Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Conservation Committee
April 5, 2000
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1
7 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the
8 5th day of April 2000, there came on to be heard
9 matters under the regulatory authority of the
10 Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the
11 Commission Hearing Room of the Texas Parks and
12 Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis
13 County, Texas, beginning at 2:35 p.m., to wit:
14
15
APPEARANCES:
16 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE:
17 Chair: Carol E. Dinkins
Lee M. Bass (absent)
18 Dick W. Heath
Nolan Ryan
19 Ernest Angelo, Jr.
John Avila, Jr.
20 Alvin L. Henry
Katharine Armstrong Idsal
21 Mark E. Watson, Jr.
22 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT:
Andrew H. Sansom, Executive Director, and other
23 personnel of the Parks and Wildlife Department
24
25
. 2
1 APRIL 5, 2000
2
3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: If you
4 would, please come back to order. This is the
5 continuation of the committee meetings, and we
6 will move now to the agenda for the Conservation
7 Committee.
8 The first order of business is
9 approval of the committee minutes from the
10 previous meeting, and you all have a copy of that
11 in your briefing book. And the Chair would
12 entertain a motion for approval of those minutes.
13 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So moved.
14 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Second.
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
16 It's been moved and seconded. Are there any
17 additions, corrections, other changes? Okay.
18 Hearing none, then all in favor of approval of the
19 minutes, say aye.
20 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Those
22 opposed?
23 (No response, and motion carries
24 unanimously.)
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Motion
. 3
1 carries. Thank you.
2 Next we move to the briefing by
3 Mr. Sansom of the Chairman's Charges.
4 MR. SANSOM: Madam Chairman, in the
5 interest of time, I would recommend that you allow
6 me to present those charges at our next meeting,
7 because there's nothing on there that can't wait
8 until June.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right.
10 They'd better be good in June.
11 MR. SANSOM: They'll be better in
12 June.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you,
14 Andy.
15 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: ACTION - SEA GRASS
16 CONSERVATION PROPOSALS.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
18 item is an Action Item, and this is the Sea Grass
19 Conservation Proposals, which you'll find the text
20 at Page 44 in the book; and Dr. Harvey is our
21 presenter.
22 Welcome.
23 DR. HARVEY: Thank you, Madam
24 Chairman.
25 Madam Chairman and Members, I'm
. 4
1 Bill Harvey from Resource Protection Division; and
2 with me is my trusty sidekick, Larry McKinney.
3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, we
4 welcome you, too.
5 DR. McKINNEY: Thank you.
6 DR. HARVEY: We're pleased to have
7 the opportunity to bring forth to the Commission
8 for consideration today two proposals regarding
9 sea grass conservation in Texas. You may recall,
10 Members, that Dr. McKinney and I briefed the
11 entire Commission at the November meeting on the
12 progress of the sea grass conservation efforts
13 along the Gulf Coast. We're very pleased to have
14 the opportunity to bring forth two proposals for
15 consideration now which would actually begin
16 implementation of that initiative.
17 Sea grasses are very important
18 marine organisms. They actually are marine
19 flowering plants. There are five species in
20 Texas, and they are a very important part of the
21 Texas coastal ecology.
22 They serve as nursery areas, food
23 and cover for many species of game fish and
24 non-game fish. They are important in maintaining
25 the stabilization of bays and estuary bottom. In
. 5
1 terms of water quality, they provide important
2 benefits. They're sites of superb fishing.
3 And of particular importance to us
4 is that these sea grasses tend to grow in very
5 shallow water.
6 Again, just quickly, in 1999 the
7 Parks and Wildlife Department, along with the
8 General Land Office and the TNRCC, adopted the
9 sea grass conservation plan for Texas. The plan
10 identified many causes of sea grass loss, not the
11 least of which is dredging and changes in water
12 quality.
13 But one of the most immediate and
14 obvious causes of sea grass fragmentation in Texas
15 deals with prop scarring. Prop scarring really is
16 a result of boats operating in very shallow water
17 such that the propellor of the boat, the outboard
18 of the boat, actually gets into the substrate and
19 into the grass and actually cuts it or removes the
20 grass and the substrate such that the sea grass
21 can no longer thrive.
22 To help us put together plans for
23 implementing the sea grass initiatives, we've put
24 together a Citizens' Task Force; and we made every
25 attempt to ensure that all the different areas of
. 6
1 interest were represented.
2 I might take just a second to
3 mention, too, that two of the Members of our Sea
4 Grass Task Force, Will Myers from Austin and
5 A. C. Yeamans from Rockport, are here with us
6 today.
7 We specifically sought out members
8 of Chambers of Commerce, guides associations, and
9 retailers. We tried to cover the entire spectrum
10 of people who might be involved in this particular
11 issue.
12 The goals of the task force were
13 four. First was to protect Texas sea grass
14 resources. Second was to maintain and enhance the
15 quality and access to our superb Texas coastal
16 fishing. Third was to create new recreational
17 activities. And fourth was to make sure that
18 whatever plan was put into place, that it was
19 consistent with both the spirit and the tone of
20 the Sea Grass Conservation Plan.
21 The Sea Grass Task Force made
22 several findings. First was that prop scarring
23 indeed was a substantial contributor to sea grass
24 fragmentation in many areas of the Texas Gulf
25 Coast, and that in fact prop scarring may
. 7
1 exacerbate bottom erosion and further sea grass
2 loss.
3 We also found that prop scarring,
4 as one might suspect -- it certainly would be a
5 surprise to no one -- tends to be concentrated
6 near popular fishing areas.
7 The Sea Grass Task Force also found
8 that boater education could result in decreased
9 sea grass fragmentation; that rerouting of boat
10 traffic would be a substantial means of protecting
11 sea grasses; that the sea grass research that was
12 initiated by Dr. McKinney about two years ago
13 should continue; and that we, as always, should
14 look at means of improving access.
15 The first of these two proposals
16 that was brought forth is centered around an area
17 we call Redfish Bay. This is actually a subarea
18 of Aransas Bay and is bounded on the north by
19 Rockport. If you think of a triangle, then, with
20 one angle at Rockport, the base would run through
21 Aransas Pass down to Ingleside, back to Port
22 Aransas, and then back to Rockport, that would
23 essentially encompass the area of Redfish Bay.
24 Redfish Bay is one of the prime
25 fishing destinations along the Texas coast. It
. 8
1 can truly be superb fishing in this area. It also
2 has extensive sea grass beds. And importantly,
3 two of the most northern extensions, or perhaps
4 the most northern extension of both manatee grass
5 and turtle grass are found in this complex.
6 There are areas in Redfish Bay with
7 severe prop scarring, and it has excellent boating
8 access. There are approximately 14 boat ramps in
9 this particular area.
10 The strategies for Redfish Bay:
11 No. 1, we would ask the Commission to consider a
12 consideration of creating a Redfish Bay scientific
13 area, where we would continue research into the
14 causes and remedies for sea grass destruction.
15 We've hired a sea grass coordinator, who will
16 continue to oversee these efforts over the long
17 term.
18 We would like to implement a boater
19 education program, which would include marking of
20 navigable channels in the area; and we've had
21 superb support from local CCA chapters and guide
22 associations in that process.
23 We would look at creating voluntary
24 prop-up zones; in other words, areas where we
25 would ask boaters to no longer traverse those with
. 9
1 their motor down. And I would like to stress that
2 in this area we're looking at doing that on a
3 voluntary basis initially. And
4 we would look at ways of improving access to
5 fishing in this area.
6 We'd like to concentrate on four
7 areas of Redfish Bay, and I'll run through those
8 for you quickly. The first of those is an area
9 called Redfish Cove, and it is the northernmost
10 extension of Redfish Bay.
11 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Estes Cove.
12 DR. HARVEY: Or Estes Cove.
13 It is an area which is subjected
14 to -- has been subjected to some extreme prop
15 scarring. The strategy here would be to create
16 two prop-up zones. They would be to essentially
17 set this area aside from boat traffic in the
18 future. And, again, we stress that this is
19 voluntary. We would mark the navigable channel
20 through the back of that cove, which would allow
21 people to leave the Intracoastal Waterway, go
22 through the back of Estes Cove, and then back out
23 into the areas east of Trailer Island.
24 There are two cuts there we would
25 mark as being non-navigable because, except in
. 10
1 periods of high tide, they are not. You simply
2 cannot pass them with a boat. As we look at sort
3 of the distribution of prop scarring in these
4 areas, they tend to concentrate on these cuts
5 which are not navigable.
6 We would also mark Yucca Cut as
7 being navigable.
8 The second area is the area we call
9 Terminal Flat, and it lies at the intersection of
10 the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the shrimp boat
11 channel that runs between Aransas Pass and Port
12 Aransas. This area is used to shortcut, largely
13 by boaters who, instead of taking the time to go
14 down to the Intracoastal intersection, making a
15 left, and going into Port Aransas, will cut across
16 this flat. It's an extensive turtle grass flat
17 which has been substantially damaged.
18 The strategy here would be to again
19 create a voluntary prop-up zone and to mark
20 running lanes which would allow individuals to
21 still not have to make that corner, but would
22 direct them around the turtle grass flat and back
23 out into deeper water.
24 The third area is the area that's
25 referred to as North Harbor Island. It's a really
. 11
1 marvelous complex of shallow-water creeks and
2 lakes which has very little prop scarring over its
3 entirety, largely as a result of the fact that
4 except at exceptional tides, it is pretty
5 difficult to navigate. It's also difficult to
6 navigate if you're not familiar with the area
7 because of its complexity.
8 So our strategy here would be not
9 to limit boat traffic in any form or fashion, but
10 rather to actually mark a series of access trails
11 through the North Harbor Island area to allow
12 people to navigate it, whether they were
13 kayakers, whether they might be out to do
14 bird-watching, fishing; but essentially take an
15 area which historically has been very difficult to
16 access and to open up access to it.
17 The fourth area of Redfish Bay is
18 called Brown & Root Flat. It lies south of the
19 causeway that runs between Aransas Pass and Port
20 Aransas. Interestingly, this flat has extensive
21 turtle grass beds which have largely not been
22 affected by prop scarring at all.
23 The strategy for the Brown & Root
24 Flat would be to continue to protect those sea
25 grass beds, but to increase access to this flat
. 12
1 by marking the navigable channels which actually
2 allow people to access that flat to create a large
3 run zone in the sort of depression that lies in
4 the middle of Brown & Root Flat, and then have
5 voluntary no-run zones in the areas around it.
6 A kind of neat thing about this
7 area is it's one of the few places where anglers
8 can actually park and walk out to go fishing. And
9 we'd like to set aside those areas along the
10 shoreline and the shallow water not only to
11 protect sea grasses, but to kind of cut down the
12 conflict between people who are out wading or
13 poling and boats that would be running through the
14 area. It still allows access, but it sort of
15 partitions that resource to different sorts of
16 activities.
17 Members, the second proposal is for
18 an area called the Nine Mile Hole or the
19 Graveyard. It lies south of Baffin Bay. It's a
20 shallow off-channel depression right off the
21 Intracoastal Waterway. It used to be called the
22 Graveyard. It's characterized by very shallow
23 water, and the access to the Graveyard or Nine
24 Mile Hole is largely determined by tides. It can
25 have excellent fishing at certain times of the
. 13
1 year, and the Nine Mile Hole overlays part of the
2 Padre Island National Seashore. The objective
3 here was to look at ways to enhance the fishing
4 experience, again by managing boat traffic.
5 The strategy for the Nine Mile Hole
6 would be, again, to create a State scientific area
7 that we would use to promote low-impact use during
8 low tides, and would create a mandatory no-run
9 zone in the State water section of Nine Mile
10 Hole -- roughly the section that I guess is sort
11 of surrounded in yellow there -- and a voluntary
12 no-run zone in the national seashore, and the
13 national seashore has agreed to partner with us in
14 that effort.
15 Essentially, you would no longer be
16 able to enter the Nine Mile Hole from the north.
17 You would have to enter from one of the three
18 access channels: Either the one that's known as
19 the Roll-Off Channel; through the middle channel,
20 which is called 201 Channel; or the far south,
21 which is called the Nine Mile Hole Channel.
22 There's been some talk during the
23 course of this about a running lane, which would
24 be in the middle of the middle channel and the
25 most northerly, which would allow people to do a
. 14
1 drift part of the way across that area, run back
2 out to the east, and then drift back out to the
3 Roll-Off Channel.
4 We spent a lot of time looking at
5 this proposal and decided that it probably was not
6 a good idea for several reasons. We believe it
7 would negate the benefits of having an area that
8 was largely motorboat-free. The running lane that
9 was proposed would be in an area which was very
10 shallow. There's no natural cut there, so to
11 allow boat traffic through there would simply
12 disturb the bottom; create turbidity, which would
13 flow north. We also believe it could potentially
14 invite running into the voluntary prop-up zone,
15 and there are some law-enforcement issues with
16 having that lane there.
17 We held a public hearing on
18 March 15th in Corpus Christi with 120 attendees,
19 including Commissioner Watson. We had about 64 or
20 74 people speak. Fifty-two were in favor of both
21 proposals as they were presented. Thirteen were
22 opposed to the Nine Mile Hole project. Nine
23 opposed both projects.
24 The projects as we presented them
25 were supported by the CCA, Coastal Bend Guides
. 15
1 Association, Corpus Christi Bays and Estuaries,
2 the Bays Foundation, and the Environmental Defense
3 Fund. We also received a letter today from the
4 Aransas County Commissioners Court in support. We
5 had one organization in opposition, and that was
6 the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
7 As a result of phone calls and
8 letters we received after this meeting, we'd like
9 to also consider a possible other ripple to the
10 strategy for the Nine Mile Hole; and that is in
11 the no-run zone, to do it in the period of May 1
12 through September 30th. This is a period when the
13 tide in here tends to be at its lowest. It's
14 really not appropriate for boat traffic. But
15 other times of the year, when the tides start to
16 come in again, boat traffic would be unrestricted
17 during the high-tide periods. We'd like to
18 explore this as an alternative to the proposal as
19 we presented it in March, on March 15th, during
20 the comment period.
21 I will tell you that the concept of
22 scientific areas was a concern to some of our
23 constituents, as we mentioned earlier, because
24 they felt like it would be the first step in the
25 restriction of shallow-water fishing. So we would
. 16
1 propose that both the Nine Mile Hole and the
2 Redfish Bay scientific area would be in place for
3 a period of five years, at which point, in the
4 absence of further Commission action, that these
5 two scientific areas would sunset; and we would as
6 a staff, as an agency, reserve the right to come
7 back and look at these no-prop zones on an annual
8 basis.
9 And with that, Members, I'd be glad
10 to entertain any questions and ask the
11 Commission's permission and guidance in posting
12 these proposals in The Texas Register for
13 consideration of rule-making.
14 COMMISSIONER WATSON: On the Nine
15 Mile Hole, that is going to be mandatory?
16 DR. HARVEY: Yes, we propose that
17 as being mandatory.
18 COMMISSIONER WATSON: But now
19 you're talking about lifting it in September?
20 DR. HARVEY: Well, Commissioner
21 Watson, the tide in that area is so low, as you
22 may well know, in the summer that running a boat
23 through there is really inappropriate. There is
24 no way to operate a boat in that area of the Nine
25 Mile Hole, to stop it, and then get it back up on
. 17
1 a plane again without tearing up the bottom,
2 without disturbing the bottom.
3 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Right.
4 DR. HARVEY: Most of the people who
5 use that either for wading or poling will do that
6 in those summer months when they can sight-cast to
7 fish, when the water is shallow enough that
8 they're able to do that.
9 During the spring tides and the
10 fall tides, when the water comes up, you can
11 actually run back into those areas, stop, and get
12 out again. And most of the people who would
13 sight-cast either through wading or kayaking are
14 tupically not going to be in those high-tide
15 periods.
16 So it sort of parallels what we had
17 proposed for the Brown & Root Flat in that we've
18 taken an area and we have partitioned the activity
19 there.
20 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: On the Nine
21 Mile Hole, I'm looking at the map you have in
22 here.
23 DR. HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.
24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: And you have
25 the island, and then the mainland over on the
. 18
1 left. And how do people get through there and
2 down -- I mean, can you go from Baffin Bay to Fort
3 Mansfield?
4 DR. HARVEY: Yes, ma'am.
5 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: How do you --
6 DR. HARVEY: On the inside of the
7 Spoil Islands, or on the west side or the east
8 side?
9 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: How do you do
10 that now? How do they get all the way down now?
11 DR. HARVEY: Down the Intracoastal.
12 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Take the
13 Intracoastal?
14 DR. HARVEY: Right. And this
15 proposal would limit access into the Nine Mile
16 Hole through the three entryways that come off the
17 Intracoastal. We could back up and take a look at
18 that.
19 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Do you mind?
20 DR. HARVEY: No, ma'am.
21 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I want to see
22 the bigger -- do we have a bigger map?
23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: The
24 Intracoastal is where you've got basically the
25 numbers 1, 2, 3.
. 19
1 DR. HARVEY: Right. It's that very
2 shallow --
3 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I see; I see.
4 DR. HARVEY: That is the
5 Intracoastal.
6 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Okay. I
7 couldn't see that.
8 DR. HARVEY: In fact, the Nine Mile
9 Hole lies almost at the very beginning of the land
10 cut.
11 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Okay. I've
12 got you. I see now.
13 DR. HARVEY: And part of the
14 difficulty with this area is that at certain times
15 of the year it tends to hold huge schools of fish.
16 And so what boaters will do, they'll get up on a
17 plane, come off of the area north of the Nine Mile
18 Hole, and simply run the Hole looking for fish
19 until they can find them, sit down, and then pick
20 up again to get out.
21 Well, at periods of low tide, if
22 someone has taken the time to come in, to walk in
23 or pole or wade, and you get up and run past them,
24 then it's a pretty serious problem in terms of
25 users. And in the low-tide periods, it also is
. 20
1 very destructive to the bottom.
2 So we're really looking, again, to
3 sort of answer Commissioner Watson's question,
4 we'd look at partitioning the use of that, based
5 upon the tide levels.
6 COMMISSIONER RYAN: What kind of
7 tide fluctuation do you get at Nine Mile Hole?
8 DR. HARVEY: I've been there a
9 couple of times, Commissioner Ryan, when, where we
10 might be standing in water that would be ankle-
11 deep, it would be about mid-shin to knee-deep
12 during periods of high tides. So I'm going to
13 guess it would not be not unusual, unlike most of
14 the coast, in terms of that sort of tidal
15 fluctuation.
16 It does tend to be influenced by
17 storm tides. For example, the tide was very high
18 in the Nine Mile Hole after Hurricane Brett this
19 year. But I would say, I don't know, 12 to 15
20 inches normally.
21 DR. McKINNEY: It's one of those
22 things that when the winds turn around -- I mean,
23 it keeps the water blown out of there pretty good
24 during the summer. When the winds change during
25 the fall, it fills back up. That's when it gets
. 21
1 deeper. There's some daily fluctuation, but it's
2 more seasonal, really, than anything else there.
3 DR. HARVEY: It's pretty
4 interesting, too, in terms of use; that the wade
5 fishermen, for example, people who historically
6 have waded, are pretty much out by the 1st of
7 October and not really in there until the tide
8 starts to fall off in the summer.
9 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Well, say like
10 after September 30th, when the tides are going to
11 be a little higher in there, even at low tide if
12 they were to take a prop boat in there, would they
13 do damage?
14 DR. HARVEY: I think, again, it
15 depends sort of where you are in that Hole,
16 because it's not uniform bottom. But there
17 certainly is a potential for that.
18 COMMISSIONER RYAN: What I'm
19 wondering is, if we have a ban on it from May 1st
20 till September 30th, if we'll get a lot of boat
21 traffic in October in there because people know
22 they can go back in there in the boat traffic, and
23 they haven't been in there all year because they
24 didn't want to wade or pole. That's something we
25 may take into consideration, because I could see
. 22
1 where we might all of a sudden, if the fishing is
2 good, get an awful lot boat traffic in there; and
3 if there's still a potential to do damages --
4 DR. McKINNEY: I think those are
5 all good suggestions. This idea came up right at
6 the last meeting -- it came up after our public
7 hearing. But there was a little compelling part
8 of it in that some of the folks that came to me
9 said, "Look, I just can't get back in there. I
10 can't pole like you're talking about. I'm too
11 old. I can't do it. Now you're going to" --
12 COMMISSIONER RYAN: And that's a
13 legitimate point.
14 DR. McKINNEY: -- "and you're going
15 to preclude me for good."
16 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Right.
17 DR. McKINNEY: So this was, "Well,
18 maybe this is one way to do it." But your
19 argument is a good one, because that happen. So
20 our proposal that we would publish in The Register
21 doesn't include that provision, but we want to let
22 people talk to us about it a little bit and kind
23 of feel out with the people to see if -- what
24 would work.
25 COMMISSIONER RYAN: So we could put
. 23
1 it in or we could take it out if we felt like it
2 was being abused?
3 DR. McKINNEY: Yes, sir. We have
4 some time, and that's why we want to take a little
5 bit of time to study it, because there's pluses
6 and minuses on all these things. But we could add
7 it.
8 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: What
9 experience or data do we have, or any at this
10 time, regarding how fast the sea grass will
11 recover if it's left alone?
12 DR. McKINNEY: It depends on what
13 species it is. But, for example, in Redfish Bay,
14 the reason we've set those zones up there is
15 because it's mostly in turtle grass, and it can
16 take eight years to come back, and that's a long
17 time.
18 Other sea grasses, like we were
19 talking about here, two or three years. They're
20 pretty fast. They can come back. So it varies
21 with the species. That's why in Redfish we've
22 focused our up-prop zones in places where that
23 particular type of sea grass is, to try to protect
24 it, because it takes so long for it to come back.
25 COMMISSIONER HENRY: What was the
. 24
1 basis of the opposition from the Recreational
2 Fisheries Association?
3 DR. HARVEY: Commissioner Henry,
4 basically, in a nutshell, it was just that -- this
5 sort of basic philosophical issue of taking areas
6 which you could no longer freely access.
7 DR. McKINNEY: With a boat.
8 DR. HARVEY: With a boat.
9 DR. McKINNEY: It would be the
10 first of closing off areas to all types of
11 access.
12 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Is that the
13 fellow from Rockport?
14 DR. McKINNEY: Mr. Smart.
15 DR. HARVEY: Yes, sir; Tim Smart.
16 COMMISSIONER WATSON: He's not a
17 real objective thinker.
18 DR. HARVEY: If I might add, too,
19 Commissioner --
20 DR. McKINNEY: I don't think I
21 would add anything to that statement.
22 DR. HARVEY: I was just going to
23 say that so far our research has shown that where
24 we actually see the substrate removed under the
25 sea grasses, regardless of species, that those
. 25
1 begin to serve as erosion channels and that the
2 area actually begins to widen.
3 And we tried some replanting there
4 this last year which was not successful, and it
5 may have been the result of it being washed out
6 from some fairly strong winds associated with the
7 hurricane. But it does not look like, at this
8 time -- and the results are preliminary -- that
9 remediation is going to be much of a solution.
10 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Naturally it
11 will recover, given time, you think?
12 DR. HARVEY: We believe as long as
13 the rhizomes are intact.
14 COMMISSIONER RYAN: So sea grass
15 reproduces from its root system?
16 DR. HARVEY: With the exception of
17 widgeon grass, which I think reproduces by seeds.
18 But the rest of them spread through rhizomes.
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, we
20 would like to see the visual aids that you've
21 prepared.
22 DR. HARVEY: Yes.
23 MR. SANSOM: (Inaudible.)
24 DR. McKINNEY: These are the signs
25 that we would be using to mark those areas in
. 26
1 various postures our Executive Director is
2 displaying to you.
3 COMMISSIONER RYAN: How shallow of
4 water does that sign go in?
5 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Three inches.
6 DR. McKINNEY: That's it right
7 there.
8 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Is that the
9 length of that sign?
10 DR. McKINNEY: I would say in
11 conclusion on that -- I know you need to move to
12 other matters, and we do appreciate it -- but this
13 has been one of those examples where we started
14 this, and there was a lot of concern and a lot of
15 divisiveness.
16 We put the task force together with
17 a broad range of views, and almost to the person
18 (inaudible) that task force stood up in our public
19 meeting and said not only was this a good idea,
20 but they were fully behind it.
21 And I think that's great, a
22 reflection on Dr. Harvey, Larry McEachron, Bill
23 Hogarth, and all the staff down there who work in
24 that community, worked together to get something
25 that I think will be very meaningful for the
. 27
1 future of fishing; and I'm quite proud of all of
2 those folks.
3 MR. SANSOM: I would like to echo
4 that and say that when we first started this, that
5 I really didn't feel like this kind of consensus
6 was possible. And the hard work that Larry, Bill,
7 and Larry and the rest of the guys have done has
8 really been extraordinary.
9 I would also like to particularly
10 thank Will Myers, who was the guy that really got
11 the anglers to come together and say, "This is
12 important."
13 DR. McKINNEY: Yes, I would echo
14 that, absolutely. Thank you, sir, for saying
15 that.
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, we
17 appreciate the members of the group who are here,
18 coming today. And I remember when you gave the
19 briefing before the Commission when you were
20 working on this, that it was very well done and a
21 very compelling briefing, and it's good to see
22 such good results on such an important issue; and
23 we'll look forward to your reports on how that's
24 working.
25 DR. McKINNEY: We will be making
. 28
1 them.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Are there
3 any other questions? Because this is an Action
4 Item, then, the chair would entertain a motion
5 that this be forwarded to The Texas Register.
6 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So moved.
7 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second.
8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right.
9 Any further discussion? Hearing none, those in
10 favor say aye.
11 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
12 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Those
13 opposed, nay. (No response, and
14 motion carries unanimously.)
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Motion
16 carries. Thank you again.
17 DR. HARVEY: Thank you.
18 DR. McKINNEY: Thank you.
19 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: ACTION - TPRA GRANTS RULES.
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
21 item also is an Action Item, and Tim Hogsett is
22 here to talk with us about the grants rules.
23 MR. HOGSETT: Thank you, Madam
24 Chairman and Members of the Commission. I'm Tim
25 Hogsett, Director of the Recreation Grants Program
. 29
1 in the State Parks Division. This is a preview of
2 Item No. 7 for the public hearing tomorrow, which
3 you can find on Page 124, I believe it is. Yes,
4 Page 124.
5 We're at this time bringing back to
6 you for adoption the proposed rule changes for the
7 Texas Recreation and Parks account. You will
8 recall that the programs that are under the
9 umbrella of the Texas Recreation and Parks account
10 include the Outdoor Recreation, the Indoor
11 Recreation grant, and the community Outdoor
12 Outreach grant programs.
13 We need to adopt new rules for a
14 number of reasons. One is the passage in the last
15 session of the Legislature of House Bill 2108,
16 which I will tell you a bit more about in a
17 second. House Bill 2108 did add some new
18 initiatives to the Parks and wildlife Code for the
19 Texas Recreation and Parks account, which include
20 facility transfers, transfer or potential transfer
21 of Parks and Wildlife-owned facilities to local
22 governments, and an initiative that we're calling
23 the Regional Park Initiative.
24 The last time we did this was in
25 1993, so we think that it's timely that we readopt
. 30
1 and make some changes in the rules. In the State
2 Auditor's Report that was done last fall, there
3 were some recommendations for a couple of changes
4 that we will take care of, and there was a large
5 increase in the Community Outdoor Outreach grant
6 programs funding.
7 And last. I don't believe anyone
8 except the Chairman, Chairman Bass, was here in
9 1993; so we have new members of the Commission and
10 want you all to have the opportunity to adopt
11 rules that you think are appropriate.
12 Again, House Bill 2108, passed in
13 the last session of the Legislature, allows the
14 Department to look at potential facility
15 transfers. Walt Dabney, State Parks Director, has
16 been in charge of that program, so I won't spend
17 any time talking about that issue, other than to
18 tell you that it's got to be mutually agreeable
19 and it's political subdivisions which would
20 receive grants potentially for overhaul of
21 facilities and/or for operations for a short
22 period of time.
23 House Bill 2108 legitimizes the
24 Community Outdoor Outreach program by placing it
25 in the Parks and Wildlife Code. Previously it was
. 31
1 as a rider to our appropriations. We're pleased
2 to see that it is now in the law. It defines the
3 eligibility for that program as political
4 subdivisions.
5 (Pager sounds in Hearing Room.)
6 MR. HOGSETT: Got me.
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It sounds
8 like someone's telephone.
9 MR. HOGSETT: Programs: It
10 specifies programs, and we did have public
11 hearings on this issue.
12 (Pager continues to sound.)
13 MR. HOGSETT: Maybe it's me. No,
14 it isn't me.
15 MR. DIRECTOR SANSOM: Don't answer
16 it.
17 MR. HOGSETT: Okay.
18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: You're wired
19 today. Is that what it is?
20 MR. HOGSETT: No, it's not me, I
21 promise.
22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Low battery; no
23 winding.
24 MR. HOGSETT: We did hold public
25 hearings on these issues. We had a total of seven
. 32
1 around the State, fairly well attended. We had
2 253 people attend.
3 We also posted this, as is
4 required. The proposed rule changes that you will
5 find in Item 7 were posted in The Texas Register.
6 We received no comments, either written or verbal,
7 as a result of that posting.
8 The changes that we're proposing in
9 the Outdoor Recreation Grants program related to
10 administration include: We're proposing to create
11 a $500,000 pilot set-aside program for small
12 communities or projects that are limited in scope.
13 What we heard throughout the
14 hearings from particularly rural communities was
15 the current scoring system, they did not feel, was
16 applicable to projects which they would propose to
17 do, which would just involve a small development.
18 For example, someone who just wants to build one
19 ball field would not be competitive.
20 So the idea is to set aside in a
21 separate small pilot program the equivalent of one
22 of the full-sized $500,000 grants. We're
23 proposing to put those guidelines out by July and
24 hopefully bring a group of projects back to you in
25 January.
. 33
1 An administrative issue that will
2 be helpful to us as staff is that we will allow
3 sponsors to certify that they are in compliance on
4 projects which were previously assisted. We will
5 spot-check that on an audit basis.
6 We're going to require status
7 reports on a quarterly deadline basis as opposed
8 to quarterly, based on contract approval.
9 And another administrative action
10 which the Code made as a result of House Bill 2108
11 would reduce the requirement for land appraisals
12 from two appraisals to one, so that will save
13 folks some money and some time.
14 You'll recall in the January
15 meeting when we briefed you on this, one of the
16 issues which was brought to our attention was the
17 Commission's concern that this program more
18 accurately and closely reflect the Mission
19 Statement of the Department. Here is the area in
20 which we're hoping that you will think that that
21 is at least somewhat accomplished.
22 As a part of the outdoor scoring
23 system, we are proposing a new criteria which
24 would add up to 25 additional points for projects
25 that provide for significant wildlife habitat, up
. 34
1 to 5 additional points for projects that provide
2 facilities that enhance outdoor education
3 opportunities, and add up to 5 additional points
4 for wetland creation. None of these by
5 themselves, in my opinion, would be a make-or-
6 Break criteria; but scoring, particularly
7 25 points for wildlife habitat, could really make
8 a project rise to the top in any given review.
9 On the indoor program, the indoor
10 recreation --
11 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Tim?
12 MR. HOGSETT: Yes, ma'am.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Before you
14 go on, I just wanted to thank you for your hard
15 work on that. I know that's what we talked about
16 when you brought this before the committee last
17 time, and I really do appreciate your searching
18 for ways to make sure that that got into the
19 rules, and I think you came up with excellent
20 ideas.
21 MR. HOGSETT: Thanks. I appreciate
22 that.
23 We did run this past the leadership
24 of the Texas Recreation and Parks Society just to
25 see how they would feel about these changes, and
. 35
1 they were very strongly verbally supportive.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Oh, well,
3 that's good to know.
4 MR. HOGSETT: So I was please that
5 that was the case.
6 The Indoor Recreation Grant
7 program proposed revisions: We're proposing that
8 you allow us to increase the funding cap -- in
9 other words, the maximum amount any applicant can
10 ask for -- from $500,000 to $750,000. Most of the
11 applications that we're receiving for indoor
12 recreation facilities, even at the $500,000 level,
13 that is only a small percentage of the total cost
14 of the facility. And we heard in our hearings
15 consistently that they were hopeful that even
16 though it would increase competition, that it
17 would be helpful if they could receive more money
18 for these types of facilities.
19 And this was just a small item that
20 I mentioned last time. For some reason, in our
21 questionnaires that we had people review, one of
22 the things they thought we ought to do away with
23 is support for steam and sauna and whirlpool
24 facilities.
25 The Community Outdoor Outreach
. 36
1 grant proposal: Four proposed revisions. We
2 propose to increase the funding cap -- this is
3 not typically a matching program -- from $20,000
4 to $30,000. This would just be a small amount,
5 but it would make an awful lot of difference to a
6 number of the programs that are using our state
7 parks and wildlife management areas for their
8 programming.
9 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Are you saying
10 matching shouldn't be in that sentence?
11 MR. HOGSETT: No, it should not be.
12 They can provide a match. If the local match is
13 provided, it gets them additional priority.
14 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Matching
15 funding cap is one thing; funding cap is something
16 else.
17 MR. HOGSETT: It is funding cap.
18 COMMISSIONER HENRY: It should be
19 funding cap?
20 MR. HOGSETT: Correct. And we
21 propose going from one round of funding a year to
22 two. That is a result primarily of the increase
23 in the amount of money from $500,000 a year to
24 $1.5 million per year.
25 Regional Park Grants is the most
. 37
1 interesting. Unfortunately, it's the smallest in
2 terms of funding, but the most interesting new
3 initiative that we have.
4 Approximately a million dollars a
5 year is set aside by the Legislature for each of
6 the next two years for what we're calling regional
7 parks. We propose that that be done through a
8 pilot program. Hopefully, the experience will
9 give us some successful projects that we can then
10 take back in the next Legislative Session to show
11 as examples of how this could work at a higher
12 funding level.
13 These projects can be either
14 significant conservation projects such as river
15 corridors, greenbelts, acquisition of properties;
16 or they can be intensive recreation facility
17 development. Either way, they need to be in the
18 urban areas of the State. We're thinking probably
19 one or two large grants with this pilot.
20 And we already have proactively
21 contacted Houston. I have a second meeting set
22 with them for next week. The City of Dallas and
23 City of Fort Worth have contacted us. El Paso
24 County, City of San Antonio, City of Austin,
25 Williamson County, and Hays County have all
. 38
1 expressed some interest.
2 Mr. Sansom sent a letter out about
3 two weeks ago asking for proposals to be submitted
4 to us by the end of April for the pilot. We will
5 then hopefully evaluate those and bring those
6 back to you with a proposal for funding of a pilot
7 project or two in the June meeting.
8 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SANSOM:
9 Members, I know that one of the things that's
10 preoccupied a lot of our time is the discussion of
11 how we get conservation investments into
12 metropolitan areas, and the two programs that he
13 has just briefed you on are right at the edge.
14 I think particularly this one will
15 ultimately, as it grows, provide the opportunities
16 for local governments to leverage their funds
17 against ours and put in places like Sheldon
18 Reservoir and others where we only put up a part
19 of the capital costs and they undertake all of the
20 operating costs. And so this is a program that
21 really ought to stimulate some significant
22 wildlife outdoor habitat and open-space
23 conservation in local areas.
24 MR. HOGSETT: There are some
25 miscellaneous items that we're going to take care
. 39
1 of in this adoption, and some administrative
2 details regarding our actual administration of the
3 program.
4 We heard consistently that we need
5 to be quicker on reimbursing people that have done
6 work, and we will work towards that.
7 We are already beginning work on
8 getting the grant requirements and the application
9 procedures on the Website.
10 We are scheduling probably two
11 workshops this year to bring folks in and educate
12 them about these new rules and show them through
13 their paces on how to do an application; a master
14 planning guide, which we have just begun this week
15 working on a draft of.
16 We will be publishing as a part of
17 the agenda item, as part of the rules adoptions,
18 the full ranges of the scoring criteria. This was
19 a recommendation from the State Auditor that
20 applicants need to know how projects are scored
21 within the range, not just what the range was; and
22 then some housekeeping.
23 And that's all I have. We're
24 asking your permission to present this to you
25 tomorrow in public hearing for final adoption.
. 40
1 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: You see the
2 recommendation on Page 126 of the agenda book, and
3 this is an item that is eligible for the Consent
4 Agenda. The draft rules, of course, were posted
5 in The Texas Register and, as Tim said, it's in
6 the briefing book.
7 There were no written comments, but
8 you did have a large number of people show up at
9 the public hearings?
10 MR. HOGSETT: In public hearings,
11 yes.
12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I move
13 approval of the recommendation for the Consent
14 Agenda.
15 MR. HOGSETT: Should I read the
16 formal recommendation into the record?
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That's not
18 necessary. It's on Page 126. It's not altered,
19 is it?
20 MR. HOGSETT: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Is it
22 necessary for the court reporter?
23 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second.
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: There is a
25 second by Commissioner Watson. Any discussion?
. 41
1 Those in favor, say aye.
2 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Those
4 opposed, nay.
5 (No response, and motion carries
6 unanimously.)
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Motion
8 carries.
9 MR. HOGSETT: Thank you very much.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Tim, thank
11 you; and thank you again for your hard work on
12 this.
13 MR. HOGSETT: Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: We will
15 defer Item 4 on the Conservation Committee agenda
16 and take that up at our next meeting and move on
17 to Item 5, and Bob Cook will give us a briefing on
18 the Nature-Based Lodging Economic and
19 Environmental Feasibility Study.
20 MR. COOK: Thank you. Chairman
21 Dinkins, Commissioners, my name is Robert L. Cook.
22 I'm Chief Operating Officer, Texas Parks and
23 Wildlife Department. This briefing is for your
24 information.
25 We've been involved in an
. 42
1 interesting and challenging and possibly a very
2 significant project for the last year or so, and
3 we wanted to kind of bring you up to speed on it.
4 I know that many of you have heard some about it.
5 Basically, the project envisions us
6 working out some kind of agreement with private
7 investors to build a nature lodge or nature
8 tourism facilities on some of our property,
9 operating all or part of that lodge themselves,
10 possibly providing educational -- conservation
11 education and education outreach there on our
12 site.
13 First, I think it is important to
14 recognize right up front that we've been in the
15 lodging and the nature tourism business for many
16 decades. As you can see on the chart here, we
17 have like 65 hotel-motel rooms in three different
18 parks that right now will accommodate over 300
19 visitors at a time. We have 83 cabins in 10
20 different parks that will accommodate about 380
21 people, 10 group lodges in six different parks,
22 three group barracks. And some of these
23 facilities, again, were built in the 1930s, so we
24 have been in this business a long time.
25 We've also been in the conservation
. 43
1 education and interpretation business a long time.
2 So this is something that is not new to us. It
3 has a new name when we talk about nature tourism;
4 but the new part of this is, I believe, that there
5 are private investors out there who are now
6 actually spending money and getting into this
7 business themselves.
8 Some of the recent developments
9 that we have been involved with at Texas Parks and
10 Wildlife Department include an agreement at Ray
11 Roberts State Park, where a private investor is
12 utilizing totally private money; is in the latter
13 stages now of constructing a lodge, a visitors'
14 center/lodge on our site under an agreement with
15 us in which he will provide all of the labor, all
16 of the materials, all of the people who will work
17 at this particular site, and work in conjunction
18 with us to provide educational programming at this
19 site.
20 The lodge there, Lantana Lodge on
21 Ray Roberts Lake State Park, will be a 30-room
22 lodge, have a restaurant, gift shop, and meeting
23 facilities. I anticipate that that will be open
24 for business sometime early this fall.
25 At Colorado City State Park, we are
. 44
1 currently involved in constructing some cottages
2 up there, again to provide additional services,
3 additional facilities for people who prefer this
4 type of lodging over camping in a tent or some
5 other more rustic means. It's an interesting
6 project here in that almost all of this labor,
7 almost all of this work, is being done by inmates
8 from TDCJ; so we're getting that project done
9 relatively inexpensively ourselves.
10 Park and Wildlife Management Area
11 users want more interpretation and educational
12 programming. That's something that we
13 consistently hear. The people who come to our
14 sites, who hear our people, meet our people, learn
15 from them and enjoy that experience. That adds so
16 much, I think, to the experience that they have
17 while they're at our sites that there is a lot of
18 demand for that.
19 Our Parks and Wildlife Management
20 Areas also rank high as premier destinations for
21 watchable wildlife and birding activities.
22 Some of the trends that we hear and
23 see and have demands upon us: Our overnight
24 users, some of them are aging, as our entire
25 society is; and many of them are seeking more
. 45
1 comfortable accommodations. They put the tent up
2 when the kids left home, but they still enjoy
3 coming to our sites. And they would love to come
4 and be able to spend two or three nights at our
5 sites; but the thought of the sleeping bag in the
6 tent, I think, is not so attactive.
7 The demand for lodge rooms, cabins,
8 and shelters far exceeds our availability. For
9 instance, at Indian Lodge now we have well over a
10 70 percent occupancy rate, which -- that's a
11 pretty good occupancy rate in the Davis Mountains
12 of West Texas.
13 We have experienced a decrease in
14 overnight camping revenues. Again, people coming
15 and rolling out their sleeping bag, putting their
16 tent up, putting their camp pop-up -- that revenue
17 has decreased, while day-use revenue has increased
18 in our parks.
19 So those are some of the trends
20 that I think -- that we're considering are
21 involved in here.
22 A couple years ago we got involved
23 in a project on a very small scale up on some LCRA
24 property on Lake Buchanan.
25 And I want to point out that John
. 46
1 Gosden -- I believe John is still here -- and some
2 of the folks from LCRA have waited us out all day,
3 and I appreciate that very much.
4 John and LCRA have done a project
5 at what they call "Canyon of the Eagles," and I
6 think some of you have even been there. It is a
7 wonderful project in which -- I guess what
8 impressed me the most about it was the
9 conservation message; the effort at outreach,
10 interpretation, and conservation message that
11 they're putting in.
12 The facilities are excellent. The
13 place that they have has 64 rooms and a conference
14 center. Conservation education and intepretive
15 programming, as I said, is a big issue for them.
16 They have an astronomy observatory.
17 And from personal experience, I can tell you that
18 if you go there in, say, the month of February, do
19 not loan your down jacket or your even emergency
20 light jacket out to your associates whom you
21 travel with. That was a big mistake on my part.
22 The nature tourism -- these folks
23 at LCRA have -- I mean, I think one of the first
24 things that's presented about Canyon of the Eagles
25 is nature tourism and learning about nature.
. 47
1 That's why the people are going there; people in
2 conferences, individual families. That is how
3 their facility is oriented -- the eagle tour.
4 They connected right in with local groups who are
5 already providing some of those services.
6 There's a wine farm across the
7 lake that they go to and have a brunch over there.
8 So they're doing a lot of things to
9 involve a lot of the local people and a lot of the
10 local businesses in the same area at the same
11 time.
12 So seeing that happen -- and at
13 about almost the same time, Mr. Sansom and I had a
14 group of people approach us from the Dallas-Fort
15 Worth area, as I recall, talking to us about, "How
16 could we make a deal with you folks to build a
17 lodge, a nature lodge, on one of your facilities?
18 Under what conditions would you entertain such an
19 idea?" And we spent an afternoon with them, and
20 they made a little presentation to us, and again
21 stimulated us to take some action on this thing.
22 And in February of 1999 we put out
23 a Request for Proposal for an economic and an
24 environmental feasibility study. We had really, I
25 believe, only three contacts on it; and the end
. 48
1 result was, we actually only had one group of
2 investors who made a solid offer. And after some
3 negotiation and discussion with them, Presidian LC
4 -- which, by the way, is the same basic group that
5 did Canyon of the Eagles on Lake Buchanan -- after
6 some discussion and negotiation with them, we
7 settled on a contract with them. And they began
8 their study period in May 1999 and will wrap up
9 next month. And that's why we thought it was
10 important to kind of bring you up to speed of
11 where we are right now.
12 The goals and objectives of this
13 study, of this feasibility study, were to assess
14 the environmental impact on State lands caused by
15 development and increased visitation. And, of
16 course, that can involve many factors.
17 Another goal here was to assess the
18 economic impact of lodge development and
19 maintenance on individual state parks. What's
20 going to be involved if this happens? What is the
21 potential? What is the economic potential? I
22 mean, certainly, if we're going to go into an
23 agreement with a group of folks like this, private
24 investors, we want to have, as best to our
25 ability, some assurance that it is economically
. 49
1 feasible; that it will work for them and for us.
2 So, as I mentioned, we kicked that study off.
3 I put this slide in specifically
4 because I think it's kind of what separated the
5 men from the boys on this study. This group came
6 to us willing to do this study totally at their
7 cost, no cost to us.
8 The additional group that we talked
9 to, just in discussion stages, was talking about,
10 "Well, for us to even consider doing this, we've
11 got to do a study, and that's probably going to
12 cost $250,000, $350,000 $400,000."
13 So Presidian has that kind of
14 commitment. They have that kind of interest.
15 And, of course, that impressed us. And,
16 certainly, when I would be talking to our
17 financial people, that was a part of this study
18 that was very important.
19 We sat down with them and agreed on
20 24 sites that we would take a brief look at, I'll
21 call it; just a first-cut look at these 24 sites
22 through the summer of 1999. And Presidian hired
23 consultants well-known in their fields and went to
24 work immediately that summer, worked all summer
25 long on these 24 sites, came back to us in the
. 50
1 early fall of 1999, and again in a mutual
2 discussion with us, some give and take both ways,
3 we settled on six sites.
4 One of the things that I want to
5 point out to you here is, not only did we shoot
6 for geographical distribution of sites across the
7 State, but we involved both State Parks and
8 Wildlife Management Areass. We thought that there
9 was some potential both ways. We wanted them to
10 look at, "What are the real economics here? If
11 you get involved with us, what is the potential?"
12 Because we thought that there was some potential,
13 and I believe there still is some potential for
14 involvement of different sites.
15 We settled on six last fall:
16 Indian Lodge out in the Davis Mountains, Palo Duro
17 Canyon, Caddo Lake State Park Wildlife Management
18 Area, Brazos Bend, Mustang Island, and Guadalupe
19 River.
20 And Presidian and their staff and
21 their consultants have been working very hard on
22 this ever since. They've spent a tremendous
23 amount of time and effort on it.
24 Our staff has been very
25 cooperative, have worked with them very closely;
. 51
1 and we got the first draft report last week. But
2 these sites are the six sites that we have
3 narrowed this study down to; and are anticipating
4 very detailed, very complete studies and analyses
5 of this.
6 I mentioned that we got our first
7 draft on Indian lodge last week. We are currently
8 reviewing that draft, and I plan to take a few
9 members of our staff, key people on our staff, and
10 go out on-site, sit down and actually work right
11 there on-site with the Regional Director, the Site
12 Manager, Walt and some of our folks here to really
13 go through their final report -- which we should
14 receive in the next week to 10 days -- go through
15 that report and determine what we believe the weak
16 spots are, what we need more information on. And
17 then at that point, then we can begin to talk
18 seriously about, "Where do we want to go with this
19 agreement? Do we want to have an agreement?"
20 What's next? Our final reports on
21 the remaining five sites are due next month. We
22 should have them all by the end of May, I believe.
23 And at that point, when we have all of those
24 reports, I think probably two or three of these
25 sites will fall out pretty quick. But I think we
. 52
1 will spend a lot of time through the summer in
2 discussing and seeing if we can reach an agreement
3 with Presidian on any of these sites.
4 Our Request for Proposal -- and I
5 would ask that you look at this very closely --
6 this study has, of course, created quite a bit of
7 interest in our users, in our employees, and in
8 people interested in conservation in Texas.
9 Basically what this says is that at the end of
10 this study, Presidian has the right to negotiate
11 with us to see if we can reach some kind of
12 agreement that works for both of us for a
13 six-month period. We may or may not reach
14 agreement on one site, two sites, three sites, up
15 to four sites is what we envisioned as the maximum
16 from the very beginning at this stage.
17 In closing, what's come out to me
18 in this process is that this is a real
19 opportunity. This provides us an opportunity, if
20 we can reach an agreement, to do something that
21 otherwise we cannot do.
22 But there are two real, real
23 important considerations that are always at the
24 front of our minds. First is our concern for the
25 conservation and protection of our natural
. 53
1 resources. That's No. 1. That's top on our list.
2 If we do something on one of these projects, it
3 has got to fit. It has got to work. We have got
4 to be assured that that footprint is such that it
5 is not detrimentally impacting our natural
6 resources.
7 The second is our concern for our
8 employees on those sites, if we settle on any
9 sites. We have wonderful employees at every
10 single one of these sites, and they are concerned
11 about this. "What happens to me?" We have
12 reassured them about that, and we will take care
13 of those employees. That's bottom line.
14 But those are two concerns that we
15 have as we're proceeding along here, and this
16 thing has quite a bit of publicity. I'm sure
17 you've seen some of it in the papers. But, again,
18 we thought it was responsible to explore this.
19 The Comptroller has been very
20 supportive, very interested in this. I'm in
21 regular contact with people at the Comptroller's
22 Office who believe this is a study worth looking
23 into, that this is a project that we should
24 seriously consider in the State Government.
25 So that's kind of where we are, and
. 54
1 I hope that within the next 45 to 60 days that
2 I'll have some more positive information for you.
3 It's an interesting project, one that's going to
4 take us a lot of time through the summer, but
5 we're looking forward to it.
6 And if you have any questions, I'd
7 be glad to answer those.
8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That was an
9 excellent briefing. Thank you, Bob.
10 MR. COOK: Thank you.
11 Any questions from the Members?
12 MR. SANSOM: May I just comment
13 that one of the things that we are trying to do
14 here is to potentially provide the opportunity,
15 particularly through the Indian Lodge proposal, to
16 open up some access to some of the other areas out
17 there that we have otherwise not been able to do.
18 And as Bob says, it's going to be real tricky to
19 make sure, if we go forward with this, that we
20 keep the employees in mind; but also be real, real
21 sensitive about these resources.
22 And I can tell you that one of the
23 things about this urban challenge that we've all
24 been talking about is that we are raising people
25 in our cities who are simply not going to go out
. 55
1 and buy a tent or a pop-up camper the first time.
2 They are not going to do it. They must have some
3 intermediate way to use the out-of-doors.
4 And, frankly, for any of you who
5 have not been to Canyon of the Eagles, my comment
6 is "Bravo." I mean, it is a stunning
7 accomplishment, in my judgment, of how you can put
8 together a facility. And Canyon of the Eagles was
9 put together in the middle of endangered species
10 habitat. I mean, it is a serious area for
11 black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler, and
12 yet it is a succesful enterprise.
13 MR. COOK: I want to say, too,
14 that, again, the people that Presidian have used
15 and the people that Canyon of the Eagles and LCRA
16 have used, these are "known" people in their
17 field. I mean, the environmental studies
18 Presidian did, the people don't just walk out
19 there and cruise around. I mean, they have hired
20 firms who are known throughout the entire South to
21 do their environmental impact part of this.
22 I was really pleased to see, like
23 on the draft that we got on Indian Lodge, that one
24 of the consultants hired was a former employee of
25 ours, in fact, who is basically an expert on CCC
. 56
1 structures. And one of his keen interests was
2 that the integrity of that original CCC structure
3 be maintained and even improved. Some of the
4 later additions that we made were not quite up to
5 par, to say the least.
6 And so that is part of this
7 package. That kind of consideration is part of
8 this study and part of this package.
9 Thank you very much.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Bob, I would
11 just say that I think your comments about the
12 experience of staying in the parks are very well
13 put. I've stayed in a few of the accommodations,
14 and it's quite a better experience to be in the
15 park overnight than out of it; but I am one of
16 those who is not going out to buy a pop-up camper,
17 let alone a tent and a sleeping bag.
18 MR. COOK: I haven't used my
19 sleeping bag in a couple of years myself. It
20 seems like it's kind of shrunk.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Hot running
22 water is (inaudible).
23 MR. COOK: My sleeping bag used to
24 be a lot bigger.
25 Thank you very much.
. 57
1 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: ACTION - LAND TRANSFER - BEXAR
3 COUNTY (SAN JOSE MISSION).
4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
5 agenda item is No. 6, and this is an Action Item;
6 and Kathryn Nichols is here to present the Action
7 Item for San Jose Mission.
8 MS. NICHOLS: Good afternoon,
9 Madam Chairman and Commissioners. My name is
10 Kathryn Nichols, with the Land Conservation
11 Program; and today I'm going to talk to you about
12 a land transfer in Bexar County involving Mission
13 San Jose.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And this
15 is, I think, in the briefing book also, isn't it?
16 MS. NICHOLS: In the Public Meeting
17 portion. I don't have the page number.
18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It's on
19 Page 147.
20 MS. NICHOLS: The Department first
21 acquired interest in Mission San Jose in 1941, and
22 we've added tracts to it as late as 1977.
23 In 1978 Congress passed legislation
24 creating the San Antonio Missions National
25 Historic Park, and San Jose was included within
. 58
1 those boundaries. The Federal legislation
2 provided for the National Park Service to enter
3 into cooperative agreements with the owners of
4 those historic properties for the Service to
5 manage them, but Congress prohibited the Park
6 Service from purchasing properties from
7 governmental entities.
8 In 1983 the Department entered into
9 such a cooperative agreement and placed all our
10 properties under their management.
11 Just recently the Superintendent of
12 the San Antonio Missions National Park has
13 requested a transfer of our Department lands and
14 facilities to them, and the transfer must be by
15 donation, according to that Congressional Act.
16 This map shows in gray the
17 boundaries of the mission, San Antonio Missions
18 Park, and in red the 23 acres in which Parks and
19 Wildlife owns some interest. Seventeen of those
20 acres are held in fee ownership, and about six
21 acres are covered by indefinite lease agreements
22 with Bexar County, San Antonio Conservation
23 Society, and the Catholic Archdiocese; so we would
24 be proposing to transfer the leaseholdings as
25 well.
. 59
1 The National Park Service has had
2 full responsibility for maintenance, operation,
3 interpretation, and capital improvements. In the
4 past five years they have invested more than $12
5 million in visitor facilities and in site
6 rehabilitation, and they have plans to continue
7 investing in the site. And it's primarily for
8 this reason that they would like to obtain the
9 ownership control over the property.
10 Staff believe a transfer would be
11 in the best interests of the Department and of the
12 resource, and we believe that they have
13 demonstrated a commitment to the site. While they
14 haven't asked for any contribution from the
15 Department for management or for their capital
16 improvements, a transfer would prevent the need
17 for the State to ever invest dollars in it again.
18 I would just note, too, that if the
19 Department does go through with the transfer, then
20 we would also recommend that the curators of the
21 two agencies coordinate transfer of appropriate
22 artifacts to the Park Service.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Kathryn?
24 MS. NICHOLS: Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Excuse me.
. 60
1 On that point, I don't recall us talking about
2 the artifacts before. Could you tell us what
3 those are, just generally?
4 MS. NICHOLS: Is Bill Dolman -- do
5 you want to speak to that?
6 DR. BILL DOLMAN: I didn't hear the
7 question.
8 MR. SANSOM: Artifacts.
9 MS. NICHOLS: What are the
10 artifacts that are involved?
11 DR. BILL DOLMAN: There are
12 several. It's from archeological excavations and
13 a few other things. They're fairly minor, but
14 it's just a legalistic matter of transferring the
15 ownership.
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Okay.
17 That's what I was wondering, was there anything
18 very significant in that.
19 DR. BILL DOLMAN: Nothing for any
20 other site.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Okay. Thank
22 you.
23 MS. NICHOLS: This is the
24 recommendation that would be on tomorrow's agenda:
25 To transfer the 23 acres by donation to the
. 61
1 National Park Service. And if you move today to
2 place it on tomorrow's agenda, this would be a
3 candidate for consent.
4 From the San Antonio Missions,
5 today Stephen Whitesell, the Superintendent, is
6 here. And he's brought with him James Jonas from
7 Los Compadres -- they're a Friends group -- if you
8 have any questions for them or any questions for
9 us.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, we
11 appreciate their being here and particularly their
12 patience, as our day went on longer than I think
13 any of us expected; and the same for others who
14 have waited this long.
15 Thank you, Kathryn.
16 Any questions? All right. Then
17 the Chair would entertain a motion that we move
18 this to the agenda for tomorrow's hearing and also
19 ask that you consider whether this should go on
20 the Consent Agenda.
21 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So moved.
22 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Second.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
24 Any discussion? Hearing none, all
25 in favor say aye.
. 62
1 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Those
3 opposed, nay.
4 (No response, and motion carries
5 unanimously.)
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Motion
7 carries.
8 Thank you, Kathryn.
9 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: ACTION - LAND EXCHANGE -
10 BURNET COUNTY.
11 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: You have the
12 last Action Item on the agenda, I think, also,
13 which is the land exchange in Burnet County; and
14 it is at Page 150 of the agenda book.
15 Kathryn?
16 MS. NICHOLS: This involves
17 Longhorn Caverns. The Department purchased the
18 property in 1932 and '37, and there are
19 essentially three portions of the park. The main
20 body of about 525 acres contains the large cave
21 opening where the visitors enter. There is a
22 smaller tract of about 25 acres that was believed
23 at the time to be the land above the cave or the
24 caverns, and another portion of about 150 acres
25 created a strip in which a scenic park road was
. 63
1 developed to link Longhorn Caverns with Inks Lake
2 State Park.
3 Over the years we have learned that
4 the cavern, the main body of the cavern and side
5 passages extend at least a half a mile, if not
6 more, north of the park boundary and are
7 underlying private land.
8 Burnet County is experiencing
9 subdivision growth pressure, including properties
10 that are in the vicinity of Longhorn Caverns and
11 Park Road 4. One adjacent tract was recently
12 purchased by a local developer, and that tract
13 does not have legal access.
14 The owner, Mr. James Crownover,
15 came to the Department asking for a driveway
16 easement through park land. And initially the
17 staff declined his request, informing him that we
18 didn't have a legal obligation to provide it
19 through park land -- it's not technically a
20 right-of-way -- and urged him to work with
21 neighboring properties to find access.
22 At that point, he informed us that
23 he had a cave opening on his property that he
24 believed led Longhorn Caverns and wondered if we
25 might have an interest, offering either the whole
. 64
1 400-acre tract or some smaller acreage in exchange
2 for a driveway easement.
3 So we're bringing you a proposal
4 today for the smaller exchange, rather than
5 acquiring the whole property, because that would
6 be more cost-effective. This would give the
7 Department an opportunity to acquire about 17 more
8 acres for Longhorn Caverns, and the map shows just
9 the bottom portion of Mr. Crownover's tract where
10 it's located adjacent to Park Road 4. And the
11 location of the driveway easement would be
12 entering in on the west end of his property
13 through our park land, and the blue indicates the
14 two tracts that are proposed for exchange.
15 Tract 1 is 10.8 acres. It includes
16 the entrance to a side passage that leads to
17 Longhorn Caverns. This access to the surface did
18 not show up on any maps that we previously had and
19 wasn't known to Department staff until he notified
20 us about it. And, actually, it's only recently
21 been opened to the surface. The previous owner
22 excavated enough to make an opening.
23 This same tract contains several
24 karst features or fractured limestone formations
25 that provide recharge into the caverns.
. 65
1 Acceptance of this tract would protect the quality
2 of water that's entering into the caves below.
3 Mr. Crownover would also grant us access to cross
4 the property that he's retaining to reach this
5 cave site.
6 Tract 2 is 7.3 acres. It runs
7 parallel to Park Road 4, and it's essentially a
8 100-foot setback from the road that would be left
9 as a scenic buffer. It would minimize the viewing
10 of houses that he would be putting into that tract
11 next to the park land.
12 The exchange would grant him a
13 50-foot-wide driveway easement about 200 feet deep
14 into our property.
15 This would not require any
16 acquisition funds to pick up 17 more acres. The
17 significant benefit of owning the cave entrance
18 site would be the ability to secure the opening
19 and prevent entry into the tour area of the cave
20 from an off-site location. No new operating funds
21 are expected to manage the additions. We wouldn't
22 propose any visitor access to that new opening.
23 And it's recommended that the cave tract be
24 fenced, and that the cave be gated to prevent
25 unauthorized entry. Those construction costs are
. 66
1 estimated at about $18,000, and the funds would be
2 requested in the 2001 budget.
3 This is tomorrow's recommendation:
4 To authorize acquisition of the two tracts at
5 Longhorn Caverns in exchange for a driveway
6 easement, and this would be a candidate for
7 consent if you choose to move forward.
8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Kathryn, if
9 we were not to approve this, what would be
10 Mr. Crownover's access?
11 MS. NICHOLS: He would have to go
12 out through a neighbor's property. There is a
13 neighbor directly to the east, and that neighbor
14 fronts Park Road 4, but it's a portion of Park
15 Road 4 that's outside of our fee-ownership land.
16 And he has contacted him more than once; and
17 whenever he thinks he's not getting far enough
18 fast enough with us, he goes back to this person.
19 COMMISSIONER AVILA: What was he
20 doing before?
21 MS. NICHOLS: Well, he didn't own
22 it before.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Did he buy
24 landlocked land without --
25 MS. NICHOLS: He bought landlocked
. 67
1 land.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: -- without
3 an easement or a right-of-way for access?
4 MS. NICHOLS: Yes. There are some
5 like two-tire-tracked access into some of the
6 tracts along there, but none of them have been
7 legally granted, and we have not yet run them all
8 off. For them to go out through another
9 direction, they would actually have to cross a
10 huge canyon-like creek and probably destroy more
11 resources than that 200-foot strip through the
12 edge of our park road.
13 MR. HERRING: We referred
14 Mr. Crownover to contact all of the adjacent
15 landowners, which he did. He produced letters
16 from all of them denying him access through their
17 property. If we deny this, he will probably be
18 forced, if he intends to continue with his
19 development, to take us to court for some sort of
20 prescriptive easement, since he is on a landlocked
21 piece of property.
22 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That's what
23 I was driving at, is whether he's left with
24 searching for his legal remedies for a
25 prescriptive right of access. That also, I think,
. 68
1 hits a good prelude to explain how it is that you
2 achieved the 17 acres total, part of which is that
3 scenic buffer in a very good location, which when
4 you drive on that road, that makes a big
5 difference to have what you've got out there right
6 now remain.
7 MS. NICHOLS: A little more
8 protection, and set back.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. Thank
10 you.
11 Any questions or comments by the
12 Members?
13 Well, I think you all did a fine
14 job with a very difficult situation.
15 MS. NICHOLS: Thank you.
16 MR. SANSOM: I would like to
17 comment here that Ms. Nichols is going to work for
18 the National Park Service, and she is --
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Oh,
20 congratulations.
21 MR. SANSOM: Well, you know, I
22 guess.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I was
24 congratulating her.
25 MR. SANSOM: Mainly, I'm sorry that
. 69
1 she's going, because she has been a wonderful,
2 wonderful employee of this Department, and we all
3 wish her well; and she is going to be a wonderful
4 asset to them.
5 And we will miss you.
6 MS. NICHOLS: Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes,
8 Kathryn, thank you for all the deals that you've
9 brought before us while I've been on the
10 Commission. They've been some, I think, very
11 thoughtful and creative ones. And good luck with
12 your new position.
13 MS. NICHOLS: Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: With that,
15 the Chair would entertain a motion for this to be
16 moved to the agenda tomorrow; and please remember
17 that it is eligible for the Consent Agenda, I
18 believe.
19 Is that right, Kathryn?
20 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I would so
21 move.
22 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Second.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any further
24 discussion? All in favor, say aye. Those
25 opposed, nay.
. 70
1 (Motion carries unanimously.)
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
3 Excuse me. Commissioner Watson, as
4 Vice-Chair of the committee, would you take over,
5 please? And then we'll move on to the Ad Hoc
6 Infrastructure Committee with the conclusion of
7 this next item.
8 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Certainly.
9 The next item on our agenda is the briefing on the
10 Grand Parkway in Fort Bend County, and Dr. Larry
11 McKinney is going to take care of that for us.
12 DR. McKINNEY: Thank you,
13 Mr. Chairman. I'm going to exercise one of my
14 prerogatives, and that's to ask Bob Spain to
15 present that briefing, who has been my
16 coordinator.
17 MR. SPAIN: Good evening. My name
18 is Bob Spain; and for the record, I'm Assistant
19 Director of Resource Protection. The item that I
20 want to give today concerns a project I think many
21 of you may have heard about or may have received
22 letters on; and that's the intent, to give you a
23 little more briefing on the status of this
24 project, and in particular how it might impact our
25 park, and that is Brazos Bend Park.
. 71
1 It's a large project that is also
2 known as State Highway 99. It is being planned
3 and would be operated by the Grand Parkway. It
4 was created in 1984 by the Legislature, and this
5 plan would be to build a third corridor around
6 Houston in addition to 610 and 6. It's about a
7 170-mile project.
8 And you can just barely see the two
9 parcels there, the two parks, that are potentially
10 being impacted. There's one on the north, which
11 is Lake Houston State Park; and the one on the
12 south is Brazos Bend State Park.
13 Just a little background; and I'll
14 be brief, because I know it is getting late.
15 The Grand Parkway is a nonprofit
16 organization that reports to TxDOT. They acquire
17 their lands by donations. They receive funding
18 from various sources, one TxDOT and then the
19 counties that may have interests, as well as
20 landholders that have an interest in having the
21 road near or on their properties. TxDOT would
22 construct and maintain the roadway.
23 This is the different planning
24 regions that we're talking about. In all there
25 are 11.
. 72
1 The first four that you see in blue
2 are not in consideration at this time. There's
3 not a need for those.
4 Four other segments, those on the
5 north that cross Katy Prairie and then on the
6 north the San Jacinto River, are in corridor
7 studies currently.
8 One segment I-2, has been designed
9 or is being completed and would would presumably
10 be constructed in 2000-2001. Segment D has
11 already been built. And the one that I'll talk
12 the most about is Segment C, and that's the one on
13 the south there.
14 Segment D was built in 1994, and it
15 runs from Interstate 10 down to Highway 59. And
16 the plan in the next phase would be to connect
17 with that and come down from 59 to Highway 288.
18 This is the area that we're talking
19 about, just to get you oriented. Brazos Bend
20 State Park is on the south, and the green line in
21 Option A or B are two different options that are
22 being looked at and will be in the draft
23 Environmental Impact Statement.
24 There are significant land holdings
25 that have to be dealt with or at least considered
. 73
1 in this process. You have the George Historic
2 Ranch. You also have a large oil field,
3 Thompson's oil field. You have the Lake
4 Worthington area that's a conservation area the
5 Fish and Wildlife Service holds. You've got a
6 unit of the prison system, the Darrington Unit, on
7 the opposite side of the river. You have Brazos
8 Bend Park, a very highly used, ecologically
9 diverse park.
10 Other resource considerations are
11 Smithers Lake on the north part just out of this
12 corridor currently. Big Creek loops through there
13 and might be crossed as much as twice, depending
14 upon the route we choose.
15 The Brazos River runs north and
16 south and has significant bottomlands in various
17 reaches along there. And also we have two eagles'
18 nests that are active, one near Big Creek and one
19 up by Smithers Lake.
20 So it's difficult, as one can see,
21 to try to snake your way through there and miss
22 all of these resources.
23 Here are some of the routes that
24 have been considered in the planning process. The
25 routes that we're looking at now that will be in
. 74
1 the EIS -- in the process, the EIS is due out this
2 month. This is what it's been narrowed down to.
3 A public hearing would presumably
4 occur in May in the Houston area.
5 A selection of the route and the
6 final right-of-way would then be determined, and
7 then that would be in the EIS; and it may come out
8 in February.
9 In looking at the routes, Parks and
10 Wildlife has concerns about a project through this
11 area. On Option A, of course, urban sprawl will
12 occur and stimulate secondary development and
13 growth. It has to cross the Brazos River, and so
14 there's going to be an impact there. And a very
15 unique and highly significant bottomland-wetland
16 complex is Rabbs Bayou, which is a real concern if
17 they cross there.
18 The second option -- which again we
19 have some major considerations, and the park is
20 involved -- again, there will be urban sprawl from
21 this. It would fragment the Big Creek riparian
22 corridor -- and it would cross it twice, which
23 flows down into the park.
24 And there's a number of things, and
25 I'll hit on some of those, in Brazos Bend Park.
. 75
1 There's the development that could occur adjacent
2 to the park just on the north side that we're
3 concerned about. There's the light pollution from
4 the road, and the secondary development.
5 And I say "light pollution," because
6 there is an observatory that is open to the
7 public. It is operated by the Houston Museum, and
8 it is on the facility.
9 We also have a concern because
10 there is about a 1,000-acre complex of wetlands
11 and sloughs called Pilot Lake. And any
12 modification or reduction in the flows or timing,
13 our water quality from secondary development
14 non-point source is a concern; and the increased
15 traffic as well.
16 So the park can be converted to
17 more of an urban park, obviously, with a lot more
18 development.
19 There are some other considerations
20 that we would like to see, and they're not a part
21 of the process and planning at this time. One is
22 to use an existing right-of-way. And these are
23 just ones we've come up with.
24 One is to follow an existing road,
25 Highway 2759, which is in place. And then another
. 76
1 possibility would be connect with another proposed
2 road, which is the Fort Bend Parkway Toll Road
3 that -- I don't think there's any active planning
4 going on, except it's on most of the
5 transportation maps you see.
6 We met with Grand Parkway,
7 Dr. McKinney and I, last week. And I should
8 mention that Diane Shiki, their Executive
9 Director, is here; and she provided many of these
10 graphics that make this possible.
11 The concerns that they had -- and
12 I'll hit on them briefly -- is an impact on Siena
13 Plantation, which is a development, a very large
14 residential development that's in planning and
15 there's some construction.
16 And bottomland hardwoods that are
17 just south of that area are also very significant.
18 There's two small communities
19 called Thompson and Juliff that would have to be
20 considered, and they're not big communities and
21 don't have a lot of influence and that sort of
22 thing.
23 There's Thompson's oil field, which
24 is obviously a concern there.
25 Fort Bend County and Brazoria
. 77
1 County are sponsors in the project, and they
2 wanted to come further south, I'm told. And the
3 congestion that this road would not provide -- or
4 at least some relief on Highway 6 if it went
5 further north.
6 Another alternative that I just
7 learned about yesterday, and it's a similar one
8 from that one: Let's follow the north corridor
9 over this Lake Worthington area, then hook up with
10 this toll road and come across and parallel
11 Highway 6 or expand Highway 6. This is just
12 another alternative. It's not one -- I just
13 learned about it recently.
14 In closing, we know that Houston
15 has grown through the time, and this shows what's
16 happened as we moved west in '76 and 1990 and
17 1995; and this is some work we've done. We know
18 it's going to grow, and we know it's going to grow
19 south. So what we're trying to do is do our best
20 job to avoid the impacts as best we can.
21 When we can't, we look for a way to
22 minimize and ask for particularly the wetlands,
23 the bottomland hardwoods, and the prairies, and,
24 of course, our park.
25 And last, when we can't avoid all
. 78
1 those, we ask for mitigations; and we also look
2 for areas we can concentrate that, and not scatter
3 it out along the line.
4 I apologize for going fast, but I
5 know it's late in the day. I'd be glad to answer
6 any questions if you have any.
7 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Bob, Larry,
8 thank you very much.
9 That concludes the Conservation
10 Committee's meeting for today, and we'll pass the
11 meeting on to Commissioner Avila.
12 (SESSION ENDS)
Top of Page