction by dividing the score attained by 100. Information for all species is displayed in a tabular format listing the score for each species and the climatic similarity of the species relative to each of the three eco-geographic regions listed for Alaska. Climate similarity for each species is expressed only as Yes or No for the ecogeographic region. Weed Risk Assessments Weed risk assessments were introduced into the invasive plant forum in the mid- to late- 1990s, and probably owe their beginning to the multi-stage process developed in the US to assess human health (NRC 1983). Risk assessment was defined as a general process for linking science to decision-making (NRC 1983). In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described a basic framework for evaluating scientific information relating to undesirable effects of stressors on the environment. The term stressor was defined as any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse effect. Adverse ecological effects included a variety of disturbances ranging from mortality of an individual organism to a loss in ecosystem function (EPA 1992). Weed risk assessment has amassed considerable momentum over the past decade to the extent that the process has been characterized as a new and developing discipline BC Ministry of Forests and Range 12

19 (Groves et al. 2001; Rahman et al. 2003). The first international workshop for weed risk assessments was held in Adelaide, South Australia in 1999 with presentations delivered from at least five countries including Australia, Ecuador (Galapagos Islands), New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. Since then, weed risk assessment procedures have been introduced or applied in New Zealand (Pheloung et al. 1999); Australia (Pheloung et al. 1999; Pheloung 2007), American states (Thomas 1999; Westbrooks and Madsen 2006), United Kingdom (DEFRA 2005) and Canada (Alberta) (EMEC 2007a). Although weed risk assessments can be conducted at any stage of a species entry or spread into a country or specific geographic area, the current focus appears directed towards preventing the ingress and dispersal of species that will likely become invasive in a country (IPPC 2004). These procedures are concerned primarily with assessing the risk of a plant species becoming of sufficient importance to be classified as a pest. Generally, weed risk assessments are strictly technical evaluations that ignore the potential benefits that may accrue from the species being introduced or from not controlling it. Moreover, no mechanism presently exists to balance the risks and the potential benefits from political processes even though advocates have been trying to move in that direction (IPPC 2004). Growing international interest in quarantine legislation concerning weeds (and other nonindigenous organisms) added further impetus to develop weed risk assessment systems to help prevent the introduction of weed species, and to prioritize existing species for control (IPPC 2004). Much of the current experience originates in Australia and New Zealand, where quarantine protocols for preventing the introduction and spread of unwanted plant species are in place. The success of weed-risk assessment systems in these countries results from a regulatory environment that enables plant protection organizations to restrict the movement of plants across the borders and within the country. Without such legislation, weed-risk assessment by itself cannot prevent the entry and spread of weeds (IPPC 2004). More recently, risk assessments have become even more comprehensive and address some of the legal and policy issues related to international trade (Powell 2002). In addition, international risk analysis standards have been established to evaluate the effects of vascular plants and plant pests to the environment and biological diversity, including those risks affecting uncultivated/unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats and ecosystems (IPPC 2004). BC Ministry of Forests and Range 13

20 Application of Weed Risk Assessments Numerous guidelines have been developed over the last decade (IPPC 1996; APHIS 2002; Williams 2003; Lehtonen 2004; IPPC 2004), which provide general direction on the content and methods for conducting weed risk assessments (Table 6). Although these assessments often aim to be quantitative, they are mostly qualitative procedures (Powell 2004). In the generic risk assessment process (EPA 1992), experts first estimate probabilities (as low, medium, or high) that a species will disperse, establish, and spread; and then they forecast the environmental and economic consequences of the species introduction (Simberloff and Alexander 1998). The total risk of establishment is quantified as the product of the independent probabilities of dispersal, survival, initial establishment, and spread. The Total Effect of Establishment is defined as the product of the perceived economic and environmental consequences, which are arbitrarily, but consistently, scored according predetermined tabular values (Simberloff and Alexander 1998). Categories of uncertainty often accompany the estimated probabilities for each component of the assessment. These are usually expressed as very certain, reasonably certain, or moderately certain, or as reasonably or very uncertain. These estimates do not contribute to the calculation for total organism risk potential but they can serve as a guide for decision makers in evaluating the strength of the assessment (Simberloff 2005). United Kingdom Non-native Risk Assessment Scheme Impetus for this protocol emerged from the Review of Non-native Species Policy: Report of the Working Group analysis conducted in 2004, which recommended that a scheme for assessing the risks posed by any non-native organisms to species, habitats or ecosystems in all or part of the UK be undertaken (DEFRA 2005). The project was conducted by a consortium from six universities and institutes in the UK using a draft pest risk assessment scheme developed by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, and the procedures developed for plants invading Western Australia (Pheloung et al. 1999). The procedure is divided into two parts. The first section contains 14 questions that determine whether a detailed risk assessment is warranted. The second part includes 51 detailed questions in three categories: 1) Entry and Establishment; 2) Capacity for Spread; and 3) the Extent to Which Significant Economic, Environmental or Social Impacts may Occur (Table 3). Each question is accompanied by five levels of responses BC Ministry of Forests and Range 14

21 Table 6. Desirable information for conducting weed risk assessments. 1 Indicator Taxonomic Information Pathway or Source of Entry Species History and Closely Related Taxa Environmental Tolerances Biological Characteristics Introduction and Spread Potential Impacts Ability to Control Characteristics Taxonomic description and valid scientific name including synonyms of accepted scientific name and common name(s). Possible pathways include: Plant purposefully imported for urban horticulture, commercial horticulture, or forestry. Contaminants of imported commodities such as seeds for sowing or as a food source for humans or livestock. Accidental introduction of plants not included in either of the above pathways e.g., attached to clothing. Has the species become a weed elsewhere? Does the species have weedy relatives in the same genus or family in other countries or the receiving country? What effects has the species had where it has become a weed? Characteristics of the climate and soils in both its home range and its extended weedy range. Do similar climates and soils exist in the present country? Note however, that many species tolerate a wider range of environmental condition when released from the constraints present in their home range. Undesirable biological traits that defined it as weed elsewhere or characteristics that may contribute to it becoming invasive in the new location. Biological traits that promote the spread and persistence of the species in native or agricultural ecosystems. Possible adverse effects if the species is permitted entry and not controlled including: Damage to human health. Loss of production in agricultural/horticultural systems. Reduction in population levels of valued native plants and animals. Disruption to natural ecosystems resulting in reduced ecosystem services e.g., lower water supply, reduced tourist attraction. Cost, effort, efficacy and possible outcomes of control options. 1 Source: IPPC BC Ministry of Forests and Range 15

22 (very low, low, medium, high, very high) and three levels of uncertainty (low, medium, high). Written comments are required for each question justifying the response, and a literature reference (or personal communication) is recommended where possible. The manual provides guidance on the protocol, and for actions that should be taken when information is lacking or uncertain (DEFRA 2005). Six additional modules provide methods for identifying invasive attributes, evaluating pathways of introduction, determining the vulnerability of receptors, quantifying economic impacts, summarizing risks and uncertainties, and selecting risk management options. Three of the modules are designed to determine whether the species has invasive attributes (Module 1), to quantify economic effects (Module 4) and to summarize risk and uncertainty (Module 5). Two other modules allow assessment of the relative importance of introduction pathways (Module 2) and the vulnerability of receptors (Module 3) to invasion. Module 6 provides a decision-making framework for selecting risk management options should the assessor believe they are warranted. Draft Excel templates are available to conduct analyses, but these are considered rudimentary at this time and require further development (DEFRA 2005). Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP) Species Prioritization Algorithm This draft protocol was developed to provide a means for ranking invasive plants in coastal British Columbia. The procedure is an Excel-based system that has integrated components of existing ranking procedures into a product applicable to temperate, maritime conditions. The procedure contains 30 questions distributed among four sections: 1) Biological Criteria; 2) Impact Criteria; 3) Controllability Criteria, and 4) Containability Criteria (Table 3; Appendix 8). In the first section, the assessor answers each of 17 questions independently and if the answer is Yes for the question, the appropriate points (ranging from 2 to 5 points) are entered into the Score column of the spread sheet. If the answer is no, the question scores zero. No Unknown choice is available for any question. Sections 2 to 4 contain five, four and three alternatives to select among, respectively. In these sections, the assessor chooses the most applicable impact, or scenario, and then records the point value for that question in the Score column beside the choice and at the bottom of the section in the Subtotal cell (Appendix 8). Sub-total scores for each of the sections are automatically calculated in the Excel version or hand-calculated on paper. These values are transferred to a summary table and BC Ministry of Forests and Range 16

23 weighted with a prorated factor as follows: Biological (1.3), Impact (2.0), Controllability (1.5) and Containability (1.5). The total score for each species is calculated by summing the four prorated scores from each section and the dividing by three to produce a final score with a maximum value of 10 (Appendix 8). Although many of the questions found in this protocol are similar to those found in weed risk assessments, the objectives of this procedure are not stated, and weed ranking may be the intent of the procedure. Alberta Invasive Species Risk Assessment Tool This risk assessment tool is a computer software application that allows a predictive, quantitative assessment of the likelihood of adverse impacts from potential invasive alien species in Alberta (EMEC 2007a). The tool is intended to predict invasive species impacts by providing information for management decisions, prioritizing management strategies, and by assisting in enhancing management communications in the province. Similar to the UK scheme, this protocol has adopted the classic risk assessment paradigm developed in the US (NRC 1983; EPA 1999), and is broader is scope than invasive vascular plants alone. Hence, the protocol addresses all potentially invasive organisms from pathogens and parasites to vascular plants and animals. It also accommodates organisms from a variety of environments including aquatic, terrestrial, agricultural, natural areas; and native, disturbed habitats. It does not directly deal with issues concerning national or international policy. The procedure contains 32 questions distributed among six Indicators: 1) Biological Characteristics, 2) Introduction, 3) Environmental Impact, 4) Economic Impact 5), Social Impact, and 6) Control Management (Table 3; Appendix 9). All but one question is accompanied by four levels of responses (ranked 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) based on an ordinal scale from least to most. Zero in the scale means low or none. The procedure also provides the assessor with the opportunity to answer unknown for each question. When this occurs, or when no answer is provided, the question does not contribute to the final score. The protocol also accommodates uncertainty when the assessor is not sure of the strength of a subjective answer. These are ranked as low, medium or high and averaged over all six indicators and 32 questions. The risk assessment for a species is quantified by averaging the response scores for each of the six Indicators and converting the value to a percentage. Each indicator is adjusted with an indicator-specific weight and these values are then summed to produce an overall score reflecting the adverse impacts from the species. No rationale BC Ministry of Forests and Range 17

Schefflera actinophylla (umbrella tree)

Schefflera actinophylla (umbrella tree) Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 28. Predicting Invasive Plants in

More information

Invasive Plants in British Columbia Protected Lands:

Invasive Plants in British Columbia Protected Lands: Invasive Plants in British Columbia Protected Lands: A Strategic Plan Brian Wikeem, P.Ag. Solterra Resource Inc Valerie A. iller, P.Ag. Kootenay Wildlife Services Ltd. for Laura Darling Protected Areas

More information

Y Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its

Y Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for United States. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R. and C.A. Gantz. 2008. Potential impacts on the horticultural industry of screening

More information

Sporobolus indicus (smutgrass)

Sporobolus indicus (smutgrass) Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 28. Predicting Invasive Plants in

More information

P.O. Box 65 Hancock, Michigan USA fax

P.O. Box 65 Hancock, Michigan USA fax This PDF file is a digital version of a chapter in the 2005 GWS Conference Proceedings. Please cite as follows: Harmon, David, ed. 2006. People, Places, and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright

More information

Myrtus communis (myrtle)

Myrtus communis (myrtle) Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 28. Predicting Invasive Plants in Florida

More information

Murraya paniculata (orange jasmine)

Murraya paniculata (orange jasmine) Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 28. Predicting Invasive Plants in Florida

More information

Aquatic Invasive Species

Aquatic Invasive Species - The information presented on pages 1-4 was taken from the 2016 Theme document. For additional information, please see the whole document. What is an invasive species? An invasive species is an exotic

More information

Science Based Criteria for Developing California s Invasive Plant Inventory. Joe DiTomaso UC Davis

Science Based Criteria for Developing California s Invasive Plant Inventory. Joe DiTomaso UC Davis Science Based Criteria for Developing California s Invasive Plant Inventory Joe DiTomaso UC Davis What is the old Cal-IPC list? List A: Most Invasive Wild land Pest Plants A-1 Widespread (20) A-2 Regional

More information

Invasive Alien Plant Program. Part I. Module 1.4. Prepared by Range Branch. Ministry of Forests and Range

Invasive Alien Plant Program. Part I. Module 1.4. Prepared by Range Branch. Ministry of Forests and Range Invasive Alien Plant Program REFERENCE GUIDE Part I Module 1.4 Prepared by Range Branch Ministry of Forests and Range June 2010 MODULE 1.4:... 3 PLANNING INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS... 3 Introduction...

More information

Forest Health Program

Forest Health Program Forest Health Program June 2007 www.for.gov.bc.ca/ hfp/health/ Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data British Columbia. Forest Health Program. Forest Health Program ISBN 978-0-7726-5814-2

More information

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES REVOKED. ISPM No. 2 FRAMEWORK FOR PEST RISK ANALYSIS (2007)

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES REVOKED. ISPM No. 2 FRAMEWORK FOR PEST RISK ANALYSIS (2007) ISPM No. 2 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES ISPM No. 2 FRAMEWORK FOR PEST RISK ANALYSIS (2007) Produced by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention FAO 2007 ISPM

More information

NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN. Noxious Weed Advisory Commission Endorsement May 16, 2017

NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN. Noxious Weed Advisory Commission Endorsement May 16, 2017 NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN Noxious Weed Advisory Commission Endorsement May 16, 2017 Board of County Commissioners Approval December 28, 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III INTRODUCTION

More information

HEATHER. Tongariro National Park World Heritage Area, North Island, New Zealand.

HEATHER. Tongariro National Park World Heritage Area, North Island, New Zealand. HEATHER 1. Description of the problem Location of the case-study Tongariro National Park World Heritage Area, North Island, New Zealand. History (origin, pathway and dates, including time-period between

More information

Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species I. STATUS AND TRENDS

Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species I. STATUS AND TRENDS Page 249 VI/23. Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species The Conference of the Parties I. STATUS AND TRENDS 1. Notes the report on the status, impacts and trends of alien species that

More information

Overview on International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and their application to living modified organisms (LMOs)

Overview on International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and their application to living modified organisms (LMOs) Feb 2016 ENG Overview on International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and their application to living modified organisms (LMOs) Prepared by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection

More information

Cestrum nocturnum All Zones

Cestrum nocturnum All Zones Assessment date 2 May 2017 Cestrum nocturnum All Zones Answer Score 1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? n 0 1.02 Has the species become naturalised where grown? 1.03 Does the species have weedy races?

More information

Guidance for Scientific Authorities in making a CITES Non-Detriment Finding Working Group: Perennials Make NDF Decsion!!!

Guidance for Scientific Authorities in making a CITES Non-Detriment Finding Working Group: Perennials Make NDF Decsion!!! Guidance for Scientific Authorities in making a CITES Non-Detriment Finding Working Group: Perennials Make NDF Decsion!!! 20..2008, Resilience_Check_&_Factors_Vers2.doc Page of 9 This Annex describes a

More information

MONITORING CHANGES IN EXOTIC VEGETATION

MONITORING CHANGES IN EXOTIC VEGETATION MONITORING CHANGES IN EXOTIC VEGETATION Robert D. Sutter Director of Biological Conservation Southeast Regional Office The Nature Conservancy Chapel Hill, NC 27515 Ecological monitoring provides critical

More information

GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR ASEAN

GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR ASEAN GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR ASEAN Background Extracts from the Report of the 15 th Expert Working Group on Harmonisation of Phytosanitary Measures, 2013 27. The Meeting exchanged

More information

NATIONAL ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT May 17, 2004

NATIONAL ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT May 17, 2004 NATIONAL ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT May 17, 2004 INTRODUCTION Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, is a long-standing, science-based, decision-making process that identifies and reduces risks

More information

MANITOBA ENVIROTHON WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

MANITOBA ENVIROTHON WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS MANITOBA ENVIROTHON WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Outcome Water and Aquatic Ecosystems as Resources Properties of Water, Water Bodies and Watersheds, and Aquatic Species Identification A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

More information

Victoria s Noxious Weed Review: Roll out not Fall out

Victoria s Noxious Weed Review: Roll out not Fall out Victoria s Noxious Weed Review: Roll out not Fall out John Weiss 1, Bob Edgar, Trevor Hunt and Tereso Morfe Department of Primary Industries - Frankston, PO Box 48, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia.

More information

FOR 433. Carolyn Hull Sieg. US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Flagstaff, AZ

FOR 433. Carolyn Hull Sieg. US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Flagstaff, AZ Fire and Invasive Species Carolyn Hull Sieg US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Flagstaff, AZ 1 Topics What is an invasive species? What are the stages of invasion and what characterizes

More information

Forest Stewardship Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation

Forest Stewardship Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation Forest Stewardship Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation 2012-2017 February 27, 2012 Forest Stewardship Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation 2012 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1

More information

Parish s Alkali Grass (Puccinellia parishii)

Parish s Alkali Grass (Puccinellia parishii) Parish s Alkali Grass (Puccinellia parishii) Legal Status [Species photo to come] Taxonomy State: S1 1 California Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1 2 Federal: Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Critical Habitat:

More information

PM 5/3(2) European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes

PM 5/3(2) European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes PM 5/3(2) European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes Guidelines on Pest Risk Analysis Lignes directrices pour l'analyse

More information

DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CBD Distr. GENERAL CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/15 9 December 2016 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Thirteenth meeting Cancun, Mexico, 4-17 December 2016 Agenda

More information

Invasive plants have been a topic of

Invasive plants have been a topic of The Invasive Plant Issue: From the Beginning By Robert E. Schutzki, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University Invasive plants have been a topic of discussion for the past several years and

More information

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes 11-17053 PM 5/3 (5) Guidelines on Pest Risk Analysis Lignes directrices

More information

Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida.

Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida. Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 2008. Predicting Invasive Plants

More information

Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Hedera helix L (English ivy) Dataform and Scoresheet

Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Hedera helix L (English ivy) Dataform and Scoresheet Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Hedera helix L (English ivy) Dataform and Scoresheet Hedera helix L (English ivy) Native range: Europe Date evaluated: March 25, 2009 Answer Choices Response Introductory

More information

Southern California Chaparral and Sage Scrub Habitats

Southern California Chaparral and Sage Scrub Habitats Southern California Chaparral and Sage Scrub Habitats Climate Change Adaptation Actions Summary An Important Note About this Document: This document represents an initial effort to identify adaptation

More information

PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR REGULATED NON-QUARANTINE PESTS

PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR REGULATED NON-QUARANTINE PESTS ISPM 21 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES ISPM 21 PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR REGULATED NON-QUARANTINE PESTS (2004) Produced by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention

More information

Trends in Silviculture in B.C. ( )

Trends in Silviculture in B.C. ( ) Forests Trends in Silviculture in B.C. (1970-2012) Silviculture is the practice of growing and cultivating trees in forests to meet certain objectives, such as timber production, biodiversity, wildlife

More information

PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR QUARANTINE PESTS

PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR QUARANTINE PESTS ISPM 11 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES ISPM 11 PEST RISK ANALYSIS FOR QUARANTINE PESTS (2013) Produced by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention FAO 2014 Publication

More information

Appendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Warranted but Precluded Determination

Appendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Warranted but Precluded Determination Appendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Warranted but Precluded Determination This appendix contains a summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-month findings for

More information

Background data Risk Assessment Decision making. Yes

Background data Risk Assessment Decision making. Yes HELCOM Guidance to distinguish between unacceptable high risk scenarios and acceptable low risk scenarios a risk of spreading of alien species by ships on Intra-Baltic voyages These recommendations are

More information

Slide 1 PEST RISK ANALYSIS. ISPM N 2 NOV 2006 ISPM N 11 April A Free sample background from

Slide 1 PEST RISK ANALYSIS. ISPM N 2 NOV 2006 ISPM N 11 April A Free sample background from Slide 1 PEST RISK ANALYSIS ISPM N 2 NOV 2006 ISPM N 11 April 2004 Slide 2 Background SPS ENCOURAGES THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS OR REQUIRES THE SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE MEASURE THROUGH RISK

More information

A Framework for Monitoring & Evaluating Wildlife Resource Values

A Framework for Monitoring & Evaluating Wildlife Resource Values A Framework for Monitoring & Evaluating Wildlife Resource Values RESOURCE VALUE FRAMEWORK September 2009 Prepared by Kathy Paige, Ministry of Environment Laura Darling, Ministry of Forests and Range Introduction

More information

Yes. Place on invasive plant list, no further investigation needed. STOP. Yes. Place on invasive plant list, no further investigation needed.

Yes. Place on invasive plant list, no further investigation needed. STOP. Yes. Place on invasive plant list, no further investigation needed. Directions: Place an "X" in the Score column next to the selected answer to each of the four questions.. Is this plant known to occur in the state and listed as "noxious" on any federal or Ohio Department

More information

Albizia julibrissin -- Georgia

Albizia julibrissin -- Georgia Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Albizia julibrissin -- Georgia 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 14 -- Evaluate this plant further Confidence: 76 / 100 Questions answered: 19 of 20 --

More information

Submission to the Special Legislative Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides

Submission to the Special Legislative Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides Submission to the Special Legislative Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides November 7, 2011 SUBMISSION TO THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES The Business Council of British Columbia

More information

Restoration Ecology & Invasive Species

Restoration Ecology & Invasive Species Objectives: Ecology and management of invasive species in a restoration context In most cases, impossible to talk about restoration ecology without explicitly considering invasive species What is an invasive

More information

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 15 CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes and compares the Southwest Fence

More information

Ulmus pumila -- Minnesota

Ulmus pumila -- Minnesota Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Ulmus pumila -- Minnesota 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 13 -- Evaluate this plant further Confidence: 75 / 100 Questions answered: 19 of 20 -- Valid

More information

BIODIVERSITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

BIODIVERSITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION BIODIVERSITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION Impacts of meat consumption on biodiversity Carolyn Imede Opio Food and Agriculture Organization - FAO Outline 1. Global livestock sector trends 2. Key features important

More information

Indigenous Land Stewardship and Invasive Species Management: Partnerships, Tools and Networks to Increase Success

Indigenous Land Stewardship and Invasive Species Management: Partnerships, Tools and Networks to Increase Success Indigenous Land Stewardship and Invasive Species Management: Partnerships, Tools and Networks to Increase Success Sue Staniforth Education & Outreach Manager, ISCBC Jake Archie Indigenous Liaison Coordinator,

More information

ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT. for. Fraxinus uhdei. Tropical Ash. Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESAs) are prepared to provide The Nature Conservancy's

ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT. for. Fraxinus uhdei. Tropical Ash. Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESAs) are prepared to provide The Nature Conservancy's ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT for Fraxinus uhdei Tropical Ash To the User: Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESAs) are prepared to provide The Nature Conservancy's Stewardship staff and other land managers

More information

Assisted colonisation as a climate change adaptation tool. Biodiversity Node of the NSW Adaptation Research Hub

Assisted colonisation as a climate change adaptation tool. Biodiversity Node of the NSW Adaptation Research Hub Assisted colonisation as a climate change adaptation tool Biodiversity Node of the NSW Adaptation Research Hub Masterclass content Assisted colonisation as a climate change adaptation tool Rachael Gallagher

More information

Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Miscanthus sinensis Anderson (Chinese silvergrass) Species Dataform and Scoresheet

Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Miscanthus sinensis Anderson (Chinese silvergrass) Species Dataform and Scoresheet Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Miscanthus sinensis Anderson (Chinese silvergrass) Species Dataform and Scoresheet Miscanthus sinensis Anderson (Chinese silvergrass) Native range: Eastern Asia Date

More information

Compensatory Mitigation Plan Requirements For Permittee Responsible Mitigation Projects St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers May 2010

Compensatory Mitigation Plan Requirements For Permittee Responsible Mitigation Projects St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers May 2010 Compensatory Mitigation Plan Requirements For Permittee Responsible Mitigation Projects St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers May 2010 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and U.S. Environmental Protection

More information

Southern California Grassland Habitats

Southern California Grassland Habitats Southern California Grassland Habitats Climate Change Adaptation Actions Summary An Important Note About this Document: This document represents an initial effort to identify adaptation actions for grassland

More information

Chapter 18 Conservation of Biodiversity. Tuesday, April 17, 18

Chapter 18 Conservation of Biodiversity. Tuesday, April 17, 18 Chapter 18 Conservation of Biodiversity Module 59 The Sixth Mass Extinction After reading this module you should be able to explain the global decline in the genetic diversity of wild species. discuss

More information

STRATEGIC PLAN Introduction II. Mission Statement III. The Challenge Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974

STRATEGIC PLAN Introduction II. Mission Statement III. The Challenge Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 VENTURA COUNTY WEED MANAGEMENT AREA (VCWMA) STRATEGIC PLAN 2010 I. Introduction The Ventura County Weed Management Area (VCWMA) is a focused group of individuals, Federal, State and County public agencies,

More information

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data Table of Contents FGC Strategic Plan 2009 2014 Statement of Purpose... 1 Background... 1 Genetic Resource Conservation and Management... 2 Scope... 3 Vision and Objectives... 5 Cover Photos: Western larch

More information

WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Water and Aquatic Ecosystems as Resources Properties of Water, Water Bodies and Watersheds A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 Describe the ecological,

More information

September 2016 ID Competency Statement Type

September 2016 ID Competency Statement Type September 06 Ensures that the impact assessment scope, criteria and conditions (geographic, environmental, economic, social, and cultural) are defined adequately. Develops a project management plan for

More information

A Guide for Ecosystem Based Adaptation Planning in Ontario

A Guide for Ecosystem Based Adaptation Planning in Ontario A Guide for Ecosystem Based Adaptation Planning in Ontario Al Douglas Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources Adaptation Planning Next Steps for Northern Ontario Conservation Authorities

More information

Submission in response to Victoria s draft Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework

Submission in response to Victoria s draft Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework Submission in response to Victoria s draft Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework Invasive Species Council September 2009 ISC CONTACT The Invasive Species Council Inc, PO Box 166, Fairfield, Vic

More information

RESOLUTION MEPC.289(71) (adopted on 7 July 2017) 2017 GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER REGULATION A-4 OF THE BWM CONVENTION (G7)

RESOLUTION MEPC.289(71) (adopted on 7 July 2017) 2017 GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER REGULATION A-4 OF THE BWM CONVENTION (G7) ANNEX 10 RESOLUTION MEPC.289(71) (adopted on 7 July 2017) MEPC 71/17/Add.1 Annex 10, page 1 THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime

More information

Pyracantha coccinea -- Georgia

Pyracantha coccinea -- Georgia Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Pyracantha coccinea -- Georgia 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 12 -- Accept (low risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 58 / 100 Questions answered: 17 of

More information

CEF. Cumulative Effects Framework. Interim Policy. for the Natural Resource Sector. October Cumulative Effects Framework

CEF. Cumulative Effects Framework. Interim Policy. for the Natural Resource Sector. October Cumulative Effects Framework CEF Cumulative Effects Framework Cumulative Effects Framework Interim Policy for the Natural Resource Sector October 2016 Policy Approval The Cumulative Effects Framework Interim Policy is approved for

More information

Blue Ash Ontario Government Response Statement

Blue Ash Ontario Government Response Statement 1 2 Blue Ash Ontario Government Response Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Protecting and Recovering Species at Risk in Ontario Species at risk recovery

More information

7.23 Mountain pine (Pinus mugo)

7.23 Mountain pine (Pinus mugo) 7.23 Mountain pine (Pinus mugo) Definition Includes all sub-species and botanical variants, such as Pinus mugo subsp. mugo, Pinus mugo subsp. uncinata and Pinus uncinata. Why is it a threat? Mountain pine

More information

The EPPO Decision Support Scheme on Pest Risk Analysis and invasive alien plants. Sarah Brunel

The EPPO Decision Support Scheme on Pest Risk Analysis and invasive alien plants. Sarah Brunel The EPPO Decision Support Scheme on Pest Risk Analysis and invasive alien plants Sarah Brunel Context of Pest Risk Analysis World Trade Organization (WTO) (150 countries) SPS Agreement European and Mediterranean

More information

WEED RISK ASSESSMENT FORM

WEED RISK ASSESSMENT FORM WEED RISK ASSESSMENT FORM Botanical name: Achillea ptarmica L. Common name: sneezewort, Russian daisy Assessors: Irina Lapina Botanist, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage,

More information

Rotboellia cochinchinensis (itchgrass)

Rotboellia cochinchinensis (itchgrass) Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 28. Predicting Invasive Plants in

More information

Chrysosplenium valdivicum Question number Question Answer Score 1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? n 0

Chrysosplenium valdivicum Question number Question Answer Score 1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? n 0 Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for United States. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R. and C.A. Gantz. 2008. Potential impacts on the horticultural industry of screening

More information

Solanum viarum (tropical soda apple)

Solanum viarum (tropical soda apple) Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Florida. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, and C. Gantz. 28. Predicting Invasive Plants in

More information

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 15 CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes and compares the Southwest Fence Relocation and Waterline Project s Proposed

More information

PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY. A Discussion Paper Prepared by the ad hoc Committee on Pest Management Policy of the Entomological Society of Canada

PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY. A Discussion Paper Prepared by the ad hoc Committee on Pest Management Policy of the Entomological Society of Canada PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY A Discussion Paper Prepared by the ad hoc Committee on Pest Management Policy of the Entomological Society of Canada 1992 A Discussion Paper Prepared by the ad hoc Committee on Pest

More information

Interpretive Bulletin. Planning Mountain Pine Beetle Response Operations

Interpretive Bulletin. Planning Mountain Pine Beetle Response Operations Planning Mountain Pine Beetle Response Operations 1.0 Preamble This applies to the working forest land category on Alberta Public land (see MPB Action Plan for Alberta, section 3.1). Mountain pine beetle

More information

24. Wildlife Habitat on Farmland

24. Wildlife Habitat on Farmland 24. Wildlife Habitat on Farmland AUTHORS: S.K. Javorek, R. Antonowitsch, C. Callaghan, M. Grant and T. Weins INDICATOR NAME: Wildlife Habitat on Farmland Indicator STATUS: National coverage, 1981 to 2001

More information

Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery

Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery December 2014 ontario.ca/speciesatrisk TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PREAMBLE AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT... 1 2 KEY CONCEPTS... 2 3 PURPOSE...

More information

Background information on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being

Background information on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being Background information on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being Glossary: Biodiversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine

More information

Dillenia reticulata Question number Question Answer Score 1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? n 0

Dillenia reticulata Question number Question Answer Score 1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? n 0 Australia/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for United States. Data used for analysis published in: Gordon, D.R. and C.A. Gantz. 2008. Potential impacts on the horticultural industry of screening

More information

Forsythia 'Sunrise' -- Illinois

Forsythia 'Sunrise' -- Illinois Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Forsythia 'Sunrise' -- Illinois 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 12 -- Accept (low risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 56 / 100 Questions answered: 19 of

More information

Legislation Review- Invasive Alien Species. Exotic Species Education Coordination and Policy Development Project

Legislation Review- Invasive Alien Species. Exotic Species Education Coordination and Policy Development Project Legislation Review- Invasive Alien Species Exotic Species Education Coordination and Policy Development Project 2006-2008 Background With the signing of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, Canada, the

More information

Procedure for Importation of Aquatic Animals Procedure for Importation of Aquatic Animals

Procedure for Importation of Aquatic Animals Procedure for Importation of Aquatic Animals Procedure for Importation of Aquatic Animals Both international and domestic orders of any aquatic species, tissues or gametes that will be brought into Saskatchewan require an import permit from the Saskatchewan

More information

LESSONS FROM THE RADIATA PINE EXPERIENCE

LESSONS FROM THE RADIATA PINE EXPERIENCE 205 12 Conclusions This book has reviewed the development of radiata pine plantation forests as well as current management practices. It has illustrated how global experiences in growing the species and

More information

Nepeta racemosa 'Walker's Low' -- Illinois

Nepeta racemosa 'Walker's Low' -- Illinois Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Nepeta racemosa 'Walker's Low' -- Illinois 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 2 -- Accept (low risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 72 / 100 Questions answered:

More information

Broussonetia papyrifera -- Georgia

Broussonetia papyrifera -- Georgia Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Broussonetia papyrifera -- Georgia 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 16 -- Reject (high risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 78 / 100 Questions answered:

More information

Manitoba Envirothon Water and Aquatic Systems Provincial Curriculum Connections Code Outcome Grade 10 Science Grade 10 Geography Grade 12 Biology A6

Manitoba Envirothon Water and Aquatic Systems Provincial Curriculum Connections Code Outcome Grade 10 Science Grade 10 Geography Grade 12 Biology A6 Manitoba Envirothon Water and Aquatic Systems Provincial Curriculum Connections Code Outcome Grade 10 Science Grade 10 Geography Grade 12 Biology A6 A27 A34 A37 A38 A39 A40 Describe factors affecting water,

More information

Increasing the Impact

Increasing the Impact Increasing the Impact of an Early Detection and Rapid Response Program Mindy Wilkinson Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Early Detection Hawaii's

More information

REINTRODUCING NATIVE PLANTS INTO THE WILD

REINTRODUCING NATIVE PLANTS INTO THE WILD REINTRODUCING NATIVE PLANTS INTO THE WILD Written for the New England Plant Conservation Program (NEPCoP) by Mary Parkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Every year more rare plant populations and habitats

More information

UNIT 3 Student Notes. 3.1 How Changes Occur Naturally in Ecosystems

UNIT 3 Student Notes. 3.1 How Changes Occur Naturally in Ecosystems UNIT 3 Student Notes 3.1 How Changes Occur Naturally in Ecosystems Introduction When an organism is born, it belongs to a species, but it also is born with characteristics. Like humans with coloured eyes

More information

Triadica sebifera -- Georgia

Triadica sebifera -- Georgia Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Triadica sebifera -- Georgia 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 19 -- Reject (high risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 73 / 100 Questions answered: 19 of

More information

LESSONS LEARNED FROM RISK ASSESSMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS

LESSONS LEARNED FROM RISK ASSESSMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS South Asia Biosafety Conference - CERA 18-20 September 2013 New Delhi, India LESSONS LEARNED FROM RISK ASSESSMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS BARBARA BARRATT AGRESEARCH INVERMAY NEW ZEALAND OUTLINE

More information

GEF BENEFITS INDEX FOR BIODIVERSITY (GBI BIO ) Background and Context

GEF BENEFITS INDEX FOR BIODIVERSITY (GBI BIO ) Background and Context Background and Context GEF BENEFITS INDEX FOR BIODIVERSITY (GBI BIO ) 1. The GEF Benefits Index for Biodiversity (GBI BIO ) provides a relative ranking of countries for meeting the biodiversity objectives

More information

^BRITISH COLUMBIA. We are currently involved in a number of initiatives relating to species at risk. I will address your concerns point by point.

^BRITISH COLUMBIA. We are currently involved in a number of initiatives relating to species at risk. I will address your concerns point by point. ^BRITISH COLUMBIA 2 1Q ls P ^ 7 2003 VANCOUVER Reference: 73748 Jeremy McCall President Federation of BC Naturalists 425-1367 West Broadway Ave Vancouver BC V6H 4A9 Dear Mr. McCall: a ' Thank you for your

More information

Lagerstroemia indica -- Texas

Lagerstroemia indica -- Texas Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Lagerstroemia indica -- Texas 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 10 -- Accept (low risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 62 / 100 Questions answered: 17 of

More information

Performance Standard 6

Performance Standard 6 Introduction 1. recognizes that protecting and conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem services, and sustainably managing living natural resources are fundamental to sustainable development. The

More information

Festuca arundinacea -- Georgia

Festuca arundinacea -- Georgia Plant Risk Evaluator -- PRE Evaluation Report Festuca arundinacea -- Georgia 2017 Farm Bill PRE Project PRE Score: 18 -- Reject (high risk of invasiveness) Confidence: 64 / 100 Questions answered: 18 of

More information

The Quebec Approach to Drafting Conservation Plans for Rare Plants

The Quebec Approach to Drafting Conservation Plans for Rare Plants The Quebec Approach to Drafting Conservation Plans for Rare Plants GUY JOLICOEUR Quebec Environment Ministry, Natural Heritage and Sustainable Development Directorate, Biodiversity Service, Plant Conservation

More information

Performance Standard 6 V2

Performance Standard 6 V2 Introduction 1. Performance Standard 6 recognizes that protecting and conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem services, and sustainably managing living natural resources are fundamental to sustainable

More information

SUMMARY OF TWS STANDING POSITIONS

SUMMARY OF TWS STANDING POSITIONS SUMMARY OF TWS STANDING POSITIONS This document expresses positions of The Wildlife Society on a variety of policy issues that impact the management of wildlife populations, wildlife habitats, and the

More information

Biology, Sustainability and Interdependence

Biology, Sustainability and Interdependence Unit Description Biology, Sustainability and Interdependence Content 1 Food supply, plant growth and productivity (a) Food supply. (i) Food security and sustainable food production. Food security is the

More information

What is the Terms of Reference?

What is the Terms of Reference? What is the Terms of Reference? Framework for content of the Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Provides the scope of technical studies and consultation processes with the public and First

More information

Wildlife Conservation Strategy

Wildlife Conservation Strategy Wildlife Conservation Strategy Boise National Forest What is the Wildlife Conservation Strategy? The Boise National Forest is developing a Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) in accordance with its Land

More information