Work Session
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
9:00 a.m.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Commission Hearing Room
4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744
Chairman Dan Allen Hughes, Jr., Commission Chair
Carter Smith, Executive Director
Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Work Session held March 26, 2014.
- Update on TPWD Progress in Implementing the TPWD Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan – Carter Smith
- Internal Affairs Report
- 2014 ShareLunker Report
- Early Season Migratory Hunting Dates
- August Commission Meeting
- Diversity and Hunter Education Course
- Palo Pinto Mountains State Park Update
- Devils River State Natural Area Update
- Albert and Bessie Kronkosky State Natural Area Update
- Never Happens – Water Safety Video
- Financial Overview – Mike Jensen
- Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) Update – Mike Jensen
- Strategic Plan - Jim Padilla
- Public Hunting Program – Establishment of an Open Season on Public Hunting Lands and Approval of Public Hunting Activities on State Parks - Linda Campbell (Action Item No. 4)
- Exotic Species Rule Amendments regarding Draining Water from Vessels and Portable Containers –Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes – Ken Kurzawski (Action Item No. 5)
- Proposed Amendment to Rules Governing Permits to Sell Nongame Fish Taken from Public Fresh Water – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes – Brandi Reeder (Action Item No. 6)
- Deer Management Permit (DMP) and Trapping, Transporting and Transplanting (Triple T) Permit Regulations – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes – Alan Cain (Action Item No. 7)
- Deer Permit Regulations – Rules Required and Authorized by Legislation – Senate Bill 820 (2013) – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Rules in the Texas Register – Mitch Lockwood
- Red Snapper – Discuss Recent Actions by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council related to the Management of Red Snapper Stocks within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off of Texas – Robin Riechers and Ann Bright (Public and Executive Session)
- Recreational Trail Grant Funding– Recommended Approval of Trail Construction, Renovation and Acquisition projects – Tim Hogsett (Action Item No. 3)
- Acceptance of Donation – Palo Pinto County - Approximately 120 Acres at Palo Pinto Mountains State Park – Corky Kuhlmann (Action Item No. 8)
- Pipeline Easement – Brazoria County – 6 Acres at Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area - Request Permission to begin the Public Notice and Input Process – Ted Hollingsworth (Public and Executive Session)
- Oil and Gas Recovery – Hardin County - 6 Acres Surface Use Agreement at Village Creek State Park – Ted Hollingsworth
- Mid-Coast Conservation Strategy – Ted Hollingsworth (Executive Session Only)
Land and Water Plan
Financial
Natural Resources Regulations
Grant Funding—State Parks
Land Conservation
Work Session Agenda Item No. 1
Presenter: Carter Smith
Work Session
TPWD Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan
May 21, 2014
I. Executive Summary: Executive Director Carter Smith will briefly update the Commission on the status of the agency’s efforts to implement the Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (the “Plan”).
II. Discussion: In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature directed that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) develop a Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (Tex. Park & Wildlife Code §11.104). In 2002, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (the Commission) adopted the first Plan. A revised Plan was adopted by the Commission in January 2005. In November 2009, the Commission approved a new Plan effective January 1, 2010. The 2010 Plan is available on the TPWD web site. Executive Director Carter Smith will update the Commission on TPWD’s recent progress in achieving the Plan’s goals, objectives and deliverables.
The Plan consists of the following four goals:
- Practice, Encourage and Enable Science-based Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources
- Increase Access To and Participation In the Outdoors
- Educate, Inform and Engage Texas Citizens in Support of Conservation and Recreation
- Employ Efficient, Sustainable and Sound Business Practices
Work Session Agenda Item No. 2
Presenters: Mike Jensen
Jim Padilla
Work Session
Financial Overview
May 21, 2014
I. Executive Summary: Staff will present a financial overview of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), outline the process for developing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-2017 Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR), and provide an update on the development of the FY 2015-2019 Strategic Plan (Natural Agenda).
II. Discussion: Staff will update the Commission on revenue collected by TPWD for FY 2014, compare the FY 2014 budget to FY 2014 expenditures, and summarize recent budget adjustments.
Legislative Appropriations Request Update: Staff will review the requirements, process, and timeline for developing the FY 2016-2017 Legislative Appropriations Request.
Strategic Plan Update: Staff will provide a status report on the development of the FY 2015-2019 Strategic Plan (Natural Agenda).
Work Session Item No. 7
Presenter: Mitch Lockwood
Work Session
Legislation Requiring or Authorizing Rulemaking
Various Deer Permit Program Rules
May 21, 2014
I. Executive Summary: This item seeks permission to publish proposed amendments to rules governing various deer permits in order to comply with the provisions of Senate Bill 820, enacted by the 83rd Texas Legislature (2013). The proposed amendments would consolidate the department’s processes for refusing issuance or renewal of various deer permits and the review of decisions and make nonsubstantive housekeeping-type changes.
II. Discussion: In 2013 the 83rd Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 820, which amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, by adding new Subchapter G, governing refusal to issue or renew certain permits relating to the control, breeding, or management of deer, and appeals of such decisions. In general, the statute incorporated the substance of current department regulations concerning the refusal to issue or renew permits on the basis of administrative noncompliance or criminal activity, necessitating conforming changes to the regulations. Staff has also taken the opportunity to consolidate all provisions governing permit refusal and review of permit refusal in a single subchapter for ease of reference.
Work Session Item No. 7
Exhibit A
SENATE BILL 820
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE
1. Introduction.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §§65.107 and 65.109, concerning Permits for Trapping, Transporting, and Transplanting Game Animals and Game Birds (Triple T permit), 65.131 and 65.132, concerning Deer Management Permit (DMP) and 65.603 and 65.608, concerning Deer Breeder’s Permits, and new 65.701-65.704, concerning Authority to Refuse to Issue or Renew Permit.
Under various provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, the department is authorized to issue permits governing certain activities involving live deer. The various types of Triple T permits allow a permittee to trap and move live game animals and game birds (Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E). Similarly, a DMP allows a permittee to temporarily retain white-tailed deer in an enclosure for the purpose of propagation (Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter R). A deer breeder permit allows a permittee to possess, purchase, and sell breeder deer (Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L).
Under current rules governing Triple T, DMP, and deer breeder permits, the department may refuse to issue or renew a permit to any person who has been convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R; a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code that is a Class A misdemeanor, a Class B misdemeanor, or felony; or a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002. Additionally, the department may refuse to issue or renew a permit to any person who has been convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, received deferred adjudication or pretrial diversion for, or has been assessed a civil penalty for a violation of 16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378 (the Lacey Act). Department rules further specify that the department may prohibit any person from acting as an agent of or surrogate for any permittee if the person is described by any of the previously mentioned criteria regarding criminal behavior. Department rules also provide for the review of an agency decision to refuse permit issuance or renewal.
The rules were adopted in 2010 because the department believed it was necessary to create a mechanism for preventing persons with an adjudicated disregard for laws intended to protect the state’s wildlife resources from enjoying (for any appropriate period of time) the privilege of a permit that authorizes the possession of live wildlife resources. At the time the rules were promulgated, the department noted that a denial of issuance or renewal of a permit under these criteria would not be automatic, but within the discretion of the department. The department noted that factors to be considered would include, but not be limited to the seriousness of the offense, the number of offenses, the existence or absences of a pattern of offenses, the length of time between the offense and the permit application, the applicant’s efforts towards rehabilitation, and the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant regarding the applicant’s prior permit history.
In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature (Regular Session) enacted Senate Bill (S.B.) 820, which amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 12 and 43, to address issues relating to the management, breeding, and destruction of deer held under Triple T, DMP, and deer breeder permits and the process of reviewing an agency decision to deny permit issuance or renewal.
Senate Bill 820 amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, by adding new Subchapter G to prescribe the criteria used by the department to refuse issuance or renewal of a Triple T, DMP, or deer breeder permit. The effect of the legislation is to codify in statute the department’s current rules regarding refusal to issue or renew a permit on the basis of the applicant’s criminal history, as well as the department’s discretionary guidelines for making such a determination. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to §§65.107, 65.109, 65.131, 65.132, and 65.603 remove regulatory language that is duplicative of the new statutory provisions.
The provisions of S.B. 820 require the commission to adopt by rule procedures consistent with Subchapter G for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew a permit. Rather than promulgating duplicate provisions in each of the three subchapters of Chapter 65 of the Texas Administrative Code, the department instead proposes new §§65.701-65.704, designated as new Subchapter U, which would locate all provisions regarding permit/renewal refusal and review of refusal of Triple T, DMP, and deer breeder permit issuance or renewal in a single place to facilitate ease of reference.
Proposed new §65.701, concerning Applicability, would clearly state that the subchapter applies only to Triple T, DMP and deer breeder permits. Proposed new §65.702, concerning Authority to Refuse to Issue or Renew Permit, would stipulate that department decisions to refuse permit issuance or renewal will be made in compliance with the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G. Proposed new §65.703, concerning Proscription of Certain Agents and Surrogates, would relocate the current provisions concerning the agents and surrogates in a single section for ease of reference. (S.B. 820 did not address the issue of agents or surrogates, and the agency is therefore retaining those rules). Proposed new §65.704, concerning Review of Department Decision to Refuse Permit Issuance or Renewal, would require the department to notify an applicant not later than the 10th day following a decision to refuse permit issuance or denial and to set a time and date for conducting a review of an agency decision to refuse permit issuance or renewal within 10 days of receiving a request for a review. The proposed rule also would replace the current delineation of department personnel constituting the review panel. The current rule requires the review panel to be composed of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations (or his or her designee), the Director of the Wildlife Division; and the Big Game Program Director. In practice, the department has discovered that it is difficult to schedule meetings of the review panel within the timeframe required by the rule, primarily because senior-level managers have statewide duties and are infrequently in the same place at the same time. Additionally, the department believes that the panel should not include the individual who refused to issue or renew the permit, and current rule does not afford the latitude to avoid such a conflict. Therefore, the proposed new rule would replace the current delineation with the requirement that the review panel consist of three department managers with expertise in deer management, appointed or approved by the executive director. In this fashion, the review process can be expedited.
The proposed amendment to §65.608, concerning Annual Reports and Records, would correct an inadvertent oversight. In a rulemaking adopted last year, the department implemented mandatory electronic reporting for deer breeder permit holders, which included the implementation of a single reduced fee for deer breeder permit renewals. Prior to the rulemaking, permit holders who reported electronically were entitled to a 50% reduction in the renewal fee. With mandatory electronic reporting, all permittees receive a reduced fee for renewal; however, the rulemaking did not eliminate the provisions of §65.608 that are now irrelevant.
2. Fiscal Note.
Mitch Lockwood, Big Game Program Director, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.
3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.
Mr. Lockwood also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect:
(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be rules that are organized more intuitively.
(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, commission considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.
The department has determined that because the rules do not substantively alter any requirement currently in effect, there will be no adverse economic effects on small businesses, microbusinesses, or persons required to comply with the rules as proposed. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.
(C) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.
(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.
(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.
4. Request for Public Comment.
Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Robert Macdonald, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas, 78744; (512) 389-4775 (e-mail: robert.macdonald@tpwd.texas.gov) or at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/.
5. Statutory Authority.
The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §§43.061, 43.6011 and 43.6012, which require the commission to adopt rules for the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals and game birds under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, and 12.605, which authorizes the commission to adopt procedures for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew a permit issued under Parks and Wildlife Code, §§43.061, 43.6011 and 43.6012.
The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43.
6. Rule Text.
§65.107. Permit Application and Processing.
(a) (No change.)
(b) [Review. An applicant for a permit under this subchapter may request a review of a decision of the department to deny issuance or delay processing of a permit.]
[(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department with respect to permit issuance under this subchapter shall first contact the department within 10 working days of being notified by the department of permit denial.]
[(2) The department shall conduct the review and notify the applicant of the results within 10 working days of receiving a request for review.]
[(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of the following:]
[(A) the Deputy Executive Director for Natural Resources, or his or her designee;]
[(B) the Director of the Wildlife Division; and]
[(C) the Big Game Program Director.]
[(4) The decision of the review panel is final.]
[(5)] The department shall report on an annual basis to the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee the number and disposition of all reviews under this subsection.
§65.109. Issuance of Permit.
(a) (No change.)
(b) In addition to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G, the department may refuse permit issuance or renewal as provided in Subchapter U of this chapter. [The department may refuse permit issuance or renewal to any person who has been:]
[(1) convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for:]
[(A) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R;]
[(B) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code that is a Class A misdemeanor, a Class B misdemeanor, or felony; or]
[(C) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]
[(2) convicted, pleaded nolo contendere, received deferred adjudication or pretrial diversion, or assessed a civil penalty for a violation of 16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378 (the Lacey Act).]
(c) The department shall conduct all reviews of department decisions to deny issuance or renewal of a permit under this subchapter in compliance with the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G and Subchapter U of this chapter. [The department may prohibit any person from acting as an agent of any permittee if:]
[(1) the person has been convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for an offense listed in subsection (b)(1) of this section; or]
[(2) the person has been convicted, pleaded nolo contendere, received deferred adjudication or pre-trial diversion, or assessed a civil penalty for an offense listed in subsection (b)(2) of this section.]
[(d) The department may withhold the processing of a permit or renewal application if the applicant or an agent of the applicant is a defendant in a criminal prosecution or proceeding to assess a civil penalty for:]
[(1) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R;]
[(2) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]
[(3) a violation of 16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378 (the Lacey Act).]
[(e) The department may refuse to issue a permit to any person the department has evidence is acting on behalf of or as a surrogate for another person who is prohibited by the provisions of this subchapter from engaging in permitted activities.]
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on
The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.603, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions under which deer may be held under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter R, and Parks and Wildlife Code §12.605 which authorizes the commission to adopt procedures for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew a permit issued under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter R.
The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43.
§65.131. Deer Management Permit (DMP)
(a) – (c) No change.)
[(d) An applicant for a permit under this subchapter may request that a decision by the department to deny issuance or delay processing of a permit or permit renewal be reviewed.]
[(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department under this subsection shall contact the department within 10 working days of being notified by the department of permit denial.]
[(2) The department shall conduct the review and notify the applicant of the results within 10 working days of receiving a request for a review.]
[(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of the following:]
[(A) the Deputy Executive Director for Natural Resources (or his or her designee);]
[(B) the Director of the Wildlife Division; and]
[(C) the Big Game Program Director.]
[(4) The decision of the review panel is final.]
[(5) The department shall report on an annual basis to the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee the number and disposition of all reviews under this subsection.]
65.132. Permit Application.
(a) – (c) (No change.)
(d) In addition to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G, the department may refuse permit issuance or renewal as provided in Subchapter U of this chapter.
(e) The department shall conduct all reviews of department decisions to deny issuance or renewal of a permit under this subchapter in compliance with the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G and Subchapter U of this chapter.[The department may refuse to issue a permit or permit renewal to any person who has been:]
[(1) convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for:]
[(A) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R;]
[(B) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code that is a Class A misdemeanor, a Class B misdemeanor, or felony; or]
[(C) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]
[(2) convicted, pleaded nolo contendere, received deferred adjudication or pretrial diversion, or assessed a civil penalty for a violation of 16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378 (the Lacey Act).]
[(e) The department may prohibit a person from acting as an agent for any permittee if the person:]
[(1) has been convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for an offense listed in subsection (d)(1) of this subsection; or]
[(2) has been convicted, pleaded nolo contendere, received deferred adjudication or pretrial diversion, or assessed a civil penalty for an offense listed in subsection (d)(2) of this section.]
[(f) The department may withhold the processing of a permit or renewal application if the applicant or an agent of an applicant is a defendant in a prosecution or proceeding to assess a civil penalty for:]
(1) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R;]
(2) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]
(3) a violation of 16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378 (the Lacey Act).]
[(g) The department may refuse to issue a permit to any person the department has evidence is acting on behalf of or as a surrogate for another person who is prohibited by the provisions of this subchapter from engaging in permitted activities.]
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on
The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.357, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession of breeder deer held under a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, and Parks and Wildlife Code §12.605 which authorizes the commission to adopt procedures for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew a permit issued under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L.
The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43.
§65.603. Application and Permit Issuance.
(a) – (f) (No change.)
(g) In addition to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G, the department may refuse permit issuance or renewal as provided in Subchapter U of this chapter.
(h) The department shall conduct all reviews of department decisions to deny issuance or renewal of a permit under this subchapter in compliance with the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G and Subchapter U of this chapter.[The department may refuse permit issuance or renewal to any person who has been:]
[(1) convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for:]
[(A) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R;]
[(B) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code that is a Class B misdemeanor, a Class A misdemeanor, or felony; or]
[(C) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]
[(2) convicted, pleaded nolo contendere, received deferred adjudication or pre-trial diversion, or assessed a civil penalty for a violation of 16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378 (the Lacey Act).]
[(h) The department may prohibit any person from acting as an agent of any permittee if the person:]
[(1) has been convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, or received deferred adjudication for an offense listed in subsection (g)(1) of this section; or]
[(2) has been convicted, pleaded nolo contendere, received deferred adjudication or pre-trial diversion, or assessed a civil penalty for an offense listed in subsection (g)(2) of this section;]
[(i) The department may refuse to issue a permit to any person the department has evidence is acting on behalf of or as a surrogate for another person who is prohibited by the provisions of this subchapter from engaging in permitted activities.]
[(j) An applicant for a permit under this subchapter may request a review of a decision of the department to refuse issuance of a permit or permit renewal.]
[(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department with respect to permit issuance under this subchapter shall first contact the department within 10 working days of being notified by the department of permit denial.]
[(2) The department shall conduct the review and notify the applicant of the results within 10 working days of receiving a request for review.]
[(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of the following:]
[(A) the Deputy Executive Director for Operations (or his or her designee);]
[(B) the Director of the Wildlife Division; and]
[(C) the Big Game Program Director.]
[(4) The decision of the review panel is final.]
[(5) The department shall report on an annual basis to the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee the number and disposition of all reviews under this subsection.]
§65.608. Annual Reports and Records.
(a) Each deer breeder shall file a completed annual report by not later than May 15 of each year.
(b) A person other than a deer breeder holding breeder deer for nursing, breeding, or health care purposes shall maintain and, upon request, provide copies of transfer permits indicating the source of all breeder deer in the possession of that person.
[(c) The reduced fee for renewal of a deer breeder permit specified in §53.14(a)(2) of this title (relating to Deer Management and Removal Permits) shall apply to any permittee who, in the year prior to renewal, has reported via the department’s online reporting system at least 85% of the following (in the aggregate):]
[(1) births and deaths of deer held under the permit; and]
[(2) transfer permits activated by the permittee.]
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on
The new sections are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code,§§43.061, 43.6011 and 43.6012, which require the commission to adopt rules for the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals and game birds under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, 43.603, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions under which deer may be held under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter R, 43.357, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession of breeder deer held under a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, and §12.605, which requires the commission to adopt procedures by rule that are consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G, for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew certain permits.
The proposed new sections affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 12 and 43.
§65.701. Applicability. The provisions of this subchapter apply only to permits issued pursuant to subchapters C, D, and T of this chapter.
§65.702. Authority to Refuse to Issue or Renew Permit. The department may refuse permit issuance or renewal to any person as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G.
§65.703. Proscription of Certain Agents and Surrogates.
(a) The department may prohibit any person from acting as an agent of any permittee if the person has a final conviction or has been assessed an administrative penalty for a violation of:
(1) Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, E, L, R, or R-1;
(2) a provision of the Parks and Wildlife Code that is not described by paragraph (1) of this section that is punishable as a Parks and Wildlife Code:
(A) Class A or B misdemeanor;
(B) state jail felony; or
(C) felony;
(3) Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or
(4) the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378)
(b) The department may refuse to issue a permit to any person the department has evidence is acting on behalf of or as a surrogate for another person who is prohibited by the provisions of this subchapter from engaging in permitted activities.
§65.704. Review of Department Decision to Refuse Permit Issuance or Renewal. An applicant for a permit or permit renewal may request a review of a decision of the department to refuse issuance of a permit or permit renewal (as applicable).
(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department with respect to permit issuance must request the review within 10 working days of being notified by the department that the application for a permit or permit renewal has been denied.
(2) Within 10 working days of receiving a request for review under this subsection, the department shall establish a date and time for the review.
(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of three department managers with expertise in deer management, appointed or approved by the executive director.
(4) The decision of the review panel is final.
(5) The department shall report on an annual basis to the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee the number and disposition of all reviews under this subsection.
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on
Red Snapper – Discuss Recent Actions by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council related to the Management of Red Snapper Stocks within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off of Texas
Work Session Item No. 8
Presenter: Robin Riechers
Work Session
Briefing
Red Snapper – Discuss Recent Actions by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council related to the Management of Red Snapper Stocks within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off of Texas
May 21, 2014
I. Executive Summary: In June 2013, a group of commercial fishermen filed suit against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) alleging that NMFS violated the federal Magnuson-Stephens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in setting the 2013 red snapper recreational fishing seasons in the Gulf of Mexico. On March 26, U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein granted a summary judgment in favor of the commercial fishermen. Based on this ruling, and various red snapper regulation inconsistencies within state waters of multiple Gulf States, the 2014 federal season is currently projected to be 11 days.
II. Discussion: In June 2013, a group of commercial fishermen filed suit against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that NMFS violated the federal Magnuson-Stephens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in setting the 2013 red snapper recreational fishing seasons in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) intervened as a defendant in the case. Environmental Defense (ED) filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the plaintiffs.
On March 26, U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein granted a summary judgment in favor of the commercial fishermen. The specific claim on which the decision was based concerned the 2013 recreational red snapper season in federal waters. The court agreed with the plaintiffs (commercial fishermen) that NMFS had violated the MSA in setting the June 2013 season and in reopening the season in the fall of 2013. Specifically, the court determined that NMFS’ actions violated the MSA by (1) not prohibiting the retention of fish once the recreational quota had been reached, (2) not using (or ignoring) the best scientific information available in reopening the season in the fall of 2013, and (3) not requiring adequate accountability measures in that it did not set catch limits to prevent overfishing.
While NMFS has yet to set the 2014 federal red snapper season, based on the above ruling along with multiple states having inconsistent red snapper regulations within their own state waters, the 2014 federal season is currently projected to be 11 days.
Work Session Item No. 11
Presenter:
Ted Hollingsworth
Work Session
Pipeline Easement – Brazoria County
Six Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area
May 21, 2014
I. Executive Summary: The company Air Liquide requests an easement to install a ten-inch diameter syngas pipeline across the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (WMA).
II. Discussion: The Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (the WMA) consists of 14,734 acres of coastal prairies, bottomland hardwoods and marshes that serves as significant habitat for a number of resident and migratory species, including waterfowl and wading birds. Located near industrial facilities in Jones Creek and Freeport, several pipeline corridors already cross the WMA. With increased oil and gas recovery in south Texas, proposals for transmission pipelines have increased significantly in the past couple years. Air Liquide requests a new easement to install a ten-inch diameter pipeline across the WMA to carry a blend of semi-refined hydrocarbons called “syngas”. Staff is in the process of evaluating route alternatives and negotiating installation and maintenance alternatives to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources should the easement be granted.
Upon a determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the requested route and that impacts to the WMA have been minimized to the extent feasible, staff requests permission to begin the public notice and input process.
Work Session Item No. 11
Exhibit A
Location Map for the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area
Brazoria County
Work Session Item No. 11
Exhibit B
Vicinity Map for the Justin Hurst WMA 55 Miles South of Houston
Work Session Item No. 11
Exhibit C
Site Map Showing Location for Requested Air Liquide Pipeline
Work Session Item No. 12
Presenter:
Ted Hollingsworth
Work Session
Oil and Gas Recovery – Hardin County
Six Acre Surface Use Agreement at Village Creek State Park
May 21, 2014
I. Executive Summary: Century Exploration has leased minerals under the Village Creek State Park and is working with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) staff to identify a location for a drill pad site.
II. Discussion: Village Creek State Park preserves east Texas Big Thicket bottomland and upland forests on the banks of Village Creek. In 2012, TPWD added 1,375 acres to the south side of the 1,090-acre park, more than doubling the park’s size. The minerals had already been severed from the surface of the new tract, and TPWD staff worked with Choice Exploration at that time to develop a well pad and access road for mineral recovery in the northwest end of the property. That well is in production, and another mineral developer is now poised to drill for hydrocarbons from an adjacent lease under the park.
Only a small area of Century’s mineral lease is not within the park, and that area is severed from equipment access by a canal. Century has worked with TPWD staff to identify a drill pad location in the southeast corner of the park addition that minimizes impacts to natural resources and park operations. Staff will brief the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on the process of selecting and evaluating a drill pad location and issuing a Surface Use Agreement for the project.
Work Session Item No. 12
Exhibit A
Location Map for Village Creek State Park
Work Session Item No. 12
Exhibit B
Vicinity Map for Village Creek State Park, Ten Miles North of Beaumont
Work Session Item No. 12
Exhibit C
Site Map for Target Location of New Drill Pad at Village Creek State Park
