Latest response from TPWD. These responses are to followup questions asked.
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...quatic_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
If this is correct as of 1/11/2011, then when are the crypts I submitted on 1/9 and the mosses which submitted on 1/5 on this list?
We have decided to not add any additional species to the lists until after next week’s TPW Commission meeting. We will address your plants after that.
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 70.1
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).
a) Thank you but I still did not get information on what kind of turnaround we can expect in the approval/rejection process.
b) Do you really expect the taxpayer to provide the department with a completed risk assessment as per section 70.18 “furnish the department with a risk assessment of the plant in question?
c) Where is the form that will be required?
(Answer from previous email) Since we do not know the number of plants that we may be requested to add, it is not possible to be specific on how long to would take us to assess those. As below, the proposed rules allow a person to continue legal possession of exotic plants after the proposed implementation date of May 1 if they notify TPWD that they wish to have specific plants added to the list. Those requested plants would remain legal until TPWD assesses whether they can be added to the approved list. Current rules, which specify prohibited species, will remain in effect up to the date of the implementation of the new rules.
New info – After we deal with what may be a large of plants to be considered for approval, I would anticipate our turnaround would be less than a month.
Yes, that is what is proposed in the rules, and as noted, the form will be based on the surrent rick assessment posted on our site.
3) Regarding the paragraph
"Risk score 1-6 – May be placed on the Approved List if a) there is little evidence
of invasiveness in the U.S., b) it has a high agricultural or other economic
value, and there have been repeated introductions without establishment or
evidence of invasiveness, or c) there is a long history of survival in Texas
without invasiveness and there is economic benefit."
Your evaluation process focuses on "invasiveness". What is your definition of "invasiveness"? I saw a USDA definition: "Invasive aquatic plants are introduced plants that have adapted to living in, on, or next to water, and that can grow either submerged or partially submerged in water. " That definition means if the aquatic plant is "introduced" and survives, then it is invasive.
However, the legislation (Note: Our proposed regulations are administrative rules. Authority to enact those is conferred to the TPW Commission by the Texas legislature, but the rules are not legislation.) focused on "Ineligible species" which is defined differently.
Per Title 31, Part 2 chapter 70, subchapter A Rule 70.2 - Definitions:
Ineligible species "are not eligible for inclusion on the approved list. The ineligible species list includes the following:
(A)species known to be toxic;
(B)species known to cause environmental, economic, or health problems; and
(C)species that have been considered for addition to the approved list and rejected on the basis of a risk determination indicating that the species has the potential to cause environmental, economic, or health problems. "
{author's highlighting in red above}
Toxic is later defined as follows:
"Toxic--Containing or producing poisonous material at a level or concentration capable of causing death or bodily injury to humans or causing death or debilitation to animals or plants. "
I doubt you have found any aquatic plant that we keep in aquaria meeting the criteria of (A).
How do you determine if (B) applies? No disagreement with Hydrilla and I personally don't care about pond plants. But help me to understand for example C. wendtii, C. becketti, Rotala indica, Rotala rotundifolia??? They seem to meet only the "proven capable of growing" criteria.
HB3391 states "The approved list must include an exotic aquatic plant that:
(1) is widespread in this state; and
(2) is not, as determined by the department, a cause of environmental, economic, or health problems. "
{author's highlighting in red above}
The law seems to set a higher standard than does your risk assessment protocol.
Would you please advise how the language noted above from the legislation is considered in your evaluation process??
Would you please describe how you go about determining if (A), (B) or (C) applies?
Under b) "repeated introductions" does that mean repeatedly introduced into Texas streams, ditches, rivers and lakes only rather than existing in Texas aquaria?
Under b) why must there be "high agricultural or other economic value" to be considered to be allowed in Texas?
Under (c) if they have been in Texas, no evidence of invasiveness why must there be economic benefit for them to be approved? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder not sufficient?
Under your criteria for risk score 1-6, wouldn't a new plant automatically meet the criteria of #a and therefore be appropriate to be placed on the approved list? If no, then help me to understand why?
Regarding risk score 1-6 why is the language "may be placed..." rather than "will be placed..."? It seems that there may be other decision making criteria not identified which may be used by the State? Please explain why the language is used as it is?
Section 70.2(C) also notes species should be considered for their potential to cause problems. From HB 3391 in Section 66.007(n), it states, “In compiling the approved list, the department shall develop a process to evaluate the potential harm that may be caused by the importation or possession of exotic aquatic plant species into this state.” Both the legislation and the rule direct that both demonstrated impacts and potential impacts should be considered.
The risk assessment has questions that consider the invasiveness of plants by referencing such sites as http://plants.usda.gov/, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/searchgrin.html and http://www.hear.org/gcw/ among others.
I and others do not understand how your scoring allows you to determine the potential for “environmental, economic, or health problems”. Would you please try to explain it to us a little more so we can finally understand?
This was based on questions in section 3 of the risk assessment that evaluate the “weediness” of a plant in other environments. If plants are invasive in other parts of the world and climatic conditions are found in Texas that are within the range of conditions found for a plant, those are indications a plant could become problematic in Texas.
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].
Will you please publish the scoring results (all plants evaluated) and other pertinent information (for plants rejected) which was used in the assessment?
Here are the scores for the rejected list as they stand now (we are reassessing some plants based on information received from the public).
The assessments themselves are on a third part website, and we haven’t worked out how to give the public access to that site.
We are working on that.
If there are plant that you are specifically interested in, I can work with Dr. Chilton to get those to you. Species Rejected due to Risk Assessments as of December 24, 2010 with Subsequent Changes in Status
Species Status/Score
Acanthophora spicifera Native
Acanthus ilicifolius 13
Acrostichum aureum Approved
Caltha palustris 13
Cardamine lyrata 9
Caulerpa ashmendii 13
Caulerpa racemosa 19
Caulerpa taxifolia 23
Cladophora sericea 17
Colocasia esculenta 9
Cryptocoryne becketti 14
Cryptocoryne wendtii 10
Cyperus helferi 7
Cyperus papyrus 17
Dracaena sanderiana Approved
Echinodorus grandiflorus Approved
Entromorpha flexuosa Native
Eriophorum angustifolium 9
Gracilaria salicornia 21
Gunnera perpensa Approved
Gymnocoronis spilanthoides 24
Halimeda incrassata Native
Hesperantha coccinea 13
Hydrocleys nymphoides 12
Hydrocotyle leucocephala 9
Hydrocotyle novae-zelandiae 12
Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides 16
Hydrotriche hottoniflora 9
Hygrophila angustifolia 9
Hygrophila balsamica 8
Hygrophila corymbosa 12
Hygrophila difformis 10
Hygrophila pinnatifida 10
Hygroryza aristata 13
Hymenocallis caribaea Approved
Limnophila indica 21
Lindernia rotundifolia Approved
Marsilea drummondii 12
Marsilea hirsuta 14
Marsilea quadrifolia 10
Myosotis scorpioides 7
Myriophyllum papillosum Approved
Myriophyllum quitense Approved
Nymphoides geminata 19
Nymphoides indica 14
Potamogeton gayi 7
Rotala indica 12
Rotala rotundifolia 13
Ruellia brittoniana 12
Sagittaria sagittifolia 18
Sphagneticola trilobata 24
Spyridia aculeata Native
Spyridia filamentosa Native
Syngonium podophyllum 17
Trapa bicornis 11
Typha laxmannii 17
Typha minima 7
Udotea conglutinata Approved
Udotea flabellium Native
Vallisneria asiatica Incorrect Name
We want to protect Texas waterways just as you do!
Sincerely,
Bob Alston
re: TEXAS enacts white list - AGA forward 
re: TEXAS enacts white list - AGA forward 
Linear Mode
