Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Conservation Committee
May 31, 2000
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
7
8 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the 31st
9 day of May 2000, there came on to be heard
10 matters under the regulatory authority of the
11 Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the
12 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and
13 Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis
14 County, Texas, beginning at 3:50 p.m. to wit:
15
16
APPEARANCES:
17 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE:
18 Chair: Carol E. Dinkins
Lee M. Bass
19 Dick W. Heath (Absent)
Nolan Ryan
20 Ernest Angelo, Jr.
John Avila, Jr.
21 Alvin L. Henry
Katharine Armstrong Idsal
22 Mark E. Watson, Jr.
23 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT:
Andrew H. Sansom, Executive Director, and other
24 personnel of the Parks and Wildlife Department.
25
.0002
1 MAY 31, 2000
2 *-*-*-*-*
3 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
4 *-*-*-*-*
5 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: The
6 Conservation Committee -- you have the agenda.
7 And the first order of business is the minutes.
8 And you have them in summary form. Are there any
9 changes, additions or corrections? All right.
10 Hearing none, if there's no objection, we'll let
11 them stand approved.
12 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - ACTION - SEA GRASS
13 CONSERVATION RULES, PRESENTERS BILL HARVEY
14 AND DR. McKINNEY.
15 The first action item concerns the
16 Sea Grass Conservation Rule. And this is for
17 full commission hearing tomorrow and this is an
18 item that could be eligible for the consent
19 agenda. And Bill Harvey is our presenter. And
20 you'll find these on page 135. Welcome.
21 MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Madam
22 Chairman. I'm Bill Harvey for the Resource
23 Protection Division. I'm very thrilled to have
24 the opportunity to bring this item to the
25 committee today. This is an action item, as
.0003
1 Commissioner Dinkins indicated, which would
2 implement the Sea Grass Conservation plan for
3 Texas. As you may recall, Dr. McKinney and I
4 briefed the Conservation Committee in April on
5 the proposed rules which would create under the
6 authority of the Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter
7 81, state scientific areas in Redfish Bay and the
8 Nine-Mile Hole.
9 At the direction of the committee,
10 these proposed rules were published in the
11 April 28, 2000, issue of the Texas Register for
12 public comment. The proposals as published were
13 endorsed by our Sea Grass Conservation Task
14 Force, a citizens group assembled to help
15 implement the Sea Grass Conservation plan.
16 Members, with that backdrop, I'd
17 like to quickly recap the highlights of these
18 proposals and report on the public comment that
19 we received during the comment period.
20 Redfish Bay is located roughly in a
21 triangle from Rockport to Ingleside to Port
22 Aransas and back to Rockport. It's one of the
23 prime fishing destinations on the Texas coast in
24 an area which has experienced documented sea
25 grass meadow fragmentation.
.0004
1 The proposal would create a State
2 scientific area in Redfish Bay for the duration
3 of five years. Staff would continue our ongoing
4 sea grass research in Redfish Bay and implement a
5 boater education and outreach program. Navigable
6 channels would be marked to help boaters avoid
7 sea grass meadows. And this strategy has been
8 embraced by the local CCA chapters and the
9 guide's associations who have already volunteered
10 to help us in that process.
11 Central to the strategy for Redfish
12 Bay is the creation of prop-up zones and improved
13 access. Prop-up zones are areas in which boaters
14 and anglers would be asked to access the areas by
15 drifting, poling, wading, or use of a trolling
16 motor, air boat, or a jet boat. In short,
17 boaters would be encouraged to avoid running
18 through these areas in propeller-driven vessels.
19 The goal clearly is that of preventing further
20 prop scarring of fragmented sea grass beds.
21 Members, one of the central themes
22 that ran through the eight months that we worked
23 with our Sea Grass Task Force was that of
24 increasing boat traffic and user conflicts on the
25 Texas Gulf Coast. And with your permission,
.0005
1 Madam Chairman, I would like to read a couple of
2 quotes that recently appeared in the San Antonio
3 Express News in reference to these issues.
4 Port Aransas Mayor Glen Martin
5 welcomed the State's strategy of trying to keep
6 boaters from destroying sea grass beds by
7 providing brochures and maps, and marking
8 channels. Martin also believes boaters must use
9 simple etiquette and avoid ruining the fishing
10 for others.
11 And this is his quote: "It's kind
12 of like road rage on the water," he said. "This
13 is a way to add some order to this situation."
14 And then from Mark Lyons, president
15 of the Coastal Bend Guides Association, who has
16 pledged that his 120 guides would respect the
17 marked channels and voluntary no-prop zones.
18 Mark commented, "I'm thinking that if we don't
19 put a plan in play right now, in five or ten
20 years, it will just be chaos here."
21 And that brings us to our second
22 proposal, that of the Nine-Mile Hole. This is a
23 large, shallow depression that lies just east of
24 the land cut, southeast of Baffin Bay and south
25 of Yarbrough Pass. The hole is about 40 miles
.0006
1 south of JFK Causeway, and the Padre Island
2 National Seashore overlays roughly the eastern
3 half of the Nine-Mile Hole.
4 The proposal for the Nine-Mile Hole
5 was brought forth to the Sea Grass Task Force by
6 the Corpus Christi chapter of the CCA. The
7 proposal was drafted with the specific goal of
8 enhancing the fishing experience and facilitating
9 research by managing boat traffic in the
10 northwest quadrant of the Nine-Mile Hole.
11 The management strategy for the
12 Nine-Mile Hole would be that of establishing a
13 State Scientific Area for a period of five years
14 and establishing a no-run zone, a mandatory
15 no-run zone within that area. Access into the
16 hole would be restricted to one of the three cuts
17 that enter the hole from the Gulf intercoastal
18 waterway to marked running lanes. No run would
19 apply to all internal combustion-driven vessels.
20 I might add, too, that the National
21 Seashore, which, again, overlies part of the
22 Nine-Mile Hole, has expressed their interest in
23 establishing a voluntary no-run zone in the
24 northeastern quadrant of the Nine-Mile Hole.
25 Members, we held a public hearing in
.0007
1 Corpus on March 15, 2000. We had 120 attendees,
2 where we rolled out these proposals. 52 spoke in
3 favor of both the Redfish Bay and the Nine-Mile
4 Hole proposals. 13 opposed the Nine-Mile Hole
5 proposal, and nine speakers opposed both
6 proposals.
7 Subsequent to the meeting, staff
8 received a request to consider an alternative
9 proposal for the Nine-Mile Hole that would
10 include a restriction to boat traffic only during
11 a period within a window of May 1st to September
12 30th. We did not include that change in the
13 actual rule proposal, but we did invite public
14 comment to the preamble to that posting and took
15 public comment during the 30-day period regarding
16 the seasonal restriction to boat traffic.
17 Madam Chairman, Members, you will
18 hear tomorrow, I think, from some folks who will
19 probably come speak on this issue, and so we
20 thought we'd quickly run through the pros and
21 cons of these. We've considered the year-round
22 closure, year-round restriction of this area of
23 the Nine-Mile Hole. There are several pros to
24 that. First, it was initiated and supported by
25 the CCA and several other organizations. It only
.0008
1 affects about 25 percent of the area of the
2 Nine-Mile Hole. We believe that it will simplify
3 enforcement and research, and it does
4 significantly diminish the amount of damage that
5 will actually take place to the bottom.
6 On the opposite side, one of the
7 cons clearly is, it will result in some limits to
8 access.
9 On the -- in consideration of the
10 seasonal, it does allow limited boater access,
11 particularly during periods of high tide and
12 would accommodate different fishing strategies.
13 On the con side, we believe it could
14 affect future research efforts, and this proposal
15 clearly has not been supported by the CCA.
16 If you would allow me, I would give
17 you a quick rundown of public comment. Several
18 organizations have commented supporting both
19 proposals, the Coastal Conservation Association,
20 the Coastal Bend Guides Association, the Corpus
21 Christi Bays and Estuaries Program, the Corpus
22 Christi Bays Foundation, the Environmental
23 Defense. I didn't know they had changed their
24 name. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club,
25 and the Federation of Fly Fishers.
.0009
1 In support of the Redfish Bay
2 proposal exclusively to not support the Nine-Mile
3 Hole would be the Rockport Chamber of Commerce
4 and the Aransas County Commissioners. Two
5 organizations have opposed the Nine-Mile Hole
6 proposal, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, and
7 The National Marine Manufacturers Association
8 provided us a letter this week.
9 In terms of public comment, over the
10 course of the 30-day comment period, we received
11 roughly 100 mails -- e-mails, rather, letters and
12 phone calls. Very few of those were in regard to
13 Redfish Bay. As of yesterday afternoon we had
14 received 68 comments in support of the proposal
15 for the Nine-Mile Hole and 15 in opposition.
16 This morning, I received three additional letters
17 in opposition to the Nine-Mile Hole proposal,
18 bringing the total number to 18.
19 I also received a petition with 550
20 signatures in opposition to the Nine-Mile Hole
21 proposal. I would like to quickly, if I might,
22 Madam Chairman, read the introduction to this.
23 This says, "Nine-Mile Hole petition. This is a
24 petition to gather signatures for forwarding to
25 the Parks and Wildlife. The purpose is to stop a
.0010
1 movement to halt general boating access to the
2 shallow water flats known as Nine-Mile Hole.
3 These individuals want these waters restricted
4 for the sole use of kayak and wade fishermen.
5 There are many people who for health reasons
6 cannot wade fish. We, the undersigned, are
7 completely against the closing of any water to
8 boating access, and we ask the Commission to vote
9 no."
10 And we read this simply from the
11 standpoint that we did -- this is a lot of
12 signatures on the petition. But in actuality,
13 the introduction to the petition does not
14 particularly address the issues here and so we
15 would suggest that perhaps that might have been
16 somewhat misleading.
17 With that, Madam Chairman, the staff
18 recommendation would be that these proposals
19 would be forwarded to the full Commission for
20 consideration. And with that, Dr. McKinney and I
21 would be happy to answer any questions.
22 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
23 Do you have any idea how many members the
24 Recreational Fishing Alliance has? They show as
25 opposed to the Nine-Mile Hole.
.0011
1 MR. HARVEY: I know of one.
2 DR. McKINNEY: I really don't know.
3 It's an organization that originated on the East
4 Coast in support of recreational issues up
5 there. I think they're trying to form here in
6 Texas. I really just don't have the numbers on
7 them. Sorry.
8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Because I
9 hadn't heard of them and I wondered if in fact it
10 was a very large --
11 DR. McKINNEY: Not well-known that
12 we know of. But the individual who is trying to
13 organize it is pretty active.
14 I was going to say, one other thing
15 that I have heard that just -- I was just trying
16 to get some confirmation on it shortly and I got
17 a call from the General Land Office. They
18 apparently have had an oil and gas lessee or
19 potential lessee there that has -- is concerned
20 about Redfish Bay because they have lease --
21 they're bidding on leases or have bid on leases,
22 and I think they are opposed to it. But the
23 reality is, this has no effect on that. That
24 issue -- and I've called GLO to confirm it with
25 their counsel over there, that that's our
.0012
1 agreement. In fact, we can't -- that's a
2 constitutional issue. And even where we have had
3 coastal preserves, our designated coastal
4 preserves, that does not interfere and has not
5 interfered with oil and gas types of things. We
6 would be concerned --
7 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: There's going
8 to be a representative of the company here
9 tomorrow. And I've talked to one of the
10 gentlemen and told him that it was my impression
11 that there's no way we could be impacting that.
12 And they're not at all concerned about the rules
13 from the standpoint of fishing and whatever,
14 because, in fact, they're in favor of those. I
15 mean, they want to protect the bay. But they
16 were concerned whether it was going to impact
17 their ability to operate and explore for oil and
18 gas in the bay.
19 And as I told him and confirmed
20 later, that there's no way that that's going to
21 happen. But they will be here tomorrow to hear
22 that officially.
23 MR. HARVEY: There are specific
24 provisions in our code, Commissioner Angelo, that
25 speak to that issue as well.
.0013
1 CHAIRMAN BASS: The Nine-Mile Hole
2 is a mandatory division, whereas the ones farther
3 up in Aransas Bay system are voluntary.
4 Correct?
5 DR. McKINNEY: That's true.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: The mandatory one,
7 therefore, would be something that would a law
8 enforcement issue and a possibility of
9 citations?
10 DR. McKINNEY: That's correct.
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: Do you think that
12 that difference accounts in any part to the
13 broader opposition to the Nine-Mile Hole
14 proposal, what appears to be a much broader
15 opposition to the Nine-Mile Hole proposal, than
16 there is to the other preserves?
17 DR. McKINNEY: I don't know how much
18 enforcement has to do with it. I don't know. I
19 can -- I'm just kind of talking my way through
20 it.
21 We worked real close in Redfish Bay
22 with guides and everyone up there to try this
23 kind of educational approach to see if it would
24 work because they all think it will and we do,
25 too. So that part of it is just a trial that
.0014
1 we'll see.
2 Down south, I think the issue is
3 probably -- I guess maybe we should say it is
4 that, the fact that in fact you -- you can't even
5 voluntarily just say, I'm not going to obey, I'm
6 going to go and go in there. You are closed out
7 and you could be cited for going in there. So I
8 think that's --
9 I'm not answering your question very
10 well, because I don't know exactly what the
11 effect would be out there. I think there's just
12 basically some opposition from a group --
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: People have not come
14 forward in opposition and said, we're
15 opposed because this is mandatory and up the
16 coast, you're doing it voluntary and we think
17 it's unfair. That hasn't been a part of --
18 DR. McKINNEY: No, sir. There
19 hasn't been any comparison one way or the other.
20 And that was one of the original proposals in
21 going through this when we set the task force
22 down. We're going to try a mandatory type of
23 approach somewhere, and we ought to have that
24 tool in our box for down the road if we ever had
25 to. Let's try someplace --
.0015
1 CHAIRMAN BASS: That's part of the
2 study, is to have a mandatory versus a voluntary
3 (inaudible).
4 DR. McKINNEY: We would hope to see
5 that.
6 MR. HARVEY: And one of the real
7 advantages of the Nine-Mile Hole, in that
8 respect, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that it is
9 sort of the best of all possible worlds in terms
10 of affecting the least numbers of anglers. It's
11 a long way from some of the more popular fishing
12 areas. If you want to fish the Nine-Mile Hole,
13 you really have to want to fish the Nine-Mile
14 Hole.
15 DR. McKINNEY: And that probably has
16 more to do with concerns over it. Because you
17 have to make a real commitment to go down there.
18 45-mile run, or something like that.
19 CHAIRMAN BASS: (inaudible) kayak.
20 DR. McKINNEY: But I won't be there.
21 I guarantee that. I'm barely there in a boat.
22 I think I'd rather have a helicopter. But once
23 you go down there to do it, you want to have the
24 full range of opportunities to fish like you want
25 to fish, and I think that's probably where that
.0016
1 concern...
2 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: How far south
3 of Baffin Bay and north of Port Mansfield is
4 this? Is that where it is?
5 DR. McKINNEY: South of Baffin.
6 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: It's south of
7 Baffin and north of -- sort of midway between the
8 two, Port Mansfield and Baffin Bay?
9 MR. HARVEY: It is right -- if you
10 can imagine the upper northwest point in the
11 Nine-Mile Hole, it's just about the beginning of
12 the land cut.
13 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Okay.
14 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Is that going to
15 be an enforcement issue, for the department?
16 DR. McKINNEY: Well, it is. If it's
17 a long way down there to fish, that's a long
18 way -- if you're going to go down there and do
19 special enforcement, that's gas, that's time,
20 that's a lot of commitment. That is.
21 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Are we going to
22 adjust that in any way, where we staff more
23 people down there?
24 DR. McKINNEY: Well, we're going to
25 have to deal with it and I don't know exactly how
.0017
1 yet. But that's a issue, whether they do this as
2 part of the times when they're down there, they
3 do it then, or we do it by helicopter. But
4 that's a real issue for law enforcement. It will
5 cost us more to do these things.
6 MR. SANSOM: It will be part of our
7 budget commission concerns.
8 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I think it's
9 quite commendable that the guides are supporting
10 the proposal, and the list of those
11 organizations, generally, are in support -- it is
12 a real fine list.
13 DR. McKINNEY: I think they see what
14 we do. And I know there's been some criticism
15 about why we're doing it. There's no problems --
16 why are we doing this now? But it's not -- I
17 won't even compare this to the shrimp issue we
18 dealt with this morning, except for the fact that
19 we don't want to get down that road where we're
20 coming to you, we have a problem we have to
21 solve. Let's look at some tools right now, and
22 try them, when we have the options open. I think
23 that's what you expect of us and that's what
24 we're trying to do.
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, those
.0018
1 grass beds down there are quite remarkable. When
2 you're used to the upper coast, and you go down
3 there and see those lush submerged grasses, you
4 do want to make sure that they're not destroyed.
5 It's a great resource.
6 Are there any other questions or
7 comments? Hearing none, I would suggest that we
8 not put this on the consent agenda since it
9 sounds like we already know that there is going
10 to be public comment.
11 The Chair would entertain a motion
12 to move this to the agenda tomorrow.
13 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I so move.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Second?
15 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Second.
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All in favor
17 say aye. Those opposed nay. Motion carries.
18 Thank you.
19 (Motion passed unanimously.)
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That's good
21 work. It's good to see the results of all that
22 good work.
23 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - ACTION - STATEWIDE
24 AQUATIC VEGETATION, PRESENTER BOB SWEENY.
25 Our next action item is Statewide
.0019
1 Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Rules. And
2 this is for consideration to submit to the Texas
3 Register for public comment, and you can find
4 this at page 92. Mr. Sweeney, welcome.
5 MR. SWEENEY: Good afternoon, Madam
6 Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Bob Sweeney, legal
7 counsel, with the Resource Protection Division.
8 I'm here today to ask for permission to publish
9 proposed aquatic vegetation rules in the Texas
10 Register for public comment.
11 We're talking about aquatic
12 vegetation. We're talking about some beneficial
13 species, cattails, that sort of thing. And we're
14 also talking about some troublesome species which
15 are typically the non-native ones -- hydrilla, as
16 pictured here. Water hyacinth is another shown
17 on Lake Corpus Christi that can pose some real
18 problems for boat access and for lake
19 ecosystems.
20 We also know that some amount of
21 aquatic vegetation is very helpful for aquatic
22 ecosystems and creates food and beneficial
23 habitat for fish and waterfowl and other
24 organisms. So here we're trying to strike a
25 balance between the beneficial and the nuisance
.0020
1 aquatic vegetation.
2 The rules that we are proposing are
3 intended to guide local decision-making regarding
4 aquatic vegetation management. We're doing this
5 to implement House Bill 3079 which the
6 Legislature passed the last session. The topic
7 of this bill is the development and financing of
8 a statewide aquatic vegetation management plan.
9 No money has been appropriated. And
10 although the bill says that the department is not
11 required to adopt implementing rules, since no
12 funding is provided, the staff proposes to go
13 ahead and write and administer rules anyway
14 because we see the need and the public support
15 and we believe we can do it with our existing
16 resources.
17 In January of this year, staff asked
18 a group of people to help us put together a
19 proposed set of rules. And including -- included
20 on that working group are the TNRCC
21 representatives, Texas Department of Agriculture,
22 river authorities, environmental groups, and
23 industry representatives.
24 We had an initial meeting in
25 February. Staff distributed a first draft of the
.0021
1 rule. We heard some comments at that meeting and
2 we've had several phone calls and letters over
3 the following weeks and months. So we've had
4 some pretty active participation by interest
5 groups in this project.
6 Let me describe, if I could, the key
7 elements of the draft rule, and I'll tell you
8 about the comments received and how those are
9 reflected or not to this point in the rule.
10 The statewide plan that's described
11 in the rules pretty much incorporates the
12 required elements of House Bill 3079. When it
13 comes time for a public entity to make specific
14 decisions about aquatic vegetation in its own
15 lake, the rule envisions that the public entities
16 will consult a guidance document that the
17 department is preparing, a pretty detailed
18 document. Now it's about 50 pages long and it's
19 likely to get longer by the time we're done.
20 The guidance document will contain
21 very detailed information about the particular
22 kinds of aquatic vegetation. It's going to help
23 decision-makers judge the seriousness of aquatic
24 vegetation problems and help them choose good
25 control strategies. A lot of the proposed rule
.0022
1 concerns notification to public drinking water
2 providers about aquatic herbicide use. And that
3 is probably, I would say, the key element of
4 House Bill 3079, is the notification and the
5 management of aquatic herbicide use.
6 The statute, by its terms, makes
7 elements of notice to drinking water providers
8 required parts of the State plan. So staff is
9 proposing only slight modifications of the
10 statutory language to enhance the clarity of the
11 statutory language.
12 The proposed rules also make
13 provisions for local management plans. River
14 authorities and other entities can adopt local
15 plans if the local plans provisions are at least
16 as stringent as the State plan and if approval of
17 the local plan is received from this department
18 and from TNRCC and the Texas Department of
19 Agriculture.
20 The rules as drafted propose that
21 all measures undertaken under either State or
22 local plans to control nuisance aquatic
23 vegetation have to be submitted to the Parks and
24 Wildlife Department. Staff expects that this
25 will give us the opportunity to consult and
.0023
1 advise whoever submits the plan about the best
2 ways to deal with the particular situation that
3 they are facing. We might, for example,
4 recommend, in response to a plan that we receive,
5 a study of the underlying causes of a persistent
6 problem.
7 Our consulting role is backed up
8 with staff's power under these rules to
9 disapprove proposed measures under the State plan
10 if we find that they're inconsistent with the
11 principles of integrated pest management.
12 Now I would like to talk about the
13 comments that we received so far. Most of the
14 feedback we've gotten supports the approach that
15 the staff is taking in the proposed rules.
16 The strongest written comment we've
17 received in opposition to the rules has come from
18 two environmental groups that are working
19 together, SMART and Clean Water Action.
20 Those groups commented that the
21 rule, in their view, takes too negative a view of
22 aquatic vegetation overall and the rules don't go
23 far enough in establishing requirements regarding
24 a number of issues, including vegetation
25 identification, education, organizing local and
.0024
1 state holder groups and the elements of local
2 plans.
3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Mr. Sweeney,
4 is SMART the group that -- it seems like every
5 August at the public comment time, comes and
6 speaks to us about herbicide application? Is
7 that which group that is?
8 MR. SANSOM: Yes.
9 MR. SWEENEY: Thank you for
10 answering that for me. Since I've only been here
11 since December, I was going to be really
12 struggling with that one.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It was a test
14 to see if you've read all of those other
15 transcripts.
16 DR. McKINNEY: He is
17 well-introduced.
18 MR. SWEENEY: Staff has made some
19 changes in response to the SMART/Clean Water
20 Action comments. We've made it clear that the
21 guidance document is going to cover a lot of the
22 territory that they have talked about.
23 The department is going to consider
24 some of the issues that are raised in reviewing
25 proposed control measures. But we don't propose
.0025
1 addressing most of the issues that SMART and
2 Clean Water Action raises through regulatory
3 mandates. We intend to educate local governments
4 rather than use a command and control approach.
5 We received a comment from the San
6 Jacinto River Authority about whether the rules
7 should prohibit people who are unlicensed by the
8 Department of Agriculture from applying aquatic
9 herbicide.
10 And I think that the reason for this
11 comment is that this river authority and a lot of
12 other river authorities are very careful only to
13 use licensed applicators, and even then they are
14 very careful about which licensed applicators
15 they use. They really only want to use the very
16 best.
17 So their reasoning is, well, why not
18 prohibit unlicensed applicators altogether? And
19 I think that's -- using only licensed applicators
20 is a very good decision but House Bill 3079 as
21 it's written does carve out a specific procedure
22 for unlicensed applicators to go through. So
23 staff has not proposed, to this point, a blanket
24 prohibition on unlicensed applicators.
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Which is why
.0026
1 you have the provision in there also about State
2 money not being used for applications except by
3 licensed applicators, I guess?
4 MR. SWEENEY: Yes. And that
5 provision is also taken literally from the
6 statute. That's direct statutory language.
7 That's a required element of the State plan. I
8 understand that, generally speaking, it's not --
9 we try not to duplicate statutory language in the
10 rules. In this case we have the mandate to put
11 these elements into the State plan, so that's
12 what we've done.
13 TNRCC commented and expressed
14 concern that the mechanism for review of local
15 plans is not clear enough, in their view. And
16 the department staff responded to TNRCC to this
17 point: That we have purposely kept the section
18 about review of local plans to a minimum to allow
19 maximum flexibility in the design of local
20 plans.
21 And we're going to cover this again
22 in the guidance document and submit a -- supply a
23 form in the guidance document that will put the
24 checklist of elements that the TNRCC and the TDA
25 and this department would like to see in the
.0027
1 submission of local plans. That's how we're
2 going to deal with the specificity question that
3 TNRCC has raised. That's our proposal at this
4 point.
5 I'm going to ask that you, if you
6 would, please adopt the motion as shown to
7 authorize publication of these proposed rules in
8 the Texas Register for public comment. And I'm
9 happy to answer any questions.
10 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Let me ask you
11 about that applicator's license. Now, is that a
12 special aquatic applicator's license or is that
13 just standard Department of Agriculture
14 applicator's license?
15 MR. SWEENEY: I believe it's the
16 latter. I think it's a standard license. I
17 don't think it's unique to aquatic herbicides. I
18 think that it's a --
19 DR. McKINNEY: It is their standard
20 requirements, go through the course work and so
21 forth. And so it's not --
22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: That doesn't
23 concern y'all, that anybody with an applicator's
24 license could be treating --
25 DR. McKINNEY: At this stage we
.0028
1 actually prefer it because right now you don't
2 have to have anything. People are doing --
3 COMMISSIONER RYAN: You don't have
4 to have anything?
5 DR. McKINNEY: That's part of the
6 problem, is that someone has a problem with
7 vegetation in front of their boat dock or
8 something, they are just as likely to go down and
9 take care of it themselves. So this is one way
10 we can have control of who does it. That's
11 really what this is -- and I think that's why the
12 river authorities are actually very much in favor
13 of it.
14 In fact, all of our -- most of our
15 commentors said, "You ought to do it." I'm quite
16 disappointed in our rules that we didn't say just
17 flat-out you must be a licensed applicator. But
18 as Bob correctly points out, the statute frankly
19 provides that you don't have to. Now, there are
20 some control -- there are some control chemicals
21 that you have to do that, but --
22 MR. SANSOM: It's amazing, isn't
23 it?
24 COMMISSIONER RYAN: It's backwards
25 on something like that.
.0029
1 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: So this is
2 quite a step forward.
3 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Yeah, I would
4 think so.
5 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I wanted to
6 ask you also, in the middle of page three of the
7 proposed rules, at F-2, it references that it's a
8 violation of the State law.
9 MR. SWEENEY: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And I just
11 wondered -- I don't recall what the sanctions are
12 for violating this particular law. Do you
13 remember?
14 MR. SWEENEY: There aren't any,
15 Commissioner -- Madam Chairman.
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: There aren't
17 any?
18 MR. SWEENEY: There are no
19 enforcement provisions, I should say. I think
20 that if we were to face a situation where aquatic
21 herbicides were used in violation of the State
22 plan, I think that that would be a situation that
23 we would take to the Attorney General's Office
24 for an injunction or something of that nature.
25 And I think that it's possible to
.0030
1 find -- it might be possible to find some other
2 violations of Department of Agriculture rules or
3 something like that. Because if you look at
4 this, there's a lot of overlap here between
5 applying, for instance, at maximum label rates
6 and that sort of thing. So it might be that we
7 would have a TDA regulation that we violated
8 along the way. And that's about the best answer
9 I can give.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I don't know
11 that that's enough. That's pretty weak, I mean,
12 not through fault of your own. But, you know, as
13 Commissioner Ryan was saying, it's a surprise
14 that people don't have to be specially licensed
15 and it's a surprise that there's not a particular
16 sanction because of the import of application of
17 these kinds of herbicides.
18 DR. McKINNEY: I think it was a
19 fairly classic piece legislation where you had
20 some groups diametrically opposed. And they did
21 try to sit down and work through a process of
22 where can we go and how can we at least get
23 started on this? How can we do something that we
24 could be comfortable with to see where we're
25 going to go. And we already know that we're
.0031
1 going to hear from this again in the next
2 legislative session. This is kind of, okay,
3 let's see if we can do this. Let's build a
4 little trust and go forward. I think that's the
5 reality of what this was and is.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, you've
7 made a good start. Any other discussion,
8 questions?
9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I move
10 approval of the recommendation.
11 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Second?
12 CHAIRMAN WATSON: Second.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
14 Any further discussion? All those in favor say
15 aye, those opposed nay. Thank you.
16 (Motion passed unanimously.)
17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - ACTION - METEOR CRATER
18 FUNDING, PRESENTER TOM HOGSETT.
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next item is also an
20 action item. And Walt Dabney is our presenter.
21 No? I see that you're not Walt Dabney. Did I
22 skip something here?
23 MR. HOGSETT: Well, it -- the reason
24 I'm doing this --
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Are we going
.0032
1 to have 6, Mr. Hogsett?
2 MR. HOGSETT: -- is because we do
3 propose funding from the grant program.
4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Oh, okay.
5 Well, even though you're not in my book, we'll
6 hear from you, Mr. Hogsett.
7 MR. HOGSETT: Thank you. We're
8 today bringing to you a proposal for funding of
9 development of a site in Odessa, Texas, known as
10 the Odessa Meteor Crater.
11 This was a mandate by the
12 legislature in the last session -- we were
13 mandated to develop as a rider in our
14 Appropriations Act. And we have determined that
15 the best way to support this is through the use
16 of the Texas Recreation Parks Account Grant
17 Program. It will be the least impact on other
18 department financial services and other
19 services. We've proposed to make a grant to
20 Ector County for the site development.
21 A little about this site. The
22 crater itself was formed by a meteor strike
23 approximately 25,000 years ago. It was
24 designated a national natural landmark by the
25 U.S. Department of Interior in 1965. It is a
.0033
1 40-acre site that is currently owned by Ector
2 County. And they have been doing some
3 rudimenttry interpretation and allowing access to
4 the site for a number of years.
5 Under the agreement that we have
6 entered into with them for design of the facility
7 and the operations, they will be responsible --
8 Ector County will be solely responsible for
9 operations and maintenance of this facility.
10 They have requested funds for the
11 development of a visitor's center, a residence
12 and maintenance building, outdoor classroom and
13 interpretive trail, a few picnic pavilions -- a
14 small picnic pavilion and a few picnic units,
15 restrooms. And probably the most important to
16 them is a perimeter fencing to be able to control
17 access to the site, and also parking and
18 landscaping.
19 This is what the site looks like
20 now. There is, again, some very basic
21 interpretive facilities and a trail through the
22 bottom of the crater. Most of these facilities
23 were done by volunteers and are quite old and in
24 bad shape.
25 COMMISSIONER WATSON: The
.0034
1 volunteers?
2 MR. HOGSETT: Not the volunteers.
3 Thank you for correcting that.
4 We have done a master plan.
5 Landscape architect Jim Watt on my staff has been
6 out to the site several times and has prepared a
7 master plan that we have copies of we'd be glad
8 to share with you if you like.
9 We will also assist in the
10 development of the interpretive program for the
11 interpretation of the site itself. The County
12 will be responsible for construction of
13 facilities and will be required to follow all the
14 administrative rules of the Texas Recreation
15 Parks Account Grant Program.
16 Having said that, we're recommending
17 that the Commission grant a $500,000 grant to
18 Ector County for the development and recreation,
19 educational, and interpretive facilities
20 associated with the meteor crater, and that the
21 amount shall not exceed $500,000, and that upon
22 completion of the development, Ector County will
23 be fully responsible for the operation,
24 maintenance, and management of the site. And I
25 believe this probably would be eligible for the
.0035
1 consent calendar. I'd be glad to answer any
2 questions.
3 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: That amount of
4 money was appropriated specifically, was it not,
5 or something like that?
6 MR. HOGSETT: No specific amount was
7 mentioned in the appropriations rider. But the
8 State representative out there who placed this in
9 there, his expectation was a half a million
10 dollars. He's expressed that to us.
11 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I was thinking
12 it had $250,000.
13 COMMISSIONER RYAN: When this site
14 was designated in '65 as a National Nature
15 Landmark, did they get any federal funding on
16 that?
17 MR. HOGSETT: I don't believe so. I
18 think it was just simply --
19 MR. SANSOM: That's strictly a
20 designation, like a plaque.
21 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Is there any
22 federal money available for something like this?
23 MR. HOGSETT: Not that I'm aware of,
24 unless we could stretch the Land and Water
25 Conservation Fund program to that extent.
.0036
1 MR. SANSOM: And if there were, it
2 would still be money we could use for other
3 purposes.
4 COMMISSIONER RYAN: But they
5 couldn't go and apply --
6 MR. SANSOM: Directly -- no -- I do
7 not believe so.
8 MR. HOGSETT: There's no
9 interpretation or historic or anything -- money
10 like that that I'm aware of that they would be
11 eligible for.
12 COMMISSIONER WATSON: We didn't
13 volunteer for this? I mean --
14 MR. HOGSETT: No, sir.
15 COMMISSIONER WATSON: That's what I
16 thought.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: You saw that
18 somewhere between the lines?
19 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Yeah, I got
20 that.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any other
22 questions or comments? Hearing none, the Chair
23 will entertain a motion for approval of the staff
24 recommendation.
25 COMMISSIONER RYAN: For the consent
.0037
1 agenda?
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: For the
3 consent agenda.
4 COMMISSIONER RYAN: I make that
5 motion.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
7 Motion by Commissioner Ryan.
8 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I'll second.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Second by
10 Commissioner Henry. Any further discussion? All
11 in favor say aye, those opposed nay? Thank you.
12 (Motion passed unanimously.)
13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - ACTION - LAND TRANSFERS,
14 PRESENTER WALT DABNEY.
15 MR. DABNEY: Now it's me, ma'am,
16 yes, ma'am.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Is it your
18 turn? We're at Item 5, and that's at page 146.
19 And this is a discussion of the potential
20 transfer of the sites on -- listed -- five of
21 them. And this is for consideration to go to the
22 full commission tomorrow. Mr. Dabney?
23 MR. DABNEY: Yes, ma'am. Madam
24 Chairman and Commission, I'm Walt Dabney, State
25 Parks director.
.0038
1 House Bill 2108 authorized as you
2 know, 2 million a year between '99 and 2001 to
3 effect the possible transfer of a State Park site
4 where it was mutually agreeable to a local
5 entity, such as a County or a City.
6 We've had discussions with
7 probably -- at least initial discussions with 12
8 or 15 different entities. What I wanted to do
9 today is to bring before you the status of
10 several of these that we have going right now
11 that look like they may well come to fruition.
12 At least at this point in time we think that is a
13 distinct possibility. They include Lubbock Lake
14 Landmark up in the Lubbock area, Jim Hogg State
15 Historical Park in Rusk, Old Fort Parker near
16 Mexia and Groesbeck, Port Lavaca, which is a
17 State -- which is a fishing pier, and Hunstville
18 State Fish Hatchery.
19 The Lubbock Lake Landmark is truly a
20 statewide and indeed national or internationally
21 significant site. It is a national historic
22 landmark so designated. It's currently jointly
23 operated by Texas Tech University and Texas Parks
24 and Wildlife. Primarily Tech operates the
25 museum, does the archeological work. The site
.0039
1 has had human habitation over the last probably
2 12,000 years.
3 We primarily take care of the
4 place. The idea in this transfer would be to
5 effect a transfer so that Texas Tech takes over
6 the full operation and maintenance of the site.
7 Their board of regents has in fact passed a
8 resolution in support of this. We're in
9 negotiations with them now.
10 Specifically these negotiations
11 include what would it take to fix the site up,
12 the facilities, and that sort of thing, and what
13 operational or transitional operational monies
14 would they want or propose to effect this
15 transfer over the next two-year period.
16 The next site is the Jim Hogg State
17 Historical Park in Rusk. It's a small site, less
18 than 200 acres. It's in the city limits of
19 Rusk. It has a scale, probably three-quarter
20 scale reproduction of Governor Hogg's home. It's
21 a nice facility.
22 Rusk has in fact formally requested
23 that we transfer that to them with a City Council
24 resolution. And we're, right now, very close to
25 getting their proposal -- in fact I got it this
.0040
1 morning -- that articulates what they would like
2 to see out of this transfer.
3 It really functions as a City park
4 and it is a perfect example of, I think, what
5 this legislation was intended to do. I think the
6 Jim Hogg site will in fact occur.
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Walt, excuse
8 me.
9 MR. DABNEY: Yes, ma'am.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: On that one,
11 my recollection is that that's not original land
12 and it's not any original buildings?
13 MR. DABNEY: It's not the original
14 building, it's not the original location. I
15 think the land is --
16 DR. WILSON DOLMAN: It was Governor
17 Hogg family land in the area.
18 MR. DABNEY: Yeah. Part of this
19 part of the farm.
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yeah, in the
21 area, yeah.
22 MR. DABNEY: So it is not a special
23 historic site for us.
24 To some extent you can say that
25 about Old Fort Parker near Mexia and Groesbeck.
.0041
1 It's currently operated by the City of
2 Groesbeck. We're in negotiations.
3 In this case it's a little more
4 difficult because you're dealing with two
5 entities, Mexia and Groesbeck here. We hope that
6 they can agree on taking this site over. That is
7 a fort. You can't really call it a reconstructed
8 fort. It is a replica fort of what somebody
9 thought the fort probably looked like.
10 COMMISSIONER RYAN: That's not on an
11 original location, either, is it?
12 MR. DABNEY: I don't think so.
13 DR. WILSON DOLMAN: Not to our
14 knowledge.
15 MR. DABNEY: We don't know that. So
16 they're operating it now. We will be trying to
17 put a proposal together with them to go on and
18 formalize or complete the permanent transfer of
19 what they are already doing, which is operating
20 it now.
21 Port Lavaca Fishing Pier, we did
22 receive this from TxDOT in '63 and operated it
23 through a concession contract. In '99 it was
24 extensively damaged by a fire. About half of it,
25 I think, was destroyed. We're currentry working
.0042
1 with the City of Port Lavaca, who does have an
2 interest in taking this over.
3 We're trying to figure out what
4 makes sense, whether rebuilding the entire length
5 makes sense. And to do that we need to do an
6 engineering study, look at what we would have to
7 remove, what is salvageable and that kind of
8 thing. And what we'll be talking to you about is
9 taking part of this transfer money to actually do
10 a study, an engineering study so that we can know
11 what it is that we're trying to do there.
12 The last one that is not a State
13 park but is a transfer that will not include any
14 of these transfer funds is the Huntsville State
15 Fishery Hatchery where there are negotiations
16 underway with Sam Houston State University to
17 effect this transfer. It would be used as a
18 center for biological field studies and would
19 continue on the undeveloped part of the site,
20 manage it for continued habitat and archeological
21 resources.
22 We will not spend all of the
23 $2 million that is available for the transfer
24 this year. And as you will see in the next
25 presentation, we're going to be using some of
.0043
1 that if you concur in the regional park
2 approach. Money is not coming out of State park
3 operation money. It is, in fact, grant money.
4 And we would use some of that to effect some of
5 the regional park projects that we'll talk to you
6 about next.
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Excuse me.
8 MR. DABNEY: Yes, ma'am.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: On that one
10 did you tell us what endangered species, the
11 critical habitat --
12 MR. SANSOM: The red cockcaded
13 woodpecker.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Is it the
15 RCW? I thought so.
16 MR. DABNEY: Our motion is a
17 three-part motion. It would be to take -- for us
18 to take all the necessary steps to negotiate the
19 final documents to prepare these sites for
20 transfer and bring them to you for the August
21 meeting, to enter into an agreement. And we need
22 this one because we cannot spend that $100,000 to
23 do this study unless you concur with this, the
24 study on the fishing pier, what it would take to
25 fix that up, to transfer it to Port Lavaca. And
.0044
1 thirdly, to complete the title transfer of the
2 Huntsville Fish Hatchery and property to Sam
3 Houston State.
4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Okay. Thank
5 you. Now, the three prongs of the recommendation
6 are on 147. They're not something in the
7 briefing book.
8 MR. SANSOM: This will enable us to
9 go ahead and get the agreements made and get the
10 budget put together. So that you'll -- what you
11 will do in August, just give us final approval.
12 By that time we'll have the money set up and the
13 contracts arranged.
14 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Okay, Walt,
15 after we do this, we'll have about half the money
16 left?
17 MR. DABNEY: We don't have firm
18 figures on what these might well be. I'll have
19 that certainly by August, so that we'll have a
20 specific proposal on each site of how much would
21 be operation and how much would be what we will
22 do, what needs to be fixed up. We won't do the
23 fix-up work. If you approve that action, say, on
24 Lubbock Lake or Rusk, what you'll be approving is
25 for us to transfer that money to the City of Rusk
.0045
1 and they fix it up, not us.
2 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Could you
3 throw in the train to go along with the house?
4 MR. DABNEY: As soon as you get
5 Navarro --
6 COMMISSIONER WATSON: As soon as I
7 get the Navarro House --
8 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Does that take
9 them out of our inventory altogether, now?
10 MR. DABNEY: Yes, sir. It would be
11 a --
12 COMMISSIONER RYAN: This is not an
13 agreement that we're letting them manage them; we
14 are actually transferring the deeds over to these
15 folks?
16 MR. DABNEY: Yes, sir. There will
17 be deed restrictions that say you have to keep
18 using this for the same purposes: a park. You
19 can't -- as one -- one City came to us, as the
20 chairperson -- chairman knows, and wanted to sell
21 off just 60 or 100 acres of it to develop into
22 housing and they would take the test -- and we
23 said, no, that's not the intent --
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It was a fine
25 deal.
.0046
1 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, is the
2 State Fish Hatchery operational?
3 MR. DABNEY: No.
4 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Now, do we have
5 ongoing projects with properties that we're
6 negotiating with people?
7 MR. DABNEY: Those --
8 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Additional
9 ones?
10 MR. DABNEY: Yes, sir. We're still
11 talking to Huntsville, although that has heated
12 up. And if there is any controversy that will
13 come before you tomorrow, it would be from some
14 folks from -- I'm sorry, I said Huntsville --
15 Lockhart that will show up here to express
16 concern about transferring that.
17 Talked to Commissioner Watson a
18 while ago. We're still working with San Antonio
19 a little bit to consider the Navarro House as
20 part of the downtown series of sites in there.
21 And that one still makes some sense.
22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Is there any
23 interest in the Fulton Mansion?
24 MR. DABNEY: There is not.
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Walt, what
.0047
1 will be the future of those who currently are
2 employed at these sites?
3 MR. DABNEY: In every case it
4 started with Andy sending out a letter. We will
5 find a place for those people. Some of them, if
6 they would be interested in retiring, they could
7 do that. But otherwise, we will find them a job
8 in a different place.
9 These here -- we have nobody at
10 Lavaca. We have one person at Rusk and we are
11 down to one person at Lubbock Lake Landmark, and
12 we already have a place for that person if this
13 were to go through.
14 MR. SANSOM: There is nobody at
15 Huntsville or Old Fort Parker.
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any
17 questions?
18 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Nope.
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right.
20 Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a
21 motion --
22 MR. SANSOM: It is a very nice piece
23 of work.
24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Yeah, very.
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: -- to approve
.0048
1 the staff recommendation. And it is eligible for
2 the consent agenda.
3 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move approval
4 for it to be on the consent agenda.
5 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
7 Motion by Commissioner Angelo and second by
8 Commissioner Idsal that this be approved and put
9 on the consent agenda. Any further discussion?
10 All in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. Thank
11 you.
12 (Motion passed unanimously.)
13 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 - ACTION - REGIONAL GRANT
14 FUNDING, PRESENTER TIM HOGSETT.
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That is good
16 work. It is great to see you be able to report
17 so promptly on this kind of success. And now,
18 Mr. Hogsett, you want to give away some more
19 money?
20 MR. HOGSETT: Always a pleasure.
21 We're bringing to you this afternoon a proposal
22 to fund four projects under what we're referring
23 to as the Regional Park Pilot Grant Program.
24 As I have said to you before, House
25 Bill 2108 and an increased appropriation
.0049
1 authority in the last session of the legislature
2 also gave us the opportunity to begin what we are
3 calling a regional park program.
4 To do that, to determine how -- if
5 that money becomes available in the future, we
6 would make a permanent program out of it. We
7 have chosen to do it as a pilot. We sent out
8 proposals -- requests for proposals to all of the
9 major metropolitan areas in the State and
10 received a total of seven applications. Actually
11 I had eight but that -- one of them was
12 determined to be ineligible.
13 The language of what the regional
14 park concept is comes from the Texas A & M study
15 that was done a couple of years ago. What they
16 saw a need for were large intensive-use parks in
17 the major metropolitan areas or regional park
18 systems and conservation type projects,
19 particularly things such as trail linkages or
20 greenways, also in the major metropolitan areas,
21 and water resources to provide both habitat and
22 for water-based recreation.
23 That was the criteria that we asked
24 people to submit applications for this pilot
25 program and are the criteria that we used to make
.0050
1 our recommendations to you today on which
2 projects should be funded.
3 We are proposing to use the million
4 dollars that was set aside in the Texas
5 Recreation Parks Account as part of the TRPA
6 budget. As Mr. Dabney indicated, we're asking --
7 proposing to use a million dollars that we feel
8 that we will not be able to use in the Facility
9 Transfer Program in Fiscal Year 2000. And we are
10 also proposing to use approximately half of our
11 Fiscal Year 2000 Federal Land and Water
12 Conservation Fund program.
13 The idea here is to do several
14 projects first and do some significant projects
15 that hopefully will show good faith and show the
16 importance of this program, particularly to the
17 legislature as we go back into the next session.
18 The four that we are proposing
19 include Williamson County -- along Brushy Creek
20 there is a corridor between Cedar Park and the
21 City of Round Rock. The City is proposing to
22 acquire some property and develop about a
23 two-mile section of that trail along with some
24 other other related facilities. This includes
25 cooperation between Williamson County, Cities of
.0051
1 Round Rock and Cedar Park, and also two municipal
2 utility districts which are along the trail
3 corridor. It is part of a County-wide Parks and
4 Recreation and trails master plan that the County
5 has prepared. It will be the first time that
6 Williamson County will be actually in the parks
7 business.
8 It's -- the entire length is
9 approximately eight miles. The section between
10 the two middle red circles is the area that we're
11 talking about, and it's in an area which is known
12 as the Avery Ranch. It's a very rapidly
13 developing area, Southern Williamson County.
14 This is just a typical scene along that
15 corridor. It's really a beautiful trail corridor
16 along there.
17 MR. DABNEY: Those granite blocks
18 underneath that trestle were on their way to the
19 capitol, to build the capitol, when the train
20 derailed right there and dropped all those
21 blocks. So it's got a little history as well.
22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Now, is this
23 going to be on an old rail site?
24 MR. DABNEY: The rail passes through
25 it. The trail will follow Brushy Creek.
.0052
1 COMMISSIONER RYAN: So this is not
2 an abandoned railroad trail?
3 MR. HOGSETT: No, no. I just
4 thought this was an interesting photograph. And
5 it kind of shows the character of the trail
6 corridor along the creek.
7 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Is the train
8 still used?
9 MR. HOGSETT: The railroad has not
10 been in operation in many, many years. It could
11 have some potential. And they plan to interpret
12 the significance that Walt just mentioned.
13 El Paso County is probably the most
14 ambitious of all of the projects that we have in
15 terms of -- they are proposing to do an eventual
16 40-plus mile trail beginning at the Texas/New
17 Mexico border and going through metropolitan
18 El Paso, well to the east of El Paso. They also
19 have done a county-wide plan related to this
20 trail project. Here are a couple -- along the
21 Rio Grande River. I failed to mention that.
22 Just a couple of shots along the trail corridor.
23 Obviously water and access to water in this part
24 of the State is very, very important and it will
25 make a very significant recreational impact on
.0053
1 that area.
2 MR. SANSOM: This project, members,
3 also will ulitimately involve the City of Juarez
4 as well. So it would involve some park land and
5 open space acreage in Mexico, as well. It's
6 really pretty.
7 MR. DABNEY: The full length of that
8 trail proposed is 60 miles. It would run all the
9 way to the Mexico border.
10 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Are you saying
11 we're going to go on the Mexico side as well?
12 MR. SANSOM: We will not fund it.
13 But it will be -- there are components of it
14 which will be on the Mexican side. But the
15 people of Juarez will fund this.
16 COMMISSIONER WATSON: How are they
17 going to fund 60 miles of trails?
18 MR. DABNEY: Not with this one
19 grant.
20 MR. HOGSETT: A little at a time.
21 MR. DABNEY: Segments.
22 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Are they going
23 to be back?
24 MR. HOGSETT: I would imagine they
25 will be back if we continue our regional park
.0054
1 program. And that would also obviously be
2 eligible under normal Park Rec program.
3 MR. DABNEY: And if that CARA bill
4 passes, there's going to be money to do this kind
5 of stuff on a much bigger basis.
6 MR. SANSOM: This property includes
7 a place where -- Onate crossed the river, to go
8 up into New Mexico, the man who brought horses
9 into the United States. Includes their original
10 buildings at Fort Bliss. It's not just an open
11 space park project. It has some very, very
12 important cultural aspects as well.
13 MR. HOGSETT: The next project that
14 we are proposing to you is called the Quinta
15 Mazatlan in the City of McAllen. This is a
16 structure, a home that was built, an Adobe home
17 that was built in the late 1930s, and the
18 associated grounds. It's a beautiful piece of
19 property.
20 The City proposes to develop a
21 nature center that will also be the City of
22 McAllen's wing of the World Birding Center. They
23 also propose to acquire some additional -- about
24 three acres of additional property, which is
25 native tamalipan grassland and will leave it and
.0055
1 interpret it as well. There is also a large old
2 greenhouse on the site which they propose to
3 renovate and use as a butterfly conservatory.
4 Very interesting piece of property, very
5 interesting old house.
6 MR. HOGSETT: The final one that
7 we're proposing I don't have any photographs of.
8 But it is the development of a trail corridor and
9 an associated lake site along Bray's Bayou, which
10 is in the southern portion of the City of
11 Houston. The line there indicates about a
12 20-mile corridor from outside of Loop 610 on the
13 west, all the way to the Houston Ship Channel.
14 This is a cooperative effort between
15 the City of Houston and the Harris County Flood
16 Control District. This is the first time that
17 the flood control district has committed
18 themselves to doing an environmentally sensitive
19 flood control project as opposed to concrete
20 channels. They're very interested in developing
21 detention ponds that will be water-based
22 recreation opportunities.
23 This particular project is what
24 they're calling Willow Water Hole. It's a site
25 that is in a predominantly low-income area,
.0056
1 southeast part of the City. And they will
2 acquire that site, and that will be a site of one
3 of the largest detention ponds along the Bray's
4 Bayou flood control quarter. And it will be
5 operated and jointly managed by the City and the
6 flood control district.
7 We're proposing each of these four
8 at $750,000 apiece, for a total of $3 million.
9 And we're asking you to allow us to present this
10 to you tomorrow for approval, $3 million for
11 projects as shown in Exhibit A. And then the
12 individual project descriptions can be found at
13 Exhibit B. And the projects will be administered
14 using the rules of the Texas Recreation and Parks
15 Grant Account program.
16 MR. SANSOM: This takes the local
17 park program into another level. This is a big
18 deal. The leverage in here is substantial.
19 We -- in each case the amount requested was more
20 than we are recommending, but we thought that
21 each of these four projects was exemplary of
22 what -- you know, what we're trying to do here.
23 Each of them will cause a very
24 substantial amount of investment to occur in a
25 way that is not -- not been so in our programs
.0057
1 before, at least commonly. So I think this
2 will -- we will all be surprised, I think, and
3 heartened at the reaction the announcement of
4 these projects will cause. There will be a very,
5 very strong and exciting reaction to these.
6 COMMISSIONER RYAN: These aren't
7 matching funds, are they?
8 MR. SANSOM: Yes, sir, they are.
9 MR. HOGSETT: Yes.
10 MR. SANSOM: Absolutely. And I
11 would say although our rules are normally 50/50,
12 you'll see a substantially greater amount than
13 $750,000 invested by the local people in each
14 case.
15 MR. HOGSETT: In all four of the
16 cases, that is correct.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Just the land
18 acquisition on Bray's Bayou is considerably more
19 than what the grant would be.
20 MR. HOGSETT: Yeah, to the tune
21 of -- it seems like $50 million for the
22 acquisition of the property by --
23 MR. SANSOM: But our -- you know,
24 that's a good example of how a little bit of
25 money can cause some things to coalesce and come
.0058
1 into being.
2 That Williamson County project, for
3 example, probably would not have happened, you
4 know, without us providing this funding.
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: This says -- direct
6 cost of that land was 3.2 million for Bray's
7 Bayou.
8 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Jim, you said
9 that in the case of Williamson County, this is
10 the first time they have been in the park
11 business?
12 MR. HOGSETT: Uh-huh, the first time
13 that they have done a park grant project and, to
14 my knowledge, the first time they have put any
15 money into parks and recreation as a County.
16 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: And on Bray's
17 Bayou, I heard -- I forget what it was. But it
18 was a surprisingly low figure, the amount of park
19 acreage in Houston prior to this. This must make
20 a huge change in what they -- I mean, that's a
21 lot. How many miles did you say that was?
22 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: 31. Yeah. I
23 think that the -- better than $3 million
24 acquisition is just for the 80 acres that they're
25 currently acquiring. That doesn't count all
.0059
1 that's in that corridor, that 31 miles.
2 MR. DABNEY: A lot of it is
3 floodplain.
4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It is
5 floodplain. A lot of it -- almost all of it is
6 floodway.
7 MR. HOGSETT: But the significance,
8 really, of that project, to me, is the change in
9 the way that they're going about doing flood
10 control, from a concrete channel to something
11 that really truly is environmentally sensitive
12 and has some recreational opportunity associated
13 with it.
14 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Will there be
15 sort of trails along it and that sort of thing?
16 MR. HOGSETT: Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It's more. I
18 mean, it's the wetlands demonstration, it's the
19 ecology demonstration, pavilions, a hiking
20 trail. There's a lot that goes with it. It's a
21 very different approach, as Tim says.
22 MR. DABNEY: Another piece of this
23 whole concept is, in the case of Brushy Creek,
24 for example, that's a developer who has bellied
25 up to the table with some very expensive land and
.0060
1 thought this would -- it is good for the
2 development company, too. It's attractive to
3 them from a business deal. But it also
4 stimulates the interest in them to do something
5 positive.
6 And further along the creek we've
7 got another person that may well donate because
8 they want to put this into the chain of parks,
9 another significant piece of land on Brushy
10 Creek. And so it kind of builds itself and it
11 involves not only government but private entities
12 and all. So it's really positive.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It's
14 exciting. Is there a motion that we forward this
15 with the recommendation of staff -- or with the
16 recommendation of staff to the full Commission?
17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Motion.
18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
19 It was getting so late, I thought it was nap
20 time. Let's try that again.
21 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: There wasn't near as
23 much enthusiasm for this project as you thought.
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well they
25 were just bowled over by the potential they see
.0061
1 here. We have a motion by Commissioner Angelo and
2 a second by Commissioner Idsal. Any further
3 discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say
4 eye, those opposed nay. Thank you very much.
5 (Motion passed unanimously.)
6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 - ACTION - OIL AND GAS
7 LEASE - SHELDON WMA, PRESENTER KATHY
8 BOYDSTON.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And please
10 congratulate the recipients on developing such
11 great proposals.
12 MR. DABNEY: They will be here
13 tomorrow, some of them.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, good.
15 We'll do that in person then. We only have two
16 more action items, so no more naps, please. And
17 Kathy Boydston is presenting our first, which is
18 at Sheldon WMA over in Houston. Welcome.
19 MS. BOYDSTON: Thank you.
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And this is
21 at page 159, I think.
22 MS. BOYDSTON: Madam chairman,
23 Commissioners, my name is Kathy Boydston, program
24 leader for the Wildlife Habitat assessment
25 Program. The department received an oil and gas
.0062
1 nomination for Sheldon Lake State Park, which is
2 east of Houston in Harris County.
3 The department owns 100 percent of
4 the minerals, approximately 2,219 mineral acres,
5 and all seven tracts have been nominated. The
6 staff recommends the department continue its
7 policy of requiring a minimum bonus bid of $150
8 per acre and a 25 percent royalty of $10 per acre
9 delay rental, and also that the lease be subject
10 to the conditions shown in Exhibit A, which is
11 no-surface occupancy.
12 Staff recommends the committee
13 forward the following motion to the full
14 commission for consideration and adoption.
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
16 Mr. Sansom, where does the income from a lease
17 like this go?
18 MR. SANSOM: It would go into Fund
19 64.
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Has there
21 been any thinking to direct it in a different
22 way?
23 MR. SANSOM: You could choose to do
24 that.
25 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I would like to
.0063
1 make a recommendation.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes,
3 Commissioner Henry?
4 COMMISSIONER HENRY: That the income
5 be directed for and restricted to this location,
6 since it is a facility that's used and will be
7 used primarily by many of lower income people in
8 Houston and it just jives with our Outreach
9 efforts and successes and educational center, to
10 more fully develop that along with the related
11 kinds of activities. And I think it's just an
12 ideal situation.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Well, there
14 is an education center there.
15 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Already. And
16 this would help to fully develop that.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Is there any
18 precedent for this?
19 MR. SANSOM: Not in parks, no.
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Not in
21 parks.
22 MR. SANSOM: There's some kindred
23 possibilities. But this is -- we generally have
24 stayed away from this. I, however, would agree
25 with Commissioner Henry that in this case there's
.0064
1 a pretty compelling argument that this is an
2 opportunity to once again provide some leveraging
3 at that site. We might even be able to match
4 this locally. So I would be very strongly in
5 favor of it in this case.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right,
7 then. Perhaps we might consider, if there is a
8 motion that we forward this to full Commission,
9 that it be amended to specify that this income be
10 directed to Sheldon Lake State Park for use at
11 the park and that this not be regarded as a
12 precedent for future oil and gas activities.
13 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Carol, let me
14 ask you this before we do that. Are we talking
15 about just the bonus money and the delayed
16 rentals, or are we talking about monies that we
17 generate off of any exploration where there is
18 royalty income?
19 MR. SANSOM: Yes. I think that --
20 currently the motion would encompass all of those
21 things.
22 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I'm talking
23 both. We've got 2,000 acres here.
24 COMMISSIONER RYAN: It could be
25 substantial with --
.0065
1 COMMISSIONER HENRY: It would take a
2 hell of a lot to develop 2,000 acres.
3 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: It could wind
4 up to be more money than that park would justify,
5 if they actually found something there.
6 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Couldn't we
7 just limit it to the $332,000 and then--
8 MR. SANSOM: And the rental.
9 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Why don't we
10 come back and revisit that.
11 COMMISSIONER WATSON: -- and make a
12 decision on the --
13 MR. SANSOM: Hold a decision on the
14 royalty.
15 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Right. See
16 what they find.
17 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Ought to come
18 back and revisit that.
19 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Yep.
20 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Good
21 suggestion.
22 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The motion as
23 presented on the slide says $150, but that's
24 supposed to be a minimum of 150. Right?
25 MS. BOYDSTON: Yes. If someone
.0066
1 chooses to bid on that at a higher amount, they
2 can do so at the lease sale.
3 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Is that a good
4 price there?
5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: It just
6 depends on what's going on. I don't know. It
7 wouldn't be bad. The quarter royalty is good,
8 for sure.
9 MS. BOYDSTON: Traditionally the
10 Parks and Wildlife usually offers its properties
11 up at a higher rate than the other properties
12 offered through the General Land Office because
13 they realize that we, you know, purchased these
14 properties or got these properties for other
15 purposes than oil and gas development. So they
16 allow us and encourage us to put them up at a
17 higher right.
18 And they do a comparison of the
19 other properties that are going in the area and
20 see if our bid is equal or better than what's
21 going for in the current area.
22 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: If there is
23 any competition for it, it will go for more than
24 that.
25 MR. SANSOM: So at a minimum, then,
.0067
1 if I understand it correctly, Kathy, the motion
2 would commit the $150 per acre bonus bid plus $10
3 per acre per year for three years?
4 MS. BOYDSTON: Right.
5 MR. SANSOM: And not the royalty?
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Does everyone
7 understand the recommendation as reformulated?
8 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I move
9 approval.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you,
11 Commissioner Angelo moved approval. Any
12 recommendation?
13 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Second by
15 Commissioner Watson. Any further discussion?
16 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is that a
17 consent item potential, or not?
18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. It is
19 eligible for consent.
20 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move to put it
21 on consent.
22 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
23 All in favor say aye. Those opposed nay, thank
24 you.
25 (Motion passed unanimously.)
.0068
1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 - ACTION - EXCHANGE OF
2 PIPELINE AND EASEMENT - LAKE HOUSTON STATE
3 PARK, PRESENTER KATHY BOYDSTON.
4 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And you have
5 the last item, also an action item. And it's on
6 page 162, for Lake Houston State Park.
7 MS. BOYDSTON: The department
8 received a request to exchange a portion of an
9 easement and for -- of natural gas pipeline
10 replacement purposes. The existing easement is
11 located in Lake Houston State Park, which is
12 northeast of Houston, in Harris County.
13 The existing pipeline crosses Caney
14 Creek which has shifted its location and removed
15 the overburden, exposing the pipeline. Since the
16 original location has shifted, replacement of the
17 pipeline will require an offset from the existing
18 alignment. The existing easement will need to be
19 expanded .44 acres on the north side of the
20 original alignment, which will include a
21 temporary work space.
22 To avoid interrupted service, the
23 old line will be left in place until a new tie-in
24 is established. The new segment will be
25 directionally drilled and a new tie-in
.0069
1 established, and once that's complete, the old
2 line will be removed. The portion of the
3 easement on the south side, which is
4 approximately .44 acres, will no longer be needed
5 and will be transferred back to Parks and
6 Wildlife.
7 All cleared areas are going to be
8 replanted with native site-specific species and
9 will be maintained annually by the operator at
10 his expense. The operator has also agreed to the
11 terms and conditions in Exhibit B as part of the
12 easement agreement. And the payment for this
13 action will be $5,000.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
15 And you --
16 MS. BOYDSTON: And the staff
17 recommends that you forward the following motion
18 to the full Commission to consideration.
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
20 Any questions or comments? The Chair would
21 entertain a motion for approval.
22 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So moved.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And it is
24 eligible for the consent agenda. Would you like
25 to specify that?
.0070
1 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Absolutely.
2 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Second.
3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Motion by
4 Commissioner Watson, second by Commissioner
5 Henry. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
6 all in favor say aye, those opposed nay. Thank
7 you. Thanks, Kathy.
8 (Motion passed unanimously.)
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any other
10 business to come before the Conservation
11 Committee? There being none, then --
12 CHAIRMAN BASS: My compliments to
13 the committee chairs. They ran a much more
14 expedited agenda this afternoon than I was able
15 to do this morning. At future times I will keep
16 that in mind and perhaps allow you to exhibit
17 your prowess in the Regulations Committee in
18 August.
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I think with
20 all of your good experience, we should let you do
21 it again.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: All right. Thank
23 everybody and we will reconvene here tomorrow
24 a.m.
25 *-*-*-*-*
.0071
1 (HEARING ADJOURNED.)
2 *-*-*-*-*
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.0072
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF TRAVIS )
3
4 I, MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, a Certified Court
5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby
6 certify that the above and foregoing 69 pages
7 constitute a full, true and correct transcript of
8 the minutes of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
9 Commission on MAY 31, 2000, in the commission
10 hearing room of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
11 Headquarters Complex, Austin, Travis County,
12 Texas.
13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that a stenographic record
14 was made by me a the time of the public meeting
15 and said stenographic notes were thereafter
16 reduced to computerized transcription under my
17 supervision and control.
18 WITNESS MY HAND this the 28TH day of JULY,
19 2000.
20
21
22 MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, RPR, CSR NO. 3226
Expiration Date: 12-31-00
23 3101 Bee Caves Road
Centre II, Suite 220
24 Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-5557
25
EBS NO. 40483