There being a quorum present, President Ray Erwin called the January 11, 2006, TVMA Board Meeting to order at 9:00 am.  The following members were present:  Ray Erwin, Richard Karber, Rob Brooks, Jim Cruser, Robert Lane, Scott Dunham, Howard Pierson, Rick Bennett, Paul Northcutt, George Pylant, Michelle McAfee, Steve White, Don Telge and Stan Jones.

Paul Northcutt read the minutes of the October 26, 2005  Board Meeting.  A motion was made, seconded and approved to accept the minutes as read.

Officer Reports were received as follows:

President:  Ray Erwin summarized the 2005 Conference and felt the financial situation from the 2005 Conference was good.  Ray encouraged everyone to help Jim as he coordinates the 2006 program. Ray will talk with Myron regarding the Conference financial summary and try to get that information out to the Board Members as quickly as possible.  

Vice-President:  Jim Cruser passed out the 2006 conference update.  A signed contract has been filed with the YO Ranch Resort Hotel in Kerrville.  Jim has several verbal commitments from sponsors for 2006; he will continue to make phone calls and contacts on sponsors.  Sponsors have indicated that they might be interested in providing items to TVMA, possibly luncheon and/or break-receptions.  The Board discussed adding an option for sponsoring events on the 2006.  Ray will provide some cost recommendations used by TFA and Paul will add sponsorship opportunities on the 2006 Annual Conference Registration forms.  Jim is looking at golf, skeet, tour of Kerr Wildlife Area (we will need to provide transportation unless the attendees provide their own).  The Board discussed possible topics for the 2006 conference.  Rick Bennett will contact Paul Bauman from A&M regarding a possible talk on weed resistance to herbicides.  The possibility of encouraging college students to attend the annual conference, especially at a reduced registration rate was discussed.  The possibility of students presenting “poster sessions” and the possibility of concurrent sessions including a university-student-research session was also discussed.  A spouse trip (Fredericksburg?) was discussed and Rob and Windy Brooks will help coordinate that possibility.    Jim established a conference call with the 2006 planning committee for Monday, January 23, 2006 at 10:00 am. 

Treasurer:    Paul Northcutt presented the Treasurer’s report as received from Myron Rabalais.  Total assets of the Association are $33,634.23, most of which is in an interest-bearing CD which permits flexible transfers from CD into checking account without penalty. A MOTION WAS MADE, SECONDED, AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT AS READ.

Secretary-Editor:  Paul advised the next issue of the CLIP will be due in February and asked for articles or suggestions.  Paul also advised that the bulk-mailing service was working well.  Paul discussed the upcoming CEU classes in the Houston and Austin areas.  The “screen print” of the Historical information, as currently existing on the TVMA web site, was distributed to the board and Paul advised that the dates of upcoming Board Meetings will also be posted on the TVMA web site. 

Past-President:  No past president report was received. 

Committee Reports were given as follows:

Research:  Howard Pierson discussed the current initiative to hire a university or graduate student to perform a literature search for unpublished research, on-going and existing research, new surfactant data, and published information available, which might be beneficial to the membership.  Resistance-management program, mode-of-action, damage prevention, drift mitigation, weed identification, etc., will be included in the literature search.  Information to be placed on a PDF format on a CD and TVMA can choose on how best to distribute this information to the membership.  HOWARD PIERSON made a motion that TVMA fund Shane Melcher, a senior with A&M, to start on 2/1/06, and to finish by July 1, 2006, with 100 hours of work at $20/hour for a total of $2,000.  One-half of this will be paid at start, the remaining half paid upon receipt of the CD..  The Board discussed this motion and discussed how to keep this information available and ready to be updated with a list of web site listings.  It was discussed to create a “Research” page on the TVMA web site, which could be updated as information came in and as updates came in.  It was also discussed that perhaps this should be a “members only” type of page.  Paul will look into the technical aspects of creating a password-protected members-only page, and ways to distribute the password to the membership.  PAUL NORTHCUTT SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION WAS UNAMIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD. ROB BROOKS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO LOOK INTO CREATING A LINK ON THE WEB PAGE TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE.  PAUL NORTHCUTT SECONDED THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNAMIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

Membership: Scott Dunham advised that a letter was sent to those members who did not attend the last conference and advised the Board that we had several returning General members from this initiatives.  Scott also advised that Michelle McAfee had recently attended the Invasive Species Conference with the thought to see if perhaps that membership might be appropriate for our Association.  The Board discussed the existing membership drive and the fact that very few new members were actually “sponsored” by an existing TVMA member and as a result, it was decided not to award those prizes as little interest that was actually demonstrated.  Michelle discussed possible membership opportunities observed at the conference.  She indicated there was a large Fish and Wildlife presence.  A member indicated that F&W is budgeted for a certain number of conferences per year, and that if we “don’t get on their radar, they can’t come to a conference.”  Many TFS personnel and university personnel attended the conference.  There was much talk at the conference on need for the use of herbicides in the practical control of invasive species, particularly Chinese Tallow, although some groups use very selective herbicides. Perhaps the use of “key phrases” could help us gain common ground in communicating with these groups.  It was discussed that it would be beneficial to try to get students, especially grad students involved in the Association.  Michelle also indicated that the conference used poster sessions to good effect.   It was discussed to have the anti-pesticide arena represented in our Association conference.  Scott and Michelle were directed to continue to assemble a list of related organizations who might possibly be interested in attending or participating in our conferences and to contact those organizations.  Ray indicated that we should advertise in the TFA newsletter for $18/month which would reach private landowners who might be interested in our conferences.  It was also discussed that adding the “aquatics” and “range-land” segment into our training might be a way to add members to the Association.  Rick Bennett will consider ways to possibly increase our training to include other use categories and make recommendations to the Board at the next Board meeting.    The membership committee was directed to evaluate all the different groups who might benefit from membership in TVMA and present that at the next Board meeting. 

Scholarship:  Rob Brooks provided the Scholarship Committee report.  Within the next few weeks, Rob will be updating the forms for the 2006 scholarship season.  Rob indicated that if we get professors involved, that will increase our access to good scholarship candidates. 

Training: Rick Bennett provided the Training Committee report and discussed the issue that Paul Northcutt normally covers the training report during his meeting which will not happen in the future.  It was discussed that the CEU classes were priced at $35 for TVMA members and $50 for non-members.  In October of 2006, we should present a CEU workshop in Lubbock again this year.  A question was asked about ISA training.  Michelle indicated that the Texas Chapter of ISA would be very happy for us to include ISA-related training and/or subjects/workshops in our activities.  A Board member advised that we must remember the segment who helps pay the bills for this Association; sponsors and the Texas DOT, and that we must not forget those constituent groups.  A Board member advised that we deal with vegetation management, primarily herbicides.  Co-hosting training with other groups might offer more opportunity.  The member suggested we broaden, not limit our horizons.  Another member suggested that providing a testing opportunity for other use categories might be beneficial to help us cross boundaries and increase membership.   

Legislative:  No report was received.  Our next legislative dinner will be when next the Legislature meets.   

Nominating:  No report was received.     

Internal Audit:  No internal audit report was received. 

Advisory:   No report was received at this meeting.

Awards:  No report was received at this meeting.    

Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed at this meeting.   

New Business:

Ray Erwin established the next TVMA Board Meeting to be held in Austin on April 25, 2006 at 9:00 am.  Paul will secure a meeting room at the TxDOT offices on Riverside Drive for this meeting. 

Earl Chilton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department made a presentation on the invasive species council.  Earl indicated that the impetus for creating such a council was because perhaps Texas was missing out on some federal funds because they did not have such a council.   It was indicated that those States who had invasive species council had been more effective in securing federal funds.  In discussing with stakeholders, it was important to form a council without approaching the Legislature, and they were not interested in forming another layer of bureaucracy, but put together an association of state agencies which would be bound loosely by memorandum of agreement with each other.  They met with 6 agencies last August.  The model included TPWD, TDA, TCEQ, TFS, Extension Svc, and Soil Conservation.  TxDOT had been interested but were later invited, and accepted, to be a member of the council.  Their goal, was to develop by-laws and MOU’s envisioned to be an executive council from state agencies who would provide oversight with an advisory committee comprised of NGO’s and agencies who might be interested. Now, it looks like between 40-60 + NGO’s plus agencies who might want to be involved.  The idea was that the advisory committee would advise the council on the issue.   The purpose of the council was not to develop a  new list of invasive species for the state, unless one of the state agencies involved requested it.    It was initially not intended to have any regulatory “teeth” but was intended for two purposes: (1) obtain federal funding; and (2) help facilitate information transfer.  At the invasive species conference in November, some controversy was created because some had received the draft by-laws, and some stakeholders claimed “conspiracy” because they were not allowed to participate.  They were trying to follow the Federal Model keeping membership reasonably small, but permits input from NGO’s and other shareholders.  TPWD has not been interested in getting more “teeth” or going to legislature. Their Executive Director has indicated that if it causes “too many problems, maybe we don’t need a council at all..”.  They are still working with other agencies to iron out problems and determine how to proceed.  A Board member asked if he had any idea how much federal money we might be missing out on by not having a council and Earl could not provide an estimate for that question.  Earl indicated that it is not a requirement for a state to have an invasive species council in order to receive federal funding, but it apparently helps receive the funding.  Earl is hoping to receive an email from Laurie Williams (sp?) of the Federal Invasive Species Council to update him on how much funding has been available to the councils, but nothing has been received to date.  The Salt Cedar conference in Albuquerque brought it “home” to Earl because Texas was blank with respect to the control, because most of other states had councils that they got information from, and they were not sure who to contact in Texas – no information was obtained from Texas.  Earl indicated that he would have a better answer once an update from Laurie was received.   A board member asked if TVMA could provide input into this effort and Earl indicated that was certainly the intent.  It was simply that trying to be all-inclusive of all stakeholder groups on the council was difficult if not impossible – however, whoever made up the council, it was always the intent to include the remaining stakeholders in the input loop.  A member asked is “isn’t the goal of the council to produce an invasive species list?”  Earl indicated that was not the goal of the council.  TPW  and TDA already has a list and the council was not set up to create anything other than what is already existing, unless one of the agencies specifically asked the council to provide input toward an invasive species list.  Earl further stated that if the council did come up with a list, it would have no authority.  Earl stipulated that the council had no reason to produce an invasive list other than the TDA or the TPWD list.  If TDA asked the Council for input, the council would then ask for input from the NGO’s and it would only be an recommendation.  A member indicated that there seemed to be a lot of miscommunication out there; that the council was to come up with a “list”.  Earl reiterated that this was not the purpose of the council.  Earl indicated that with respect to aquatics, the TPWD is the single state agency that produces the definitive list.

David Kostrum, Texas Department of Agriculture were also present provided comments to the TVMA Board.  David indicated that the TDA does produce a list of “noxious” weeds, but it is very limited.  Most noxious weed control is left to the local level where Commissioners determine what needs to be done.  A copy of the TDA laws and regulations was passed out by TDA personnel regarding legislative issues passed in 2003 and 2005.  They required TDA  to develop a list of noxious plants which had a potential of causing “economic or ecologic harm.”  They consulted with various stakeholders, and advised it was classified as a Class C misdemeanor.  They struggled with developing that list.   They certainly have a prohibited list of seed, and took TPWD list, consulted stakeholders, and developed list in Texas.  In the last session, the nursery industry pushed HB 2313 where they put in not only “noxious” but “invasive”.  They are currently struggling with the definition between noxious and invasive.  The nursery industry do sell certain plants which, in some states which have been listed on an “invasive” list.  A political subdivision may not adopt an ordinance or rule which restricts planting, sell or distribution of….. “ meaning that they cannot develop their own list of noxious/invasive.   

Jimmy Bush provided information on the TDA “invasive” species initiative.  Their initial attempt to determine invasive list was marginal when they tried to poll stakeholders due to the differences of opinion out there.  They did not get good response, and much antidotal information with little  documentation .  They felt they must have a criteria to determine what qualifies a plant as “invasive.” 

They are trying to develop the criteria which tells everyone what leads to a plant being “invasive” or not.  Once they determine the criteria, then TDA will go to TVMA an other stakeholders for review of that criteria.  They feel strongly that as many stakeholders as possible should be allowed to participate, but that it is a very difficult task in simply identifying the different stakeholders which might be involved.  It was discussed that a stakeholder group who were involved with a certain species of butterfly was very concerned that “balloon vine” might be targeted for removal, since this species was the single species used by this species of butterfly.  TDA also recognized TxDOT concerns regarding moving soil during construction activities.  They clarified that a class C misdemeanor does not include “accidental  or unintentional movement of plant material in the course of legitimate construction activity or agricultural activity.”  

A board member expressed interest that TVMA be recognized as a stakeholder in any future TDA attempt to determine clarifications or modifications to invasive and noxious species lists in Texas.

Earl Chilton asked for TVMA and anyone’s support to try to persuade the upcoming legislature to place funds into the  Aquatic Vegetation Management fund which was initially unfunded by the Texas legislature.  By cost –sharing, we could double or triple our efforts. 

TDA reiterated that local political subdivisions did not have the authority to develop list; but the TDA had only the authority to develop regional lists of noxious/invasive plants. 

A Board member discussed what actions were being taken to stop identified invasive/noxious species within Texas.  A question was asked about the time frame for TDA to develop a criteria for invasive species.  TDA indicated that no specific deadline had been established, but it should be as quickly as possible. 

There being no further new business, A MOTION WAS MADE, SECONDED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO ADJOURN AT 12:05 pm, 1/11/06.