Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Conservation Committee
November 17, 1999
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1 8 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on 9 the 17th day of November 1999, there came on 10 to be heard matters under the regulatory 11 authority of the Parks and Wildlife Commission 12 of Texas, in the commission hearing room of 13 the Texas Parks and Wildlife Headquarters 14 complex, Austin, Travis County, Texas, 15 beginning at 9:40 a.m. to wit: 16 APPEARANCES: 17 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION: 18 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: CHAIR: Carol E. Dinkins 19 Lee M. Bass Ernest Angelo, Jr. 20 John Avila, Jr. Dick Heath (absent) 21 Alvin L. Henry (absent) Katharine Armstrong Idsal 22 Nolan Ryan Mark E. Watson, Jr. 23 24 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: 25 Andrew H. Sansom, Executive Director . 2 1 NOVEMBER 17, 1999 2 MORNING SESSION: 9:40 a.m. 3 * * * * * 4 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 5 * * * * * 6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I call the 7 meeting to order. And before proceeding with 8 business, I believe Mr. Sansom has some 9 statements to make. 10 MR. SANSOM: Ms. Chairman, public 11 notice of this meeting containing all items on 12 the proposed agenda has been filed in the 13 Office of Secretary of State as required by 14 Chapter 551 of the Government Code. This is 15 referred to as the Open Meetings Law, and I 16 would like for this action to be noted in the 17 official record of the meeting. 18 If I might, Commissioner Dinkins, I would 19 also like to point out that Dr. Lacher has 20 brought the introductory conservation 21 management class from Texas A&M today, and 22 they are here with us in the audience and very 23 welcome. 24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. We do 25 welcome you. I'm glad you're here. And I . 3 1 want to apologize for our late start, but you 2 could probably tell when you were coming in 3 through the fog yourself that it was going to 4 be hard for anybody to get here. And we 5 appreciate your patience. 6 With that, we'll turn to the minutes of 7 the June meeting. We did not have a committee 8 meeting in August, and that is why you see the 9 June minutes which remain to be approved. And 10 I would ask for a motion for approval. 11 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I so move. 12 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And a 13 second, please. 14 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Second. 15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you. 16 Any discussion? Hearing none, then all in 17 favor say aye. Those opposed? Thank you. 18 (Motion passed unanimously.) 19 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S 20 CHARGES. 21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next 22 item is a briefing, and that is on the 23 Chairman's Charges, if you would please, 24 Mr. Sansom. 25 MR. SANSOM: Well, we're going to, . 4 1 if it's all right with you, Chairman Dinkins, 2 is that Mr. Bass has asked that when he does 3 arrive, he's just going to go back and proceed 4 to hear all of his charges at one time. 5 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right. 6 We'll wait for that, then. 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: ACTION - FIBER OPTIC 8 EASEMENT - TRAVIS COUNTY - SMITH SCHOOL ROAD. 9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: The next 10 item is the fiber optic easement, Travis 11 County, and that is in the briefing. 12 MR. HERRING: Good morning. My 13 name is Mike Herring. I'm director of the 14 department's land conservation program. And I 15 have with me Kathy Boydston, a member of the 16 wildlife division staff. 17 A private communications company has 18 purchased a building adjacent to the 19 department's Austin headquarters and has 20 requested a permanent easement along Smith 21 School Road to install a fiber optic cable. 22 The easement would be approximately 2,000 feet 23 in length, five feet wide, totaling 10,000 24 square feet. In order to allow installation 25 to proceed, the company was issued a . 5 1 construction permit and certificate of 2 occupancy for a period of ten years, with a 3 provision for conversion to a permanent 4 easement contingent on Parks and Wildlife 5 Commission and the Parks and Wildlife Board 6 for Lease Approval. 7 Compensation for the easement is $45,000, 8 or $4.50 per square foot. Department staff 9 has examined the application and concluded 10 that there is no feasible or prudent 11 alternative to the use of the easement and the 12 project includes all reasonable planning to 13 minimize harm to the land. The action 14 requested at this meeting is to move this to 15 the Board for Lease for a conversion from 16 temporary to permanent easement. 17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you. 18 Are there any questions? All right. Hearing 19 none, the Chair would entertain a motion to 20 move this to the Commission agenda. 21 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: I'll second. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any 24 discussion? All in favor say aye. Those 25 opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you. . 6 1 (Motion passed unanimously.) 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: ACTION - NOMINATION FOR 3 OIL AND GAS LEASES - BRAZOS BEND STATE PARK - 4 FORT BEND COUNTY - SHELDON STATE PARK - HARRIS 5 COUNTY. 6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next 7 item is the nomination for oil and gas leases. 8 MR. HERRING: The department has 9 been requested to nominate portions of two 10 state parks for oil and gas leases. At 11 Sheldon Lake State Park, approximately 662 of 12 the 2,265 mineral acres owned by the 13 department have been requested. Conditions 14 for this nomination are shown in your Exhibit 15 A. In this case, the requested tract is small 16 enough that we have prohibited surface entry 17 and require offsite drilling or pooling. 18 At Brazos Bend State Park, two tracts 19 totalling 3,170 acres have been requested. 20 Conditions associated with this nomination are 21 shown at your Exhibit B. These are our 22 standard restrictions designed to minimize 23 environmental impact. And in this case, there 24 are existing well sites, so we're limiting 25 drilling to those well sites. . 7 1 Our compensation is our standard 2 recommendation, $150 per acre bonus bid, a 25 3 percent royalty, $10 per acre delay rental for 4 a three-year lease; and for Brazos Bend, 5 surface damages for drill site, $2500 each. 6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I did have 7 one question, and that was whether in the 8 Brazos Bend State Park, the existing pads have 9 been mapped. Because one of the conditions is 10 that the drilling would be from existing pads 11 located within the park. Is there a map of 12 those? 13 MS. BOYDSTON: We have them located 14 on aerial photography for that site, and we 15 did fax that to the people that nominated, and 16 they felt like that that was adequate, that 17 they could reach their locations from those 18 pads. And if it turns out that they cannot, 19 they are not able to do that, there are other 20 disturbed locations that we would let them 21 use, but we would prefer to limit them to 22 existing sites. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: But you 24 don't refer to the other (inaudible) do you? 25 MS. BOYDSTON: No. We would like . 8 1 to limit them to existing well pads. There's 2 two, one in the northern half of the tract, 3 and then one that's more centrally located in 4 tract one where they would be able to reach 5 down into tract two, the other portion that 6 they've nominated, which is where most of the 7 park is. That's where most of the campsites 8 and the facilities are. And we'd like to keep 9 them out of that section if we could. 10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Okay. Thank 11 you. Are there any other questions? 12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move 13 approval. 14 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second. 15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you. 16 Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor 17 say aye. Those opposed, no. Motion carries. 18 Thank you. 19 (Motion passed unanimously.) 20 MR. HERRING: Ms. Dinkins, I think 21 both of these would qualify for consent agenda 22 if there's no one signing up tomorrow. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right. 24 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Add that to 25 the motion. . 9 1 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right. 2 The motion has been amended. Thank you. 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: BRIEFING - TPWD 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 1. 5 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next 6 item is a briefing on Senate Bill 1. And the 7 materials are on Page 30 that provide the 8 background. 9 MR. MCKINNEY: Thank you, Madam 10 Chairman and Members. For the record I'm 11 Larry McKinney, senior director for aquatic 12 resources. With me today and who will be tag 13 teaming with me is Cindy Loeffler who is head 14 of our water team and basically really the one 15 in charge of trying to implement all the 16 things we're doing with Senate Bill 1. So she 17 does all the work. So I'm going to ask her to 18 help us out on this. 19 It never hurts to take a look at our 20 primary goal for what we're trying achieve in 21 working with water, and certainly it's key to 22 all the issues and activities that we do in 23 the department, to review that very quickly. 24 As far as implementation of Senate Bill 1, we 25 do and are continuing to work in all areas in . 10 1 partnership with the TNRCC and the Water 2 Development Board to achieve those ends. So 3 what we want to do for you today is kind of 4 present you with a summary of where we are in 5 that process. 6 This is a particularly important time in 7 regards to the planning efforts through the 8 state. As you may recall, the state has been 9 divided into 16 planning regions for the 10 purposes of developing water management 11 strategies to meet other future water needs 12 over the next 50 years. The regional water 13 plans, that is each region, regional planning 14 group is charged in Senate Bill 1 with 15 producing a plan for their region that will be 16 submitted to the Water Development Board in 17 January of 2001. So there's a critical period 18 of time that we're about to enter now in 19 developing those plans. The overall state 20 water plan will be due then the following 21 year. 22 So the planning groups are at various 23 stages of meeting that objective, but it's 24 going to kick into high gear in producing 25 their documents over the winter and . 11 1 particularly spring. There will be a series, 2 obviously, of public hearings in each of these 3 regions on those water plans through the 4 summer. So that will be a high activity time 5 for all of us. And we're trying to get ready 6 for that and have been. 7 I want to particularly recognize, of 8 course, all of the work that's being done by 9 Parks and Wildlife staff in just every 10 division. In fact, a number of them are here 11 from the coastal division today, which we 12 appreciate all of their support in trying to 13 make our resources available to those planning 14 groups to make sure that fish and wildlife are 15 adequately addressed. 16 One of the things I asked them to do with 17 Cindy's direction is to basically prepare a 18 report card on the planning groups as to where 19 we are in progress of addressing fish and 20 wildlife and environmental issues from the 21 groups. And that's what's reflected on the 22 monitors there of kind of where we are as far 23 as A's, B's and C's. Unfortunately we don't 24 have any A's right now, but we have some 25 groups that are more advanced in dealing with . 12 1 those issues. And really what this is, and 2 we're going to cover a couple of the issues on 3 how we got to that score, this is not 4 necessarily a rating of how well these groups 5 are including fish and wildlife, but mostly, 6 are they at least considering fish and 7 wildlife impact, environmental issues as part 8 of their development plan, at least as part of 9 that process? 10 And there's some interesting issues, for 11 example, one that we've worked very closely 12 with the Board on is regions -- taking a look 13 at our population projections and water-use 14 scenarios that we have worked on for sometime 15 to make sure that they agree with those. And 16 a number of the regions have not agreed with 17 those projections of population and water use 18 and they're challenging them. But we worked 19 through I think most regions now except for -- 20 MS. LOEFFLER: Fourteen. 21 MR. MCKINNEY: We worked through 14 22 regions. 23 MS. LOEFFLER: The 14th will be 24 considered by the Water Development Board 25 today. . 13 1 MR. MCKINNEY: Okay. And we're 2 getting those worked out. Pretty much they're 3 agreeing with us. I think the one area that 4 will be interesting to look at, that's -- I 5 think it's Region C, which includes Dallas. 6 There are some times we think the city of 7 Dallas is planning on drowning their citizens 8 with water by their high consumptive rates. 9 But we will get through that issue, too. 10 Those will be important to come to agreement 11 on because they will set the stage for what 12 strategies that we'll be developing, how much 13 water we will be needing to meet those 14 demands. 15 One area in which we're working very 16 closely with the regions is in the process or 17 the potential for designation of rivers and 18 streams for their unique ecological value. 19 There's a series of criteria that's been set 20 forth in the rules that these regions can 21 consider in doing so. A provision in the 22 Senate Bill 1 says that -- and this is a local 23 planning type option. Only the local planning 24 groups can propose these, and then the 25 legislature must adopt them. It really is a . 14 1 direct control, a grassroots control of issues 2 of protecting stream segments and protecting 3 potential reservoir sites. They can do 4 either. It's certainly an important issue for 5 us. We're trying to provide as much 6 information as we can to those planning 7 groups. 8 I think there's been some concerns being 9 raised in some areas about impacts on private 10 property and what all this means. And we're 11 going to be seeking the help of our Private 12 Lands Advisory Committee to get that kind of 13 information out so people understand what 14 these things are and the fact that it's a 15 locally driven option and something that can 16 be of value to them. And so that's another 17 area. Just to give you an example of what 18 we're talking about, all of this information 19 is available on our Web site. We have gone 20 over the entire state based on the criteria 21 that the Bill envisions and identified some 22 potential areas so people -- that the planning 23 groups can use. 24 For example, in that central region if 25 you looked at the Guadalupe River, that's one. . 15 1 And so in our mapping, you can look and see 2 that that segment of the Guadalupe River down 3 to its confluence in San Antonio Bay -- the 4 Guadalupe Wildlife Management area is there -- 5 would meet all of those criteria. That's just 6 one example. So if you want to see in detail, 7 we can either do a paper match for you, but 8 it's available on our Web site in greater 9 detail. That's just an example of what we're 10 doing there. 11 A major concern that we have, and we're 12 going to be putting a lot of emphasis on it 13 from now through the spring, is that the 14 planning groups are so -- there's a lot work 15 they have to do. They are very overwhelmed. 16 But we want to make sure that as they are 17 evaluating their management options, strategy 18 options of how they will meet the water 19 demands, that they include in that evaluation 20 environmental impact, impacts on fish and 21 wildlife, that it's part of that 22 consideration. We, Cindy and I and others, 23 have been in this business for many years, and 24 it has been -- we have commonly observed a 25 trait, whether intentionally or just probably . 16 1 because of the way it is, that many times 2 environmental considerations get put off until 3 the last, and then all of the sudden everyone 4 raises their hand, "Well, you're holding up 5 our entire project," where they had spent 6 three or four years looking at hydrology and 7 other things and then suddenly they're going 8 to spend three weeks on other considerations. 9 And that's unfortunate because they are 10 important issues. 11 And we're really concerned that because 12 of the press of business that the planning 13 groups may be pushed that direction. So we're 14 taking some actions to try to make sure that 15 we can assist them. Obviously, as I said, we 16 have staff in every one of the planning groups 17 that are available there. We have just 18 completed an evaluation matrix. We would be 19 glad to share that with you that we're going 20 out to the planning regions to say, "Here is a 21 way to evaluate your projects, all types of 22 projects, things you must look at," with the 23 leadership of the Water Development Board. 24 And they instituted this and we're supporting 25 them. . 17 1 We've arranged over the spring to work 2 with all of the state agencies as well as all 3 the federal resource agencies to bring a 4 series of meetings together with each planning 5 region, to sit down with them and go over 6 every one of their strategies that they're 7 going to come up with to give them the heads 8 up of, "Here are issues that you need to 9 address, here are the fatal flaws, if you 10 will, or the red flags," to try to help them 11 get through that process. 12 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Could you 13 give us a couple of examples? 14 MR. MCKINNEY: Of? 15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Example of 16 some of the things you have on the evaluation 17 matrix? 18 MR. MCKINNEY: Right. We have 19 ordered all the strategies from a reservoir 20 construction, which typically is the most 21 environmentally impacted and one that you have 22 to deal with instream flows, inundation of 23 wetlands, downstream impacts, all the way down 24 to water conservation, which basically is the 25 least impact. And so for example, under . 18 1 reservoir construction, we identified that as 2 one strategy that's going to be considered. 3 When you construct a reservoir, we basically 4 in the next part of the matrix, identified all 5 those environmental issues which must be 6 evaluated. What are the impacts on bottomland 7 hardwoods typically, to what extent? How do 8 you categorize those bottomland hardwoods? 9 There are some hardwoods that are more 10 valuable than others. If your site is in one 11 of these high-value areas, you're going to 12 have to deal with a greater amount of 13 mitigation, instream flows, what is the amount 14 of water that might be available? It's just 15 those kind of check marks that they go around 16 and look at. 17 After we have identified those, we then 18 put in some recommendations that if you have 19 instream flow considerations, you may have to 20 have releases from your reservoir on a 21 schedule to meet flooding and those types of 22 things. So that's -- it's a very generalized 23 nature. We know that their consultants 24 understand these issues, but this is written 25 to try to get at those planning group members . 19 1 so they can get a grasp on just what's 2 involved and so that they will do it, if that 3 helps. 4 I would be glad to provide you a copy, or 5 anyone who's interested, a copy of that 6 matrix -- we just completed it this week -- to 7 take a look at. And we'd like your input on 8 that as to whether it's helpful. 9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Planning 10 groups are receptive to all this help, are 11 they? 12 MS. LOEFFLER: Some more than 13 others. 14 MR. MCKINNEY: Some, yes, some, 15 no. Some groups prefer, they want basically 16 to deal with it on their own from all aspects. 17 They really don't want much interference, and 18 that's our concern. You know, this is -- 19 Senate Bill 1 is very clear that this is a 20 grassroots type of effort, that it needs to 21 come from the bottom up. And all we can do is 22 basically say, "We're here, we have these 23 resources, please take advantage of them," you 24 know, basically trying to make sure that 25 there's no excuse not to, but in fact, they . 20 1 have to do it. And that's about as far as we 2 can go. 3 MR. SANSOM: And that presents us 4 with a real dilemma that we're wrestling with 5 right now. Because if you -- this process, 6 which frankly we began back in the early 7 '90's, and Senator Brown has put in place for 8 us, envisions that at some point in time we 9 would reach consensus on what -- where the new 10 projects will be and what things will be 11 protected and how much water will be left in 12 the rivers and streams. And if we're 13 presented with a situation at the end of this 14 process where we can't do that, then we're 15 going to have a train wreck. And so we've got 16 to find a way to make sure that somehow those 17 considerations be imbued in this process, 18 otherwise we -- the idea of a mutually agreed 19 upon consensus water plan will not work. 20 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Our role is 21 strictly advisory at this time? 22 MR. SANSOM: At this stage, but at 23 the point in time at which we agree on the 24 statewide plan, we're a party. 25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: But this is . 21 1 a good process, because the kind of things 2 that you're ticking off that would be in that 3 matrix are things that they're going to run 4 into in a permit when they have to get one for 5 the project. And if it involves those areas, 6 they will have to have a permit. 7 MR. SANSOM: And that's, I think -- 8 what Larry will tell you is that's part of our 9 concern right now is that there may not be a 10 universal acceptance of that at this level. 11 MR. MCKINNEY: Or even to a certain 12 degree, a naïveté about that that they're 13 just -- many of these have not participated. 14 They don't recognize that and don't understand 15 it that there's not only a state water permit 16 process, there's a federal process which is 17 entirely outside the scope of any great state 18 influence which deals with 404's and 19 endangered species that they must deal with, 20 and they're just going to have to. 21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That's what 22 I was thinking about, and that's why I was 23 thinking that it's good that the people on the 24 planning committees recognize that at an early 25 stage so that they don't get really frustrated . 22 1 when they start trying to get projects 2 approved and they run into those kinds of 3 issues. 4 MR. SANSOM: And I think one of the 5 concerns that we have from an institutional 6 standpoint is we need to make sure that it is 7 not perceived at that point in time that we 8 suddenly just popped up as an obstacle, 9 because I think our guys have been telling 10 these planning groups this all the way along. 11 Thankfully, Senator Brown and the 12 leadership of the other two principal agencies 13 also recognize this dilemma. I mean, it's not 14 something that we're not all sharing as a 15 potential issue that we need to wrestle with. 16 MR. MCKINNEY: I can emphasize that 17 more. We're working very closely with the 18 other two agencies. It's a concern from all 19 perspectives, water quality, all other issues, 20 a great concern how we can do that. And 21 there's -- the matrix we prepared, another one 22 is being prepared by TNRCC and the Board on 23 issues that they deal with, so it will be a 24 pretty impressive package going forward and 25 that type of thing. . 23 1 What I will do now is -- that's really of 2 course our concerns on the planning groups. 3 I'm going to ask Cindy to review with you very 4 quickly what our status is on other aspects of 5 Senate Bill 1 implementation that we are also 6 involved in. 7 MS. LOEFFLER: Thank you. Senate 8 Bill 1 did other things as well as setting up 9 the regional water planning process, and one 10 of those things that I'm frankly pretty 11 excited about is this concept of creating new 12 water availability models for the state. This 13 is something that is long overdue in needing 14 to happen. And what this will allow us to do, 15 working with the Texas Natural Resource 16 Conservation Commission, to use the best, most 17 current information to analyze how much water 18 is actually available in these basins. You 19 have probably heard by now that many of our 20 river basins in Texas are fully or 21 over-appropriated as far as surface water 22 rights are concerned. So this is a critical 23 issue for us to be able to look at, to have 24 the tool in hand to look at how much water is 25 actually available. . 24 1 So we have been working from the very 2 beginning with TNRCC on updating these models 3 or creating new models, in some cases, for all 4 22 river basins in the state except for the 5 Rio Grande. And these models will be 6 completed by December 31st, 2001. And one 7 feature that is important from our perspective 8 is that these models are able to represent 9 environmental flow needs, instream flow needs 10 and freshwater inflow needs to the basin 11 estuaries. So we will be able to use these 12 models as tools to look at the impacts of new 13 water development, to look at the impacts of 14 changes in how current water rights are used 15 and to look at reuse, for example. If water 16 is reused, what impact will that have on our 17 aquatic ecosystems. 18 So currently we're at the point where the 19 Sulfur basin is complete. The Neches and 20 Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe basins are in 21 draft form, and we have had a chance to review 22 those. And then the San Jacinto and Trinity 23 basin are currently underway. 24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Cindy, are 25 those being modeled by people in-house at . 25 1 TNRCC? 2 MS. LOEFFLER: No. That was a 3 fairly lengthy start-up process that we went 4 through, but it was for the better, to look at 5 all the models that are available worldwide. 6 We didn't limit ourselves to just the U.S. or 7 Texas even to select the best model available. 8 And as it turns out, there was no model out 9 there that, you know, off the shelf could do 10 what we needed it to do. And interestingly 11 enough, the model that we ended up selecting 12 was one developed at Texas A&M. That then 13 needed to be kind of tailored, if you will, 14 have some things added to it, modified to work 15 for Texas. And then that model then is 16 applied to the different basins by private 17 consulting firms. So we've also gone through 18 an RFQ process to award those contracts. 19 TNRCC is the contract manager. 20 MR. SANSOM: Members, there's no 21 more serious ecological issues with these 22 basin estuaries than this one, not dredging, 23 not development -- nothing comes close to this 24 issue as a potential impact on the basin 25 estuaries out into the future, as a continued . 26 1 assured-flow of freshwater. 2 MS. LOEFFLER: That's a good segue 3 into the next slide talking about the status 4 of the coastal studies program basin estuaries 5 studies that have been underway in concert 6 with the Texas Water Development Board staff. 7 I'm glad to report that the studies are on 8 schedule, progressing smoothly, and results 9 are now available for the San Antonio Bay 10 System, for the Galveston Bay System. 11 Matagorda Bay was actually modeled by the 12 Lower Colorado River Authority with input from 13 the state agencies. We also have numbers now 14 for Nueces Bay System, Copano Aransas was 15 completed this summer, and we're now turning 16 our efforts to Sabine Lake and the Lower 17 Laguna Madre. 18 And so the water availability models will 19 be able to incorporate these freshwater inflow 20 needs for these estuaries and help us to look 21 at different management scenarios, different 22 water use scenarios. The Regional Water 23 Planning Groups under Senate Bill 1 will have 24 these models available to look at impacts of 25 different management strategies on freshwater . 27 1 inflows. 2 On the groundwater side of the picture, 3 Parks and Wildlife historically has not been 4 heavily involved in groundwater issues, but 5 thanks to Senate Bill 1, there is now a 6 requirement for the department to complete 7 studies that look at natural resources in 8 areas that are described as priority 9 groundwater management areas, PGMAs. And what 10 that means is an area that is expected to or 11 is currently experiencing groundwater problems 12 due to water quality problems, decline in 13 groundwater levels, future increasing demand, 14 things of that nature, can be designated by 15 the TNRCC as a priority groundwater management 16 area. 17 And so our input into this process is to 18 provide the technical information and data as 19 to the natural resource issues there and 20 potential natural resource problems with 21 respect to groundwater use. So what you see 22 on this slide are the map -- the regions that 23 we completed, the water resources team, this 24 past year. And one little addition that's not 25 on there is for northern Bexar County -- it . 28 1 was another one that we looked at recently. 2 So at this time -- 3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Cindy, 4 before you move on, on the groundwater, I 5 remember decades of work on instream flows and 6 on flows into the bays and estuaries, but I 7 don't remember seeing a lot in the groundwater 8 area in the last two decades. 9 MS. LOEFFLER: We haven't really 10 had the opportunity, I'll say, to get very 11 involved in groundwater issues. And I think 12 that's primarily due to how groundwater is 13 managed or not managed in Texas. 14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Not managed. 15 MS. LOEFFLER: And not really an 16 opportunity. But I'm excited to say yesterday 17 I was at a meeting all day, a kickoff looking 18 at groundwater availability modeling that the 19 Texas Water Development Board is currently 20 undertaking. And one of the key primary 21 issues that we talked about is looking at the 22 impact on springflows, looking at how surface 23 water and groundwater interact and how 24 groundwater activities can affect instream 25 flows, freshwater inflows, springs, all of . 29 1 that. 2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It's good to 3 see this kind of work started. 4 MS. LOEFFLER: It's just starting. 5 It's good. Long overdue. 6 Another tool that Senate Bill 1 gave us 7 to use is the Texas Water Trust. The Water 8 Trust is something that will allow a water 9 right holder to dedicate that water right to 10 environmental flow protection. The incentive 11 there is, if a water right has not been used 12 for a period of time, ten years, it 13 technically, legally can be cancelled for 14 non-use. TNRCC can in effect take that water 15 right back. It's not something that TNRCC has 16 exercised in the past, but there is increased 17 emphasis under Senate Bill 1 -- the Regional 18 Planning Groups are directed to look at 19 cancellation, the water availability models 20 will explicitly state water available if 21 cancellation were carried out. 22 So we're looking at this as a mechanism 23 for actually taking water rights that have 24 been granted and dedicating them for a term of 25 time for several years or in perpetuity, . 30 1 forever, for protecting environmental flows. 2 And so we've been working with the sister 3 agencies, with the Water Development Board and 4 TNRCC, to establish the procedure that the 5 agencies and the water right holders would 6 follow to actually carry this out. 7 And we're pleased to report that we're at 8 the point in time where we're ready to 9 actually deposit a right. And the right that 10 we've been discussing is a Parks and Wildlife 11 Department water right at Sheldon State Park 12 that has not been used for the original 13 intended purpose and can be dedicated to 14 environmental flow protection. So we're 15 hoping -- 16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That could 17 be a very significant tool for the department. 18 MR. SANSOM: Big, big tool. We are 19 also -- Larry is also working on the San 20 Marcos River for the potential dedication of 21 some water there. I will tell you that, 22 Members and Chairman Dinkins, it's my opinion 23 that in the years out we're going to have to 24 also look for some funding to make 25 acquisitions of water in the way that we make . 31 1 acquisitions of land today. We will get in a 2 situation where we'll be using everything from 3 duck stamp funds to who knows what else -- 4 saltwater fishing funds -- to actually 5 purchase water on the market to put into this 6 trust in order to make sure it's there. 7 MS. LOEFFLER: Excellent. And then 8 finally, as Larry already alluded to, the 9 Texas water web page that my team, the water 10 resources team, created is our -- one of our 11 primary vehicles for getting the data out, 12 getting the information out. All of these 13 reports that you've heard us talk about, the 14 priority groundwater management area reports, 15 the ecologically significant river and stream 16 segments, the freshwater inflow summary 17 reports, all of these things are being posted 18 to this Web site and made available to -- 19 especially to the SB 1 Regional Planning Group 20 members, but to anyone who's interested in our 21 issues. And so that is available from our Web 22 site. 23 And I just want to, in closing, reiterate 24 what Larry said about the dedication of the 25 staff from all the agencies and the department . 32 1 supporting the Senate Bill 1 process. We 2 couldn't have done it just within my program 3 in resource protection. 4 MR. MCKINNEY: With that, Madam 5 Chair, we conclude our report unless there's 6 other questions. 7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Are there 8 any other questions? Well, thank you. That 9 was an excellent briefing. And Cindy, 10 welcome. I don't think we've had you before 11 the committee. 12 MS. LOEFFLER: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: We'll look 14 forward to more briefings. 15 MS. LOEFFLER: Great. 16 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: BRIEFING - STATUS OF PARK 17 TRANSFERS. 18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next 19 item is also a briefing, and that is on 20 implementation -- I'm sorry -- the status of 21 the park transfers. And Bob Cook is going to 22 give us that briefing. 23 MR. COOK: Actually, Mr. Dabney is 24 going to make the presentation, Madam 25 Chairman. Thank you-all for being here. And . 33 1 with me, as I say, is Walt Dabney, our state 2 parks division director. 3 House Bill 2108 provided some funding for 4 the transfer of state park properties to other 5 local governmental entities. And that was an 6 issue that was, of course, very sensitive to 7 us and very sensitive to the people in the 8 communities and our employees in the parks. 9 And so this process we have approached very 10 cautiously, but quite frankly, fairly 11 aggressively to get that word out and make 12 sure that people understand at all ends of the 13 spectrum what the issues are and what the 14 opportunities are. It is not a fire sale. 15 And I think -- I think as Walt will point 16 out to you here, we've had some inquiries, 17 we've had some interest, and we've tried to 18 address each one of them individually. With 19 that, I'm going let Mr. Dabney proceed. 20 MR. DABNEY: Good morning to 21 everyone. House Bill 2108 did provide the 22 opportunity to have up to $2 million a year to 23 facilitate the possible transfer for continued 24 public use of units of the park system. That 25 would be the transfer of the ownership, . 34 1 operation and maintenance of those sites. Per 2 the Commission's instructions, there was no 3 list. In essence, the 122 sites are all on 4 the table, so to speak, for discussion. 5 As Bob said, we have been very methodical 6 in our approach to this. Letters have gone 7 out, but prior to any of those letters going 8 out, I think -- you saw those letters. We 9 went over to the legislature and briefed the 10 key members of the legislature and let them 11 look at the draft for this. Subsequently we 12 sent a letter out to all of our employees. 13 And I will tell you that there's probably 14 still some consternation out among some of our 15 employees, the thought of losing their park, 16 where they work. 17 Letters subsequently went out to members 18 of the Texas Legislature, Texas Historical 19 Commission, Texas Recreation and Parks 20 Society, the Friends Groups, et cetera, also 21 to other -- to the river authorities, 22 commissioners, et cetera. Letters went to 23 local officials, mayors, county judges, so the 24 county commissions all got them, city managers 25 and that sort of thing. . 35 1 The criteria that we were using in this 2 approach was that we would be looking at sites 3 in the discussion where the locals clearly 4 understood the needs for that site, whether 5 it's to manage the natural resources, the 6 cultural resources, what all that entailed, 7 their ability to provide that same kind of 8 protection and control and operation, whether 9 it was related to endangered species or the 10 requirements to manage a cultural site under 11 state laws -- federal law, the financial 12 investment and potential long-term financial 13 impacts of these sites, both to Texas Parks 14 and Wildlife; what do these sites do for us 15 financially? And secondly, of interest to the 16 local groups, is if it were not a state park 17 anymore, what would be the impact to us of 18 that not being a state park, and that's come 19 up in a number of these. Local financial 20 ability to operate and maintain the site. 21 We certainly would not want to turn over 22 a site, and as was brought up by the 23 Commission last time, have that site operated 24 for five years and then come back to us. And 25 so we are very open; anything we have as it . 36 1 relates to financial papers and that kind of 2 thing is available to anybody that wants to 3 talk about this. 4 Two other things: The level of 5 significance. Is this a site that is 6 primarily of local interest or is it a site 7 that truly has a large regional or statewide 8 significance or area of interest? And lastly, 9 it has to be mutually agreed to. I mean, it 10 needs to be good -- a reasonable thing from 11 the state's standpoint and a reasonable thing 12 from the local entity. 13 We have had some inquiries. And this is 14 a list of most -- I think all of the ones that 15 we have had at least an initial contact about, 16 and in a number of these we actually have had 17 face-to-face visits with most often mayors or 18 city managers or a combination of city and 19 county officials. The proposed process that 20 we are using is that we would get a call -- 21 and I've had calls -- a couple of calls that 22 just wanted clarification. "What does this 23 mean? Are you trying to get rid of the state 24 park system?" And we assured them that that 25 is certainly not the case here. And, "Are you . 37 1 trying to get rid of my area?" No, that is 2 not the case either. And then we explained 3 the process. 4 I had actually the Dallas Arboretum 5 called the other day and asked if they were 6 eligible for this. We said -- I said, "I 7 don't think we own you, but do you want to be 8 transferred somewhere?" Anyway, they said, 9 "Well, thanks we were just a little worried. 10 Also saw some possibility of money." I said, 11 "Well, it will have to be somewhere else." 12 The proposed process then would be if 13 they had additional interest, we can either 14 send them some additional financial 15 information or specifics and then have a 16 face-to-face meeting if they wanted to do 17 that. We have had face-to-face meetings with 18 some, others just said we'll call you back. 19 And then the process would move on down the 20 line as you see. 21 Information exchange: Again, we will 22 give folks anything that they would like to 23 make their decision. And we're very 24 forthcoming because we want them to understand 25 fully what it is that they are talking about . 38 1 doing. 2 The next step would be some formal 3 proposal. And I would assume that that could 4 be a resolution from a city council or a 5 county commission that, yes, this is something 6 we want to do and we propose to do this, and 7 then the steps as you see up there would 8 follow. And we have not gotten past 9 "information exchange" on any of these 10 inquiries at this point in time. 11 So that's kind of where we are. And if 12 you have any questions, I'd certainly be -- 13 MR. COOK: I think it's at least 14 worthwhile to note -- of the parks that you 15 saw on the list that we've had the inquiry 16 from, like Walt said, some of them are just 17 like, "What is this? What's going on? We got 18 your letter and what does this mean?" 19 A couple of them have been pretty 20 serious, you know. And Walt and his staff, 21 regional directors and park managers have 22 carried on a significant discussion with a 23 couple of these groups. The process -- 24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: A few of 25 these look like they would be quite . 39 1 appropriate candidates for that (inaudible). 2 COMMISSIONER AVILA: A few of them 3 look -- some of those, just from your list, 4 would not be appropriate. And so what's the 5 criteria where we're saying, "No, you're going 6 to stay in our system"? 7 MR. DABNEY: That's a good 8 question, Commissioner. And it kind of 9 evolves in the discussion. 10 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Sort of like 11 seceding from the Union in some of those 12 cases. 13 MR. DABNEY: Well, it is. It is, 14 and we talk about the significance. And when 15 I say significance, it's really an area of 16 interest, too. Do you want to turn -- and I 17 don't know which ones you have in mind and 18 I'll not try to play that game at all, but 19 some of them, you know, obviously come to 20 light that that is an area of major interest 21 and has been for a long time to a lot of 22 people. 23 If you turn it into -- if you were to 24 turn it into a city park, would it have the 25 same attraction and that kind of thing? And . 40 1 the second piece is, is it a critical piece of 2 the -- of that system of parks that we have. 3 There is no set piece that we have to say that 4 this is -- is not one we can further discuss, 5 but it's interesting to watch the evolution 6 and the dialogue, because in most cases folks 7 will say, "You know, we feel pretty good about 8 what it is," or "We want to continue this on 9 with some further discussions." But yes, sir, 10 some of these are more straightforward than 11 others. 12 MR. COOK: The two that were on the 13 list that we're still carrying on some fairly 14 significant discussions with is Lockhart State 15 Park and Lubbock Lake Landmark State Park. 16 And we have real good opportunities there with 17 the local community in one case, with the 18 university and museum group in another case -- 19 they are very capable of doing this. And 20 we're just at that point of looking at the 21 economics, you know, of what does it mean to 22 them, what does it mean to us, what are the 23 potentials. 24 One of the things that we want to be 25 careful of here and in working with all these . 41 1 different groups and different kinds of 2 groups, is to keep the process itself fairly 3 straightforward and fairly simple and 4 something that they're comfortable in working 5 with. 6 And so we wanted to give you that update. 7 And as you saw, if we get to that point where 8 it looks like something is really going to 9 happen with any one of these sites, we will 10 certainly bring that information back to you 11 and advise you of that, keep you posted on 12 that. 13 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Do you 14 envision recommending a more aggressive 15 approach from our standpoint in identifying 16 some who have not volunteered -- 17 MR. COOK: We may have to go knock 18 on a door or two, yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: If I could 20 interrupt, I'd like the record to show that 21 Commissioner Idsal was able to join us. 22 Welcome, Katharine. 23 MR. SANSOM: I think that one of 24 the things that we discussed this week in 25 preparing for this meeting was the fact that . 42 1 we need to think about making sure that our 2 process is not inhibiting. What you will see 3 formally is that you'll see if -- and 4 obviously we'll be discussing with you as we 5 go -- but the formal action that you will 6 ultimately take is that you would see an 7 additional item on your park grant list, but 8 it would be classified in this category. And 9 so you would formally approve it in the form 10 of a grant for the purpose of transfer. 11 The interesting thing to me, and as Bob 12 and Walt have told you, is that we've got two 13 sites that we are in fairly active discussion 14 on, and they're very different. They're very 15 different in terms of what they are, the 16 resources that are there, and in fact, the 17 significance of them. So they don't fit 18 that -- they don't fit any easy model. 19 I struggled with this early, you know, to 20 try to see if we could crisply define what we 21 would talk about and what we would not. And I 22 think we all concluded that that's kind of a 23 mistake because there probably may be other 24 types of partnering opportunities out there 25 which would only be disclosed through this . 43 1 kind of process. For example, although it did 2 not work, in one of the parks that was being 3 discussed, we looked at the possibility of 4 hooking up with a municipal wastewater system 5 as a potential huge savings to us. And that 6 discussion only took place as a result of this 7 inquiry. 8 I have to tell you that it's my opinion 9 that this is very, very important. It is 10 very -- as Walt has eloquently said, it's hard 11 for us to envision many times de-accessing a 12 site, but I believe that we will not be able 13 to do the things that are really important in 14 Texas in the years ahead unless we rigorously 15 look at the things that potentially could be 16 better done by others, and that's what this 17 program seeks to do. 18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Bob, those 19 two parks, the Lubbock and the Lockhart parks, 20 were ones that I noted on the list that I 21 thought were particularly good candidates, but 22 as you say, for very different reasons. And 23 you couldn't put together a list that would 24 capture both of those very easily. 25 MR. COOK: Like Andy says, I think . 44 1 one of the most interesting results of this 2 may be that for instance in the discussions 3 that Walt and some of our staff had with the 4 Huntsville folks, this thing of the water 5 hookup. I mean, you're talking hundreds of 6 thousands of dollars. Well, if we could end 7 up in a partnership with a community or with a 8 park in something as a result of this process, 9 maybe a transfer does not take place, but a 10 partnership occurs in which a resulting 11 savings and a better understanding of what is 12 happening out there and what is required to 13 operate that park. 14 Huntsville is really an interesting one 15 because the community has through the years 16 made a lot of demands upon us, has made many, 17 many requests to do this, do that for their 18 park. As that discussion took place and we 19 sat down and started looking at the numbers, 20 looking at revenues, looking at costs, looking 21 at infrastructure repairs, they all kind of 22 begin to go, "Yeah, well, maybe you-all are 23 doing a pretty good job here." And that's a 24 very positive thing and one that I appreciate 25 Walt's efforts on, and that I think we'll have . 45 1 that opportunity a number of times in the next 2 several years. 3 MR. DABNEY: One other impression 4 on this, to be honest with you, is the 5 significance thing that Andy explained very 6 well. We do have Lubbock Lake as very 7 significant, maybe even internationally, and 8 Lockhart maybe in a different way, more of a 9 local interest but still a state park. I 10 think the other piece of this is, as you 11 really look at all the numbers, not just the 12 gate receipts versus what your operation is, 13 but having to take care of infrastructure -- 14 unless you're a fairly significant-sized 15 entity, that's going to be hard to do, because 16 you could sell somebody something that they'd 17 look back on in a few years and say, "What did 18 we take on?" Because if you're a small county 19 or a small town, the infrastructure alone, 20 especially with some of these -- like swimming 21 pools and golf courses -- you're buying 22 yourself a pretty good liability. We know. 23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any other 24 questions? Well, thank you for that briefing. 25 We'll look forward to your progress on this. . 46 1 Is there any other business to come 2 before this committee? If not, then we will 3 not adjourn but continue until the executive 4 session, which we will announce at the 5 appropriate time. So with that, we will turn 6 to the finance committee. 7 8 9 * * * * * 10 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ADJOURNED 11 * * * * * 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 47 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS X 4 THE STATE OF TEXAS X 5 I, Rachelle Latino, certified shorthand 6 reporter for the State of Texas, do hereby 7 certify that the above and foregoing 46 pages 8 constitutes a full, true and correct 9 transcript of the minutes of the Texas Parks 10 and Wildlife Commission on November 17, 1999, 11 in the commission hearing room of the Texas 12 Parks and Wildlife Headquarters Complex, 13 Travis County, Texas. 14 I further certify that a stenographic 15 record was made by me at the time of the 16 public meeting and said stenographic notes 17 were thereafter reduced to computerized 18 transcription under my direction and control. 19 Witness my hand this, the 8th day of 20 January 2000. 21 22 23 Rachelle Latino Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 State of Texas Certificate No. 6771 25 Expires: 12-31-01