# Heard about the aquatic plant ban in Texas? Your state next?



## bobalston (Nov 8, 2003)

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.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-forwarded-aquatic-gardeners-association.html

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 :angryfire


----------



## odie (Dec 29, 2009)

Other states have it. I live in Minnesota and I know some of the hygrophila are on it.


----------



## Powchekny (Jan 25, 2010)

The difference is that Texas is maintaining a list of _allowed_ plants. As far as I know , all other states maintain a list of prohibited plants.

I know aquatic plant prohibitions are there for good reason. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Concord, MA is literally covered in the summer with water chestnut. It's doing terrible things to the ecosystem. They actually have giant "harvesting" machines to scoop water chestnut out of the marshes - it's a real mess.

I'm really torn between a sense that government is overreaching with a white list restriction model, and an acknowledgement that a list of _ allowed _ plants is likely to be a more effective means of stopping invasive aquatic plant species.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Well, Texas is not doing it for fun or to mess with you.

It's a real problem that cost the state money.


----------



## Cardinal Tetra (Feb 26, 2006)

Wow that's horrid. There are always so many interesting species new to cultivation that are constantly popping up :/
Does Texas realize that those plants banned are not actually true aquatic plants? Is it legal if you grow them emmersed?


----------



## Betta Maniac (Dec 3, 2010)

Any indication of how cumbersome is the process of getting a plant ON to that list going to be? Can anyone apply? Is there an org/hobbyist association that can take this on? I *get* the purpose of the list, but it does seem that they’re coming at the issue backwards. 

_People of TX: You may have elodea for your tanks. It's pretty. It's green. The great Perry has spoken._


----------



## wakesk8r (Nov 26, 2007)

I live on lake austin, 
We are plagued with hydrilla and a couple other non native species. The problem is so bad that every other year the lake has to be drained so they can control it. I have heard from numerous people that this problem was created by a gentleman many years ago who grew aquatic plants, He would dump his cuttings into the river. But who knows how much truth there is behind that
My neighbors were at one point concerned about my clippings and how i disposed of them.
I have a burn pit and i burn all of them, When i change my water i put panty hose on the end of the hose to catch anything I suck up to keep it out of the river system.
It's a big deal and as much as I hate to say it! something that needs to be addressed.
This list will most likely not affect alot of us.
But who really knows texas has some funny ways sometimes


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

Simple answers NEVER work. If all were responsible hobbyists and disposed of plants properly this crap wouldn't happen, although the majority are transfered by trailered boats. Some are intended releases also like the snakehead fish in S. Florida. 

The government can't fix stupid or legislate common sense. 

OH WAIT! government intervention was what I was posting about, never mind.


----------



## Reginald2 (Mar 10, 2009)

I agree a healthy dose of information and common sense would be preferable, but at this point that has already failed repeatedly and consistently. Now, it's a question of lesser evils.

My city passed something that makes texting while driving illegal. I think it's a stupid bit of legislation, but there are THAT many people that cannot apply common sense that it became a problem.

The sad truth is that we need laws and regulation if we want to live together. It isn't an elaborate government troll (not that that doesn't happen). It is the last resort in a costly problem. We all know that everything the government does is bad and wrong, but the sad truth is that outside of academia everyone acting in their own self interests doesn't always work out the way it should.

I agree though, it is a bummer.


----------



## boringname (Nov 11, 2010)

I think white listing is the most logical answer to the problem of invasive species and don't have a problem with this. Same thing with blocking websites on a corporate network, a white list makes more sense than an ever growing black list.


----------



## Noahma (Oct 18, 2009)

It seems to me that white listing things would cost far more in the long run in legal problems, and studying a plant to see if it could get on the list than it would be to black list already known invasive species and add as more information comes to light. How about an education campaign to educate people to destroy their clippings instead of releasing them into native waterways. And then to increase the fine to a very heavy hitting fine for getting caught breaking the law. All the white list does is hurt the responsible people that wish to enjoy the hobby, and wish to keep these plants instead of hurting the people who are irresponsible.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

I already brought this up on APC, but you can you imagine what might be going through Francis Xavier's and Jeff Senske's heads right now?

I posited on APC that since Texas is so business friendly, maybe if a business man who depends on an aspect of this hobby were to speak up it might have an impact. I'm willing to make a small donation to bring them from Houston to Austin for the event, maybe let them stay a couple of nights, chauffeur them around, anything.

I'd even be for perhaps modestly priced permits, anything, just not the whitelisting and the plans they have to run it.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

You can rest assured. We have been fighting this tooth and nail since we first got notification of the act. 

I will personally be at the Katy, Texas hearing and will probably attempt to make the Austin, Texas hearing as well at the headquarters.

While some of these plants are invasive and make perfect sense - others, make no sense what so ever, most notable few that Luis Navarro even pointed out to me will die in temperatures under 72 degrees and over 78 degrees. These plants that are likely to die even in perfect aquarium settings are not capable of living outside an aquarium in Texas. 

I am building a case for an Aquascapers permit for such plants that have been properly trained in disposal of the aquarium plants under the notion that Texas is one of the largest epicenters for Planted aquarium Aquascapers in the nation and serves as a base line in the expansion of a unique art that has been heavily influenced by Texas inspired by such Texas natural wonders such as the San Marcos river.

Plants like Rotala Rotundifolia being banned on the list is -really- not a good sign for Aquascaping.


----------



## BradH (May 15, 2008)

They can make laws all day long about anything, but in the end you have to remember that laws do not stop anything. They only punish after the fact. So making a law that says someone can't have a certain plant doesn't really solve the problem. The only person that is going to follow the law, will be responsible hobbyist that wouldn't dispose of plants improperly in the fist place. So this law doesn't really serve any purpose, except to make whoever came up with it, look good to someone else that pushed for it and to generate some money through fines and permits. The problem of invasive "weeds" will still be there with or without this law.


----------



## BradH (May 15, 2008)

Noahma said:


> It seems to me that white listing things would cost far more in the long run in legal problems, and studying a plant to see if it could get on the list than it would be to black list already known invasive species and add as more information comes to light. How about an education campaign to educate people to destroy their clippings instead of releasing them into native waterways. And then to increase the fine to a very heavy hitting fine for getting caught breaking the law. All the white list does is hurt the responsible people that wish to enjoy the hobby, and wish to keep these plants instead of hurting the people who are irresponsible.


Didn't see this before I posted. Well said.


----------



## boringname (Nov 11, 2010)

I like the way water lettuce looks in pictures but its illegal here in CA. Doesn't really bother me. Same thing with stuff I can't afford. I just move on and find a way to make something I like within practical limits. I don't see what the big deal is. 

And for what its worth all my sewage goes into the Pacific, no chance of me contaminating anything with freshwater plants or animals. But these are the laws, fine. I have bigger things to worry about then not having stuff like water lettuce.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I agree with the guilty til proven innocent approach. The pond owners are much more the issue with invasive weeds however and risk.

I think some businesses could apply for exceptions.

Economic loss is minimal in this hobby compared to Agriculture threats and control, as well as natural land management. Not good for the hobby, but good for the environment and agriculture.

Australia does this. We've discussed it in CA, but they do not want to have Hyacinth made illegal etc, and other pond plants. The pond lobby has much moire $ and power than the aquarium plant trade really.

Nurseries sell many of the pond plants and exert more influence politically than a few rare aquatic plant shops. I think you will have a very hard time finding a way around the ban in TX. You'd have to show each species you want to bring poses no risk to invasion.

That's a lot of species and time and $ to show that in a research paper.
Since that is not going to occur, you have little way of convincing them otherwise.

Risk assessment for what makes a "weed" is tough and is site specific.

I think the best angle would be to focus on closed systems like aquariums indoors only, and proper destruction and training for aquarist. This would pose much less risk, but would still be a potential source of potential invasive propagules. You might be able to talk them into issuing a revokable permit and train folks. Pond owners need this far more than aquarist, but they are not bring in 300-400 species of plants that are unknown to the State of TX for the most part. But the species pond owners bring in and much much higher risk of establishing and becoming invasive.

Try to refrain from being lumped into that pond crowd. You need to take the higher road there.

You might get something done there. I agree with the policy, but as a hobbyist, it does put a big damper on things.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 11, 2004)

Cardinal Tetra said:


> Wow that's horrid. There are always so many interesting species new to cultivation that are constantly popping up :/
> Does Texas realize that those plants banned are not actually true aquatic plants? Is it legal if you grow them emmersed?


That's a really good point. Most of the plants we keep are not actually true aquatic plants. Most of them are found growing emergent in nature.


----------



## Crispino L Ramos (Mar 29, 2008)

Would it be nice to see Ludwigia verticillata sp 'Pantanal', Hygrophila sp 'Pinnatifida', and Tonina fluviatilis 'Marble Queen' along the banks of the Rio Grande?


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Crispino Ramos said:


> Would it be nice to see Ludwigia verticillata sp 'Pantanal', Hygrophila sp 'Pinnatifida', and Tonina fluviatilis 'Marble Queen' along the banks of the Rio Grande?


No, no it wouldn't. What belongs in our lakes, streams and rivers is what our native animals co-evolved with: _Ludwigia repens_, _Eleocharis macrostachya_, _Echinodorus cordifolius_ and _Sagittaria lancifolia_.

Right now _Water Hyacinth_, _Hydrilla verticillata_ and _Hygro. polysperma_ are huge threats to us and require lots of management. How they got there is interesting enough but that is a story for another time.

Cris, I will always love your wonderful, beautiful plants and your personal genius but those really must stay either in your tanks or in their native habitats if anything for the benefit of our native animals who didn't evolve with those particular weeds.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I have huge issues with posession being the only criteria for a fine. Plants obtained before this "ban" (however they want to word it) were aquired legally most likely. To suddenly make all owners of said plants criminals is ludicrous and foul play on the part of the legislature. I would be all for strict controls on transferring those plants, making sale or purchase illegal, and even stricter controls or bans on import if I were a Texan, but making criminals out of people who had committed no crime is a disgusting abuse of power.


----------



## McGillicutty (Aug 31, 2010)

All I have to say is that if they do pass this they are going to have a delightful time attempting to enforce it.

EDIT: The list is pretty ridiculous. I just glanced at the list of currently ineligible species of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. They have apple snails and Ramshorn snails on there. Both of which they sell at the PetSmart around the corner from my house.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Crispino Ramos said:


> Would it be nice to see Ludwigia verticillata sp 'Pantanal', Hygrophila sp 'Pinnatifida', and Tonina fluviatilis 'Marble Queen' along the banks of the Rio Grande?


Muuum k, what is this weed?










Clogging an irrigation and storm sewer.
It can and does grow emergent and submersed, like most all of these plants.
So it is still very much an aquatic plant.
It's actually a native species to CA.

Same plant:










So what's this non native weed below?









No, it is not an Ammannia.

Weeds in the Rio Grand is less of an issue for a few reasons, and more an issue in your Reservoirs, Irrigation canals and menace to boaters everywhere.

Most of these plants will never be able to colonize and establish, but a small % of them will. Of those, only a few will move into new habitats and become invasive, those are the problem weeds. But...some of these slowly decline over long time frames, but that is not the case often with aquatic weeds, they take over and form monocultures more than most other natural and ag systems. 

If you guys want some pictures for examples of the destruction and some $$$ cost, that can be supplied.

Hyacinth in CA delta, no fish can live under this, no native species can survive under this, lots of skeeters, boating, water skiing? Forget it.









Cost? 
Several Million $$ a year to mange, they have beaten it back after some 10 years of control programs and spraying. Biocontrol does not work here also, and biocontrol methods take about 20 years (provided that they exist to be applied).

Or........make some pond and aquarist unhappy?
Probably not gonna happen.

I'm bias but I'd still side with the state and would suggest all other states follow suit.


These weeds really get out of hand when they get loose.
But we are not the main risk. Still, there is some risk.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ukamikazu said:


> No, no it wouldn't. What belongs in our lakes, streams and rivers is what our native animals co-evolved with: _Ludwigia repens_, _Eleocharis macrostachya_, _Echinodorus cordifolius_ and _Sagittaria lancifolia_.
> 
> Right now _Water Hyacinth_, _Hydrilla verticillata_ and _Hygro. polysperma_ are huge threats to us and require lots of management. How they got there is interesting enough but that is a story for another time.
> 
> Cris, I will always love your wonderful, beautiful plants and your personal genius but those really must stay either in your tanks or in their native habitats if anything for the benefit of our native animals who didn't evolve with those particular weeds.


Well, it requires a lot of research to determine if it has the potential to become a weed, this is notoriously hard to predict. It might seem easy, but it is very hard and really depends on WHERE the weed proagules end up and how frequently etc. TX simply does not have the resources to research every 400-500 species of new weeds aquarist like and assess which does what, heck, we are not even sure what the species are for 50 of them let alone know anything about their life histories.

In general, (very), high rates of growth are one trait of weeds. Long lived progules(seeds, tubers, fragments, rhizomes, turions etc), high Leaf area index, net assimilation rates. 

I really think aquarist have no idea just how bad and how problematic it is to remove aquatic weeds from water conveyance systems and from natural systems.

Pond owners even less so.
Boaters know, but still many do not care and tranfer weeds and other pest lake to lake, river to river. All it takes is one or two nit wits to ruin things for everyone. It's cheaper and better use of the tax money to prevent weeds coming into the state vs trying kill and eradication or control. That cost 10X less than controlling and eradication.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

plantbrain said:


>


Let's bring in some Hippopotami to eat all of this... But then again, they can be invasive and roam the streets of Austin.


----------



## Powchekny (Jan 25, 2010)

mistergreen said:


> Let's bring in some Hippopotami to eat all of this... But then again, they can be invasive and roam the streets of Austin.


I, for one, welcome our new hippopotamus overlords.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

...and when the hippos get out of control, then what do we bring in to control them?


----------



## Powchekny (Jan 25, 2010)

ukamikazu said:


> ...and when the hippos get out of control, then what do we bring in to control them?


African lions, crocodiles, and hyenas. We can truck in a few hundred of each to Austin. I think it will go smoothly.


----------



## james0816 (Jun 26, 2008)

Reginald2 said:


> but there are THAT many people that cannot apply common sense that it became a problem.


That right there is the problem. There is no such thing as "common sense" in modern day america as we know it any more.

Sad ... but true


----------



## bobalston (Nov 8, 2003)

plantbrain said:


> Well, it requires a lot of research to determine if it has the potential to become a weed, this is notoriously hard to predict. It might seem easy, but it is very hard and really depends on WHERE the weed proagules end up and how frequently etc. TX simply does not have the resources to research every 400-500 species of new weeds aquarist like and assess which does what, heck, we are not even sure what the species are for 50 of them let alone know anything about their life histories.
> 
> In general, (very), high rates of growth are one trait of weeds. Long lived progules(seeds, tubers, fragments, rhizomes, turions etc), high Leaf area index, net assimilation rates.
> 
> ...


 
Plantbrain
Have you looked at the assessment process the State of TX is using? If not, would you please take a look and provide your comments?

See "Weed Risk Assessment Model" under the section heading of "Additional Information" at this link:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/

Thank you!
Bob


----------



## jiml (Aug 15, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> Well, it requires a lot of research to determine if it has the potential to become a weed, this is notoriously hard to predict. It might seem easy, but it is very hard and really depends on WHERE the weed proagules end up and how frequently etc. TX simply does not have the resources to research every 400-500 species of new weeds aquarist like and assess which does what, heck, we are not even sure what the species are for 50 of them let alone know anything about their life histories.
> 
> In general, (very), high rates of growth are one trait of weeds. Long lived progules(seeds, tubers, fragments, rhizomes, turions etc), high Leaf area index, net assimilation rates.
> 
> ...


It's not a lot different than the zebra mussel problem.


----------



## bobalston (Nov 8, 2003)

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, 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/html/taxon.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/busines...t/proposals/201101_exotic_aquatic_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


----------



## Spachi (Oct 27, 2008)

Maybe the place to ask- what's the best way to dispose of clippings? No burning pile for me. Also, when I gravel vac, I'm sure to get some baby MTsnails in with mulm. Is this a problem?


----------



## Hobbes1911 (Mar 2, 2009)

ukamikazu said:


> ...and when the hippos get out of control, then what do we bring in to control them?


How about hunters? It's not like hippos are extremely small :icon_twis

Has there actually been evidence of the issue being caused by hobbyists introducing the plants into native bodies of water? As far as I know most of the "common" invasive species like zebra mussels in the lakes, the asian carp, the snake heads and others have been introduced by commercial operations (if legally or illegally or without knowledge). So why can't there be possession permits for any plant for some people? I would think that anyone seriously involved in any hobby really knows about the pros and cons and about dangers to be aware off. 
for example, I used to dry my plant clippings and then burn them in a clay pot to leave nothing to pose a danger. I understand that the "common man on the street" might not have that understanding, but then maybe that man doesn't get a possession permit? 
Why not make it a training class part of the permit possession application that teaches ways to dispose of plant parts properly? Why does it have to be a black-white list? When was the last time a categorical black and white approach solved the issue appropriately?


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

> Has there actually been evidence of the issue being caused by hobbyists introducing the plants into native bodies of water? As far as I know most of the "common" invasive species like zebra mussels in the lakes, the asian carp, the snake heads and others have been introduced by commercial operations (if legally or illegally or without knowledge).


From what I understand, asian carp was introduced intentionally by the US federal government.


----------



## Hobbes1911 (Mar 2, 2009)

Sharkfood said:


> From what I understand, asian carp was introduced intentionally by the US federal government.


yap to control I think algae outbreaks in fish farms .... well we all know how that turned out. 

Im all in favor of some control since I think it's a sin to destroy the native environment anywhere through careless, badly-researched decisions like the asian carp. Yet I also think everything has to be considered, since a total shut down and everything is "NO" also won't solve the issue.


----------



## Hobbes1911 (Mar 2, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> Muuum k, what is this weed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


really out there question: can't you net all these with nets (from boats) and turn them into biofuel? (Im especially referring to the hyacinths)

Aside:
there is an invasive crab in the arctic sea by norway - finland - russia that has been introduced on purpose. The only reason why that crab doesn't do any real damage is because it tastes very good and is being continually fished. 
Financial motivation by man is the single biggest motivator for most people. Couldn't that be exploited?


----------



## bobalston (Nov 8, 2003)

Please read the recent article in the Star-Telegram: 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/15/2771870/texas-plan-to-combat-invasive.html#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.





ukamikazu said:


> 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/senate/members/dist18/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/...atic-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


----------



## Tex Gal (Mar 28, 2008)

No one that is involved in this issue wants to destroy the environment. I doubt there is a hobbyist out there who doesn't know how invasive some of these plants can be. (Ever try to get rid of duckweed?) Having said that, it is ridiculous to think that you can stop nature. There are islands in the middle of the sea that end up with plants. No one is there to release them from an aquarium, or bring them in on boats or any other way of human contamination. Nature doesn't respect our little laws. 

I researched 5 of the top invasive TX plants. One was released by the government. One was suspected to have been released by the aquarium trade. Note the word suspected. One they didn't know how it got to the US, but it exists on every continent of the world except Anartica and Europe. The other two were brought in by ships' ballasts. This was the nearest consensus I could get reading many web sites. The current legislation would only stop the aquarium trade issue AND that is only in TX. Since TX is not an island all plants in surrounding states are likely to end up in TX waterways anyway as a fact of nature.

You can show pxs all day long, but laws will not stop it. Education is what is needed. With everyone's participation at least humans can control what they do. Unfortunately TWPD has decided that education is too costly. They could have legislated a certain amount of education in the trafficking of aquatic plants. That would go a lot farther than what they are doing right now.

PLEASE WRITE YOUR TX STATE LEGISLATORS


----------



## BradH (May 15, 2008)

Tex Gal said:


> No one that is involved in this issue wants to destroy the environment. I doubt there is a hobbyist out there who doesn't know how invasive some of these plants can be. (Ever try to get rid of duckweed?) Having said that, it is ridiculous to think that you can stop nature. There are islands in the middle of the sea that end up with plants. No one is there to release them from an aquarium, or bring them in on boats or any other way of human contamination. Nature doesn't respect our little laws.
> 
> I researched 5 of the top invasive TX plants. One was released by the government. One was suspected to have been released by the aquarium trade. Note the word suspected. One they didn't know how it got to the US, but it exists on every continent of the world except Anartica and Europe. The other two were brought in by ships' ballasts. This was the nearest consensus I could get reading many web sites. The current legislation would only stop the aquarium trade issue AND that is only in TX. Since TX is not an island all plants in surrounding states is likely to end up in TX waterways anyway as a fact of nature.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## mrchach (Sep 8, 2010)

how about monsanto bio engineered corn... why don't we add that as an invasive species...


----------



## Reginald2 (Mar 10, 2009)

Tex Gal said:


> You can show pxs all day long, but laws will not stop it. Education is what is needed. With everyone's participation at least humans can control what they do. Unfortunately TWPD has decided that education is too costly. They could have legislated a certain amount of education in the trafficking of aquatic plants. That would go a lot farther than what they are doing right now.
> 
> PLEASE WRITE YOUR TX STATE LEGISLATORS


Government is almost always the lesser of evils. This isn't a new problem and didn't crop up yesterday. There have been years and years to educate and participate. Education and consumerism very seldom go hand in hand. How many of us started out with non-aquatic aquarium plants, lol. Generally speaking, I expect to know more about the hobby than the dude/dudette making 7 per. I know how to be responsible, but my neighbor might not and the supplier doesn't care one bit.

I think it's a little incongruous to think businesses should be able to cash in on something and the government to be responsible for helping people make good decisions about it.

Education is probably too costly, and our political anti-tax rhetoric probably has something to do with it.

If I'm not mistaken Tom does this everyday for money. Tom, I appreciate the information.



mrchach said:


> how about monsanto bio engineered corn... why don't we add that as an invasive species...


Ahh, the exception. I guess if you _own _the people regulating you, they're a little more willing to cut you some slack. I've heard dirty rumors of monsanto suing for _Patent infringement_ when they find some of their seed has blown across the road.


----------



## Tex Gal (Mar 28, 2008)

Reginald2 said:


> Government is almost always the lesser of evils. This isn't a new problem and didn't crop up yesterday. There have been years and years to educate and participate. Education and consumerism very seldom go hand in hand. How many of us started out with non-aquatic aquarium plants, lol. Generally speaking, I expect to know more about the hobby than the dude/dudette making 7 per. I know how to be responsible, but my neighbor might not and the supplier doesn't care one bit.
> 
> I think it's a little incongruous to think businesses should be able to cash in on something and the government to be responsible for helping people make good decisions about it.
> 
> Education is probably too costly, and our political anti-tax rhetoric probably has something to do with it.


Government being the lesser of evils seems laughable to me with a deficit that stretches into infinity and beyond. I believe that the average citizen does not want to foul their own environment. I have more faith in citizenry to find solutions than the government. The current TX law as written is UNWORKABLE on so many levels. That should be enough reason for it to be withdrawn. Taking away rights of citizens should be looked upon with fear and trepidation. How much more so when the laws won't accomplish the goal?

I was not asking for the government to bare the burden of education but for them to legislate that the suppliers do the education as part of their sales. No wild release message could be printed on containers or such, much like warnings on cigarettes.

I just wrote my legislators.


----------



## Reginald2 (Mar 10, 2009)

I think it's a little harsh too, but the truth is that doing nothing is costing a lot of money right now. Draining lakes (apparently) and hiring people to hack at weeds with machetes and spray poison are all costly. A moratorium is probably the cheapest solution and a good way to save money. A few suppliers are probably more easily controlled with a threat of a fine. It's also a good way to keep the burden off of small business, by not requiring them to have to deal with government regulations for education.

I don't think that John Q. Public has any insidious goals against the environment either. It is a question of education. It'd be nice to see some sort of campaign to protect our environment like we saw with cigarettes, but if you'll remember those labels were/are an extremely small part of that.

If it wasn't a problem in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about it now. It's not an academic speculation about a possible problem in the future, it's a very real effort to cut current spending. This is the fat that gets trimmed from the government.

It is unfortunate legislation, no argument there. I was never trying to belittle this point and apologize if I came across that way. I was just stressing that there is a current expensive problem and that this is a cost-effective way to deal with it.


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

Here is the contact information if you want to email the guy or call him, all info is public record

Dr. Earl Chilton


Earl Chilton is the Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program Director for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in Austin, Texas. He is currently a member of the National Invasive Species Advisory Committee, and vice-chair of the Texas Invasive Species Coordinating Committee that was recently established by statute. Additionally, he is a member of the Gulf and South Atlantic States Regional Panel, the Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel, and the Western Regional Panel (all are regional panels of the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force).

Institution(s) / Organization(s):
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)

Area of Expertise / Interest:
Aquatic Habitat Enhancement; Climate Dynamics; Global Atmospheric Research; Ecology; Fisheries; Natural and Man-Made Hazard Mitigation; Population Biology; Ecological Indicators; Endangered Species; Habitat Loss; Invasive Species; Oil and Gas Development; Restoration; Geographic Information Science (GIS); Biological Oceanography; Physics

Mailing Address:
Texas Park and Wildlife Dept.
4200 Smith School Road 
Austin TX 78744
USA Telephone: +1 512-389-4652 
Fax: +1 512-389-4405 
E-mail: [email protected]


----------



## bobalston (Nov 8, 2003)

*New Texas Regulations Significantly Restricting Possession of Aquatic Plants

Where Are We Now?*January 20, 2011

*Introduction*
Texas law requires State departments to go thru periodic reviews (“Sunset reviews”) and requires new legislation for State departments to continue to operate. A Sunset review was conducted for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) with a final report published July, 2009. 

http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/tpwd/tpwd_fr.pdf

Included in the Sunset Advisory Commission recommendations was one for establishment of a white list of aquatic plants and algae which would be permitted to be possessed in Texas. All other aquatic plants not on the list, which are not native to Texas, would be banned and made illegal.

The Texas legislature, in approving the continuation of the TPWD, included language to require such a white list. The legislation was passed as HB 3391 and is now law.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03391F.htm

TPWD is in the final stages of preparing the regulations to implement the law and provide the official white list.



*Information from TPWD on New Regulations to Implement the White List*

TPWD has posted information on two web sites:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101229b

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101229b *---This one key!*

Note that the second link above is to a web page that has a number of important hot links including:

Proposed List of Approved Exotic Aquatic Plants

Ineligible Species List (should be read as list of banned/illegal aquatic plants)

Plants Removed From Draft List for Other Reasons (this includes a list of native plants; this is not a complete list of native plants; it only lists plants evaluated and found to be native.)

Weed Risk Assessment Model. (This is the assessment procedure and questions used to prepare a score for each aquatic plant evaluated).

List of All Plants Considered (For me this is the key list of plants as it lists everything the TPWD has considered and the result: approved, rejected, etc.)


Note that the TPWD has stated the above plant lists are up to date as of 1/11/2011. However, they appear not to include plants submitted by TexGal in March 2010 and by Bob Alston on January 5, 6 and 9 of 2011. Further TPWD has stated they will not be adding any new plants until after the upcoming commission meeting. Hopefully this is simply a hiatus because they are busy preparing for the Commission meeting and will resume additions and analysis immediately thereafter.

*Proposed TPWD Regulations -*

The following is a link to the proposed TPWD regulations governing “Exotic Aquatic Vascular Plants and Macroalgae Rules”
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...roposals/201101_exotic_aquatic_vascular.phtml

*Algae -*
The new regulations also govern aquatic algae. Initially I and others found this very confusing. Finally I received clarification from TPWD that the regulations are not intended to restrict algae that we may encounter in aquariums.

The only statement I find in 70.53 (a) or (b) that seems to possibly exempt aquarium hobbyists is the statement in 70.53(b) " _The proposed regulations are intended to apply to those persons who intentionally possess microalgae, not those who possess microalgae unknowingly and without intent to evade legal compliance _"

Is it correct for us to interpret this statement as meaning that aquatic plant and aquarium keepers who are not intentionally cultivating *micro algae *are exempt from these regulations? 

If so then would we be correct in understanding the regulation as if the statement as being extended by the text " nor aquarium keepers who may have *algae* as incidential to their keeping of aquatic fish and aquatic plants "?

The TPWD response was: “_Yes, our intent was to exempt uses as you described_.”

*Mosses –*
One recent post on the DFWAPC web site states “_this bill is about vascular plants and microalgae's as it's title says. I guess it just hit me but mosses are non vascular plants are are not covered with this bill so i believe we should have no problem with that. guess we have to read between the lines a little bit and on a technicality it seems that mosses shouldn't have any problems being kept. also i want to point out that TPWD put an aquatic moss on the list of approved plants and that is java moss which is a non vascular plant and it is another example of how much we need to educate them <tpwd> and the public on these things_.”

An interesting point. However, the HB 3391 definition appears to be broader
"_ 2) "Exotic [, exotic fish, shellfish, or] aquatic plant" means a nonindigenous [fish, shellfish, or] aquatic plant 
that is not normally found in aquatic or riparian areas [the public water] of this [the] state._ "

However, consistent with the title, the text of the proposed rules state:
" _The proposed regulations implementing the HB 3391 are divided into two subchapters. Proposed Subchapter B of Chapter 70, published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register, contains regulations regarding exotic microalgae. Subchapter A of Chapter 70, proposed in this rulemaking, concerns *vascular plants *and macroalgae."_
A concise definition of non-vascular plants:
"_Non-vascular plants is a general term for those plants without a vascular system (xylem and phloem). Although non-vascular plants lack these particular tissues, a number of non-vascular plants possess tissues specialized for internal transport of water.

Non-vascular plants means that they do not have specialized tissue. Liverworts may look like they have leaves, but they are not true leaves because they have no xylem or phloem. Likewise, mosses and algae have no such tissues."_
I suggested to the original author that he email TPWD about this.




*Status of New Regulations to Implement the White List*

As apparently required by law, TPWD has held meetings for public comment on the proposed new regulations and white list which was mandated by the legislature. 

Meetings were held in 2009 as early as March. I saw a posting by LanceR of TPWD dated 6/11/2010 which became a sticky in the Aquatic Plants section of HoustonFishBox.com. The last public comment meeting was January 19, 2011 in Ft. Worth with about 50 citizens attending and many speaking.

The TPWD Commission is set to review the comments made by the public, among other things in their upcoming committee meeting on January 26. Public comment is apparently not permitted at the meeting, although I believe public presence is permitted by law. The Commission will consider the proposed TPWD regulations and white list at their meeting on January 27. It is my understanding that public comment can be made at that meeting, however please note that the meeting is held in Austin.

If approved by the Commission on January 27, it is the TPWD intent to make the regulations and white list effective May 1. Until that time, the new restrictions would not be enforced. 

On May1: 
a)	Any plant identified by TPWD as being on the approved list will be legal to possess.
b)	Any plant known to be native to Texas will be legal to possess. (Be prepared to prove it).
c)	It will be illegal to possess any plant specifically identified by TPWD as rejected/illegal. Enforcement will start. To obey the law, citizens will be required to destroy any plants on the TPWD rejected list.
d)	Should you have any plants that have not been evaluated by TPWD and *you submit their scientific and common names to TPWD,* you will be permitted to continue to keep the plants legally until TPWD has completed their evaluation of the plant.

TPWD has provided for a grace period, from May 1 to July 31, during which time citizens can keep plants not on the rejected list that have not yet been evaluated. However, such plant submissions must be done prior to July 31. Possibly they must be done earlier to allow time for TPWD to complete their analysis. 

As I understand it, as of July 31, only plants then on the official white list or native plants are permitted. All other are banned and therefore illegal to possess.




*Subsequent Requests for Adding New Plants to the White List*
HB 3391 requires TPWD to provided an expedited review process. Recently Dr. Chilton stated it may take two months for submitted plants to be evaluated. Also, at the Ft. worth meeting on 1/19, Ken Kurzawski stated that the Commission must approve new additions to the white list. The Commission apparently meets every 2-3 months. See the schedule for part of 2011 here
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/

Note that TPWD has stated that apparently they will require citizens who submit plants for considering using an as yet unpublished form, to evaluate them, apparently using the Weed Risk Assessment criteria. TPWD stated: “_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).”_ 



*Grandfather Clause? –*
Is there a grandfather clause? Despite a web posting I made suggesting that there was a grandfather clause in the HB 3391, TPWD has clarified that there is no provision for grandfathering existing plants. One person was of the opinion that not grandfathering existing plants violated Article I section 9 of the US Constitution which prohibits Bills of Attainder or ex post facto laws. Apparently since the new law makes possession the act that is illegal, such laws are legal (note that the author is not an attorney).





*What Aquatic Plant Hobbyists in Texas Should Do IMMEDIATELY*

1)	Review and make an inventory of all plants you possess 
2)	Review the TPWD list of all plants considered, to see what plants you possess have been approved, rejected, listed but no decision reached or *not included in the list*. 
3)	Write TPWD and provide the scientific name and common name if available for every plant you keep that has not shown up on the TPWD list. Email addresses at the bottom of the page here; click on either name to send an email.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/aquatic_plants/




*What Aquatic Plant Hobbyists in Texas Should Do on May 1*

1)	Review the current list of rejected/illegal plants on the TPWD web site.
2)	Remove and safely/appropriately destroy any of these plants in your possession.
3)	Repeat the “*Immediately*” steps above to ensure that you have submitted all plants you have which TPWD has not evaluated.






*How You Can Help to Improve the White List*

1)	Make a list of plants
a. You previously kept and may want to keep again
b. You are interested in acquiring in the near term
2)	Compare against the list of all plants considered by TPWD.
3)	For any plants not on the list of all plants being considered by TPWD that you identified in #1, write TPWD and provide the scientific name and common name.





*What You Can Do To Help Us “Live With” the White List*

1)	*Permits*
a.	HB 3391 provides for permits “_for an appropriate us that will not result in potential environmental, economic or health problems”_
b.	Permits are planned for various types of organizations so clearly TPWD feels that they will be able to trust such groups not to cause environmental problems. Why not us?
c.	If you feel that hobbyists should be allowed permits for prohibited aquatic plants,, please tell the State that (see below for who).



*2)	Exempt aquatic plant hobbyists from the regulations*
a.	The state has said that individuals are not the target of these regulations.
“_Our intent is not to have our game wardens go looking in people’s home aquaria or backyards for illegal exotic plants_”. Or maybe we are the target for the rules, just no plans to enforce them.
b.	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" _
c.	If you feel that we should be excluded from the regulations, please tell the State that (see below for who).




*3)	Grandfather current keepers of aquatic plants that will otherwise be banned*
a.	As one lady said at the public meeting in Ft. Worth, commercial grower will have to destroy plants they have paid good money for
b.	Same for hobbyists
c.	If you feel that TPWD should grandfather the otherwise banned plants for existing owners, limiting them to not providing or selling to anyone in the State of Texas, please tell the State that (see below for who).



*4)	Expedited Approval Process*
a.	HB 3391 mandated an expedited approval process for new plants
b.	TPWD has stated that evaluation of new plant submissions may take two months
c.	TPWD has stated that they will require persons submitting new plants to “_provide information that can be used to do a risk assessment”_
d.	If you feel that this process is unworkable, please tell the State that (see below for who).



*5)	Banning Plants If Analysis is Incomplete*
a.	If the TPWD is unable to complete their analysis due to insufficient information, the plant will not be placed on either the approved list nor the banned list
b.	The net effect is that the plan will be banned.
c.	If you feel that this process is unworkable, please tell the State that (see below for who).






*What you should do if you feel the white list approach is wrong and should be repealed*
a.	First, recognize that HB 3391 makes creation of and enforcement of the white list something that the TPWD has no choice about.
b.	Please tell the State legislators that (see below for who).



*When telling the State about your concerns and changes you want to see, tell*

1)	*Each/All TPWD commissioners *(except for repealing the white list)
2)	*Your State Representative*
3)	*Your State Senator.*
4)	*State Senator Hegar*, a co-sponsor of the legislation who is quoted in the Star-Telegram: ”_Hegar says he's committed to finding an equitable solution even if it means revisiting the issue in the current legislative session” _

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/15/2771870/texas-plan-to-combat-invasive.html


*How Can I EASILY Identify my Texas State Representative and State Senator?*
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/


*How Can I EASILY Send a Message to My Texas State Rep. or Senator?*
Once you have identified your STATE of TEXAS Representative and Senator, you click on the Person’s Name which should be a hot link. For some, you scroll down to find a form you can fill out to send a message. For others click on the E-mail hotlink to bring up the form to fill out.





*What if I Want To Send a Message to Some Other Texas State Representative or Senator?*
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=H

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=S


*How can I EASILY send a message to the TPWD Commissioners?*

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/about/commission/commissioners/

Use one of the following to EASILY send them a fax
http://one of thesezero.com/ 
http://www.freepopfax.com/
http://askbobrankin.com/free_internet_faxing.html



*Where Can I Read More About This Issue and Keep Up with Developments*

The DFW Aquatic Plant club has several discussion threads on this subject:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-forwarded-aquatic-gardeners-association.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...c-official-position-meeting-tpwd-january.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...quatic-plant-club/76114-contingency-plan.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...b/76226-tpwd-white-list-hearing-ft-worth.html




*I Heard About a Star-Telegram Article:*

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/15/2771870/texas-plan-to-combat-invasive.html

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 don't let that stop you.

Key point in the article:

"_State Sen. *Glenn Hegar*, R-Katy, *co-sponsored *the 2009 measure that directed the department to establish a "white list" of non-native aquatic plants approved for sale or possession in Texas.

"What has happened with Caddo is horrible," said Hegar, a farmer. "These invasive species are just terrible and something you can't control. They can kill a lake and really impact local economies." 

But after a year of wrangling, he acknowledges that the *bill has had unintended consequences*. 

"This has been a long process on this deal, and I think we have a good ways to go," Hegar said. 

"*I think it's a more difficult issue to resolve than maybe at first blush it appears. But I'm committed to getting it right."
.
.
.
Hegar says he's committed to finding an equitable solution even if it means revisiting the issue in the current legislative session. 

"I've said all along if we can't do it right, then we'll have to start all over again. I want to make sure that we solve the problems of invasive species in our lakes and reservoirs but do not become overburdensome or overbearing on our nursery industry," *_*he said.*




*At the Ft. Worth Public Meeting, One Speaker Mentioned a Resource That Can Be Used to Help Identify Aquatic Plants?*

http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/a...ium_&_Pond_Plants/Media/Html/Other/Entry.html


*Where can I find a List of Native to Texas Aquatic Plants?*

http://nativeplantproject.com/native_pond_and_wetland_plants.htm
http://www.tapms.org/aquatic plants of texas2.pdf
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Plants/native-usa.html (scroll down to Texas Native Plants)
http://www.gctts.org/files/NativeAquaticPlantsofTexas.pdf
http://plants.usda.gov/dl_nrcs_state_plants.html (all plants by stats not just aquatic; Excel format)

Should anyone have an additional resource, please email it to [email protected]



*What Can I Do If I Want to Understand the Background On the Weed Assessment Model Being Used?*
http://www.doi.gov/NISC/global/ISAC...efinititions White Paper - FINAL VERSION.pdf

http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/sfc141.pdf

http://www.ibot.cas.cz/personal/pys...stralian_WRA_PlantProtectionQuarterly2010.pdf *---Excellent*
http://www.hear.org/wra/tncflwra/ *---Florida weed assessment scoring details by plant*
http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/539/ *- mentions an aquatic plant specific assessment*

*What If I Cannot Get Information From TPWD?*

First if you sent an email, send a polite followup email with the original email date highlighted.

Second, try another person at TPWD.

Third, go to the DFW Aquatic Plant web site. Post your question in an active thread on the 
subject. 

Fourth, consider a Freedom of Information Request.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/site/openrecords/

Note that you may be asked to pay for the cost of providing copies to you.


*Other Information*

History of HB 3391
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB3391




Some interesting reading from a guy who cataloged existing non-native species in Texas

http://www.guynesom.com/

Click on "Non-native plants of Texas"

Click on "Basic concepts" for an educational definition of "invasive species"

Click Back

Click on Texas non-native plant data (MENU)"

There are 25 aquatic plants. 

Click on the small "F1" immediately after "Species ranked as F1"
Also click on the small "F2" immediately after "Species ranked as F2"

Scroll on each list to find the aquatic plants.


http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_t3200_1066_1.pdf


----------

