TPWD Seeks Input on Proposed Revised Rules for Exotic Aquatic Plants

[LanceR]

News Release
General Media Contact: Business Hours, 512-389-4406
Dec. 29, 2010

TPWD Seeks Input on Proposed Revised Rules for Exotic Aquatic Plants

AUSTIN – Many aquaria and landscape enthusiasts appreciate the beauty and functionality of aquatic plants, but the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department wants to ensure the introduction of non-native aquatic plants will not harm the state’s natural resources.

To provide appropriate opportunities for use of certain non-native aquatic plants and algae without risking impacts to the state’s natural resources, TPWD is proposing new rules for the possession of exotic aquatic plants, which includes a list of exotic aquatic plants approved for possession and sale in Texas. A series of public hearings to allow comments on these rules has been scheduled for January (see schedule below). The proposed rules and list of approved exotic aquatic plants can be viewed at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business...ublic_comment/. This site also allows online comments.

Possession of some non-native plants currently is prohibited while the possession of other non-native species is allowed with a permit. This system requires the department to continually monitor and update the prohibited list as new species are brought into Texas.

"We believe this new approach is the most efficient way to prevent the introduction of invasive exotics into the ecosystem," said Dr. Earl Chilton, TPWD’s exotic vegetation program manager. "Most folks want to do what’s right for the environment and knowing which exotic aquatics are acceptable will hopefully eliminate inadvertent introduction."

The introduction of harmful exotic (invasive) plant species into Texas and throughout the U.S. has been on the increase in recent years. Collectively, these species can and do have tremendous negative impacts on the environment and economy. Costs associated with control and eradication of invasive species (terrestrial and aquatic) in the United States has been estimated at more than $100 billion annually.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to vote on the proposed rules at its Jan. 27, 2011 meeting at TPWD’s Austin headquarters. The public is welcome to attend this meeting and provide additional comments for the Commission’s consideration.

For additional information, contact Dr. Earl Chilton at 512-389-4652; earl.chilton@tpwd.state.tx.us or Ken Kurzawski, 512-389-4591; ken.kurzawski@tpwd.state.tx.us.

Exotic aquatic plant public meeting locations:
All meetings begin at 7 p.m.

Katy - January 11, 2011 Bass Pro Shops, 5000 Katy Mills Circle
Austin - January 13, 2011 TPWD Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road
San Antonio - January 18, 2011 Lions Field Adult Center, 2809 Broadway Street
Fort Worth - January 19, 2011 Cabela’s, 12901 Cabela’s Drive

[decal]

Hey when are we gonna get a list of approved terrestrial plants?

[decal]

And why are elephant ears on the approved list? Hm, maybe it has something to do with the fact that elephants ear is widely cultivated for gardens but wisteria is only kept by aquatic plant hobbyists.

[Sea-agg09]

The list has quite a few wierd plants... the fact that rotala magenta is banned totally baffles me. The plant simply wont grow well in our waters. Other plants like an Ocelot sword are also banned as well, which is just funny because you they are commercially crossbred in captive aquariums.

The better question.. when is a PACU going to be made illegal?!

[TonyO]

Every other approved list I've seen has had Cryptocoryne wendtii on it. . . this one doesn't. Is there a nomenclature issue at play?

[Sea-agg09]

I don't think it's going to be on the list.

[kwc1974]

C Wendtti is considered high risk and is on the Ineligible Species List

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

There is also a naative list that should be looked at as well as this list calls out species that do not apply to the "approved" or "banned" list. My personal opinion is that a few more plants need to be on this list instead of the banned list. Hydrocotyle SP, Masilea SP to name a few. I have even found one of the banned plants in native texas aquatic plants handbooks.

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

[LanceR]

The initial list of exotic aquatic plants came from the state of Florida as well as members of the water garden and aquarium industries in Texas. A risk assessment (based on Pheloung et al. 1999) was conducted on each of these species and the scoring was reviewed by an outside entity (Texas Invasive Plant Council). As the Department was made aware of other exotic aquatic plants that were being used/sold in the water garden and aquarium industries/hobbyists, these species also underwent a risk assessment. If the scores of the RA fell below the score of 6 they were added to the approved list. Several species just over this score are being looked at again to see if they can be moved to the approved list.

If there are any exotic aquatic plant (or macroalgae) species that you believe should be included (that haven't already been evaluated) please send us the scientific names (and common name if applicable) so a risk assessment can be conducted. It's still not too late to add species to the approved list. If there are exotic aquatic plants that are listed as ineligible and you believe you have new, published information that would change the status of these plants please let us know about this as well so these species can be re-evaluated using the new information.

Lance Robinson
TPWD Coastal Fisheries
Dickinson Marine Laboratory

[TonyO]

Well, I'm going to be reading Pheloung at al. (1999). I've got a bit of experience with this topic, so this won't be anything over my head.

[Mzungu]

Very interesting and informative meeting. Thanks to Lance Robinson for hosting, and all others who came! I had to leave a few minutes early, but it was really neat being there and hearing everyone's input and opinions. Thanks again.

[davemonkey]

Sorry, I missed the meeting. But, I did get a chance to contact my state/district reps and give them my thoughts. Since legislature came up with the rule, only they can really change it (from an approved list to a banned list). Otherwise, we are at TPWD's mercy on taking our suggestions for approvals. The below website will allow you to find out who represents you and you can them contact via email, phone, fax, mail, etc...your reps. PLEASE do this.

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[bobalston]

I recently sent the following to Lance Robinson, Ken Kurzawski and Dr. Chilton at TPWD. Also below is my email to Ken Kurzawski and his response.


Dr. Chilton.

I am an aquatic plant grower and tropical fish keeper/breeder with over 50 years experience in the hobby. I recently attended (with other Texans) the Aquatic Gardener's Association national convention in Florida. I have been both confused and distressed over what I have read on the TPWD web site about the upcoming regulations and the content (or lack thereof) of "lists" concerning further regulation of aquatic plants in Texas. I know various other aquatic plant hobbyists have also been confused and upset over what they read and what they understand to be the case. Of course, the only significant information we have is that which you guys have chosen to post on the TPWD web site.

Recently I read a aquatic plant forum post from someone who had spoken with you directly about the regulations. He wrote that:
"Dr. Chilton was receptive [to my comments]. He said that he is surprised to hear aquarium enthusiasts upset about the rules because they received very little feedback from aquarium hobbyists during their review process. He said that TPWD does not want to affect anyone's livelihood or spoil the fun for aquarists."

You may recall receiving a brief email from me and a followup. Unfortunately I have never heard back from you. Thus rather difficult to engage in a dialogue.

You undoubtedly have received from Ken Kurzawski my list of questions, concerns and recommendations. I look forward to receiving your replies to those remaining issues.
I have also sent to Mr. Kurzawski names of plants that need to be evaluated for inclusion on "the lists".Many, many commonly held plants are missing from TPWD consideration. Unfortunately the net result, if not considered by TPWD, will be that they will be legally banned in Texas. The ban will be based on mere ignorance of their existence!

Finally, the matter of regulation of algae is total confusion. Something must be done to avoid algae regulation from becoming a bad joke rather than constructive regulation.In an effort to help you and TPWD understand more about the perspective and concerns of many of the aquatic plant hobbyists in Texas, I thought I would post links to several of the active threads on the TPWD regulation. Please take time to wade through them so that you can better understand our confusion, disagreements with what we understand to be TPWD proposed regulation, proposed improvements and fears.

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

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/general-aquarium-plants-discussions/75833-heard-about-aquatic-plant-ban-texas.html

http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforums/showthread.php?39405-Heard-about-the-aquatic-plant-ban-in-Texas

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

http://www.houstonfishbox.com/vforums/forumdisplay.php?88-Plants-and-Planted-Fish-Tanks

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242331

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/general-planted-tank-discussion/124509-heard-about-aquatic-plant-ban-texas.html

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/8118-Heard-about-the-aquatic-plant-ban-in-Texas-Your-state-next

http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts.com/general-planted-aquarium-discussion/3473-urgent-texas-law-will-effectively-ban-most-aquarium-plants.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/dallas-ft-worth-aquatic-plant-club/75973-texas-parks-wildlife-commission.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/dallas-ft-worth-aquatic-plant-club/75946-about-aquatic-plant-ban-texas.html

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/dallas-ft-worth-aquatic-plant-club/75953-contingency-plan.html

I want to avoid having exotic aquatic plants invade Texas waters. I also want to be able to continue to enjoy my fish and aquatic plant hobby. And I want to be able to both understand and comply with the law.

I would be happy to speak with you by phone and/or continue the dialogue by email if that would be of interest to you or others working actively on this matter.

Regards,

Bob


================================================== ================================================== ===

Mr. Alston,

We will work on answering your questions over the next few days. Please note all documents, etc., posted on our web site at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business...ublic_comment/ and http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild...quatic_plants/ are current. Based on comments from the public, we are continuing to reassess plants that are currently on the ineligible list due to a high risk assessment scores. If those reassessment change the determination for a plant, we will update the listings found at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild...quatic_plants/.

If you review the Weed Rick Assessment document, you’ll note answers for some questions result in a negative score which can result in an assessment yielding a score less than 1.

Ken Kurzawski
TPWD Inland Fisheries

From: bobalston9@yahoo.com [mailto:bobalston9@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:33 PM
To: Ken Kurzawski
Subject: Re: Regarding Exotic species restrictions, White lists and Fees for aquatic plants



On behalf of my fellow aquatic plant keepers and myself, I would like more information and explanation as to the process that is being used. Unfortunately, I find no way to proceed without asking a myriad of rather detailed questions. In doing so I risk having it appear as argumentative and picky, but the purpose is to point out areas of confusion or where I don't understand why the criteria is specified as it is. So please bear with me as I ask specific questions.

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.

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.

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 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 knownto 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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.


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




Bob Alston bobalston9@YAHOO.com Cell phone: 214.770.1140 http://webpages.charter.net/bobalston
On 1/3/2011 2:10 PM, Ken Kurzawski wrote:
Mr. Alston, Yes, the proposed regulations cover the possession and sale of exotic aquatic plants in Texas including those used in aquaria and water gardens. While you are correct most persons are responsible, history has shown that exotic aquatic plants, such as waterhyacinth, hydrilla and giant salvinia, and other aquatic organisms can escape or be released and cause negative environmental impacts. Currently, a relatively unknown plant a can be brought into Texas, get accidentally released, and become established before it can be put on the current prohibited list. The new regulations do allow new plants to be added to the approved list if they can be shown to not pose a potential risk to Texas aquatic environments. Ken Kurzawski TPWD Inland Fisheries -----Original Message----- From: bobalston9@yahoo.com [mailto:bobalston9@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 4:01 PM To: Ken Kurzawski Subject: Regarding Exotic species restrictions, White lists and Fees for aquatic plants Ken Is this proposal intended to be applicable to persons who keep such aquatic plants in aquariums and containers located solely within aquariums and other containers located within an individual premise? there are a number of persons who pursue such aquatic plants as a hobby similar to that of tropical fish keeping, which also co-exists with aquarium plants. Such persons are generally very aware of enviornmental risks of such plants getting into the wild and take care not to allow such. The proposed white list of plants approach will be difficult to administer as a) the scientific names of plants change periodically; b) plants are often known by common rather than scientific names; c) new plants become available in the marketplace all the time and using a white list approach would restrict such without just cause. Would really appreciate hearing the intension of these regulations related to aquatic plant hobbyists who keep such plants in aquariums. Bob

[bobalston]

This section of the House BIll may actually grandfather us for exotic plants in our possession at the time the white list is made official:

"(e) The provisions of Section 66.007, Parks and Wildlife
Code, as amended by this Act, regarding harmful or potentially
harmful exotic aquatic plants apply only to an offense that occurs
on or after the date on which the Parks and Wildlife Department
publishes the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants. An
offense that occurs before the date on which the initial list of
approved exotic aquatic plants is published is governed by the law
in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and
that law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this subsection, an offense is committed before the date on which
the initial list of approved exotic aquatic plants is published if
any element of the offense occurs before that date. "

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

Does anyone else read it the same way?

Of course, the language seems convoluted. If possessing a plant is only an offense on the date the official approved list is published, and is legal before that date, then how did the offense occur before the date the list was published? Of course, had I attended Law School this text might make perfect sense.

bob