2021-101 Tree Preservation Work Session ResponsesDate: November 19, 2021 Report No. 2021-101
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Urban Forestry Update
BACKGROUND:
At the conclusion of a presentation, regarding “the performance of the tree preservation and
mitigation requirements of the Denton Development Code” staff received question/comments on;
the upcoming tree inventory (private property), landmark trees and Chinese Pistache being
invasive.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is partnering with the Texas Trees Foundation to conduct a tree inventory of trees located in
parks, city properties and public rights-of-ways. One of the primary objectives of performing the
tree inventory is to allow staff to better plan tree maintenance activates (planting, prunning and
removals). There has been some discussion in the community about a “tree count” on private
property, which would be an enormous undertaking considering the 2016 State of the Urban Forest
report estimated over 3.4 million trees in the City of Denton. Staff has no knowledge of any City
undertaking an inventory of trees on private property. In prior discussion with members of the
community during a public meeting for the Urban Forest Master Plan and in reviewing comments
made at the October 12th City Council meeting it seems the objective of inventorying trees on
private property is to identify large trees for possible nomination the City’s Landmark Tree list.
The first nominations to Denton’s Landmark Tree registry were received in May of 2020. A total
of six nominations have been received to date, five of those met the qualifications for Landmark
status. One of those was on undeveloped land and the remainder are on residential properties. To
qualify for Landmark status a tree must be one of the following: 1) listed on the Texas A&M Forest
Service Texas Big Tree Registry, 2) Historic or 3) legendary stature in the community and be
signed off on by the property owner. All of the newly listed Landmark Trees qualified under the
legendary stature in the community section of the requirements. Per the Denton Development Code
property, owners must sign off on the nomination of their tree to the Landmark Tree Registry.
The invasiveness of Chinese Pistache has been discussed locally for several years. The most
common source sited to support this is the TEXASINVASIV.ORG Database. When searching the
Texas Invasive database there is a disclaimer that reads “THIS PLANT LIST IS ONLY A
RECOMMENDATION AND HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. IT
IS LAWFUL TO SELL, DISTRIBUTE, IMPORT, OR POSSESS A PLANT ON THIS LIST
UNLESS THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LABELS THE PLANT AS
NOXIOUS OR INVASIVE ON THE DEPARTMENT'S PLANT LIST”. Chinese Pistache is listed
in the Texas Invasive database, however it is not listed on any of the four lists referenced by the
database: the Federal Noxious Weeds, the Texas Department of Agriculture Noxious Weeds, the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Prohibited Exotic Species or the Invasive Plant Atlas of the
US.
Date: November 19, 2021 Report No. 2021-101
According to the U.S. Department of the Interior – Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)
“Executive Order 13112 – defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction
does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” In the
Executive Summary of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term
invasive species is further clarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem
under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health.” (Exhibit 1). The key to definition is that the
species “is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health”. Staff has
not seen the natural propagation of Chinese Pistache to the extent that it is out-competing native
trees and causing harm to the environment as we see with Chinese Privet or Kudzu.
Staff does recognize Chinese Pistache as naturalized in the area, which means it “does not need
human help to reproduce and maintain itself over time”. According to the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service, a Naturalized Plant is “A non-native plant that does not need human help to
reproduce and maintain itself over time in an area where it is not native. Notes: Even though their
offspring reproduce and spread naturally (without human help), naturalized plants do not, over
time, become native members of the local plant community. Many naturalized plants are found
primarily near human-dominated areas; and, sometimes, naturalized is used (confusingly) to refer
specifically to naturally reproducing, non-native plants that do not invade areas dominated by
native vegetation. However, since invasive plants also reproduce and spread without human help,
naturalized invasives are a small, but troublesome, sub-category of naturalized plants. As stated
in the 2016 State of Denton Urban Forest Report (page 24), about 96% of Denton’s Trees are
native to North America and the State of Texas”.
CONCLUSION:
City staff and Texas Trees Foundation staff is continuing to plan the inventory of trees located in
parks, city properties and public rights-of-ways. There really is not a way to speed up the process
as inventories are best done during the growing season. As for the inventorying of trees on private
property, staff feels that an undertaking of this size is unfeasible at this time as the City has over
3.4 million trees (2016 State of Denton Urban Forest Report page 9).
According the 2016 State of Denton Urban Forest report there are approximately 31,000 trees
greater than 27 inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height or 54” above the ground). To better protect
these trees and add to the six identified Landmark trees, staff recommends removing from the
Denton Development Code the property owner consent for categorizing trees that meet the
Landmark Tree size requirement stated in the City of Denton Landmark Tree Criteria (Exhibit 2).
Although Chinese Pistache is not listed on any legally binding state or national list of invasive
species staff has amended the approved tree list maintain by Parks and Recreation to specify Keith
Davey Chinese Pistache, which is a non-fruiting male cultivar. With Chinese Pistache listed as a
Shade Tree Superstar by Texas A&M Agrilife and the current changes in climate staff agrees with
the consensus in the industry the having a large pallet of trees to choose from is vital to increasing
the species diversity and resiliency of Urban Forest for current and future generations.
Date: November 19, 2021 Report No. 2021-101
STAFF CONTACT:
Haywood Morgan
Urban Forester, Parks and Recreation
Haywood.Morgan@cityofdenton.com
REQUESTOR:
Council Member Beck
PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS:
Parks and Recreation
STAFF TIME TO COMPLETE REPORT:
Parks and Recreation 15 hours
Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper
Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee of the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)
Approved by ISAC April 27, 2006
Weeds As Examples
Weeds provide good examples to clarify what is
meant by an invasive species because most
people have a concept of what constitutes a
“weed.”
Invasion can be thought of as a process that in
our example, a plant must go through to become
a successful, yet harmful invader. Several
barriers must be overcome for a plant to be
considered an invasive weed. Invasive weeds
are invasive species.
Large-scale geographical barriers
First, a geographical barrier must be overcome,
which often occurs as a mountain range, ocean,
or similar physical barrier to movement of seeds
and other reproductive plant parts. Plants that
overcome geographical barriers are known as
alien plants or alien species. Alien plants are
non-native plants and alien species are non-
native species. Therefore, non-native plants are
those that occur outside their natural range
boundaries, and this most often is mediated by
humans either deliberately or unintentionally.
Survival barriers
The second set of obstacles that a non-native
plant must overcome is barriers to germination
and survival in its new location. These typically
are environmental barriers such as adequate
moisture availability to allow successful
germination and survival of seedlings that will
continue to grow to maturity. Other physical
barriers might be soil pH, nutrient availability, or
competition for resources from neighboring
plants.
Preamble: Executive Order 13112 – defines an invasive
species as “an alien species whose introduction does or
is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or
harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the
National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the
term invasive species is further clarified and defined as “a
species that is non-native to the ecosystem under
consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely
to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health.” To provide guidance for the development
and implementation of the NISMP, the National Invasive
Species Council (NISC) and the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC) adopted a set of principles outlined in
Appendix 6 of the NISMP. Guiding Principle #1 provides
additional context for defining the term invasive species and
states “many alien species are non-invasive and support
human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life.”
However, some alien species (non-native will be used in this
white paper because it is more descriptive than alien), for
example West Nile virus, are considered invasive and
undesirable by virtually everyone. Other non-native species
are not as easily characterized. For example, some non-
native species are considered harmful, and therefore,
invasive by some sectors of our society while others consider
them beneficial. This discontinuity is reflective of the
different value systems operating in our free society, and
contributes to the complexity of defining the term invasive
species.
NISC is engaged in evaluating and updating the 2001 NISMP
and is developing comments for a revised action plan as
required by the EO 13112. While there have been numerous
attempts to clarify the term invasive species, there continues
to be uncertainty concerning the use and perceived meaning
of the term, and consequently over the prospective scope of
actions proposed in the NISMP. Options related to private
property use, pet ownership, agriculture, horticulture, and
aquaculture enterprises may be affected depending upon the
definition, use, and policy implications of the term.
2
In particular, the desire to consider a non-native species as
‘invasive’ may trigger a risk/benefit assessment process to
determine whether regulatory action is warranted. All these
uncertainties have stood and could continue to stand in the
way of progress in actions and policy development to prevent
new invasions and manage existing invasive species. While
it is not the purpose of this white paper to define a risk/benefit
assessment process, development of such a process must
be open and efficient to minimize the uncertainties.
Weeds As Examples (continued)
Establishment barriers
The third obstacle that a non-native plant must
overcome to be considered an invasive weed,
is to form a population that is self-sustaining
and does not need re-introduction to maintain a
population base such that it continues to
survive and thrive in its new environment.
Once this occurs, this population of non-native
plants is considered to be established.
Environmental barriers to survival and
establishment are similar.
Dispersal and spread barriers
Established non-native plants must overcome
barriers to dispersal and spread from their site
of establishment to be considered invasive
plants. Additionally, the rate of spread must be
relatively fast. However, this movement or
spread alone does not necessarily make this
non-native plant an invasive weed or invasive
species.
Harm and impact
Finally, a plant is deemed to be invasive if it
causes negative environmental, economic, or
human health effects, which outweigh any
beneficial effects. For example, yellow
starthistle is a source of nectar for bee
producers. But the displacement of native and
other desirable plant species caused by yellow
starthistle leads to dramatically decreased
forage for wildlife and livestock, which severely
disrupts the profitability of associated
businesses. These negative effects greatly
overshadow the positive effects and thus,
define harm caused by yellow starthistle and
explain why it is considered an invasive
species.
This white paper is intended to provide a non-regulatory
policy interpretation of the term invasive species by
identifying what is meant, and just as important, what is not
meant by the term. ISAC recognizes that biological and
ecological definitions will not precisely apply to regulatory
definitions. We believe, however, that our clarification will
apply to all taxa of invasive species in all habitats and
furthermore, our explanation will be functional and acceptable
to most stakeholders. ISAC simply wants to clarify what is
meant and what is not meant by the term invasive species in
the technical sense and to provide insight into those areas
where societal judgments will be necessary to implement
effective public policy.
The utility of our clarification should be in education, conflict
resolution, and efficiency in the planning, prevention,
control/eradication, and management of invasive species.
ISAC recommends that NISC adopt the clarifications
presented in this white paper to foster progress for
invasive species management in the United States.
Introduction
An invasive species is a non-native species whose
introduction does or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant
health. The National Invasive Species Management Plan
indicates that NISC will focus on non-native organisms known
to cause or likely to cause negative impacts and that do not
provide an equivalent or greater benefit to society. In the technical sense, the term ‘invasion’ simply
denotes the uncontrolled or unintended spread of an organism outside its native range with no specific
reference about the environmental or economic consequences of such spread or their relationships to
possible societal benefits. However, the policy context and subsequent management decisions
necessitate narrowing what is meant and what is not meant by the term invasive species. Essentially,
we are clarifying what is meant and not meant by “causing harm” by comparing negative effects caused
by a non-native organism to its potential societal benefits.
3
Perception to Cause Harm
Complications concerning the concept of invasive species arise from differing human values and
perspectives. Differing perceptions of the relative harm caused or benefit gained by a particular
organism are influenced by different values and management goals. If invasive species did not cause
harm, we would not be nearly as concerned. Perceptions of relative benefit and harm also may change
as new knowledge is acquired, or as human values or management goals change.
For a non-native organism to be considered an invasive species in the policy context, the negative
effects that the organism causes or is likely to cause are deemed to outweigh any beneficial effects.
Many non-native introductions provide benefits to society and even among species that technically
meet the definition of invasive, societal benefits may greatly exceed any negative effects (for example
crops and livestock raised for food). However, in some cases any positive effects are clearly
overshadowed by negative effects, and this is the concept of causing harm. For example, water
hyacinth has been popular in outdoor aquatic gardens but its escape to natural areas where its
populations have expanded to completely cover lakes and rivers has devastated water bodies and the
life they support, especially in the southeastern U.S. And, there are some organisms, such as West
Nile virus, that provide almost no benefits to society at all. Such organisms constitute a small fraction
of non-native species, but as a consequence of their ability to spread and establish populations outside
their native ranges, they can be disastrous for the natural environment, the economies it supports,
and/or public health. Because invasive species management is difficult and often very expensive,
these worst offenders are the most obvious and best targets for policy attention and management.
The negative impact to a native species caused by an invasive species might trigger additional negative
interactions for other associated native species; i.e., there could be direct and indirect effects. For
example, an invasive weed that is undesirable as a food source may outcompete and displace native
grasses and broadleaf plants. These displaced native grasses and broadleaf plants may have been
primary forage for animals, which subsequently would be displaced to a new location or have their
populations reduced because the weed invasion decreased the availability of food in their native plant
and animal community. However, negative effects are not always characterized by a cascade of
impacts realized throughout the environment. For example, simple displacement of an endangered
species by a non-native species might alone provide sufficient justification to consider the non-native
organism an invasive species.
What We Do Not Mean, What We Do Mean, and the “Gray” Area
Native and Non-native Species
Invasive species are species not native to the ecosystem being considered. Canada geese are native
to North America and most of their populations migrate annually. However, in some locations in the
U.S. (e.g. suburban Maryland; the Front Range of Colorado) introduced, non-migratory populations of
Canada Geese are causing problems – such as fouling lawns, sidewalks, grass parks, and similar
areas. While non-migratory populations can cause problems, they are not considered an invasive
species because they are native. Additionally, Canada geese are of significant financial value to many
local economies through waterfowl hunting and simple enjoyment. Mute swans, however, are invasive.
Mute swans are native to Europe and Asia but were introduced into North America where their
populations have increased dramatically. They compete directly with native waterfowl for habitat,
displacing them, and that is why they are considered an invasive species. Whitetail deer populations
have increased dramatically in the northeastern U.S. and are problems in farms, yards, and natural
areas because they consume plants valued by humans; but are not invasive because they are native.
Nutria, on the other hand, are another classic example of an invasive species. Nutria are native to
South America but were introduced into North America where their populations have soared. Nutria
4
compete directly with native muskrats, beavers, and other similar native species for habitat; often
causing the displacement of these native species.
Feral Populations
It is also essential to recognize that invasive species are not those under human control or
domestication; that is, invasive species are not those that humans depend upon for economic security,
maintaining a desirable quality of life, or survival. However, the essential test is that populations of
these species must be under control. Escaped or feral populations of formerly domesticated plants and
animals would be considered invasive species if all the concepts and conditions are met as outlined in
“Weeds Are Examples.” Cereal rye being produced on a farm in Kansas is considered very desirable,
but feral rye on the breaks of the Poudre River in Colorado would be considered an invasive species
because it is displacing native plants and the native animal communities they support. Domesticated
goats on a farm in Texas are considered highly desirable, but feral goats in Haleakala National Park on
Maui are considered an invasive species. Feral goats have severely overgrazed areas and eliminated
native Hawaiian plants, which were never adapted to grazing. Areas denuded by feral goats have led
to increased soil erosion.
A Biogeographical Context
An invasive species may be invasive in one part of the country, but not in another. A biogeographical
context must be included when assessing whether a non-native species should be considered an
invasive species. Lake trout are highly desirable in the Great Lakes where they are native, but are
considered an invasive species in Yellowstone Lake. They compete with native cutthroat trout for
habitat, which decreases their populations. Atlantic saltmarsh cordgrass is an essential component of
east coast salt marshes, but is highly invasive on the west coast where it covers mudflats and displaces
native estuarine plants and the community of animals they support, including huge flocks of migrating
waterfowl. Kentucky bluegrass would be considered an invasive species in Rocky Mountain National
Park in Colorado, but considered non-invasive a mere 60 miles away at a golf course in Denver.
English ivy is considered a good ground cover species in the Great Plains and Midwest, but is a highly
invasive weed in the forests of the Pacific Northwest and Eastern U.S. where it outcompetes native
plants and displaces the associated animal communities.
The “Gray” Area
There are obvious examples of invasive species such as snakehead fish, yellow starthistle, or
Phytophthora ramorum (the organism that causes sudden oak death); and there are obvious examples
of species that are not invasive, namely native plants and animals. There are, however, non-native
organisms for which it will be difficult to make a determination and these should be subject to
assessment. Whether these non-native organisms will be considered invasive species will depend
upon human values. For example, European honeybees are cultured to produce honey and pollination
services, and even though they form wild populations in many parts of the country and occasionally
create problems by building hives in the walls of homes or can be a human health problem for
individuals that are highly allergic to their sting, most would not consider them an invasive species
because they produce a desired food product.
Another gray area example would be native termites v. Formosan termites. No one wants termites in
their homes but only Formosan termites would be considered an invasive species because they are
non-native. Smooth brome also serves as another gray area example. It was imported from Russia in
the 1890s for forage and was widely planted. It clearly has escaped cultivation and can be found in
many natural areas particularly in the western U.S. but in most situations, smooth brome would not be
considered an invasive species because of its forage value for wildlife and livestock.
5
Chinese or Oriental clematis serves as another gray area example. Chinese clematis (virgin’s bower,
orange peel) is a popular ornamental that has been planted worldwide. However, it has escaped
cultivation in several western states where its populations can spread, particularly in shrubland, on
riverbanks, sand depressions, along roadsides, in gullies, and along riparian forests in hot dry valleys,
deserts, and semi-desert areas. Escaped populations of Chinese clematis occur in Idaho, Nevada,
Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado but so far, it is considered an invasive species only in Colorado where
it has spread dramatically from its site of introduction and displaced native plant species.
Environmental Harm
We use environmental harm to mean biologically significant decreases in native species populations,
alterations to plant and animal communities or to ecological processes that native species and other
desirable plants and animals and humans depend on for survival. Environmental harm may be a result
of direct effects of invasive species, leading to biologically significant decreases in native species
populations.
Examples of direct effects on native species include preying and feeding on them, causing or vectoring
diseases, preventing them from reproducing or killing their young, out-competing them for food,
nutrients, light, nest sites or other vital resources, or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a
few generations, few if any truly native individuals remain. Environmental harm includes decreases in
populations of Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, other rare or uncommon species
and even in populations of otherwise common native species. For example, over three billion individual
American chestnut trees were found in U.S. forests before the invasive chestnut blight arrived and
virtually eliminated them. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of invasive
species, such as the decreases in native waterfowl populations that may result when an invasive
wetland plant decreases the abundance of native plants and thus, decreases seeds and other food that
they provide and that the waterfowl depend upon.
Environmental harm also includes significant changes in ecological processes, sometimes across entire
regions, which result in conditions that native species and even entire plant and animal communities
cannot tolerate. For example, some non-native plants can change the frequency and intensity of
wildfires, or alter the hydrology of rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands and that is why they are
considered invasive species. Others can significantly alter erosion rates. For example, trapping far
more wind-blown sand than native dune species, or holding far less soil than native grassland species
following rainstorms. Some invasive plants and micro-organisms can alter soil chemistry across large
areas, significantly altering soil pH or soil nutrient availability. Environmental harm also includes
significant changes in the composition and even the structure of native plant and animal communities.
For example, the invasive tree Melaleuca quinquinervia, can spread into and take over marshes in
Florida’s Everglades, changing them from open grassy marshes to closed canopy swamp-forests.
Environmental harm may also cause or be associated with economic losses and damage to human,
plant and animal health. For example invasions by fire promoting grasses that alter entire plant and
animal communities eliminating or sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal
species, can also lead to large increases in fire-fighting costs and sharp decreases in forage for
livestock. West Nile virus is a well known human health problem caused by a non-native virus which is
commonly carried by mosquitoes. West Nile Virus also kills many native bird species, causing drastic
reduction in populations for some species including crows and jays.
Additional Examples of Impacts Caused by Invasive Species
Specific examples of the harm caused by invasive species are useful to further clarify the definition.
The following list of examples is not meant to be comprehensive, but offers further explanation:
6
Impacts to Human Health
Respiratory infections: The outbreak of West Nile virus in the U.S. began in the Northeast in 1999
and has since spread throughout the country. Infections in humans may result in a flu-like illness and in
some cases death. This outbreak has caused illness in thousands of citizens, increased medical costs
for affected persons, and decreased productivity due to absence from work. West Nile virus also has
affected horses and has caused widespread mortality in native birds (U.S. Centers for Disease Control,
2006).
Poisonous plants: Exposure to the sap of Tree-of-heaven/Chinese sumac tree has caused
inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) in workers charged to clear infested areas. Afflicted
personnel experienced fever/chills, chest pain that radiated down both arms, and shortness of breath.
Exposure occurred when sap from tree-of-heaven contacted broken skin. Such exposure has caused
hospitalization, medical expense, and lost productivity due to absence from work (Bisognano et al.
2005).
Impacts to Natural Resources
Declines in wildlife habitat and timber availability: Chestnut blight is a disease of American
chestnut caused by a non-native fungal pathogen that was introduced into eastern North America
around 1910. The disease eliminated the American chestnut from eastern deciduous forests thereby
decreasing timber harvests and wildlife that depended upon the American chestnut for habitat (USDA-
APHIS/FS 2000).
European gypsy moth defoliates trees on millions of acres of northeastern and mid-western forests. It
currently is found in 19 states causing an estimated $3.9 billion in tree losses and also decreased
wildlife habitat (USDA-APHIS/FS 2000).
Decreased soil stabilization and interrupted forest succession: White pine blister rust is a disease
of white pine species caused by the non-native fungal pathogen Cronartium ribicola. It was introduced
into eastern North America around 1900 and western North America in 1920. It spread rapidly, killing
off native white, whitebark, and limber pines, whose seeds are an important food source for birds,
rodents and bears. Elimination of these trees caused by this pathogen alters forest ecosystems,
eliminates wildlife forage, and decreases the soil stabilization effects of these trees, snowmelt
regulation, and forest succession (Krakowski et al. 2003).
Changes in wildfire frequency and intensity: Cheatgrass decreases the interval between the
occurrences of wildfires in the Great Basin region from once every 70 to 100 years to every 3 to 5 years
because it forms dense stands of fine fuel annually. The decrease in interval between wildlfires causes
increased risk to human life and property and also places at risk established communities of plants and
animals that we consider desirable (Knapp 1996; Pimentel et al. 2000; USFWS 2003; Whisenant 1990).
Excessive use of resources: Tamarisk in the desert southwest use more than twice as much water
annually as all the cities in southern California, which places this invasive weed in direct competition
with humans for the most limiting resource in the southwestern U.S. (Friederici 1995; Johnson 1986).
Suppressors: Russian knapweed exudes toxins from its tissues that inhibit the growth of surrounding
plants or eliminates them. Desirable plant communities are placed at risk from Russian knapweed
invasion, which may result in decreased numbers of wildlife species or livestock that the invaded land
otherwise could support. Russian knapweed also is very toxic to horses (Stevens 1986; Young et al.
1970a and 1970b).
7
Decreased carrying capacity for wildlife and livestock: Expansion of leafy spurge, yellow
starthistle, or other unpalatable invasive weeds displace desirable forage plants and may allow fewer
grazing animals to survive in infested areas (DiTomaso 2001; Lym and Messersmith 1985; Lym and
Kirby 1987).
Impacts to Recreational Opportunities and Other Human Values
Decreased property values: Asian longhorned beetles first appeared in New York in 1996 and in
Chicago in 1998. Larvae burrow into trees causing girdling of stems and branches, dieback of the
crown, and can kill an entire tree. It infests many different tree species in the U.S. and is a threat to
urban and rural forests (Cavey et al. 1998).
Emerald ash borers were first detected in the U.S. in 2002. They currently are found in Michigan, Ohio,
and Indiana. Emerald ash borer larvae tunnel under bark of ash trees and could eliminate ash as a
street, shade, and forest tree throughout the U.S. Estimated replacement cost in six Michigan counties
is $11 billion and an additional $2 million in lost nursery sales (Chornesky et al. 2005).
Dutch elm disease was first introduced into the U.S. in 1927 and occurs in most states. Dutch elm
disease has killed more than 60% of elms in urban settings and decreased the value of urban and
suburban properties (Brasier and Buck 2001).
Spotted knapweed and leafy spurge expansion in the western U.S. have displaced desirable forage
plants thereby decreasing the value and sales price of grazingland in the western U.S. (Maddox 1979;
Weiser 1998).
Eurasian watermilfoil was introduced into the U.S in the 1940s and has since spread throughout much
of the country. This submersed aquatic plant can form dense mats at the water surface limiting access,
recreation, and aesthetics and thus, has decreased the values of shoreline properties in New
Hampshire, the Midwest and elsewhere (Halstead et al. 2003).
Decreased sport fishing opportunities: Whirling disease is caused by a parasite (Myxobolus
cerebralis) that most likely originated in Europe. It was first observed in the U.S. in 1958. The parasite
attacks the soft cartilage of young trout causing spinal deformities and causes the fish to exhibit erratic
tail-chasing behavior. Heavily infected young trout can die from Whirling disease and even if they
recover, they remain carriers of the parasite. All species of trout and salmon may be susceptible and
angling and the businesses supported by trout and salmon fishing may be at risk if this disease
continues to spread (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force et al. 2005; Colorado Division of Wildlife
2006).
Smallmouth bass fishing in Lake Erie was closed during bass mating because of round goby predation
of nests. Fishing was closed because male smallmouth bass aggressively guard nests from predators
and are easier to catch by anglers during this time of year. Removal of males by anglers decreased the
number of bass offspring because of increased round goby predation of unguarded nests (Steinhart et
al. 2004). Businesses that smallmouth bass anglers patronize could be adversely affected by such
closures.
Altered business opportunities: The concern over Sudden Oak Death Syndrome caused by the
pathogen Phytophthora ramorum is causing drastic changes in available nursery stock by nurseries
and landscape businesses. This clearly impacts the profitability of these businesses and choice by
consumers and could devastate oak forests nationwide (Chornesky et al. 2005; Rizzo and Garbelotto
2003).
Annual harvests of oysters in Long Island Sound averaged over 680,000 bushels during 1991 through
1996. After Haplosporidium nelsonii (MSX) invaded in 1997 and 1998, oyster harvests decreased from
8
1997 through 2002 to an average annual harvest of 119,000 bushels with a low of 32,000 bushels in
2002. The overall ex-vessel value of oyster farming dropped 96% in 10 years from $45 million in 1992
to $2 million in 2002 (Sunila et al. 1999).
Non-native algae introduced into the Hawaiian Islands costs Maui alone about $20,000,000 annually
due to algae fouling the beaches and subsequent lost tourism (Carroll 2004; Keeney 2004; Univ.
Hawaii 2006).
Sea lampreys were introduced into Lakes Ontario and Erie during the construction of the Welland
Canal and quickly spread to the other Great Lakes. The sea lamprey is a parasite that attaches itself to
fish, eventually killing them, and has devastated commercial and recreational Lake Trout fishing in the
Great Lakes (Lawrie 1970).
Australian spotted jellyfish were introduced into the Gulf of Mexico in 2000 and occurred in such
massive numbers that shrimping operations were shut down because jellyfish clogged shrimp nets
(Graham et al. 2003).
Altered ecosystems and recreational opportunities: The submersed aquatic plant hydrilla, forms
dense canopies at the water surface that raise surface water temperatures, change pH, exclude light,
and consume oxygen, resulting in native plant displacement and stunted sport fish populations. This
example of an altered aquatic ecosystem caused by an invasive aquatic weed also negatively affects
recreation and businesses that depend upon that human activity (Colle et al. 1987).
Summary
Invasive species are those that are not native to the ecosystem under consideration and that cause or
are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health. Plant
and animal species under domestication or cultivation and under human control are not invasive
species. Furthermore for policy purposes, to be considered invasive, the negative impacts caused by a
non-native species will be deemed to outweigh the beneficial effects it provides. Finally, a non-native
species might be considered invasive in one region but not in another. Whether or not a species is
considered an invasive species depends largely on human values. By attempting to manage invasive
species, we are affirming our economic and environmental values. Those non-native species judged to
cause overall economic or environmental harm or harm to human health may be considered invasive,
even if they yield some beneficial effects. Society struggles to determine the appropriate course of
action in such cases, but in a democratic society that struggle is essential.
Many invasive species are examples of "the tragedy of the commons," or how actions that benefit one
individual's use of resources may negatively impact others and result in a significant overall increase in
damage to the economy, the environment, or public health. In ISAC’s review of Executive Order
113112, the public domain is specifically represented; however, the implementation of the NISMP has
prompted concerns over the rights of personal and private property owners. Property rights are of great
importance in the U.S. and one outcome of the NISMP should be to recognize the right to self
determination by property owners and promote collaboration on invasive species management. The
right to self determination is an important concept in a democratic society, however, with that right
comes personal responsibility and stewardship, which includes being environmentally responsible. The
natural environment that our society enjoys, recreates in, and depends upon to support commerce must
be conserved and maintained. Effective invasive species management is just one aspect of conserving
and maintaining our nation’s natural environment, the economies it supports, and the high quality of life
our society enjoys.
9
References
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard. 2005.
Protect Your Waters. Harmful Aquatic Hitchikers: Others: Whirling Disease. [Online]
http://protectyourwaters.net/hitchhikers/others_whirling_disease.php.
Bisognano, J.D., K.S. McGrody, and A.M. Spence. 2005. Myocarditis from the Chinese sumac tree.
Annals Internal Medicine 143(2):159.
Brasier, C.M. and K.W. Buck. 2001. Rapid evolutionary changes in a globally invading fungal
pathogen (Dutch elm disease). Biological Invasions 3:223-233.
Carroll, R. 2004. Maui battling seaweed invasion. Assoc. Press. [Online]
http://thehonoluluadvertiser.com/artucke/jan/05/ln/ln10a.htm
Cavey, J.F., E. R. Hoebeke, S. Passoa, and S.W. Lingafelter. 1998. A new exotic threat to North
American hardwood forests: an asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky)
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). I. Larval description and diagnosis. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 100
(2):373-381.
Chorensky, E.A., A.M. Bartuska, G.H. Aplet, K.O. Britton, J. Cummings-Carlson, F.W. Davis, J. Eskow,
D.R. Gordon, K.W. Gottschalk, R.A. Haack, A.J. Hansen, R.N. Mack, R.J. Rahel, M.A. Shannon, L.A.
Wainger, and T.B. Wigley. 2005. Science priorities for reducing the threat of invasive species to
sustainable forestry. BioSci. 55(4):335-348.
Colle, D.E., J.V. Shireman, W.T. Haller, J.C. Joyce, and D.E. Canfield. 1987. Influence of Hydrilla on
Harvestable Sport-Fish Populations, Angler Use, and Angler Expenditures at Orange Lake, Florida.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:410-417.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Whirling disease and Colorado’s trout. [Online]
http://wildlife.state.co.us/fishing/whirling.asp.
DiTomaso, J. 2001. Element stewardship abstract: Centaurea solstitialis L. Weeds on the web: The
Nature Consevancy wildland invasive species program. [Onlin]
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/docmnts/centsols.htm
Friedercici, P. 1995. The alien saltcedar. Am. For. 101:45-47.
Graham, W.M., D.L. Martin, D.L. Fedder, V.L Asper, and H.M. Perry. 2003. Ecological and economic
implications of a tropical jellyfish invader in the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Invasions 5(1-2) 53-69.
Halstead, J.M., J. Michaud, S. Hallas-Burt, and J.P Gibbs. 2003. Hedonic analysis of effects of a
nonnative invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) lakefront properties.
Environmental Management 32(3): 391-398.
Johnson, S. 1986. Alien plants drain western waters. The Nature Conservancy News, Oct-Nov 1986.
Keeney, T.R.E. 2004. Written testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife
and Oceans, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives.
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/108s/keeney0415.htm
Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert: History,
persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environ. Change 6(1):37-52.
10
Krakowski , J., S.N. Aitken, Y.A. El-Kassaby. 2003. Inbreeding and conservation genetics in whitebark
pine. Conservation Genetics 4:581-593.
Lawrie, A.H. 1970. The sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 99:766-775.
Lym, R.G. and C.G. Messersmith. 1985. Cost effectiveness of leafy spurge control during a five-year
management program. North Dakota Farm Res. 43(1)7-10.
Lym, R.G. and D.R. Kirby. 1987. Cattle foraging behavior in leafy spurge infested rangeland. Weed
Technol. 1:314-318.
Maddox, D.M. 1979. The knapweeds: Their economics an biological control in the western states,
U.S.A. Rangelands 1(4):139-141.
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-
indigenous species in the United States. Biosci. 50(1):53-65.
Richardson, D.M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M.G. Barbour. F.D. Panetta, and C.J. West. 2000.
Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6:93-
107.
Rizzo, D.M. and M. Garbelotto. 2003. Sudden oak death: Endangering California and Oregon forest
ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:197-204.
Steinhart, G.B., E.A. Marschall, and R.A. Stein. 2004. Round goby predation on smallmouth bass
offspring in nests during simulated catch-and-release angling. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 133: 121-131.
Stevens, K.L. 1986. Alleopathic polyacetylenes from Centaurea repens (Russian knapweed). J.
Chem. Ecol. 12:1205-1211.
Sunila, I., J. Karolus, and J. Volk. 1999. A new epizootic of Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX), a
haplosporidian oyster parasite, in Long Island Sound, Connecticut. Journal of Shellfish Research 18(1):
169-174.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. Costly fires hurt wildlife habitat. [Online]
http://www.fws.gov/deerflat/currfire.htm
Univ. of Hawaii. 2006. Invasive marine algae of Hawaii. [Online]
http://www.hawaii.edu/reefalgae/invasive_algae/INDEX.HTM
U.S. Center for Disease Control. 2000. Fight the Bite. [Online]
http://www.cdc.gov/nicdod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm
USDA-APHIS/FS. 2000. Draft pest risk assessment for importation of solid wood packing materials
into the United States. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/swpm/
Weiser, C. 1998. Economic effects of invasive weeds on land values (From and agricultural banker’s
standpoint). Proc. Colorado Weed Summit April 7-8, 1998. p. 35-38.
11
Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plain: Ecological and
management implications. The Station. Nov. 1990 (276) Ogden, UT: General Technical Report INT –
USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.
Young, S, W.W. Brown, and B. Klinger. 1970a. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses caused by
ingestion of weeds of the genus Centaurea. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 157:1602-1605.
Young, S., W.W. Brown, and B. Klinger. 1970b. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses fed Russian
knapweed (Centaurea repens L.). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 31:1393-1404.
City of Denton Landmark Tree Criteria
General Description
Tree: Woody perennial usually having one dominant trunk and a mature height greater than 5 meters (16 feet).
(Definition by ISA)
Landmark Trees: A healthy tree that is designated by the property owner on the Texas Big Tree Registry
regardless if the tree is protected or a non-protected tree; or a tree designated as a Historic Tree where an event
of historic significance occurred that had local, regional, or national importance; or at the home of a citizen who is
famous on a local, regional, or national basis; or that has taken on a legendary stature in the community, is
mentioned in literature or documents of historic value, or is considered unusual due to size, age, or other
landmark status. Historic Trees shall be designated following the Historic Landmark Designation procedure.
Eligibility
To be eligible for Landmark Tree designation the tree must meet one of the following:
Texas A&M Forest Service Texas Big Tree Registry
The tree is listed on the Texas A&M Forest Service Texas Big Tree Registry.
Historic
Tree that is designated as a Historic Tree where an event of historic significance occurred that had local,
regional, or national importance.
The tree is located at the home of a citizen who is famous on a local, regional, or national basis.
Legendary in stature
The tree must measure 60 percent of the circumference or tree index score of the State Champion of the
same species as listed on the Texas A&M Forest Service Big Tree Registry.
The tree be must large for its species in a neighborhood or region of the City. The size of the tree is based
on the diameter at breast height (DBH), the height and the average crown spread.
Any Post Oak over 30” Diameter.
Any Blackjack Oak over 20” Diameter.
The tree is rare for this area and is a good specimen of the species.
The tree is mentioned in literature or documents of historic value.
Landmark Tree Nomination Form Date ______________
Species:
Common Name: _______________________________________________________________________
Scientific Name: _______________________________________________________________________
Nominator:
Name ______________________________________ Phone _________________________________________
Address ____________________________________ Email __________________________________________
_________________________________
Owner:
Name ____________________________________ Phone _________________________________________
Address ____________________________________ Email __________________________________________
____________________________________ Signature _______________________________________
Does the owner agree to the tree being designated a Landmark if it meets the criteria? Yes ___ No ___
Does the owner agree to allow City staff or volunteers to inspect the tree? Yes ___ No ___
Tell us a little about the tree and why it should be designated as a Landmark tree. __________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Where is the tree located on the property? (Give the location for someone who is not familiar with the site).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Email, Mail or Fax completed forms to the
Parks and Recreation Department
901-B Texas Street
Denton, TX 76209
parksnrec@cityofdenton.com
If you have any question call (940) 349-8337