Heard about the aquatic plant ban in Texas?

[bobalston]

Have you heard about the new legislation (passed legislation!) in Texas whereby a "white list" of approved aquatic plants is being developed by the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. By January 27, 2011, any one who possesses ANY aquatic plant not on the list will be subject of a fine of $500 per plant.

Any plant that the TPWD did not even consider and so could not possibly be on the white list becoms immediately banned.

New plants must be submitted to the TPWD for evaluation before anyone in Texas can legally possess them.

Read more about this at this thread:

http://www.dfwfishbox.com/forums/production/showthread.php?t=18149

Public aquariums, wastewater treatment plants, research institutions and a couple of others can apply for permits to possess selected banned plants. There is no provision to allow "exotic plant" permits (for otherwise banned plants) to private individuals.

Specifically banned plants include (among others):
C. Wentdii
C. Becketti
Rotala indica

I am writing about this action here as Texas is one of the "trend setters" in new attempts to control the spread of invasive plants. Your state is undoubtedly watching what happens in Texas. You will likely be next!

Bob

[DiscusKid]

So let's say for whatever reason we have one of the banned plants (not saying that I do) but if someone does how do we legally "dispose" of them?? Just saying I would hate to be the guy charged $500 per stem of rotala indica lmao..

[jughead]

next thing you know,they'll ban pacus

[Mzungu]

You guys, a TPWD guy has been posting about this pending legislation for MONTHS now, offering advice on how to help form the list and suggesting to contact him/TPWD if you can think of any plants that should be added.

Just saying...

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab

[Mzungu]

next thing you know,they'll ban pacus

They should...!

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab

[decal]

If you look over at APC on the DFW plant club section you'll see that Tex Gal provided a huge list (150+ sp.) to them at the original public meeting. Very few have since made it to the approved list, while quite a few unexpected ones have ended up on the ineligible list. I would encourage everyone with an interest in aquatic plants to attend the Jan. 11 meeting as this will have a pretty significant impact on us.

[bobalston]

TPWD response to my initial detailed set of questions:
1) a) Is the list of all aquatic plants being considered and their status up to date on the list at the web site

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

as per the link under the "Additional Information" heading, line two? If not, how can I access the up to date list?
We have updated that list as of January 11, 2011
b) How was this list compiled? Was there input from aquatic plant hobbyists?
It is my worry that there may be a number of aquatic plants currently in the hobby which are not even being evaluated by TPWD? It would be a shame to have the new regulations implemented and us forced to destroy plants simply because the TPWD did not know what plants needed to be evaluated.
We have been soliciting candidate plants for the list since November 2009. We have contacted aquaria stores, distributors (including Florida Aquatic Nurseries), major pet store chains, industry groups (Texas Nursery and Landscape Assoc., Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, Texas Aquaculture Assoc.), individuals that we knew of that had interests in aquatic plants, and the pond societies, associations, and organizations listed on the Texas Assoc. of Pond Societies website. We first sent a draft approved list to that contact list in February 2010 asking for any additional plants and notified those contacts that we had scheduled seven public meetings around the state (Houston, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, and El Paso) for persons to give us their input. Plant hobbyists and aquaria interests have been involved in providing input and continued to add candidate plants and review those plants through the end of 2010.
2) What kind of turnaround can we expect in the approval/rejection process when a) we have interest in a plant not on either list; or b) new plants become available which are not on either the approved or ineligible lists? Will you publish a process for how that will work?
The process for adding plants to the approved list is covered in Section 70.16. We also have proved some special temporary provisions (Section 70.18) that will allow continued legal possession of exotic plants upon notification of TPWD. All plants that are to be added to the approved list have to be approved before the TPW Commission at one of their regularly scheduled meetings. Anyone who wishes to add a plant to the approved list will need to provide information that can be used to do a risk assessment (see the existing document).3)
Will you publish methods for identification of the white listed plants so we can see if what we have are on the list? For example, I personally find it difficult to distinguish between Myriophyllum species and of course Crypts are notoriously difficult to correctly identify species unless you have a flower, which cannot occur if grown submerged. And even the US parks department had trouble distinguishing Hrdrilla from Elodea/anacharis.
There are numerous documents and identification keys available on the web that can assist with identification. We believe that anyone selling or obtaining has the responsibility to know what plant they are using before bringing an exotic plant into Texas. I can’t speak for the National Park Service, but there are numerous characteristics that can be used to distinguish Hydrilla verticillata from Egeria densa and Elodea canadensis.
4) When the new regulations are finalized, will they become effective immediately and will we expected to immediately rid our tanks of any plant not on the white list? What about a grace period especially for species not on either the approved or ineligible lists - to give the State the opportunity to evaluate them before we are forced to destroy them simply because the State has insufficient information?
The proposed implementation date of the rules is May 1, 2011, and the answer for #2 addresses a grace period. With the implementation of any new regulation, our Law Enforcement Division will use the first year or so as an opportunity to educate the public on how to comply with the new rules. Our intent is not to have our game wardens go looking in people’s home aquaria or backyards for illegal exotic plants 5)
Regarding your Invalid Names list, a few questions. What do these entries mean?
Echinodorus ozelot Ozelot sword - Hybrid
Yes it is a hybrid. But how can we tell if approved or rejected?
Echinodorus quadricostatus Broad leaf chain sword
So????
Rotala nanjenshan May be a hybrid
So???
Bacopa lenagera Variegated Bacopa
Cross referencing to the correct plant name makes sense but some others leave us hanging as to what is intended.
If both parents are legal then the hybrid is legal. If one or both of the parents is illegal then the hybrid is illegal unless it is specifically exempted or included on the Approved List.
Currently, Echinodorus ozelot would be considered unapproved. It is a hybrid between E. schlueteri and a cultivar known as Echinodorus x barthii. However, the species Echinodorus x barthii is a cultivar of is difficult to determine.
According to the USDA E. quadricostatus is a synonym for E. bolivianus and would thus be approved.
We have not yet determined the parents of R. nanjenshan.
Bacopa lenagera is a name widely used in the trade for variegated bacopa. However, the scientific validity of the name is in doubt. It does not appear in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, Missouri Botanical Garden has no record of it, there is no mention of the name by the USDA, and there is no information about the plant by the Germplasm Resources Information Network.
If a plant is not listed as “approved” and there is question about its parentage, it will be illegal until the department has enough information to make a determination.1)
Can you confirm that the Weed Risk Assessment document posted at this link

http://archive.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/media/weed_risk_assessment_model.pdf

is the current, most up to date version being used by the State of Texas. If it is not the most current, please send it to me or tell me where I can obtain it.
Yes, this document and all documents noted in other questions are current.
2) Regarding the risk scoring at the end of the document,
a) Am I correct that it is virtually impossible for any aquatic plant to have a score of less than 1? If you have examples of aquatic plants scoring less than one, would you please provide me with their names? That would imply that the scoring system does not automatically allow any aquatic plant at the first level of criteria. This seems unsettling.
Fifty-two approved species actually scored zero or below. See below.
A Penicillus lamourouxii 0
A Nymphaea sulphurea 0
A Gracilaria mammilaris 0
A Hemigraphis exotica 0
A Colocasia gigantea 0
A Colocasia affinis 0
A Echinodorus horizontalis 0
A Cryptocoryne moehlmannii 0
A Cabomba furcata 0
A Iris ensata 0
A Bolbitis heudelotii 0
A Chara canescens 0
A Nymphaea belophylla 0
A Eleocharis tuberosa 0
A Nymphaea novogranatensis 0
A Cryptocoryne walkeri 0
A Cryptocoryne lucens 0
A Echinodorus grisebachii -1
A Pontederia dilatata -1
A Nymphaea leibergii -1
A Nymphaea tetragona -1
A Nymphaea immutabilis -1
A Cryptocoryne parva -1
A Cryptocoryne pontederifolia -1
A Cryptocoryne tonkinesis -1
A Nymphaea violacea -1
A Nuphar japonica -1
A Nymphaea micrantha -1
A Typhonodorum lindleyana -1
A Nymphaea tenerinervia -1
A Juncus spiralis -1
A Oenanthe javanica -1
A Nymphaea togoensis -2
A Vesicularia dubyana -2
A Lilaeopsis brasiliensis -2
A Monosolenium terenum -2
A Chamaedorea elegans -2
A Nymphaea carpentariae -2
A Scirpus albescens -2
A Victoria cruziana -2
A Nymphaea hastifolia -2
A Cryptocoryne retrospiralis -2
A Ammannia gracilis -3
A Nymphaea macrosperma -3
A Bolbitis heteroclita -3
A Nymphaea heudelotii -3
A Cryptocoryne affinis -4
A Lilaeopsis carolinensis -5
A Rotala wallichii -5
A Hemianthus micranthemoides -6
A Cryptocoryne albida -7
A Hemianthus callitrichoides -7
3) Regarding the paragraph
"Risk score 1-6 – May be placed on the Approved List if a) there is little evidence
of invasiveness in the U.S., b) it has a high agricultural or other economic
value, and there have been repeated introductions without establishment or
evidence of invasiveness, or c) there is a long history of survival in Texas
without invasiveness and there is economic benefit."
Your evaluation process focuses on "invasiveness". What is your definition of "invasiveness"? I saw a USDA definition: "Invasive aquatic plants are introduced plants that have adapted to living in, on, or next to water, and that can grow either submerged or partially submerged in water. " That definition means if the aquatic plant is "introduced" and survives, then it is invasive.
However, the legislation (Note: Our proposed regulations are administrative rules. Authority to enact those is conferred to the TPW Commission by the Texas legislature, but the rules are not legislation.) focused on "Ineligible species" which is defined differently.
Per Title 31, Part 2 chapter 70, subchapter A Rule 70.2 - Definitions:
Ineligible species "are not eligible for inclusion on the approved list. The ineligible species list includes the following:
(A)species known to be toxic;
(B)species known to cause environmental, economic, or health problems; and
(C)species that have been considered for addition to the approved list and rejected on the basis of a risk determination indicating that the species has the potential to cause environmental, economic, or health problems. "
{author's highlighting in red above}
Toxic is later defined as follows:
"Toxic--Containing or producing poisonous material at a level or concentration capable of causing death or bodily injury to humans or causing death or debilitation to animals or plants. "
I doubt you have found any aquatic plant that we keep in aquaria meeting the criteria of (A).
How do you determine if (B) applies? No disagreement with Hydrilla and I personally don't care about pond plants. But help me to understand for example C. wendtii, C. becketti, Rotala indica, Rotala rotundifolia??? They seem to meet only the "proven capable of growing" criteria.
HB3391 states "The approved list must include an exotic aquatic plant that:
(1) is widespread in this state; and
(2) is not, as determined by the department, a cause of environmental, economic, or health problems. "
{author's highlighting in red above}

The law seems to set a higher standard than does your risk assessment protocol.
Would you please advise how the language noted above from the legislation is considered in your evaluation process??
Would you please describe how you go about determining if (A), (B) or (C) applies?
Under b) "repeated introductions" does that mean repeatedly introduced into Texas streams, ditches, rivers and lakes only rather than existing in Texas aquaria?
Under b) why must there be "high agricultural or other economic value" to be considered to be allowed in Texas?
Under (c) if they have been in Texas, no evidence of invasiveness why must there be economic benefit for them to be approved? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder not sufficient?
Under your criteria for risk score 1-6, wouldn't a new plant automatically meet the criteria of #a and therefore be appropriate to be placed on the approved list? If no, then help me to understand why?
Regarding risk score 1-6 why is the language "may be placed..." rather than "will be placed..."? It seems that there may be other decision making criteria not identified which may be used by the State? Please explain why the language is used as it is?
Section 70.2(C) also notes species should be considered for their potential to cause problems. From HB 3391 in Section 66.007(n), it states, “In compiling the approved list, the department shall develop a process to evaluate the potential harm that may be caused by the importation or possession of exotic aquatic plant species into this state.” Both the legislation and the rule direct that both demonstrated impacts and potential impacts should be considered. The risk assessment has questions that consider the invasiveness of plants by referencing such sites as http://plants.usda.gov/, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/searchgrin.html and http://www.hear.org/gcw/ among others. 4)
The most current Approved list I could find is

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/proposed_list.phtml

If that is not the current list, please advise where I can find it.
5) The most current Ineligible species list I could find is

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/ineligible_species.phtml

If that is not the current list, please advise where I can find it.
6) a) Is the list of all aquatic plants being considered and their status up to date on the list at the web site

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

as per the link under the "Additional Information" heading, line two? If not, how can I access the up to date list?
b) How was this list compiled? Any input from aquatic plant hobbyists?
It is my worry that there may be a number of aquatic plants currently in the hobby which are not even being evaluated by TPWD? It would be a shame to have the new regulations implemented and us forced to destroy plants simply because the TPWD did not know what plants needed to be evaluated.
Answers for 4-6 provided above.
7) I didn't find Hygrophila polysperma "Rosanervig," commonly called Sunset Hygro on either list? I have long understood this to be highly invasive. It certainly can be fast growing!
Apparently no one has suggested that plant for inclusion on the approve list. You are correct this plant has been invasive in other parts of the U.S. see http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs...axon.pl?316380

8) One aquatic plant grower reportedly had a conversation with Dr. Chilton and he reportedly told here that there were over 100 tests they put a plant through BEFORE it gets approved for the list. Can you provide more information on what these tests are and by whom they are conducted?
We believe Dr. Chilton was most likely referring to the questions in the risk assessments, which total around 50. The grower may have misunderstood his answer as we are not conducting tests on any plants.
9) Please advise where I can view the scoring of the weed risk assessment model as applied to the approved, rejected and still under review plants. I think it is important to ensure we understand the process whereby plants are approved or rejected. Perhaps we can help to ensure that the model is applied correctly as we have access to persons with many years of experience and expertise with aquatic plants.
Although there are a few minor difference in a few questions between the original model developed by Pheloung and the model we used (for example we replaced a question about agricultural weeds in the original model with a similar question about “recreational weeds” in ours), a very good explanation of how to score the questions is found in Gordon et al (2010) [Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.25(2) 2010].
10) Are there aquatic plants that we could help you with the analysis of? We have people with many years experience in aquatic plants and may be able to provide expertise you don't have access to. I personally have been keeping aquatic plants and tropical fish for over 50 years. I know and have access to other even more knowledgeable folks.
We welcome any information on the aquatic plants that are on the ineligible list.
11) Algae restrictions. How is this going to work? I do not TRY to keep algae but do have it from time to time. I would like to NOT have it. I know algae primarily by common names rather than scientific ones:
Cynobacteria - actually bacteria not true algae so perhaps moot
Thread algae / hair algae
black brush algae
diatom algae
green algae
Cladophoria
green water algae
Are these and other common algae "approved"? How can I tell if they are? If not approved, how can the State mandate us not to have such when even we cannot totally eliminate various algae?
Any algae species that are under the definition of Kingdom Plantae are covered and that includes green algae and diatoms. Cynobacteria are not in the Kingdom Plantae so are not covered by our rules. The rules for microalgae are found at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business...ic_micro.phtml. There are no restrictions on possession of any microalgae that meets are definition of native or naturalized (Section 70.52(14). Sections 70.53 (a) and (b) are intended to exempt incidental possession of microalgae.
12) Aquatic mosses. Aquatic mosses have grown in popularity recently in the aquarium plant hobby. Vesicularia dubyana - Java moss - is certainly very common and on the approved list. (Note that Loh Kwek Leong of Singapore , probably THE authority on freshwater aquatic mosses). Another authority, Dr Benito Tan, wrote that Java moss is a species of Taxiphyllum identified elsewhere as Taxiphyllum barbieri).
There are quite a few other mosses commonly found in the hobby not found anywhere on your lists:
Christmas moss - Vesicularia montagnei
Singapore moss Vesicularia dubyana
Taiwan moss Taxiphyllum alternans
Erect moss - Vesicularia reticulata
.
Willow moss - Fontinalis antipyretica
Weeping Moss - Vesicularia ferriei
Stringy Moss - Leptodictyum riparium

A link to another list of aquatic mosses: http://www.aquamoss.net/Moss-List.htm
I have personally have grown several of the above species.
I only found Vesicularia dubyana and Fontinalis antipyretica on the complete plant list. What about these other common mosses? How about approving "Vesicularia sp." and "Taxiphyllum sp." for all species?
As mentioned earlier, there has been quite a bit of outreach over the last year to get input from related industries about what plants are currently being sold. We received very little indication mosses were traded or sold in Texas. We would be glad to examine suggested moss species over the next few months, particularly if the suggested species are widely traded or sold.
13) I noted on the complete list a number of species listed as "O", Insufficient Information. Rather than leave those off the approved list, just because TPWD has not been able to complete the necessary analysis, why not put them on the approved list as "CA" or Conditionally Approved. It doesn't make sense to me to ban a plant because of ignorance. Perhaps this is another area where we hobbyists can work together with TPWD.
See answer for 14.
14) New species. Similar to #13 above, why not default new species to Conditionally Approved while the complete analysis is underway unless due to readily available knowledge, it is likely that the plant will be ruled Rejected or other plants in the same genus having already been evaluated as Rejected. Otherwise, we could "die waiting" for TPWD to have the time and resources to evaluate new plants. Perhaps this is another area where we hobbyists can work together with TPWD.
Allowing species into the state without any information is contrary to the purposes of an approved list. We welcome any information the public can provide on those species that have insufficient information or new plants. Additional information on adding plants was provided in #2 above.
15) Permits. Why hasn't TPWD provided for individual aquatic plant hobbyists to obtain Exotic species permits for aquatic plants given:
a) HB3391 provides for permits "for an appropriate use that will not result in potential environmental, economic, or health problems. "
b) Aquariums in houses/apartments/condos meet the criteria of a controlled facility, which is a criteria for permit approval. Controlled facility has been defined as "A facility in which exotic aquatic plants at all times under normal conditions are protected, at a minimum, by a building or vessel that effectively surrounds and encloses the plant and includes features designed to restrict the plant from leaving."
c) HB3391 states "In adopting rules that relate to exotic aquatic plants, the department shall strive to ensure that the rules are as permissive as possible without allowing the importation or possession of plants that pose environmental, economic, or health problems.
We will review our permit types listed in 70.4 and consider allowing private individuals to receive a permit. Individuals receiving a permit would be expected to comply with the application requirements and permits restrictions listed in the sections following 70.4.
Thank you for taking time to respond to each of these detailed, but critically important questions.
We want to protect Texas waterways just as you do!
Sincerely,
Bob Alston

[CichlidFan]

Granted I know this issue can be and probably is a very serious one, but the problem here as I see it is the lack of knowledge by the END USER/consumer. To be fair, most hobbiest are not really going to be considering the possible effects to the waterways when they go out to purchase a fish or plants to keep as pets or a hobby. They are only thinking about the moment not the future possibilities.

The responsibility falls on those who would profit from the sale of such items, not those who consume. Just like at the grocery store....the consumer makes their purchases according to what is on the shelve, with little or no thought to whether it should be there or not....

I am for restricing those plants which do fall under A B C
A)species known to be toxic;
(B)species known to cause environmental, economic, or health problems; and
(C)species that have been considered for addition to the approved list and rejected on the basis of a risk determination indicating that the species has the potential to cause environmental, economic, or health problems. "

And most anyone would agree with me on those plants as well....but I am counting on those who are in the business of watching over our waterways and those individuals who deal with aquatic plants for the hobbiest to make sound and smart decisions when it comes to what should be offered to the public....

I don't want to have to become a expert on various groups of aquatic plants, I just want something pretty to look at when I come home from work and take a minute to feed my fishies and relax a spell in front the aquarium...

Nor do I want, nor will I ever, obtain a permit to keep a plant in my possession for the purpose of decorating a tank. At the risk of sounding all "CF" like....I'm very tired of hearing how we in the land of the free and the home of the brave, must have a permit to have/do something without running the risk of giving up more of our hard earned money for the privilege of keeping something that god has given to us.....

If it is harmfull to our waterways or life, it should not be available under any circumstances and it needs to be left in its natural enviornment....period.

I'd just like to thank all of those who do work hard at keeping the consumer safe and all those who work hard at protecting both the consumer and the waterways.....seriously.

Okay....I'm done with my speach.....

CF

[Nickintex]

Time to go plastic. :P

[bobalston]

Please read the recent article in the Star-Telegram:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01...#ixzz1BDCLrwHw

Note that you can also leave comments on the Star-Telegram web site by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of the article. I just did. You may have to register to do so but it is very easy to do so so don't let that stop you.

Glenn Hegar is on the Sunset Commission. Hmmm...
Anyhoo, yeah, e-mail, fax, write or visit this guy:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/se...t18/dist18.htm.

Thanks for that tidbit and the link to EASILY send him an email.
I just finished sending him the e-mail I had previously sent to the three State House co-sponsors.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/dallas-ft-worth-aquatic-plant-club/75719-forwarded-aquatic-gardeners-association-10.html#post574193

Some how I neglected to find out who was the Senate sponsor.
I URGE!!!!!!!!! everyone within the sound of my voice to click on the link in quoted section immediately above and fill out the form to send the senator a message telling him of your concerns with the new aquatic plant ban.

Bob

[Mzungu]

The responsibility falls on those who would profit from the sale of such items, not those who consume.

That may be so, but you also have to think of those who have a mind to try something new, and when it doesn't work, they toss it in the bayou. Unfortunately, there are many of those people in this world. I hear them tell me about it almost every day. I'm not sure which story hurts me more - those that have given up and thrown everything in the dumpster (live fish included), or those that threw it in the nearest body of water.