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