MEETING MINUTES

Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council
Organizational Committee Meeting No. 4
Wednesday, November 3, 1999
4:30 - 6:30 

Meeting was held at Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA.
Corresponded with the conference Invasive Exotic Plants: Current Management Strategies.
In attendance were:

1.       John Beckman - Co-Chair, West Virginia DNR
2.       Faith Campbell -- Co-Chair, American Land Alliance, Washington, D.C.
3.       Jil Swearingen, National Park Service, National Capitol Region
4.       Robert Trumbule, MD Department of Agriculture
5.       Betsy Lyman, The Nature Conservancy (Pennsylvania Chapter)
6.       Louisa Thompson, Irvine Natural Science Center, Maryland Native Plant Society
7.       Carol Jelich, Maryland Native Plant Society
8.       Lisa Smith, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
9.       Nancy S. H. Richwine, Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture
10.    Philip Pannill, Maryland DNR Forest Service
11.    Sue Salmons, National Park Service, Rock Creek Park
12.    Kerrie Kyde, independent contractor (currently w/ National Park Service, Catoctin National Park)
13.    Marion Kyde, Tinicum Conservancy
14.    Joe Patt, The Nature Conservancy, Delaware Bayshore Office
15.    Michelle Conners, Temple University
16.    Carol Caplinger
17.    Don Wertman, American Seedgrowers Trade Association
18.    Art Gover, Penn State Roadside Vegetation Management Research Project, PennDOT
19.    Fred Grau
20.    Neil Clifford, Invasive Plant Council of NY State
21.    Bernd Blossey, NY DNR/Cornell University
22.    John Randall, The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Weed Management & Research
23.    Brian Bowen, Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council
24.    Carol Markham, USFWS
25.    Ted Scott, Virginia Native Plant Society
26.    Donnelle Keech, The Nature Conservancy (Maryland/DC Chapter) took minutes

I.       Committee Reports

Team leaders and/or team members reported on progress/recent activity (for the three projects determined at the August meeting):

1.     Regional Plant List

Goal: To develop a list of invasive (exotic?) plants that covers the entire Mid-Atlantic region. A "master list" will be the first product, but more specialized lists may then be developed for targeted audiences. The group felt that the list should include agricultural weeds.

Team Leader:  John Beckman

Team Members/Resources:  Chris Firestone, Faith Campbell, Carol Jelich, Betsy Lyman, Carol Russell, Robert Trumbule

REPORT:  John has gathered existing lists from Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and formatted  them into a combined list.  This is a starting point, but there are still many unanswered questions about terminology, the criteria used to "list" a plant.  He still needs information from New Jersey, and has heard that there is a more current/better list for Pennsylvania.  He will ultimately seek review from Heritage Programs, Native Plant Societies, other concerned groups.  The "starting point" list was not distributed at this time.

2.     Technical Outreach

Goal: Provide support for volunteer weed removal projects, in the form of a) demonstration project(s), and b) resources and training in volunteer coordination and weed management methods for project leaders.

Team Leader:  Louisa Thompson

Team Members:  Lisa Smith, Jil Swearingen, Betsy Lyman (will send field guide from Friends of Wissahickon Park) Carole Bergmann, Sarah Bishop, Don Cober

REPORT:  Demonstration project at Patapsco Valley State Park continues, new resources being developed.  Project being co-sponsored by the Maryland Native Plant Society and the Cooperative Extension Service Master Gardener program.  Combines education of participants in the issues with weed removal work, and long-term qualitative and photo monitoring.  They have prepared a slide presentation, and folks interested in starting their own project can come to the demonstration project site or request a presentation "house call." 

Louisa has combined forces with Jil to work on the Weedbusters  Handbook - a resource for the layperson interested in weed management.  Includes color photos and line drawings, species and management info (like Louisa's recent brochure), and is in a loose-leaf format. It is currently in draft form, almost ready for review.  They hope to have it ready to post of the Native Plant Working group web site by spring.

Louisa also invited the group to provide her with information on any other new or ongoing projects, so that she can perform a bit of a clearinghouse function.

3.     Regional Data Coordination

Goals: a) inventory the relevant or applicable databases, and the types of data currently being collected;

b) identify options for format to standardize data region wide (w/ an eye towards national picture);

c) educate and encourage states to use common format.

Team Leader:  Nancy Benton

Team Members:  Lisa Smith (PA info contribution), Mark Zankel (DE contact/liaison), Nancy Richwine, Louisa Thompson (will send data collection forms she has, would like to consult later about what volunteer program could use), Betsy Lyman (will work with Lisa Smith on PA info)

REPORT:  Nancy Benton could not be at meeting.  Betsy Lyman and Lisa Smith both did some checking on databases in Pennsylvania, and reported a "negative database" started (by Heritage program?) -- it includes information on invasive species, and the absence of native species.  Also mentioned Ann Rhodes w/ the Morris Arboretum (she's done flora of PA). Faith mentioned that people are thinking about these database issues at a National Level, and that USGS held a symposium in Florida about 2 years ago on the topic of databases.

II.      Mission Statement - decision to adopt

We reviewed the mission statement drafted and approved at the August meeting.  After some discussion, a motion was made to vote on accepting the mission statement; the vote was held and the mission statement was unanimously accepted as written:

The Purpose of the Mid Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council (MA-EPPC) is to address the problem of invasive exotic plants and their threat to the Mid-Atlantic region's economy, environment, and human health by providing leadership, facilitating information development and exchange, and coordinating regional efforts.

Points of discussion were as follows:

  • don't Heritage programs already do data coordination? (to an extent, but there is a role of EPPC, especially in facilitating inter-state coordination and emphasis on invasive species)
  • use "environment" rather than "ecology" (most felt environment was more appropriate)
  • definition of "Mid-Atlantic" (can be clarified in accompanying materials, keep statement simple)
  • should political role be made explicit in statement?  (no - non-profit status could be complicated, this idea is covered in "leadership")
  • John Randall's advice: don't get side tracked by wordsmithing

III.       Non-Profit 501 (c) (3) status - decision to pursue

Faith presented the results of her past experience/recent research on this topic, presented some pros and cons.  After some input from others with experience in this endeavor, and some discussion, there was a motion to pursue non-profit status, seconded, and a vote taken with all in favor.

PROS

  • helps in fundraising
  • tax exempt (pay no sales tax on supplies)
  • non-profit mailing permit
  • eligible for public service announcement
  • eligible for interns through government programs
  • some protection for members and officers from liability

CONS

  • time and energy to do it
  • have to maintain an administrative structure to meet certain standard/requirements - meetings, minutes, votes, bylaws, reporting, accounting
  • complicated by the multistate nature of the EPPC (incorporate in one state but file in all)

John Randall and Brian Bowen, who have both been through this process with the CA and SE EPPCs (respectively) both had the comment:  it wasn't really that much work; there is minimal routine paperwork until the organization's income exceeds a certain level (around $10 - 15,000). Apparently you can get temporary status relatively quickly, but the final determination can take up to 5 years. John said that if raising money for projects and ultimately for staff is something we envision for MA-EPPC's future, we'll be crippled without legal non-profit status; he commented that hiring a part-time staff person was a critical point in the development of the CA-EPPC.  Also, many of the accounting and administrative procedures are just good business practices that we would probably want to adopt anyway, if/when we raise and disperse funds.

Other points of discussion:

  • do we need legal counsel? (John said yes, but in CA they didn't seek counsel until they were into the process, had their bylaws reviewed after the fact).
  • concern about liability issues, consider if EPPC would need insurance
  • Joe Patt's wife is an attorney, who might be able to help if we would like Joe to ask her

Further discussion, after the vote in favor of applying for non-profit status:

  • there are different categories of tax exempt status - 501 (c) (3), 501 (c) (4) which permits more lobbying activity but conveys more restricted benefits.  There will be decisions, choices to me made as we go through the process.

some discussion about lobbying:

  • discussing/influencing policy with administrative staff is not lobbying - "lobbying" is actually pretty narrowly defined, and some lobbying is permitted even under 501 (c) (3)
  • would federal agency staff involved in EPPC have conflicts restrictions?  (John and Brian said no from their experience with other EPPC)

IV.       Bylaws

We will need bylaws in order to apply for non-profit status. No need to write new ones, we can borrow from existing EPPCs.  Lisa Smith volunteered to get those, and reformat to produce draft bylaws for MA-EPPC. John Randall suggested that one thing we may especially want to discuss as a group is how to handle officers and terms. 

V.          Next Meeting

Scheduled for January 11, to be held in Harper's Ferry.

VI.       Additional Discussion

A discussion sparked by issues raised by sessions at the conference followed the conclusion of this business.  Without attempting to recount the discussion in it's entirety, some of the points made:

  • in one of the day's conference sessions, (Eric "Kiviat") argued that there are wildlife benefits of exotic species, and there is scant evidence to support the claim that exotic species are less valuable than natives; this view raised alarm/concern, and questions:  is there validity to Kiviat's points? are there really so few documented cases of invasive species impacts?
  • Bernd Blossey responds: dearth of scientific info on invasive impacts is a problem; Kiviat's approach is flawed - he looks just as what is there now, and doesn't compare it to what was lost in the course of invasion
  • Carol Jelich volunteered to start a new EPPC project, to collect info on invasives impacts (a bibliography)  Sue Salmons said that she has been collecting references on invasives impacts for a report she is working on
  • John Randall: there has been a very recent flush of information emerging, from studies started years ago; he is hopeful that this the beginning of filling some of these data gaps
  • as we develop lists, documented impacts (and the information gaps) will be of key importance - peer review, references must be part of the process.  This will be important for providing the best possible information to natural areas managers, and will the essential if the list is meant to have a regulatory impact on economically important species.
  • defining "invasive" and the other terms involved in "listing" invasive plants will take much work and attention; there is a federal model for determining/defining invasive
  • John Randall: consider the purpose of the list, develop difference lists for different purposes