# Here we go - Senate Bill 1480



## BobAlston

Here is the link to the Senate bill submitted by Senator Hegar on March 10.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB1480

It provides for a black list of aquatic plants. Nothing specific regarding who would be eligible for permits.

So much for constituent involvement in the legislative process. We offered to participate. Perhaps Sen. Hegar felt that our emails and faxes provided sufficient input from us.

I have not yet read it carefully but will and urge all club members to do so.

I would suspect that TPWD will plan to add all the plants on their earlier rejected list to the legal black list.

This is what I just wrote Senator Hegar tonight:

Senator Hegar:

I was both suprised and distressed to learn of your submission of SB 1480 on March 10 apparently without any consultant to aquatic plant hobbyists who have offered to participate in the development of a more appropriate and effective approach to the regulation of aquatic plants to replace the naiive but good intentioned law requiring a white list. Since I found SB 1480 fairly early in the legislative process I hope we can influence amendments to make it more workable and fair to the citizens of Texas as well as more effective in achieving the purpose.

Please consider initiating several amendments to the bill in the following areas:

1) Provide for aquatic plant hobbyists who keep plants in aquariums in enclosed structures such as houses, condos and apartments either an exception to the rules or the ability to obtain a permit at a nominal cost;

2) Provisions for improved notification and enforcement of removing plants from boats upon leaving Texas waterways and before entering Texas waterways. What occurs today is totally inadequate and is a major source of problems we continue to experience.

3) Require TPWD to use a more reasonable and scientifically appropriate process for evaluating plants to be banned in Texas, including full disclosure of the evaluation process, evaluation results details by plants and the opportunity for public review and comment.

Most sincerely,

Bob Alston

You can write Senator Hegar via the form at the bottom of this link:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist18/dist18.htm

Please do so - NOW!!!

Bob


----------



## Ekrindul

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the bill, but it looks to me like this is the legislation he promised would overturn last year's bill. Notice that all of last year's added rhetoric is scratched out. In other words, all I see here is Senator Hegar turning back the clock two years, which is what we wanted.


----------



## fishyjoe24

so it looks like he is trying to go in reverse and not forward, and that tpwd is trying to find some loop holes so they can have there way.... or could it be that there just getting started  and gearing up for the big pizza party....


----------



## Tex Gal

This is a bit confusing to me. I read:

"(b) A person may not import, possess, sell, or place into
the public water of this state an exotic harmful or potentially
harmful aquatic plant except as authorized by commission rule or a
permit issued by the department. _Sounds pretty broad_
(c) The commission by rule shall adopt a list of exotic
aquatic plants that may not be imported into or possessed in this
state without a permit._This is the black list._
(d) The commission may enact an emergency rule as provided
by Chapter 2001, Government Code, to add an exotic aquatic plant to
the list of prohibited plants if the plant is determined to be
harmful or potentially harmful. _They can add what they want by wording of "potentially harmful"._

SECTIONA9.AA(a) On the effective date of this Act, the list
of harmful or potentially harmful plants that was in effect
immediately before the publication of the list of approved plants
required by Section 66.007(b), Parks and Wildlife Code, as amended
by Section 14, Chapter 952 (H.B. 3391), Acts of the 81st Legislature, Regular Session, 2009, is the list of exotic aquatic plants required by Section 66.0072, Parks and Wildlife Code, as added by this Act, and shall be the list in effect until amended by the Parks and Wildlife Department. _So does this refer to the list they just compiled but never voted on, or the previous list?_


----------



## digital_gods

It does turn back time but adds a provision for algae that is used in some sort of r&d program. I feel this is a lot more manageable compaired to the previous bill. It does have some confusing parts but that's typically in the Texas laws. We asked for the black list and we got it. They made it a living list that can change at any time but that's OK. TDPW still has the necessary power to address any new threats to our state. We doing good.


----------



## fishyjoe24

so that would be what in joelish. so we now have a black list, or am I confused...


----------



## BobAlston

It appears that Senator Hegar's office has been working with a lobbyist group affiliated with out pond cousins. Read below:

From: Jim Reaves <[email protected]>
To: ****[email protected] <****[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 10:17 pm
Subject: Re: Senate Bill 1480 - Proposed New Law Governing Aquatic Plants

Please do not get fired up on this right now. We are working with Sen Hegar and he is not trying to hurt the industry. I have conversations daily with his office. Our industry is not being left out. He is the one who helped us out in January, and he is a friend. The approach you are taking right now is a bad idea and it could jeopardize the positive work we are doing. I am not sure if y'all are a member of TNLA, but this is what we do on a daily basis. I am at the Capitol most every day working on issues like this.

I am not trying to push down your enthusiasm, but let us handle this right now. If we need help contacting legislators, I promise I will ask.

Jim Reaves
Director, Legislative & Regulatory Affairs
Texas Nursery & Landscape Association
O: 512.579.3854
C: 254.223.3344

And in case you didn't know anything about the Texas Nursery & Landscape Association:
"The Texas Nursery and Landscape Association's Mission is to Enhance Members' Business Success Through Legislative/Regulatory Advocacy, Education, Networking, and Promotion of Professionalism."

THis is a link to their web site:
http://www.txnla.org/
However, whatever information may be there on this topic is only available to association members ( $90 or more per year).


----------



## Tex Gal

@ Bob - So who is he talking to? Who could "jeopardize the positive work we are doing"? Is he saying he doesn't want anyone to contact Senator Hegar but his organization? I sure wish I knew what this legislation meant. I sure wish I understood what Jim Reaves' goals are. What is he lobbying for?


----------



## Michael

Reaves works for TLNA, and he is trying to protect their interests. If anything, they want even less control than aquarium hobbyists do.

The email Bob quotes was sent to one of their members (I think), Mary at ****inson Bros. Mary had sent out an email warning everyone that the legislation is under consideration again. Reaves' email was directed at her, not any of the planted aquarium groups.

Let us be careful not to get upset with the wrong people.


----------



## BobAlston

I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Reeves. He is a paid lobbyist for the association as noted. They deal with terrestrial as well as aquatic plants. I get the impression that our pond "cousins" are a relatively small portion of his association members. He is working on a several legistative initiatives of which SB 1480 is only one.

He really does want us to hold off until he can finish pursuing some things he is and has been working on with Senator Hegar's office. He is not aware of, nor is he interesting in understanding or pursuing the items of interest to us. One exception is that he agrees that TPWD should use the best science available, as I mentioned to him a better method of evaluating aquatic plants for invasiveness is available. Upon reflecting his perspective probably makes sense as he is an employee of an association that does the bidding of its members, of which we are not members and likely no indoor aquatic plant hobbyists are. He just doesn't want us to inflame Senator Hegar such that the Senator may be less cooperative with what Mr. Reeves is doing and the cause overall. 

Mr. Reeves does recommend a single letter to Senator Hegar from the club/indoor aquatic plant hobbyiests as a group.

At this point, I do not see any reason we should hold off on voicing our concerns and provisions we think should be addressed and contacting Senator Hegar. However, you should use your own judgement and our club officers can decide for the club as a whole. If you/we pursue our concerns with Senator Hegar, it is probably best to avoid expressing concerns with not being involved in the new process or otherwise appearing aggressive with him (Perhaps I have already done enought of that; I can be the designated "bad cop"). Better to simply factually and respectfully present our position and specifics on what we propose and why.

bob


----------



## digital_gods

Bob, From the link you posted yesterday, I didn't read anything that was unreasonable in the new bill. Seeing a lot of items removed left a lot more breathing room. I feel that Senator Hegar heard our voices and ratified the issue. I feel that we made great progress with getting the bill changed but it's time to push forward to the next hurdle and not stay on a tangent over Senator Hegar. The power still remains in the hands of TDPW. They black list can change at anytime without prior notice. In theory, TDPW could put every single plant we use on the black list. I feel its time now to focus our efforts now towards TDPW. I feel it would greatly be beneficial to our club, hobby and industry to ally with TDPW as a special interest group that can help them. Gotta remember, Texas politics work in a good ol boy fashion, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. If we are a useful entity to him like being a being a watch dog group for potential harmful plants or help educate the public or some else useful, they may turn a blind eye.


----------



## Tex Gal

@Digital gods - I believe the problem lies in the inclusion of the words "potentially harmful" plants. This appears to be new language. We have gained NOTHING if they can put every plant on the list that is "potentially harmful". We have ALREADY been told by TDWP that they view EVERY plant except the ones they can test and as "potentially harmful". It would not be a stretch to have them add every plant we sent them for consideration to their banned list.

I don't think we need to be MAD at anybody. I do think we can voice our opinion on this bill AS WRITTEN and ask questions. Why should we allow someone else's opinion to belong to us, when we don't even know what that opinion is? I, for one, would like some clarification.


----------



## digital_gods

What about suggesting to add another definition for better clarification? Something like "exotic harmful or potentially harmful species" means a nonindigenous species that is not normally found in the public land or water of this state, that pose environmental, economic, or health problems.


----------



## BobAlston

SB 1480 officially removes the aquatic plant white list from Texas law and returns regulation to a black list. And it appears that when the law goes into effect, the black list in effect before the original effective date of the white list law is back in effect. However the TPWD may change that list at any time.

1) TPWD spent lots of time and money developing a list of "*ineligible species*". I would fully expect TPWD to go through whatever administrative process is required to add all of these ineligible species to the black list. As you may recall ineligible species include
Among others:
Cryptocoryne becketti
Cryptocoryne wendtii
Rotala indica
Rotala rotundifolia
Hygrophila difformis

And it is not clear what process would be used to a) add these plants to the black list or b) consider other plants and add to the black list. What would prevent them from black listing every plant not placed previously on the white list? That would surely reduce risk of infestation.

2) Section 4 of the new bill amends section 66.007(C) to remove the following wording that was in the prior bill:
"_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."_Note especially the underlined section that states the criteria.

3) Section 8 repeals section 66.007  and (o) which stated in the prior bill
"_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. The process must include the use of:
(1)	a risk assessment model to help determine the potential harm of a species to the aquatic environment;
(2) published scientific research findings;
(3)	Findings from regulatory agencies; or
(4)	Scientific analyses from third-party laboratories.

"The approved list must include 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._
Note especially the underlined section. While a white list is not being used should not the same logic be applied toward the creation of the black list? That is, what was defined for the white list previously should not be placed on the black list.

4) There is no provision to require the TPWD to provide reasonable cost licenses to responsible aquatic plant licenses to keep other banned plants. (TPWD stated previously license costs are based on the cost on on-site inspection, which would be unnecessary for aquatic plants housed in indoor aquaria). TPWD rules already provide for various groups to be permitted such permits. Shouldn't we to be afforded the same opportunity?

5) There is no provision for transparency of evaluation methodology and publication of plant analysis results for public review and/or independent third party review.

6) Section 6 provides for a new section 66.0072 which under (d) states "_The commission may enact an emergency rule as provided by chapter 2001, Government Code, to add an exotic aquatic plant to the list of prohibited plants if the plant is determined to be harmful or potential harmful[_".
Bob


----------



## ukamikazu

digital_gods said:


> Bob, From the link you posted yesterday, I didn't read anything that was unreasonable in the new bill. Seeing a lot of items removed left a lot more breathing room. I feel that Senator Hegar heard our voices and ratified the issue. I feel that we made great progress with getting the bill changed but it's time to push forward to the next hurdle and not stay on a tangent over Senator Hegar. The power still remains in the hands of TDPW. They black list can change at anytime without prior notice. In theory, TDPW could put every single plant we use on the black list. I feel its time now to focus our efforts now towards TDPW. I feel it would greatly be beneficial to our club, hobby and industry to ally with TDPW as a special interest group that can help them. Gotta remember, Texas politics work in a good ol boy fashion, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. If we are a useful entity to him like being a being a watch dog group for potential harmful plants or help educate the public or some else useful, they may turn a blind eye.


I'm more aligned with you and Jim Reeves way of thinking, but at the same time I understand Bob. On one hand, Jim is a pro when it comes to greasing the wheels, but on the other hand it seems we should make Sen. Hegar aware that we are still paying very close attention to the whole affair. If Jim is making progress, then I don't want to get in his way but neither should we let ourselves be overlooked. We are a very tiny but very real bloc. I'm sure there is a gentle, efficient way to insinuate ourselves into the process.

Perhaps a campaign of individuals and clubs sending letters of support and praise to the Senator and Jim that convivially offer any assistance possible with the process while at the same time delineating our expectations?

In case ya'll forgot, I do live in Austin. Maybe I should schedule a meeting with Jim? Maybe ya'll would like to load me up with talking points, letters, introductions, collateral, etc? I'll do it if as a community you think this is expedient and helpful. I got to meet Dr. Chilton and have a one on one, why not Jim Reaves?


----------



## BobAlston

Ukamikazu

If you want to speak with Jim Reaves then I say "knock yourself out". I spoke with him today on the phone. He is a professional lobbyist with many years experience and doesn't need our help. He just needs us to stay out of they way so he can get his objectives achieved. Note that his objectives are not well aligned with ours, IMHO. He is a lobbyist for an association of terresterial plant growers/sellers, mostly, with some pond folks. He is pursuing their agenda. He is not interesting in understanding our issues nor pursuing them. 

But if you can get him to help in a way that will help us more than he is doing already, then "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!".

Bob


----------



## digital_gods

On the previous list, was there any plants on there that is used in the florist trade? If so, lets send one to the Senator. Little humor for us.


----------



## ukamikazu

BobAlston said:


> Ukamikazu
> 
> If you want to speak with Jim Reaves then I say "knock yourself out". I spoke with him today on the phone. He is a professional lobbyist with many years experience and doesn't need our help. He just needs us to stay out of they way so he can get his objectives achieved. Note that his objectives are not well aligned with ours, IMHO. He is a lobbyist for an association of terresterial plant growers/sellers, mostly, with some pond folks. He is pursuing their agenda. He is not interesting in understanding our issues nor pursuing them.
> 
> But if you can get him to help in a way that will help us more than he is doing already, then "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!".
> 
> Bob


Very well and I take your point. I guess that means we're just along for the ride. Knock on wood, fingers crossed.


----------



## davemonkey

If the license cost is based on the cost of on-site inspections, that makes it kinda hard to get a license as a club, does it not? (That was going to be my proposed work-around for individuals paying that fee.) 
Unless they will view the home aquarium as an enclosed facility (or whatever they have to call it), we'll have to abide by their new black-list. I'll bring the new bill up at the Houston meeting tomorrow and see if we can come up with a club response like you guys did the first go-round.


----------



## digital_gods

I found Senator Hegar website and I didn't know he is active farmer plus politician. I now understand why he has strong love of the land. http://www.hegar.senate.state.tx.us/ Going against the lobbyist wishes, I took the time to write him a thank you letter. I wanted to let him know that I appreciate him listen to the people and making the changes to the Parks and Wildlife code. I saw that the bill hasn't passed but only brought up before the board this week. I suggested to him, if revisions could be made, to include a definition of "harmful or potentially harmful" back into 66.007(e) for clarification. I keep my letter positive and professional. I did not mention anything about aquariums, ponds or DFWAPC. So to him, I'm just an individual citizen in Texas.


----------



## Tex Gal

digital_gods said:


> What about suggesting to add another definition for better clarification? Something like "exotic harmful or potentially harmful species" means a nonindigenous species that is not normally found in the public land or water of this state, that pose environmental, economic, or health problems.


I don't see how this language helps. The problem is in the word "potentially". Please see the below email. The colored text is what I would like to emphasize. 400 years. REALLY??!! That puts the info. back into the 1600s. Can we expect any tests we have to go back 400+ years?! Can we even expect adequate ID to be correct and consistent through 400 years?

From: Earl Chilton [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:44 PM
To: Drinda Jacobson
Cc: Ken Kurzawski
Subject: RE: Texas Aquatic White list

Ms. Jacobson,

On page 5 of the document in question Hydrocoytle sibthorpioides is not mentioned, Hydrocoytle spp. is mentioned and that was an error on the part of the Gulf Coast Turtle & Tortoise Society because it seems to indicate that all pennyworts are native. According to the USDA and the Germplasm Resources Information Network (also federal), Hydrocoytle sibthorpioides is native to Africa and Asia.

Plants on noxious weed lists generally end up there because they have already gotten out of control and caused harm._ Invasive species can become established and not exhibit invasive characteristics for many years. A good example is Arundo donax which was brought to North America about 400 years ago, but has only begun to exhibit its real invasive nature in the last 30-40 years. The purpose of risk analysis is to try to determine what the risk of a plant becoming invasive is before it causes a problem._ Please write if you have any questions.

Earl

Dr. Earl W. Chilton II
Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Program Director
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, Texas 78744
(512) 413-5120


----------



## digital_gods

At what point does all this graveling among members about speculations of what should and shouldn't be done become utterly ridiculous?


----------



## BobAlston

I haven't noticed any gravel?!?

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

digital_gods said:


> they may turn a blind eye.


TPWD has previously stated that we, hobbyists, are not the target of the rules. So if you are comfortable with being in violation of the law, because someone has said "psst, psst - YOu are not our target, no worries" then nothing need be done.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

But remember, of course, should the TPWD decide to select a few individuals to make an example of, the fines are PER PLANT.

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24

so what will be next only certin corals for saltwater tanks?


----------



## BobAlston

I found it interesting that the Texas Department of Agriculture publishes an/the? official list of invasive and noxious plants.

Also I found this bill in the legislature that would clearly put the Dept of Agriculture in clear control of invasive and noxious *terrestrial* plants:

"House Bill #338:
relating to disclaimers by certain entities promulgating lists of noxious or invasive terrestrial plant species.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter D, Chapter 71, Agriculture Code, is amended by adding Section 71.154 to read as follows:
Sec. 71.154. DISCLAIMER REQUIRED. 
(a) A public entity, other than the department, that produces a list of noxious or invasive terrestrial plant species growing in this state shall provide with the list a disclaimer that states: "THIS PLANT LIST IS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION AND HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HAS SOLE AUTHORITY TO LABEL TERRESTRIAL PLANTS AS NOXIOUS OR INVASIVE."
(b) A public entity, other than the department, that produces a list of noxious or invasive terrestrial plant species in printed material made for public distribution, including a newspaper, trade publication, notice, circular, or Internet website, shall post the disclaimer required by Subsection (a) in at least 12-point type in a conspicuous location readily visible by persons viewing the list.
(c) The department shall adopt rules requiring a public entity to include the disclaimer required by Subsection (a) in a manner equivalent to the manner described by Subsection (b) for publication of the entity's list of noxious or invasive terrestrial plant species through media not described by Subsection (b), including billboards, radio productions, and television productions.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
"

Wonder iof there is a fight for authority between the Dept of Agriculture and TPWD?

Here is where I learned about this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSOT-NPAT/message/9324?threaded=1&var=1&p=18

bob


----------



## Tex Guy

That is indeed very interesting. I wonder why they let TPWD have the aquatics?


----------



## fishyjoe24

shhhhhhhh they are watching you... it's a about the politics and control or money.... wouldn't it make more sense to give the aquatic to aguaculture?


----------



## BobAlston

The first public hearing for this bill was held on April 4. You can listen to an overall description of the bill and comments regarding 7 individuals, representing organizations, who stated they are in favor of the bill but did not testify. No person testified at the hearing. TPWD did not go on record nor did they testify.

You can listen to the pertinent portion of the hearing, times 7:19 - 11:10 on the video for April 4. the previously mentioned lobbyist did not testify. I am under the impression he anticipates a substitute bill to be introduced at some future date, before the bill leaves committee.

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/c505/c505.htm

The bill was left pending in the committee.

Bob


----------



## BobAlston

I am monitoring the status of this bill via a capability available for FREE from the State. I received this today:

"SB 1480
Relating to the regulation of exotic aquatic species by the Parks and Wildlife Department; providing penalties.
4/13/2011 S Recommended for local & uncontested calendar"

So unless the committee members receive any objections to the bill, it is quite likely to pass 
Committee quickly.

bob


----------



## BobAlston

I sent a letter today to the entire Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs committee which is considering SB 1480. You can see the members of this Committee here and easily send them emails by clicking on a name and scrolling to the bottom of the page.

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/c505/c505.htm

I request that other aquatic plant hobbyists who have concerns with the current bill, the process by which TPWD may decide to add new plants to the black list and the lack of any ability for hobbyists to get permits to keep blacklisted plants, to state their concerns to members of this committee. If you don't, the bill will likely pass as is "without objection".

April 13, 2011

Honorable Glenn Hegar
Honorable Craig Estes
Honorable Carlos Uresti
Honorable Juan Hinojosa
Homorable Mike Jackson

Gentlemen

This letter is in regards to SB1480 which repeals the aquatic plant "white list" approach and returns the State of Texas to a "black list" of prohibited aquatic plants. I and every other aquatic plant hobbyists I know applaud and support this change. The "white list" approach proved unworkable. Enough said in that regard.

However, this bill removes provisions of the white list bill that would limit what the TPWD could do in restricting aquatic plants and require them to be reasonable. I think such language should be left in place. In addition TPWD should allow responsible aquatic plant hobbyists to continue to keep and grow plants, which TPWD is expected to add to the black list, which they keep in indoor aquaria and have been doing so for decades.

1) Section 4 of the new bill amends section 66.007(C) to remove the following wording that was in the prior bill:

"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."

I believe that language should be retained. It sets a reasonability standard for regulation. The only reason to remove it is to provide more "flexibility" in the part of TPWD to restrict aquatic plants without having to adhere to a reasonability standard.

2) Section 8 repeals section 66.007  which stated in the prior bill

"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. The process must include the use of:
(1) a risk assessment model to help determine the potential harm of a species to the aquatic environment;
(2) published scientific research findings;
(3) Findings from regulatory agencies; or
(4) Scientific analyses from third-party laboratories.

I believe that a formal process to evaluate plants that are to be prohibited is good public policy and should be retained. The only reason to remove this is to allow TPWD to prohibit plants without following such a scientific process, that can be peer reviewed for appropriateness and challenged for merit.

I further believe that TPWD should be required to share with the public how they arrived at the process that they have/would use and the detail analysis results which are used to base decisions on banning plants without having to resort to Open Records requests.

3) Section 8 repeals section 66.007 (o) which stated in the prior bill

"The approved list must include 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.

The essence of this should be retained. As a requirement for placing aquatic plants on the black list should only include plants which are "cause of environmental, economic or health problems."

4) TPWD rules currently provide for permits for various entities to keep and maintain otherwise prohibited aquatic plants. Unfortunately the list of entities permitted to obtain permits does not include aquatic plant hobbyists who grow such plants indoors in aquaria and who pose a very small threat to the environment. In fact, the TPWD has privately told such hobbyists that we "are not the target of their aquatic plant rules". I believe that in the spirit of reasonable regulation, such permits should be allowed and that this bill should require TPWD to do so.

Further since the TPWD states that the cost of the permits is based largely on the cost of on site inspections and given that proposed permits would ONLY be issued to hobbyists who affirm that they would only keep such plants in indoor aquaria and NEVER in outdoor ponds or outdoor tanks whatsoever, there would be no reasonable need for on site inspections.

I would appreciate your given due consideration to these requests. I would be happy to provide further information.

Very truly yours,

Robert M. Alston
704 Stillwater Dr.
Rockwall, TX 75087
214-770-1140
[email protected]


----------



## BobAlston

SB 1480 approved by the Senate and sent to the House.


----------



## BobAlston

Below is the detailed scoring of C. Wendtii using the TPWD Weed Risk Assessment

Cryptocoryne wendtii - Green Wendtii, Red Wendtii

Section A Answer Score Doc. Review
Domestication
1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? No 0 1
1.02 Has the species become naturalized? Skip
1.03 Does the species have weedy races? Skip
Climate
 Native to Sri
2.01 Species suited to target region? High 2 2
Lanka
2.02 Quality of climate match? High 2 2
2.03 Broad climate suitability? Skip
2.04 Native or naturalized in areas with similar climate? Yes 1 3
2.05 History of repeated introductions outside its native range? Yes
Weed Elsewhere
3.01 Naturalized beyond native range? Yes 2 4,5,6
3.02 Garden/Amenity/disturbance weed? Yes 2 4,6
C. wendtii is
a synonym
3.03 Recreational weed? Skip
of C.
walkeri
Only
species in
3.04 Environmental weed? Skip
Flordia is C.
walkeri
C. beckettii
3.05 Congeneric weed? Yes 2 6,7,8
in Texas

Section B Answer Score Doc. Review
Undesirable Traits
4.01 Produces spines, thorns or burs? No 0 1
4.02 Allelopathic? No 0 1
4.03 Parasitic? No 0 1
4.04 Unpalatable to fish and wildlife? Skip 0
4.05 Toxic to animals? No 0 1
4.06 Host for pests and pathogens? No 0 1
4.07Causes allergies or toxic to humans? No 0 1
4.08 Creates flood or fire hazard? No 0 1
4.09 Is shade tolerant? Yes 1 1, 4
4.10 Grows in infertile soil or oligotrophic Water? No 0 1
4.11 Climbing or smothering growth habit? Skip 0
4.12 Forms dense thickets or mats? Yes 1 1

Section C Answer Score Doc. Review
Plant Type
5.01 Aquatic? Yes 1 1
5.02 Grass? No 0 1 Araceae
5.03 Nitrogen fixer? No 0 1
5.04 Geophyte?  No 0 1
Reproduction
6.01 Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat? No 0 1
6.02 Produces viable propagules? Skip
6.03 Hybridizes naturally? Skip
6.04 Self-compatible or apomictic? Skip
6.05 Requires special pollinators? Skip
6.06 Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation? Yes 1 1, 4
6.07 Minimum generative time? Skip 1 4
Dispersal
7.01 Propagules are likely to be dispersed unintentionally? No -1 4
7.02 Propagules dispersed intentionally by people? Yes 1 4

Page 202 of 753
http://www.texasinvasives.org/maintenance/wra_print_all.php 3/31/11 9:49 AM

7.03 Propagules likely to disperse as a Produce contaminant? No -1 3
7.04 Adapted to wind dispersal? No -1 1
7.05 Adapted to water dispersal? Yes 1 1
7.06 Adapted to bird dispersal? Skip
7.07 Adapted to dispersal by animals? Skip
7.08 Propagules survive through gut passage? Skip
Persistence
8.01 Prolific (>2,000 propagules/m2)? No -1 1
8.02 Persistent propagule bank formation? Skip
8.03 Well controlled by herbicides? Skip
8.04 Tolerates, or benefits from disturbance? Skip
8.05 Effective natural enemies present? Skip 0

Risk Score

Total Score: 10
Approved List Decision: Reject
A answered: 10 (2 minimum)
B answered: 9 (2 minimum)
C answered: 13 (6 minimum)

Risk Score <1 Accept, 1-6 Evaluate, >6 Reject
Note: = Risk Score excludes scores from Q2.01 and Q2.02 and scores Q5.01 as 0 or 1, not 0 or 5

Documentation

1. Pethiyagoda, Rohan (1993). Flora of Ceylon. UT Life Science - QK 359 T74 1980 INDEX 1993)
2. http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1633/2007/hess-11-1633-2007.pdf
3. http://www.hear.org/gcw/species/cryptocoryne_wendtii/
4. http://www.aquariumadvice.com/artic...mpet---Cryptocoryne-wendtii-De-Wit/Page1.html
5. http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Florida&statefips=12&symbol=CRWE4
6.http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html
7. Rosen, David J. (2000) Cryptocoryne beckettii (Araceae), a new aquatic plant in Texas . SIDA Contributions to Botany Volume: 19
Issue: 2 Pages: 399-401.
8. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/cryp_beckettii.htm

Weed Risk Assessment by: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on 0000-00-00

Comments: Native to Sri Lanka
Climates : tropical rainforest; tropical monsoon; tropical savannah; temperate without dry season and having warm summers
C. wendtii is considered a synonym of C. walkeri in the Atlas of Florida plants
Changes made to section A, series 3, ref. need to be added
C. wendtii is a synonym for C. walkeri

Reviewed by: Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center on 2010-07-09

Comments: Evaluator did not have access to a climate analysis used by reviewer. Assessment is correct and well documented.


----------



## BobAlston

SB 1480 was passed by the Texas Senate without any objection and will be considered by the House at a meeting of the Agriculture & Livestock committee on May 10. If you want to send comments to the committee members, you can via this link

http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/committee/?committee=020&session=81

To send a message, click on the specific member and then select Email on the next screen.

Bob


----------

