English ivy, porcelainberry and Oriental bittersweet are invasives that are out of control and should be on the list. Just go to any neighborhood,  park or VDOT right of way, and you can witness how they choke everything in their path.

By closing its eyes to the damage that English ivy, porcelainberry and Oriental bittersweet are doing to trees, the Commonwealth closes its eyes to the resulting increase in flooding, property storm water damage, loss of clean water and deterioration of our private and public spaces. An increasing tax burden will be required to mitigate the consequences of tree canopy loss.

The current list omitting English ivy, porcelainberry and Oriental bittersweet is a missed opportunity to educate the public. We can and need to do better.

My yard is overrun with crabgrass and the herbicides available at Home Depot won't kill it!  Why won't the government allow the sale of an effective herbicide?  How can I get re-embursed for my expenses?

• Both tiers as proposed use the phrase “not widely disseminated in the commonwealth.” Ideally English Ivy would be on this list, but it is widely disseminated in the commonwealth. Does this mean all noxious weeds that are currently a severe problem cannot be added to this list? If so, this is more of an early detection and rapid response list and not a true noxious weeds species list. Therefore,a 3rd tier should be included:
  • "Tier 3 noxious weed" means any noxious weed that (i) is not native to the Commonwealth, (ii) is widely disseminated in the Commonwealth, (iii) for which successful localized suppression is possible but eradication is unlikely, and (iv) for which elimination of additional introductions and dispersal is a priority.
• A list of invasive plant species for the state of Virginia can be found at the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation Division of Natural Heritage (DNH) website at http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/invlist.pdf All of these species need to be included at a minimum with additional, new species included as they are discovered. A great source for newly discovered noxious weeds is located at http://www.eddmaps.org/species/
• There is no solid information included that adequately explains the economic impacts that could occur if this amendment is made. This needs to be addressed. The ecological health of our natural areas is being negatively impacted by many noxious weeds. The economic benefits provided by healthy, functioning ecosystems are immense and quantifying these benefits providese further justification for regulating these noxious weeds.
• Who will be in charge of enforcement of this amendment? Proper enforcement will ensure that these harmful noxious weeds do not spread to new areas.
• Who will be on the committee that implements a science-based assessment of possible plants for listing as noxious weeds? Experts in the field of noxious weeds and invasive species should be consulted to ensure proper listing of species.

Ms. Erin Williams
VDACS, Division of Consumer Protection
102 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219

RE: Recommendations for Regulations for Enforcement of Noxious Weed Law 2 VAC 5-317

Dear Ms. Williams:

The Arlington County Urban Forestry Commission has reviewed the proposed regulations and appreciates this opportunity to provide comments.

The Commission is pleased that the Department of Agriculture is taking a first step in acknowledging the tremendous economic and environmental damage non-native invasive species inflict on agricultural and natural areas in Virginia.  However, the proposed regulation falls far short of providing the necessary tools for meaningful progress toward slowing the destruction wreaked by invasive species.  The proposed species to be included on the list include some, such as wavy leaf basket grass, whose exclusion would be beneficial to our state, but the list is so limited as to make the regulations virtually meaningless.  None of the listed plants is typically sold in the nursery industry, so the proposed regulations fail to address the intentional introduction of invasives plants through retail trade.  Likewise, the failure to include any enforcement provisions further undermines the seriousness and increasing long-term costs of this issue.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is far behind other states and other localities that have well-developed noxious weed laws and regulations.  The longer we wait to develop effective controls of non-native invasive species, the more severe will be the economic and environmental damage and the higher the resulting costs to remedy the impacts.

We urge that the proposed regulations be redrafted to include a more comprehensive list of non-native invasive species based on the Department of Conservation and Recreation guidelines and to include meaningful enforcement mechanisms.  If the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot take a leadership role in controlling non-native invasives species, then at local jurisdictions should be permitted to undertake eradication and suppression efforts.

In sum, we believe that the regulation as currently drafted is wholly inadequate and will result in very little impact on an increasingly urgent problem.

Sincerely,

Dean Amel, Chair
Arlington County Urban forestry Commission

Ms. Erin Williams
VDACS
Division of Consumer Protection
102 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219

September 13, 2013

RE: Recommendations for Regulations for Enforcement of Noxious Weed Law
        2 VAC 5-317

Dear Ms. Williams:

Arlington County is pleased that the Department of Agriculture is including additional species to the Regulations for Enforcement of Noxious Weed Law. It is a step in the right direction. Continuing in that direction, we’d like to suggest further changes to address the serious economic and environmental impacts caused by invasive plant species.

We have identified invasive plants as the greatest and most immediate threat to the continued survival of Arlington’s natural lands and native plant communities.  Improving state regulations which ban invasive plant species is an opportunity to limit the further spread of these species in Arlington County. Although species such as Tropical soda apple, Giant hogweed and Wavyleaf basketgrass are helpful to include on VDAC’s list, we think that a more science-based and comprehensive species list would have far greater impact in limiting the spread of invasive plants.

We believe that the work done the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on its Invasive Alien Plant Species of Virginia is well researched.  We propose that the plants on the DCR list form the basis for those addressed by the Noxious Weed Law.

We propose that the regulations:

• Include any species listed on the most current DCR list as highly or moderately invasive in the noxious weed list.

• Phase out any species listed on the DCR list as invasive from commercial sale. For trees, growers should be prohibited from starting new plants once listed.  Trees currently in production would be allowed to be sold with a warning (see below), unless quarantined or restricted for other reasons. Other plants that are currently in production in Virginia may be continued to be sold for a period of up to 2 years, unless quarantined or restricted for other reasons.

• Require labeling of commercially available noxious weeds during the time that they are still permitted to be sold (as noted above). The label shall include a warning stating that the species are invasive and shall include a listing of non-invasive alternative plant species.

• Permit local jurisdictions to create lists of invasive plant species to be banned from sale and distribution within their jurisdiction.

• Require the review of the noxious weed species list every two years and include public input by a wide range of stakeholder groups.

In conclusion, we think that if these changes are incorporated into the regulation it will have a substantial, positive impact on the environment. We respectfully urge the Department of Agriculture to carefully consider these proposed changes and we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.

Sincerely,

Caroline Temmermand
Arlington County Government
Division Chief, Parks and Natural Resources

Ms. Erin Williams
VDACS, Division of Consumer Protection
102 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219

RE: Recommendations for Regulations for Enforcement of Noxious Weed Law 2 VAC 5-317

Dear Ms. Williams:

My name is Kimberly Paolucci and I am a resident of Herndon, VA, an Environmental Student with University of Maryland University Colleges, and I co-chair a local Habitat Heroes committee here in Herndon.  I appreciate and value the chance to comment on the proposed regulations.  I reviewed both the proposed regulations along with the current regulations and would like to address the both of them.

First, I would like to address how the current regulation.  The current definition of “Noxious Weed” as defined in Code 3.20-800 is: 

“Any living plant, not widely disseminated, or part thereof, declared by the Board through regulations under this chapter, to be detrimental to crops, surface waters, including lakes, or other desirable plants, livestock, land or other property, or to be injurious to public health or economy. “

The word disseminate, defined by Webster Dictionary, is to scatter or spread widely.  While I do not fully understand if the intent of this word was being used to mean spread widely in nature or through sales at local nurseries, I find that both are detrimental to Virginia’s local habitats.  The reason being is it does not allow for such plants as English Ivy, Autumn Olive, Japanese Honeysuckle, Honey Suckle Bush and Multiflora Rose, which are disseminated through local nurseries, Home Depot, and Lowes or Autumn Olive and found throughout the State of Virginia in our forests, riparian buffers, and our yards. 

I propose the current code be updated and the phrase “not widely disseminated” be removed.  Once this is complete, we can then address amendments to the proposed regulation and target living plants that are currently causing destruction to Virginia’s habitats. 

The United States Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation Service has a wonderful website that allows you to search various plants to see if they are prevalent in a state(s), http://plants.usda.gov/java/.  You will find all five of the plants I named are prevalent in Virginia.  You will find two of the eight plants proposed in this regulation are prevalent in Virginia:  Cogon Grass and Purple Loosestrife.  However, I am aware that Beach Vitex and Wavyleaf are notes as being harmful to Virginia’s environment as well.  I also want to point out that the proposed regulation states that “Red Baron” (Japanese blood grass) is not subject to the regulation, but nurseries are known to sell Cogon Grass under this name as a workaround.

Then next item to address is to add a Tier 3 that specifically addresses widely disseminated plants in the Commonwealth. 

Lastly, please consider how adding invasive vine plants such as English Ivy, Porcelainberry, and Oriental Bittersweet will assist the State and Local Governments with Chesapeake Bay Pollution Regulations.  Currently regulations and watershed plans seek to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from entering into the Chesapeake watershed.  Riparian buffers are vegetated areas next to water resources that protect water resources from nonpoint source pollution and provide bank stabilization and aquatic and wildlife habitat.  Trees and other vegetation absorb these nutrients acting as a natural colander to our waterways.  The tree canopy regulates hydrology and the cycling of essential nutrients and it provides shade, which reduces the chance of the waterways from overheating.  Invasive vine plants are known to choke out trees and cause tree limbs to falls or trees to die.    The reason being, non-native vines, such as English Ivy, grow faster than the tree it wraps around.  It doesn’t die back in the winter and it doesn’t have known predators or disease.  This allows the invasive plant to choke out the tree and destroy the riparian buffer.

As a constituent of Virginia, I respectfully urge the Department of Agriculture to carefully consider the information contained in this letter along with the proposed changes and I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Paolucci

Resident, Herndon VA

Although I have limited expertise in this area, I have been working recently with a Habit Heroes group in my hometown of Herndon, VA.  I was shocked at my naivety to all of the species of plants that are widely available, and that I have purchased through big box stores like Home Depot or Lowes that ultimately cause great detriment to our environment.

One only needs a bit of exposure on how to identify invasive species, and get a basic understanding of how they drastically effect our own immediate environment to see how much damage these plants that are non-native cause.  Once I knew just a little bit about them, I was shocked to take note that my own home was surrounded by them, and now had a better understanding of why the beautiful, mature trees seem to be dying off slowly--because they are--certainly as contributed to at least 4 non-native species that I now know exist and thrive on my property. 

Now that I know how to identify some of them:  such as english ivy, multi-flora rose, japanese honeysuckle, and bush honeysuckle not only can I identify them in my immediate surroundings, but I see damage along most roadways that I travel and in parks that I wander upon.

Please consider stricter controls on how widely availble these plants are, and consider education efforts to improve understanding of what can be equally pleasing and effective for their needs without significantly affecting our native enviorment.

Sincerely,

Barbara Welsh