Strategic Analysis of Aquatic Plant Management in Wisconsin Photo Credits (horizontal from top-left): Paul Skawinski, Robert Korth, Jennifer Hauxwell, Richard Hurd, Alex Block, Paul Skawinski, Chuck Druckrey, Alison Mikulyuk Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources June 2019 Contributing Authors Chelsey Blanke, Alison Mikulyuk, Michelle Nault, Scott Provost, Carroll Schaal, Scott Van Egeren, and Meghan Williams (DNR Environmental Management Division — Water Quality Program); Adam Mednick (DNR External Services Division — Environmental Analysis and Sustainability) Acknowledgements Fifty-three individual stakeholders and partners participated in interviews that informed this strategic analysis, as described in Chapter 6. A number of DNR staff assisted or advised on various aspects of the analysis. These include: Shelly Allness, Tim Asplund, Raechelle Belli, Jennifer Bergman, Kelsey Brown, Paul Cunningham, John Dougherty, Kevin Doyle, Michala Feigal, Kristina Femal, Jason Fleener, Mary Gansberg, Kevin Gauthier Sr., Susan Graham, Jason Granberg, Mark Hazuga, Craig Helker, Dan Helsel, Nathan Holoubek, Ted Johnson, Kelly Kearns, Lisie Kitchel, Susan Knight, Ty Krajewski, Gina LaLiberte, Aaron Marti, Ashleigh McCord, Robin McLennan, Brenda Nordin, James Pardee, Jordan Petchenik, Craig Roberts, Greg Sass, Alex Smith, Laura Stremick-Thompson, Pamela Toshner, Scott Toshner, Michael Vogelsang, Kelly Wagner, Carol Warden, Weston Wegener, and Michele Witecha. Nine members of a department-organized aquatic plant management (APM) study group, consisting of non-department stakeholders, reviewed and provided helpful feedback and comments on a preliminary draft. These include: Vanessa Brotske, Roy Carlson, Dale Dressel, Charlie Handel, Barb Gajewski, Eddie Heath, Jeff Mason, Dave Zelinger, and Jerry Ziegler. To the Reader This document is a strategic analysis of aquatic plant management (APM) in Wisconsin, as authorized under s. NR 150.10 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, consistent with s. 1.11(2)(e) and (h) of Wisconsin Statutes and the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. The analysis addresses topics of interest identified through a public scoping process. The purpose of this and other strategic analyses is to inform decision-makers and the public of alternative courses of action and the anticipated effects of these alternatives on the quality of the human environment. Strategic analyses rely in part on the professional judgement and expertise of subject area specialists within the department. They are not intended to be exhaustive scientific studies and do not advocate for particular alternatives. The strategic analysis document summarizes current information on APM, including known and possible environmental impacts, applicable regulations, economic considerations, and potential alternative approaches for the future. It does not establish department policy for the review of specific APM projects or proposals. Rather, it is intended to serve as an informational resource to help decision- makers and the public to better understand the topic, and to aid in the crafting of future policy. The scope of the analysis was limited to APM. This includes APM for controlling aquatic invasive plant species (AIS) but does not include AIS prevention, such as boater outreach and education. AIS prevention is covered by the Wisconsin Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, which will be finalized and released sometime in 2019 (visit https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/invasives for updates). Although much of the strategic analysis focused on lakes, APM activities are conducted in a variety of environments, including wetlands, marinas, shoreline areas and stream banks, right-of-ways, private and non-private ponds, and areas of exposed lakebed, among others. Many of the concepts described in this document apply to APM in these and other semi-aquatic or ‘wet’ environments. The department initiated this strategic analysis in September of 2016. A public comment period on the proposed scope of the analysis was held from October 18 through November 16, 2016 with comments received from 20 individuals. Sources of information used to conduct the analysis included interviews with stakeholders, department staff, tribal representatives and other states’ natural resource agencies, as well as scientific literature, APM codes and statutes, and personal/historical experience of APM in the state. As part of the analysis, a list of management alternatives was developed for consideration and discussion by APM stakeholders and decision-makers (see Chapter 8). The department also organized an APM Study Group consisting of nine non-department APM stakeholders, who reviewed and provided input on a preliminary draft of the analysis. Their feedback has been incorporated into this document with the aim of being as factual, objective, and inclusive of various considerations as possible. The department sought public input on a draft of this document between December 11, 2018 and January 25, 2019 and received public comments from 45 individuals and organizations, as well as the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. A summary of the comments received, along with the department’s responses, can be found in the response to public comments document. Strategic Analysis of Aquatic Plant Management Page ii Table of Contents To the Reader ................................................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vii Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................... viii Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ x Common and Scientific Names of Species in this Report ............................................................................ xi Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... xiv 1. Legal Authority for Aquatic Plant Management in Wisconsin .............................................................. 1 1.1. Statutory Authority ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Administrative Rules ................................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Related Authority and Policy..................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Wild Rice ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 6 2. Aquatic Plant Management in Wisconsin – Past and Present .............................................................. 8 2.1. History of Aquatic Herbicide Use .............................................................................................. 8 2.2. Non-Chemical Approaches and Integrated Pest Management .............................................. 14 2.3. DNR Staff Workload ................................................................................................................ 17 2.4. Strategic Management and Research ..................................................................................... 17 2.5. Data Management and Accessibility ....................................................................................... 18 2.6. DNR Grants and Aquatic Plant Management.......................................................................... 19 3. Aquatic Plant Management Beyond Lakes and Ponds ....................................................................... 21 4. Economic Considerations .................................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 23 4.2. Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 26 4.3. Distribution and Opportunity Costs ........................................................................................ 29 5. Aquatic Plant Management Stakeholders and Collaborators ............................................................. 31 6. Stakeholder Views on Aquatic Plant Management ............................................................................ 34 6.1. Stakeholder Interview Process ................................................................................................ 34 Strategic Analysis of Aquatic Plant Management Page iii 6.2. Interview Findings ..................................................................................................................