As a Virginia nursery grower and wholesale supplier, I support efforts to protect Virginia's natural resources from plants that cause demonstrated ecological harm. However, I believe the implementation of these signage requirements should be based on sound science and should recognize meaningful differences among cultivars.

My primary concern is applying the same invasive designation and signage to cultivars that have been shown to be sterile or to have significantly reduced fertility compared with the species. If credible scientific evidence demonstrates that a particular cultivar does not present the same invasive risk, there should be a practical process for evaluating and exempting that cultivar rather than automatically treating all cultivars of a species the same.

I am also concerned about the practical effect these requirements will have throughout the nursery supply chain. Although the signage requirement applies at retail, Virginia growers and wholesalers have substantial investments in plant material that may take several years to produce. A required invasive label at the point of sale can significantly affect demand for that inventory. VDACS should consider these downstream economic impacts when implementing this guidance.

I encourage VDACS to work closely with Virginia growers, wholesalers, retailers, and researchers as this program is implemented and to provide a clear process for considering new scientific information regarding individual cultivars.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

As a representative of Meadows Farms Nurseries, a family owned and operated business based in Virginia since 1960, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Guidance Document for Invasive Plant Species Signage Requirements. We understand protecting our natural environment is important, however, the current proposal for mandatory, prominent signage right at the display benches could cause unnecessary panic and significantly reduce retail and landscape installation sales on plants that do not pose a significant risk to our native landscape.

A major concern is that this guidance treats all cultivars the same. There are many sterile or highly infertile cultivars on the market today that do not pose an ecological threat. Forcing a retail nursery to label a safe, sterile cultivar with the same harsh "invasive" warning as the wild species is misleading to the consumer. VDACS needs to establish a clear, science-based exemption process for sterile cultivars before forcing these signage rules into Virginia-based garden centers and landscapers

THANK YOU

Ron Meadows

Vice President

Meadows Farms

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Guidance on Invasive Plant Species Signage Requirements at Retail Establishments.

After researching the examples provided in Section 4E, I found that Buddleia X 'Miss Molly' is a cross between two Buddleja davidii cultivars (B. davidii 'Miss Ruby' and B. davidii 'Attraction'). It is not a true hybrid between two species. 

As this plant is a cross between two cultivars of the same invasive plant species that is subject to the signage requirements, I'm asking for you to please remove Buddleia X 'Miss Molly' as an example. Per the specifications in Section 4D, this plant should not be exempt from the signage requirements.

Thank you for providing the ability to contribute public comment.

The Virginia Agribusiness Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Guidance on Invasive Plant Species Signage Requirements at Retail Establishments. The Council represents agricultural businesses across Virginia, including nurseries and landscapers.

The Council supports responsible management of invasive plant species and providing consumers with accurate information. Additionally, we are thankful to VDACS for considering concerns from the public and professional trade associations regarding implementation of the proposed signage requirements.

Implementation of signage should be based on sound science and recognize meaningful differences among cultivars. The guidance currently requires cultivars and varieties of listed invasive species to meet the same signage requirements as the species itself. There are cultivars that have been demonstrated to be sterile or significantly less fertile than the underlying species and therefore may not present the same ecological risk. As new research comes to light regarding these plants, we encourage VDACS to take that information into account.

VDACS should consider the economic impacts throughout the nursery supply chain of signage requirements. Virginia growers and wholesalers make significant investments in plant material, often producing inventory years before it reaches the consumer. Reduced demand resulting from mandatory signage could affect the nursery economy well beyond the point of sale.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Taylor Hubbard

Director of Government Affairs

Virginia Agribusiness Council

The Virginia Nursery and Landscape Association (VNLA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on VDACS’s proposed Guidance on Invasive Plant Species Signage Requirements at Retail Establishments. VNLA appreciates the Department’s work to provide clear implementation guidance and standardized signage ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date. The Association generally supports the guidance and believes that clear, consistent expectations will be important for retailers, inspectors, and the broader goal of consumer education as the new law takes effect.

VNLA particularly appreciates the clarification in Section 4.E that true hybrids, crosses, and different species are not subject to the signage requirements. We believe this is an important and useful distinction and encourage VDACS to retain this provision in the final guidance.

We do, however, encourage the Department to revisit one of the examples used to illustrate Section 4.E. The guidance identifies Buddleja ‘Miss Molly’ as an example of plant material that would be exempt from the signage requirement. As noted by other commenters, there are questions about whether ‘Miss Molly’ is properly characterized as the type of hybrid contemplated by this provision.

For that reason, VNLA recommends that VDACS replace or clarify the ‘Miss Molly’ example so that the guidance does not create unnecessary confusion for retailers or inspectors regarding the scope of the exemption.

More broadly, VNLA believes Section 4.E reflects an important principle: not every plant associated with a listed species necessarily presents the same reproductive characteristics or invasive potential. As research continues to develop regarding sterile and low-fecundity cultivars, VNLA looks forward to working with VDACS, Virginia Tech, and other stakeholders on how the Commonwealth can appropriately incorporate that science into future invasive-plant policy. For instance, Oregon has developed a framework that permits certain Buddleja cultivars to be sold notwithstanding its broader restrictions on Buddleja davidii, including approved sterile cultivars and certain non-regulated interspecific hybrids such as ‘Miss Molly.’

VNLA also appreciates VDACS’s efforts to provide standardized signage and clear implementation materials for retailers. Sign placement will be particularly important to successful implementation. Retail establishments vary considerably in size, layout, merchandising practices, and the number of locations in which a particular species may be displayed. VNLA encourages VDACS to administer the placement requirements in a practical and consistent manner that ensures customers receive the intended notice without creating unnecessary duplication or confusion for retailers.

In particular, where multiple cultivars or varieties of the same listed species are displayed together or within a clearly identifiable common sales area, retailers should have sufficient flexibility to use signage that is conspicuous, proximate to the plants, and readily understandable to customers, rather than being required to place duplicative signs immediately adjacent to every individual cultivar or container grouping. Similarly, where plants are moved within a retail space as inventory changes, the focus should remain on whether the required information is clearly available to the customer, rather than on overly rigid placement rules.

VNLA believes a practical, education-focused approach to placement will improve compliance, reduce unnecessary disputes over technical details, and best serve the purpose of the law. We look forward to continuing to work with VDACS on implementation, retailer education, and outreach ahead of the January 1 effective date.

Sincerely,

Brad Copenhaver 
Virginia Nursery and Landscape Association

Saunders Brothers, Inc. is a family-owned and operated wholesale nursery, serving independent garden centers, re-wholesalers, and landscapers throughout Virginia. We agree with and recognize the importance of controlling invasive plants that threaten the Commonwealth’s ecosystems. We also emphasize the practice of using scientific data to identify which plants are truly harmful to Virginia’s natural resources and therefore qualify for the Invasive Species Signage Law.

We acknowledge and appreciate the inclusion of Section 4E and want to reiterate the importance of this type of exception being part of the guidance, as it could mitigate the potential economic impact on Virginia’s Horticultural businesses. That said, we feel that the current parameters of VDACS’ guidance on the Invasive Species Signage Law could make the law difficult to understand, manage, and enforce given the complexity of plant lineage and the research required to accurately identify that lineage.

Over the years, we have voluntarily discontinued the production of known invasive species, regardless of the economic pitfall and we are committed to continuing to follow science as less fertile cultivars of useful landscape plants are developed. However, the ability for our customers to sell these hybrid plants without invasive plant signage is key to the business success of our nursery as well as their garden centers. Our concern is that we continue to eliminate the true problems, not that we inhibit the sales of non-problematic species.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on VDACS’ guidance and look forward to continuing to work together to protect Virginia’s natural resources.

Thank you,

Tye Saunders

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed guidance for Virginia’s invasive plant signage requirements.

Over the past several weeks, I have spoken informally with garden centers, growers, agricultural retailers, landscapers, and other businesses about how they are preparing for the January 1, 2027 requirements. These conversations were not a formal survey, but they did highlight several common issues.

Most businesses I spoke with were not opposed to the purpose of the law. Many said they have already been moving away from invasive plants for years and regularly recommend alternatives to customers.

What stood out more was the need for clearer communication. Some people I spoke with were unaware of the new requirement. Others knew about it but still had questions about who it applies to, how it will be enforced, where signs must be placed, and how exemptions work.

I encourage VDACS to provide a simple FAQ or implementation guide before January 1st that answers these basic questions.

Mixed Displays and Sign Placement

Retail plant displays change constantly. Plants are moved, grouped together, separated, and consolidated as inventory changes.

Plant-specific signs can work well when one species or cultivar is grouped together. It can become more difficult to administer when invasive and non-invasive plants are grouped together or when several plant varieties share a common sales area.

VDACS should allow retailers flexibility in these situations. A single, clearly visible sign for a mixed display may make more sense than requiring several individual signs, as long as customers can clearly understand which invasive plants are present.

The goal should be clear notice to the customer, not unnecessary duplication of signs.

Sign Size

I also encourage VDACS to reconsider the 8.5" x 11" minimum sign size.

Garden centers use many types of bench signs, stakes, clips, and display holders. Smaller sizes such as 7" x 11" or 5" x 7" may work better in some settings and can be easier to move as displays change.

Rather than requiring one minimum paper size in every situation, VDACS should focus on whether the required information is clear, easy to read, and visible to customers.

Hybrids, Cultivars, and Exemptions

Section 4.E is important because not every hybrid, cross, or cultivar presents the same risk as the invasive species it may be related to.

At the same time, retailers should not be expected to research complicated plant lineage on their own.

VDACS should provide clearer guidance on which commonly sold plants qualify for an exemption and, where possible, maintain an approved list or clear process for determining exemption status.

Conclusion

Based on my conversations, the biggest issue does not appear to be resistance to the law. It is making sure businesses understand what is required and can apply the rules in real retail environments.

I encourage VDACS to focus on four areas:

1. clearer industry education and outreach;

2. flexibility for mixed and changing displays;

3. flexibility in sign size when information remains clear and readable; and

4. clearer guidance on hybrids, cultivars, and exemptions.

Thank you for considering these comments and for continuing to work with Virginia’s horticultural industry as the new requirements take effect.

Respectfully submitted,
Ray Magee
BloomCatch

Again, as noted by all, thank you to VDACS for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Guidance Document.  As many others have noted, we, too, want science to drive how cultivars are treated.  If a plant is truly sterile (i.e. produces zero fertile seeds) and has no other means of spreading then that plant should be looked at as a candidate for exemption.  But the science also needs to show that the plant will not revert and produce fertile seeds under future circumstances.  Furthermore, there are serious questions about the implications of reduced fertility.  Reduced fertility does not necessarily mean that a plant will not be invasive.  The science needs to show that the plant will not be invasive, not just that it has reduced fertility.  We look forward to working with all the stakeholders to make sure that the environmental goals are achieved while minimizing any impacts on the industry.