Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Conservation Committee
May 29, 2002
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1 7 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the 8 29TH day of MAY 2002, there came on to be heard 9 matters under the regulatory authority of the 10 Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the 11 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and 12 Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis 13 County, Texas, beginning at 10:20 a.m., to wit: 14 15 16 APPEARANCES: 17 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION: Chair: Katharine Armstrong Idsal, San Antonio, 18 Texas, Chairman Ernest Angelo, Jr., Vice Chairman, 19 Midland, Texas John Avila, Jr., Fort Worth, Texas 20 Joseph B.C. Fitzsimons, San Antonio, Texas 21 Alvin L. Henry, Houston, Texas (Absent) Philip Montgomery, III, Dallas, Texas 22 Donato D. Ramos, Laredo, Texas Kelly W. Rising, M.D., Beaumont, Texas 23 Mark E. Watson, Jr., San Antonio, Texas 24 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: Robert L. Cook, Executive Director, and 25 other personnel of the Parks and Wildlife Department. . 2 1 MAY 29, 2002 2 *-*-*-*-* 3 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING 4 *-*-*-*-* 5 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: We are reconvening 6 with the Conservation Committee. The first order 7 of business is approval of the committee minutes 8 from the previous meeting. Is there a motion for 9 approval? All in favor? All opposed? Hearing 10 none, motion carries. 11 (Motion passed unanimously.) 12 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 - BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S 13 CHARGES. 14 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Next order of 15 business is the chairman's charges. Mr. Cook, 16 will you please make your presentation. 17 MR. COOK: Madam Chairman, I have a 18 couple of items to report, the first of which a 19 suggested revision to the mission statement has 20 been distributed to you that I would like for you 21 to look at. You will recall that this is 22 something we had talked about previously and was 23 recommended in the Bomer report. Both staff and 24 commissioners have submitted recommendations -- 25 and before you today is what I believe to be the . 3 1 best suggestion that incorporates the wording and 2 the meaning that I believe is the intent needed 3 and the intent of the Commission. 4 In a nutshell, the current mission 5 statement is 21 words long. It is a good, 6 concise, clear mission statement that we have all 7 participated in its creation several years ago. 8 Many of us participated in that. And it has 9 served us well. However, the desire to include 10 the words "hunting" and "fishing" in this mission 11 statement have been expressed, and we have looked 12 at that. And before you here is a suggestion of 13 an additional nine words to be added to the 14 mission statement. The proposed statement that 15 you have in front of you does not lose any of the 16 wording or the intent in the original mission 17 statement. But as you can see in the bold print 18 adds, the proposed mission statement reads as 19 follows: "To manage and conserve the natural and 20 cultural resources of Texas and to provide 21 hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation 22 opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present 23 and future generations." 24 I would appreciate your thoughts, 25 suggestions, and comments and your recommendations . 4 1 of how we proceed. 2 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Are there any 3 questions or comments? 4 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Good change. 5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Good change. 6 I agree. Great change. 7 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Well done. 8 Can we put a hook and a bullet in our symbol now? 9 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: I think I do want 10 to make a comment to this. I think Bob Cook was 11 correct, that we have operated under a good 12 mission statement. But I think it was important 13 and is important that we recognize fully and 14 appreciate fully our constituents. And over -- or 15 close to half of our revenues come directly or 16 indirectly from hunting, fishing, and outdoor 17 recreation. And I don't think it's an unhealthy 18 thing to remind ourselves of that on a regular 19 basis when we wake up in the morning and try to 20 figure out what it is that we need to do in our 21 job everyday. And I want to thank everybody for 22 their comments and for participating in this. And 23 I think I speak for the Commission in saying that 24 we are pleased with this change. Thank you, 25 Mr. Cook. . 5 1 MR. COOK: Thank you, Madam 2 Chairman. We will proceed as directed. The 3 second item I want to touch on here, and is going 4 to come up in our agenda item number 2, under the 5 chairman's charges, to develop a Statewide Land 6 and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation 7 Plan. We will visit with you about that, tell you 8 where we are on this project in agenda item number 9 2 in the Conservation Committee this morning. 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION 11 PLAN UPDATE. 12 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: The next order of 13 business is committee item number 2, the Land and 14 Water Conservation Plan update. Mr. Cook, will 15 you make your presentation? And we welcome Jeff 16 Francell and Emily Armitano. 17 MR. COOK: Thank you, Madam 18 Chairman. Commissioners, we started this process 19 early last year. Staff has worked with many of 20 our constituents internally. This is truly an 21 interdivisional project. Jeff Francell and Emily 22 Armitano have led this effort, and nobly, I would 23 add. 24 The Chairman last year appointed an 25 ad hoc committee, including several of you as . 6 1 members of that committee, to follow this project 2 along -- also a couple of folks from the outside 3 of our organization who have particular interest 4 and involvement in our business and in our 5 responsibilities. And they have served us well. 6 We have worked through the winter and spring. Our 7 first draft, our first written draft of this plan 8 was submitted for the ad hoc committee to review, 9 comment on, look at, and -- earlier this month. 10 And review it, they did. 11 We spent the better part of a day in 12 that process, had several good suggestions. Jeff 13 and Emily have been working frantically since that 14 time rearranging, reorganizing, and placing some 15 additional emphasis in some areas and, you know, 16 offering some new direction in some areas. 17 Our plan is to come back to you in 18 August for the full commission to adopt this plan, 19 which we will utilize to direct us over the next 20 ten-year period. 21 The next step in the process, quite 22 frankly, will be our second draft. The first 23 draft is currently available to the public on our 24 Website. The second draft will be available to 25 the public for comment and input throughout this . 7 1 entire process. We'll go through probably six to 2 eight public hearings in the state during the 3 months of June and July. And probably -- we'll 4 gauge this along, but probably will not need to 5 get back together with the ad hoc committee until 6 late July, maybe early August. But I do think it 7 would be valuable for that group to get back 8 together after we get our public input, get our 9 comments, prior to the August commission meeting. 10 With that, I would like to introduce 11 Jeff and Emily. If you have any questions, I'd be 12 glad to touch on them. Jeff and Emily will give 13 you a brief on where we are and what is in this 14 plan. 15 MR. FRANCELL: Morning. Jeff 16 Francell and Emily Armitano. And we have been 17 working with staff on the Land and Water Plan. 18 It's been an interesting process. We have done 19 this entirely in-house, unlike several of the 20 other efforts that have been done in the past. 21 The first thing -- and you've heard 22 this information before, so we'll go through it 23 relatively quickly. But the bill required us 24 to -- the bill required us to inventory all land 25 and water associated with historical, natural, . 8 1 recreational, and wildlife resources owned by 2 governments and nonprofits that offer public 3 access. 4 Then we were supposed to develop -- 5 or we are developing a plan -- this is straight 6 from the bill -- that analyzes the State's 7 existing and future land and water conservation 8 needs; identifies threats; and establishes the 9 importance of conserving particular resources or 10 priorities. 11 The first thing that we did was an 12 inventory of -- just like the bill asked us to, of 13 all state parks, wildlife management areas, 14 federal wildlife refuges, national parks, and 15 local parks. Master planning in the 16 infrastructure division led this effort. They got 17 data about trail miles on federal properties, the 18 names of all local parks. An incredible amount of 19 data was gathered. An important thing to note is 20 that the bill requires that we maintain this data 21 in some shape or form, and we're working on that 22 as well. 23 The next thing, using the data that 24 we gathered -- we gathered a number of information 25 about water -- was to prioritize bays and . 9 1 estuaries in terms of conservation, prioritize our 2 instream flow study needs. Parks and Wildlife and 3 the Water Development Board and TNRCC are required 4 to conduct instream flow studies as part of Senate 5 Bill 2. And this effort that we did with water 6 was to analyze our priorities for analyzing 7 instream flow needs. 8 We also gathered information about 9 our ecologically significant stream segments and 10 waterways that have impaired water quality. 11 We also conducted a recreation 12 analysis. This is -- map is illustrative of an 13 assumption that we started with at the beginning 14 of this effort, that this area, this triangle and 15 also including the Valley, represents 75 percent 16 of the population of Texas. The assumption was 17 that Parks and Wildlife had a number of lands 18 accessible to the public, but that they weren't 19 close to where the people are. And this graphic 20 depicts that. Only 25 percent of our properties 21 are actually located in this area, which is about 22 60 miles from Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and 23 San Antonio, and the interstates that connect 24 them, as well as the Valley. 25 Another analysis that we looked at . 10 1 was financial data on all of our state parks and 2 wildlife management areas. We started out with 3 the assumption that we should look at what people 4 were paying for when they visited our sites and 5 how successful our state Parks & Wildlife 6 management areas were in capturing revenue. It 7 was a little bit discouraging. Eleven of our 129 8 state parks pay for themselves on an operational 9 basis. Thirteen of our 52 wildlife management 10 areas do the same thing. But when you include 11 administrative overhead and capital costs, none of 12 our parks pay for themselves, or wildlife 13 management areas. 14 This graphic, it's a little hard to 15 see. But the red dots kind of stick out. These 16 are our 20 most popular state parks. This map 17 follows that assumption that people are visiting 18 those areas that are closer to their houses or 19 closer to where they live. The parks here are 20 basically followed in that triangle area and South 21 Texas, with the exception of Palo Duro Canyon and 22 Davis Mountains State Park, which are 23 destinations. 24 There's another figure that's hard 25 to see here. But we also looked at -- of our 20 . 11 1 most popular state parks, how much of -- how many 2 of them are associated with a water feature, 3 either a significant creek, river, coastline, 4 lake. And 80 percent of our top 20 were 5 associated with a water feature. 6 The next thing we did was take a 7 look at Parks and Wildlife and federal parks & 8 wildlife refuges and national forests and the 9 services that they were providing. We combined 10 them, and then we analyzed how they were serving 11 various city units, not city limits, but city 12 units. So we combined Houston and its major 13 suburbs, Dallas and its major suburbs. And Emily, 14 if you've got anything to add, please do. 15 This is a look at acreages provided 16 to each of the top 25 cities. The cities in 17 orange are the major cities in Texas, the top 18 five: Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, 19 and Austin. The cities in light green are the 20 communities in the Valley, which are experiencing 21 some of the fastest growth in Texas. So the 22 highest acres per capita is there at Corpus 23 Christi, with 275 acres. And the lowest is 24 Wichita Falls, with, I think, less than two. 25 The next thing we looked at -- and . 12 1 I'll go through these relatively quickly -- were 2 campsites per 100,000 people. And this is, again, 3 on federal property and on state parks and 4 wildlife management areas. An interesting thing 5 here is that Houston has the highest available 6 land to it, federal or state, but some of the 7 lowest campsites of the major cities -- or the 8 lowest campsites. 9 We looked at hiking trails the same 10 way. You can see that there's a fairly 11 significant drop-off and the major cities are 12 served less than some of the other communities. 13 Equestrian trails -- mountain biking -- 14 We also conducted a conservation 15 analysis by ecoregion of land resources. We 16 looked at lands operated under wildlife management 17 plans, lands publicly owned or owned by nonprofits 18 strictly for conservation. And we looked at -- we 19 compared that to land fragmentation data from the 20 Texas A&M study, as well as population growth. 21 We also looked at diversity, 22 biodiversity by ecoregion, and came up with a 23 number of conclusions. 24 This map shows the conservation 25 lands by ecoregion. The highest would be the . 13 1 Trans Pecos, with about seven and a half percent. 2 The lowest would be the rolling plains with less 3 than half a percent. 4 This next map is wildlife management 5 plans. The percentages are significantly higher. 6 The South Texas Plains has the highest lands 7 operated under wildlife management plans 8 percentagewise, 13.3. And the Rolling Plains, I 9 believe, is the lowest, with about 2.7. 10 The diversity analysis, South Texas 11 came up number one. The Gulf Coast Prairies were 12 number two. And the High Plains ended up with the 13 least diversity for any ecoregion in Texas. 14 We also looked at our historic 15 sites. We did two -- you could consider three 16 evaluations of our historic sites. First of all, 17 we evaluated all 35 of our sites and we ranked 18 them, categorized them. The sites that came out 19 relatively low were Acton, the Confederate Reunion 20 Grounds, Lipantitlan, and Starr Family Home. The 21 sites that came out high, as you could expect, the 22 Battleship, Huecotanks. I won't read them all, 23 but those are the sites that we have focused a lot 24 of resources on. 25 And we also -- the next analysis . 14 1 that we did were gaps in our system, what areas, 2 what historic time periods that were missing. And 3 we're still in the process of finishing up that 4 analysis. And we'll report that to you as soon as 5 we're complete. 6 These are some general conclusions 7 from the plan. There are a number of more 8 conclusions, but we'll give you four here, and the 9 draft will have many more and we'll get your 10 comments on those. 11 But we're to focus acquisition near 12 growing urban centers. We should support the 13 implementation and continuation of our instream 14 flow studies. Doubling lands under wildlife 15 management plan will be a goal of this plan. And 16 working closely with the Historical Commission on 17 either divestiture or acquisition of additional 18 historic sites. And the draft of this plan will 19 be ready by mid-June. I think that's it, unless 20 you have any questions. 21 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Are there any 22 questions of Jeff and Emily? 23 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Just a 24 comment on great work. There's a lot to this. 25 They made it look a lot easier today. . 15 1 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: I have some 2 comments. I've worked with Jeff and Emily and 3 staff since last fall, when we got underway on 4 this. And there was a lot of impetus to go 5 outside to do a lot of the work. And we wisely 6 chose to rely on our very, very capable staff. 7 And I just want you-all to know what a phenomenal 8 job this agency has done compiling the data, doing 9 the inventories, doing everything from the 10 graphics to the brainstorming to the different 11 meetings we've had. I couldn't be more proud. 12 And I believe that in August we will have a plan 13 that is results oriented, that is measurable, and 14 that is long on substance. And we have the staff 15 to thank for that. Thank you very much. 16 MR. FRANCELL: Thank you. 17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - STREAMBED TASK FORCE 18 UPDATE. 19 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Next item, number 20 three, streambed task force update. Dr. McKinney, 21 will you please make your presentation? 22 DR. McKINNEY: Madam Chairman and 23 members, appreciate the opportunity to talk with 24 you today. With me is Robert Sweeney. Bob 25 Sweeney will help answer any questions you might . 16 1 have, particularly on legal issues. 2 In starting at this point I want to 3 thank the Commission and certainly the members of 4 our task force, our 25-person task force who -- 5 all of them have other things to do and jobs. And 6 they took time off. Several -- throughout this 7 process to come and meet with us here and 8 different places. And I appreciate their work. I 9 think it was very valuable. I know that two 10 members are here today, John Robinson and Reagan 11 Houston, and maybe others. But two of those task 12 force members are here and I want to thank them 13 personally. They all put a lot of effort into it 14 and I appreciate it. There's John over there. 15 Also would mention staff folks who 16 have been working on this: Bob Spain, Melissa 17 Parker back here, Dr. Bill Harvey, who wrote on 18 this project, as well. A lot of folks put a lot 19 of time, not just those, but others in the staff 20 to put this together. 21 So what is it? Let's go over 22 some -- we have this report in just about every 23 permutation you can think of to make it accessible 24 to you. If you want it in hard copy, it's this. 25 If you want it on a CD, it's this. If you have . 17 1 computer access to it, it's all on our Website. 2 So the complete set of things are available in any 3 other way. Melissa back here in the corner, for 4 anyone here, if you want anything today or 5 whatever, whatever form you want it in, Melissa 6 can get it to you, today or in the mail or however 7 you wish to. So that's the mechanics of what 8 we're doing. So let's kind of go over a brief 9 summary of the content. 10 First in kind of summarizing the 11 results of the task force, we tried to do that 12 very quickly under four headings, and which we'll 13 briefly head up just a couple of highlights on, 14 starting first with the use-versus-abuse type of 15 thing. And this was, of course, the attention of 16 a lot of our task force work, is trying to come to 17 the conclusion, is this one vehicle or is it a 18 hundred vehicles or is it no vehicles? How can 19 we -- how can you determine when you're using a 20 resource -- when a use of a resource of an area 21 becomes abuse? As you might expect, the opinions 22 have varied widely in the task force. There is no 23 consensus. But that was one of those issues that 24 we discussed. 25 We talk about access. All of the . 18 1 groups, all the members of the task force were 2 very clear, they all supported and wanted to 3 promote access to these resources, but it was the 4 means, of course. And that some means, like 5 motorized vehicles to some, were not an 6 appropriate way of accessing these, that even 7 those that had concerns about motorized vehicles 8 wanted to make it clear that we're not talking 9 about a pedestrian walking, paddling, canoeing, 10 fishing, those types of things. That's not what 11 we're talking about. It's just one focused issue. 12 And one of the things that made it 13 particularly difficult for us is access and public 14 lands access here. And this issue of motorized 15 vehicles impacts is a nationwide issue. A lot of 16 it in the western states where we see lots of 17 public lands where they're dealing with these 18 issues. Our particular problem in Texas is that 19 we don't have a lot of public lands. Our public 20 lands are -- I guess I would say kind of two 21 dimensional. They're long and linear. And so 22 what that does is that focuses these types of 23 activities in a very small area and really makes 24 our problem much more acute perhaps, than other 25 parts of the country where they have options, they . 19 1 can go other places and do other things. These 2 folks don't have those here. And so that has 3 certainly focused the problem for us. 4 While we do not have any particular 5 Texas studies on these issues and impacts, there's 6 been a lot of work done around the country. We've 7 reviewed that work. Our specialists have looked 8 at it and agree that these types of activities can 9 be ecologically harmful. And it is an issue that 10 we have to look at as far as resource impacts. 11 And user conflicts -- and this is 12 something that, again, kind of a 13 Texas-specific-type issue, where the way we 14 determine the separation between public and 15 private properties in the state, the gradient in 16 boundary process, where we talk about what rivers 17 and streams are navigable, and therefore 18 accessible to the public and are not, is just 19 extraordinarily confusing. We will -- unless the 20 Legislature were to take this up -- and it would 21 probably be foolish to do so, to some extent -- 22 we're going to deal with this problem, you know, 23 into the future because it is just -- there's just 24 not a clear way of laying that out. So there will 25 be conflict -- and frankly growing conflict as . 20 1 more and more of these resources are being used in 2 public for access. And so that's just going to be 3 an ongoing issue that we will have to -- likely 4 have to deal with. 5 One of the things that we added to 6 this report was a section of conclusions. And I 7 want to make sure that you understand in the 8 conclusions that these -- the conclusions section 9 of the report was put together by staff. It's not 10 necessarily the result of the consensus or 11 agreement by the task force. But as staff went 12 through and worked with this task force and 13 accumulated all this material that we looked at, 14 we felt it was important to kind of lay down some 15 basic issues that we've found. And that's what I 16 would review with you now. 17 And a couple of those is -- one, of 18 course, is that in talking with the other 19 agencies, TNRCC and the GLO and others, that we 20 reached the conclusion that no state agency has 21 the authority to regulate those motorized vehicle 22 uses in Texas streambeds. It doesn't exist. We 23 certainly could find no consensus solution within 24 existing law that gained support of all the 25 stakeholders to try to resolve this without . 21 1 looking at -- we couldn't come up with anything. 2 Our staff concluded and looked at 3 that, in fact, the use of motor vehicles in 4 streambeds is an ecologically harmful activity in 5 Texas. I think the basic point there is that it's 6 not a sustainable activity. That we use resources 7 across the state in many ways, but this is one of 8 those activities that just could not be sustained 9 through the future. So that was the conclusion we 10 reached. And that is certainly a conclusion and a 11 view that's held by organized users and 12 manufacturers and others where they have come up 13 with their guidelines called "Tread Lightly," 14 where it recognizes that we should minimize these 15 impacts to streams and rivers. That supported the 16 conclusion. How you actually apply that may be -- 17 have a different view on it. But that was the 18 conclusion our staff reached. 19 As part of this, we also looked at 20 river access. It certainly exists, and some areas 21 it's good and other places it's not. But it is 22 largely inadequate. That's one of the reasons 23 that we have a problem. Certainly venues for 24 off-road vehicle recreation are not adequate 25 because they are in the river and the riverbeds. . 22 1 They are using those public lands and they don't 2 have other places to go. So that was certainly an 3 issue. And those two points are important should 4 the Legislature take this issue up and try to 5 address it, that actions to address this issue 6 have to consider these facts. Because if you deal 7 with this issue as it probably appropriately 8 should be, then the pressure will still be there 9 to make use of these resources. So we have to 10 address that issue or we'll create more of a 11 problem than perhaps we already have. 12 Towards that end, two legislative 13 committees have been looking at this issue. The 14 Joint Interim Committee on Water has held a 15 hearing on this topic. In that hearing, they 16 commended the work of the task force that we 17 presented to them at that time. They appreciated 18 all the -- thought it had worked and that it was a 19 good stakeholder group that represented all the 20 views. 21 One of the things that they 22 requested of us -- and this is -- we need your 23 guidance -- is that the work of the task force be 24 extended to look at some -- developing some 25 options that that interim committee could consider . 23 1 in developing their legislative package. They 2 have asked us to do that and for you-all to 3 consider extending that work to that end. And 4 they have requested an update report from us on 5 June 12th. That's tentative right now. They have 6 a June 12th hearing on this interim committee and 7 they've asked us to report. That has not been 8 confirmed yet, but we're pretty sure that's going 9 to happen. So that would be the next level of 10 activity for us. 11 I've met with Representative Dan 12 Ellis. He has been appointed by Chairman Kuempel 13 in the House Committee on Recreational Resources 14 to head up a subcommittee on this issue. He is 15 anticipating that they will probably hold a 16 hearing or hearings on this topic sometime in 17 July. And will ask us obviously to support them 18 then. So that's kind of -- that's the extent of 19 where we are legislatively. I think that was it. 20 So at this point -- and I tried to 21 keep this brief. But certainly Bob or I or any 22 others will be glad to answer any questions or go 23 with it -- where you want at this point. So we're 24 open to questions. 25 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Are there any . 24 1 questions of the Commission? This has been a very 2 important issue. If you have any comments or 3 questions -- Commissioner Montgomery? 4 COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Well, when 5 you first brought up the question should we take 6 any action, I assume the assumption here is that 7 there is no action, even tangential, that you 8 think is appropriate for us to take and that this 9 is something that needs to be addressed by the 10 Legislature. 11 DR. McKINNEY: As we worked through 12 this process, we looked at all the options of 13 things that we could do. And none of them didn't 14 create more problems than we already had without 15 that direction. So that's correct, the 16 Legislature seemed to be the appropriate -- to lay 17 out -- what do you want to do. 18 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Larry, I 19 don't know if this is for you or for Robert, but 20 expound a little bit on the conclusion that there 21 is no authority in this streambed and is there any 22 disagreement on that issue? Is that pretty clear? 23 MR. SWEENEY: If you'd like me to 24 take that -- Bob Sweeney. The one concern I have 25 about addressing that issue with a great deal of . 25 1 frankness in this forum is that, you know, it's 2 still within y'all's authority to direct us to do 3 something under existing law. And I could -- I 4 don't want to give a road map for the challenges 5 that could be offered to a -- to something that 6 you could direct us to do under existing 7 authority. 8 We don't -- there's certainly -- we 9 can all say that there is nothing in our Parks and 10 Wildlife Code that says that the Texas 11 Department -- Parks and Wildlife Department has 12 authority to regulate motor vehicles in 13 state-owned riverbeds or has any general authority 14 except in Chapter 1 where it talks about -- there 15 are some general statements about the riverbeds in 16 Chapter 1. 17 So it's not clear. And we've had 18 this -- we've had the -- when we're dealing with 19 an issue that has, I think, this much -- a lot of 20 issues on both sides, and absent any kind of clear 21 direction from the Legislature like that, it's 22 been our judgment that we haven't been given that 23 kind of authority by the Legislature. And we 24 would certainly expect to be challenged if we 25 tried to assert it based on some -- on some of the . 26 1 theories that have been offered by various people 2 on -- under the Parks and Wildlife Code. 3 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Mr. Sweeney, we 4 would not -- or you would not be comfortable 5 issuing a legal opinion to the effect that we do 6 not have authority? 7 MR. SWEENEY: I'm happy to say, yes, 8 that is my opinion. We do not have the authority. 9 I think that -- I think that's -- the case is much 10 better that we don't have that authority and we 11 would be more likely to -- and that's -- under the 12 current -- and let me point out that under the 13 current facts as we -- that my opinion is limited 14 to the current facts as we know them. If other 15 facts are learned, if the facts change, then the 16 opinion could change. But under the facts as we 17 know them and the law that we have, no, I don't 18 believe -- I think the better answer is that we 19 don't have authority. 20 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: And the 21 GLO participated in this task force, also? 22 DR. McKINNEY: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: And it's 24 their opinion, likewise, that they do not have 25 authority to regulate? . 27 1 MR. SWEENEY: That's right. 2 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Okay. But 3 you're saying that we don't have the authority to 4 stop the ecological damage to the Texas riverbeds? 5 MR. SWEENEY: The facts that we have 6 right now are that we have preliminary views from 7 our scientists about -- limited data about what 8 they're seeing out there in the riverbeds. 9 I don't say that if we didn't have 10 more evidence, a greater evidence about habitat 11 destruction, that we might not be able to do more. 12 But of the facts that we have right now, no, I 13 don't think we have sufficient authority to go 14 ahead. 15 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, I had a 16 conversation over the last two days with a very 17 senior member of the Legislature. You know, he 18 felt like that the Legislature would be more 19 receptive to assisting us if we did take a stand 20 and somebody said -- you know, took an opposite 21 opinion and that they would be more compelled to 22 step in and help us. And I can understand that. 23 Because I think every fair-minded Texan would 24 understand that this is an inappropriate use of 25 the resource. And I think that we -- you know, I . 28 1 think that we need to -- I just think we need to 2 do everything we can. I think we need to be 3 aggressive. I think we -- you know. But anyway, 4 that's just the way I feel about it. 5 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: If I could add, 6 I've looked into it to some extent. And I agree 7 with you, the jurisdiction is questionable and 8 very limited at best. And I agree with you, 9 Commissioner Watson, that this is clearly an 10 inappropriate use of the riverbeds. But whether 11 we have the jurisdiction is a serious issue. And 12 perhaps we ought to listen to the Legislature and 13 let them give us some guidance or determine who 14 should take jurisdiction. But it's a very serious 15 problem. I mean, it's disruptive to families out 16 on riverbeds and children that are out there 17 playing. So it's a serious issue. 18 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: I thought 19 it was very interesting when I read the report 20 that the manufacturers are unanimous that this is 21 inappropriate. 22 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Commissioner 23 Angelo? 24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I had a couple 25 of questions. One, do you envision the members of . 29 1 this committee or representatives of the committee 2 or study committee meeting with the legislative 3 committee or giving testimony, other than 4 presenting the report in writing? 5 DR. McKINNEY: In fact, a number of 6 them did. At the hearing that the interim 7 committee called -- and I can't remember the date, 8 I'm sorry -- in February. They invited several 9 members of our task force. They tried to be 10 balanced between all views to come and testify in 11 a divided forum, and they did. They also took 12 public testimony that day. And that went on 13 throughout the day. So I know the question -- 14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is that going 15 to occur in July, though? 16 DR. McKINNEY: I don't know the form 17 of what they will do in June -- on June 12th. I 18 don't know if they'll have public testimony. They 19 have just informed me they wanted an update on our 20 final report and also a response to the request 21 where we continue to do a little more work with 22 them. Whether they take it further for public 23 testimony, they have not told me that. 24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Well, in line 25 with what Commissioner Watson said, certainly . 30 1 we've had a lot of individuals and property 2 owners, whatever, that have come before us and 3 talked about the concerns that they have about 4 the -- what they believe to be improper use of the 5 streambed by vehicles and so on. But I also feel, 6 at the same time, that this is clearly a matter 7 for the Legislature to take up. 8 So I don't know whether it's a 9 matter of them helping us so much as it is helping 10 the property owners in solving the problem. So do 11 you feel that it's -- from your study of it and 12 your exposure to the legislative process, that 13 they're expecting us to come to tell them what we 14 want them to do? Or where do you think it lies at 15 this point? 16 DR. McKINNEY: The request from the 17 interim committee was that to make use of our task 18 force, which has a well-balanced group of 19 stakeholders, to develop some options for them to 20 consider, the interim committee to consider. And 21 then the interim committee, as you would typically 22 do, they would take those and perhaps use them or 23 not and take them on and develop -- 24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Do you feel 25 that you've done that -- that we've done that? . 31 1 DR. McKINNEY: No, we have not done 2 that -- 3 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: We're not 4 there yet? 5 DR. McKINNEY: We have not done 6 that. All we have done in this report is -- put 7 together here -- is to lay the facts out as best 8 we can and reach a few conclusions. We have not 9 developed any legislative options -- or that we 10 would offer or we would have presented them to you 11 today, obviously. But that really wasn't the 12 charge of the committee at this point. So we 13 haven't done that. 14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: When would you 15 expect to do that? 16 DR. McKINNEY: Well, if you so -- if 17 you-all so direct us to continue to work with the 18 task force and the interim committee, we -- my 19 anticipation would -- that our staff, working with 20 that task force, would develop some options 21 this -- over this June, that type of thing, and 22 report to the interim committee by the end of the 23 month, something like that, with those options. 24 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Commissioner Avila? 25 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Which . 32 1 legislator would introduce, you know, the bill or 2 whatever to -- based on our -- who is going to 3 champion this? Is it Chairman Kuempel? 4 DR. McKINNEY: No. I don't know at 5 this time. We've talked to -- have been requested 6 by several legislators that have interest in this. 7 They're going to -- they're going to -- in fact -- 8 I'm sorry, I can't remember the representative's 9 name from the San Antonio area -- Jones? 10 Representative Jones? 11 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Elizabeth Jones. 12 DR. McKINNEY: Elizabeth Jones. And 13 she said, "I'm going to do something" and several 14 others have done so. So the interest is there. 15 Certainly the interim committee could, some member 16 of that committee could do something. My opinion 17 is, yes, there's going to be more than one 18 legislator introduce some bill of some type, but I 19 don't know what they might be, but they will. 20 COMMISSIONER AVILA: It sounds like, 21 like they've have all said, they're looking to us 22 to provide the ammunition. 23 DR. McKINNEY: Well, they would 24 like -- at least mostly they've said, look, y'all 25 put together a task force that had everybody's . 33 1 views on it. You collected all this information. 2 It's a good resource for us. And would you ask 3 that task force, not to necessarily come up with 4 the piece of legislation that would work, but lay 5 out some options and put them in front of the task 6 force and have the members of the task force give 7 the pluses and minuses of those options so they 8 can have that, so they can move the process along. 9 It's what they would -- frankly, they would do it. 10 The legislative interim committee would do it, but 11 we've already got the task force together. That's 12 why they asked us to do it. 13 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Commissioner 14 Fitzsimons? 15 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Question 16 for Bob. This is a -- calls for a short answer. 17 I know it's more complicated than this. But could 18 you give us a brief overview of what other states 19 have done, maybe in categories of legislation? I 20 would guess mainly western and arid states that 21 have dry riverbeds. 22 MR. SWEENEY: Yes, sir. I'd say 23 what the other states have done fall into four 24 categories. First of all, there are -- there is 25 at least one state where the practice is legal and . 34 1 they haven't -- it's just allowed. And that's 2 Kansas, the one that I know of. And I haven't 3 done a comprehensive survey, but I've looked at 4 about 20 states. Some states responded to us that 5 they just didn't have this issue in their state, 6 and typically those were the wetter states, places 7 where it's just not practical to drive. In some 8 states, they have just simply banned the practice, 9 Wisconsin and Missouri come to mind. In other 10 states, they have essentially enacted a 11 comprehensive river-use law. And Montana is 12 probably the best example of that. And basically 13 if you go to Montana, you know you can't drive in 14 the rivers, but you also do know what you can do. 15 And there are a lot of provisions about how you 16 enjoy the rivers in Montana that address a lot of 17 the issues about river use, river access, river 18 enjoyment that are really not as well addressed in 19 other states. 20 Louisiana, like 33 states, has a 21 scenic rivers law, which allows for the creation 22 of management plans. And that's another mechanism 23 whereby individual rivers could be protected or 24 dealt with under a management plan that's directed 25 specifically at that water body. They don't have . 35 1 a blanket prohibition, but that's a mechanism. 2 And then there are a couple of other 3 states, New Mexico and Arizona, that have sort of 4 a game and fish approach to the deal, that -- 5 that -- where if you can demonstrate habitat 6 issues, habitat destruction, then you can ban the 7 use of motor vehicles in certain areas. So there 8 are a lot of different approaches. To my way of 9 thinking, the Montana approach is particularly -- 10 is particularly strong. 11 Let me make one other point, though, 12 at the risk of making a long answer even longer. 13 And that is that when you look at Arizona and 14 California, in particular, they have very 15 well-developed off-highway vehicle recreational 16 programs in their states. There are at least a 17 hundred sites in the state of California. A lot 18 of them are snowmobile sites, to be fair. But 19 there are a lot of places where you can go in the 20 state -- there is a division of their state parks 21 that develops these sites, that promotes them, 22 funded by a state -- by a portion of the state gas 23 tax, as well as federal gas tax revenues. Same 24 thing in Arizona. We don't have that. We don't 25 have anything approaching that in Texas. . 36 1 So you're talking about essentially 2 a constituency here, if you will, people who enjoy 3 a certain form of outdoor recreation in an 4 inappropriate place, but other states have figured 5 out a way to move that recreational use to a more 6 appropriate place. And that is something that 7 could be a component of a solution, it seems to 8 me, that would get broader stakeholder support in 9 this state. 10 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Thank you. 11 That was very helpful. 12 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Answer your 13 question? 14 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Yeah. 15 Learned more right there than I have -- 16 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: One other 17 issue. Do any of these other states, are they 18 focusing on their legislation or on their laws on 19 a public safety issue as compared to an impact on 20 the environment, or is it a combination of both? 21 Because I can see some public safety issues. If 22 you have a family that's wading in the middle of 23 that river and there's a 4x4 racing up the river, 24 that's clearly a public safety issue. 25 MR. SWEENEY: I think one thing . 37 1 that's really unusual -- no, I don't think you see 2 that, Commissioner Ramos. And the reason I think 3 that we have such an unusual situation in this 4 state, and it's just a fluke, I would say, of how 5 our -- how the ownership and management of our 6 state riverbeds has come about. In almost every 7 state, unappropriated state land is dedicated to 8 the management of the state land commission. And 9 I can't say that's true for all 50 states, but 10 that's certainly the norm. Somebody has 11 authority, generally speaking, over unappropriated 12 state lands. The General Land Office would be a 13 logical person in the state because they're the 14 Land Commission. But for reasons of constitution 15 and case law, they don't. 16 So in most places, you would have 17 that, you know -- whether it's speed limits or 18 traffic laws or that sort of thing, or just the 19 general power, like we have on our state parks, to 20 say, "Yeah, you can drive here but you can't drive 21 there. You can swim here, you can't swim there." 22 You know, those sorts of safety-related things. 23 And that's just a gap, if you will, in the 24 management of unappropriated lands in this state. 25 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Thank you. . 38 1 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Will our 2 legislative options address that issue, or could 3 they address that issue of authority and who -- 4 where should it lie, where does it -- what is the 5 logical place for it to be? 6 DR. McKINNEY: We can. We can make 7 whatever recommendations that we need to. We 8 certainly can. 9 MR. SWEENEY: The Legislature could 10 dedicate the surface estate in riverbeds to the 11 General Land Office, as they have dedicated the 12 mineral estate. They granted the land office the 13 authority to regulate and to permit easement 14 crossings. You know, they've given little pieces 15 of authority. We have the sand and gravel 16 authority for state-owned riverbeds. But nothing 17 more. 18 DR. McKINNEY: Since the GLO is not 19 here, we'll recommend it. 20 MR. SWEENEY: You know, they could 21 give it to us, they could give it to TxDOT, they 22 can give it to DPS. I mean, it's up to the 23 Legislature. They can give it to whomever they 24 want. 25 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Any other . 39 1 questions? 2 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Good work. 3 Thanks. 4 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: This, again, is 5 working the way it should work. The task force 6 has done a marvelous job, thanks to the two that 7 are here today, but there are many others who have 8 been involved throughout this process, which I 9 know has been time-consuming but worthy work. 10 Thank you very much. 11 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Madam 12 Chairman? It's understood, then, we're going to 13 get some options? 14 DR. McKINNEY: Thank you. Good 15 point. I do need that clarification, so I can 16 report back. So we will take that forward and 17 keep you informed. 18 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Thank you. 19 DR. McKINNEY: Just please let one 20 of us or Melissa know today if you want a copy of 21 the report today, otherwise we'll be sending this 22 to you so you don't have to carry it around with 23 you and what form you'd like it in. We'll make 24 arrangements. 25 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Thank you. . 40 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - NOMINATION FOR OIL AND GAS 2 LEASE - JEFFERSON COUNTY. 3 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Committee item 4 number 4, nomination of oil and gas lease, 5 Jefferson County, Mr. Bauer. 6 MR. BAUER: Madam Chairman, 7 committee members, my name is Jack Bauer. I'm 8 director of the Land Conservation Program. You 9 are probably aware that the General Land Office, 10 on occasion, offers state lands where there are 11 mineral rights to the public for nomination for 12 oil and gas lease. And that occurred a couple of 13 months ago and there was a nomination at the J.D. 14 Murphree area for an oil and gas lease. The Board 15 for Lease for Parks and Wildlife Lands holds the 16 authority to decide what those -- the terms of 17 those leases will be. But they are very happy and 18 encouraged to take recommendations from the 19 Commission. 20 So the goal of this briefing and 21 hopefully the Commission tomorrow will be to 22 formulate a set of recommendations for the Board 23 for Lease. 24 This view is of a component of the 25 J.D. Murphree Area. We are in Jefferson County in . 41 1 extreme southeast Texas. The Murphree Area lies 2 to the south and east of Port Arthur, about 25,000 3 acres of primarily marshland. It's surrounded by 4 other lands in conservation to include the 5 McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge and to the south 6 the Sea Rim State Park. Some of the landscape 7 features here you may recognize. The specific 8 region that the lease is being nominated for is 9 the Salt Bayou Unit, and it is just south of the 10 Intercoastal Canal. 11 The specific property that's been 12 designated for nomination is approximately 4700 13 acres, shown here in red. This aerial photo gives 14 you some idea of the landscape features. It is a 15 fairly pristine marsh. We have some background 16 for lease history. It was leased when it was 17 formerly a component of Sea Rim State Park in 18 1992. It was leased under very similar lease 19 conditions that we are recommending today. No 20 drilling occurred. There was a well, I 21 understand, drilled off our property that was a 22 dry hole. And we did collect about $270,000 of 23 revenue off this lease. 24 We own 50 percent of the minerals 25 here and the remainder of the minerals is retained . 42 1 in the McFaddin family. 2 What we are proposing that the 3 Commission accept would be term conditions of a 4 three-year lease, $150-per-acre cash bonus, 25 5 percent royalties, and a $10-per-acre delay 6 rental. 7 Of special concern would be some 8 lease conditions that would -- that would be 9 directed at the major threat that is typical or 10 has occurred in the past in oil and gas operations 11 in the area. And that's impacts to wetlands and 12 impacts from saltwater intrusion into the marsh. 13 So we are suggesting that there be lease 14 conditions here of no entry onto the property, 15 that the operator would be required to develop a 16 surface-use agreement with Parks and Wildlife. 17 If minerals were discovered and they 18 were to be extracted, that would occur after a 19 plan of operation would be formulated with the 20 department. And we would -- there would be 21 special considerations given for the protection of 22 wetlands during exploration and removal or 23 extraction of minerals. Both on our property and 24 area around. This fourth one is really not 25 inconsistent with Corps 404 permitting actions . 43 1 that the applicant would be required to do in any 2 regard. Are there questions that you might have 3 on this proposal? 4 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Are there 5 off-property locations where a drill site could be 6 established that could explore under this 7 property? 8 MR. BAUER: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The McFaddin 10 mineral estate on it, do they have any 11 requirements for us that we have to lease it or 12 have to make it available? Because if we didn't 13 lease it, obviously they couldn't get theirs 14 evaluated, either. 15 MR. BAUER: Right. We're in contact 16 with the McFaddins only indirectly. And that's 17 through the nominator. The nominator is a Houston 18 company, and they have told us that they intend to 19 get a lease, would have a similar lease with the 20 McFaddins. 21 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So they're 22 obviously -- they're aware of the terms that we 23 would have and -- 24 MR. BAUER: Yes. We have provided 25 this set of recommendations both -- they know -- . 44 1 they are aware of what the lease was in 1992. 2 They are aware that the terms and conditions for 3 this lease are quite similar. And we have 4 communicated through the Land Office and directly 5 with the nominator, what the expectations would be 6 for us. And they are willing to consider the 7 nomination the way we have it prepared. 8 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other 9 questions? 10 COMMISSIONER AVILA: The McFaddins 11 will also provide the same stipulations in their 12 lease agreement? 13 MR. BAUER: Well, we are presuming 14 that because in our communication with the 15 nominator, that's the inference that we have 16 gotten. 17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Since we 18 control the surface, they wouldn't -- they 19 couldn't preclude our position on that. 20 MR. BAUER: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other 22 questions? If there's no objections, we'll place 23 this item on the agenda for Thursday commission 24 meeting for discussion and action. Hearing none, 25 that will be taken care of. . 45 1 MR. BAUER: Thank you, sir. 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION 3 PLAN. 4 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The next item 5 is prairie dog conservation plan. It will be 6 presented by Paul Robertson. 7 MR. HERRON: Thank you, Mr. 8 Vice-chairman and commission members. My name is 9 John Herron. I'm the chief of the Wildlife 10 Diversity Branch within the Wildlife Division. 11 And Paul and I are here today to brief you-all on 12 our prairie dog conservation plan efforts. We 13 wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of 14 this because it's a very sensitive issue, a 15 sensitive issue with landowners in Texas, as well 16 as a sensitive issue with many conservationists in 17 the state. And also to let you know what we are 18 doing in regards to planning for prairie dog 19 conservation and making sure that prairie dog 20 conservation is done right in a way that benefits 21 both prairie dogs and the citizens of Texas. With 22 that, I'm going to introduce Paul Robertson, who 23 will give the briefing. Paul is our chief -- or 24 head of our wildlife diversity nongame and rare 25 species section. Paul and Bob Sullivan in our . 46 1 division have really had the lead in spearheading 2 and guiding this conservation planning effort. 3 And I'll let Paul tell you more details about that 4 now. 5 MR. ROBERTSON: Good morning, 6 Commissioners. In March of 1999, the Fish and 7 Wildlife Service placed the black-tailed prairie 8 dog on the threatened species candidate list. 9 That means that based on the information that was 10 available at that time, a listing was considered 11 warranted but was precluded by higher priorities. 12 This listing or this action was in 13 response to a petition and lawsuit by several 14 conservation groups. The action that was taken 15 was based on historical decline throughout the 16 species range, indications of continued decline, 17 and current threat levels. 18 A plan was considered needed to 19 avoid a listing, to comply with the interstate 20 effort, and to recover the species. For the plan 21 to be effective, states must show that they have 22 plans that will secure the species in its 23 remaining range. Lack of action by states or 24 evidence of continued decline in status is likely 25 to lead to a federal listing. And the species . 47 1 status is reviewed by the service annually to see 2 if there's been any change. 3 The -- to avoid a circumstance that 4 neither the Fish and Wildlife Service or the 5 States wanted, an interstate committee was formed 6 in 1999. The cooperation was delivered -- was 7 driven by the collective desire to avoid severe 8 problems that would arise from a listing. The 9 committee's effort has been supported by nine -- 10 formally supported by nine of the 11 states within 11 the species' range. And stakeholder working 12 groups have been created in all of the 11 states. 13 That is to say that even though two states did not 14 sign on to the MOA, that they are cooperating by 15 forming state working groups. 16 The status of the prairie dog in 17 Texas as follows: Its range once included all 79 18 Texas counties. And it still occurs over much of 19 that range, but has been greatly reduced. The 20 estimated reduction has been in the neighborhood 21 of 95 percent. Most of that occurred in the early 22 part of the nineteen -- of the 20th century. 23 Fortunately the species is still abundant enough 24 to manage for recovery. Even a small percentage 25 of tens of millions still amounts to quite a few . 48 1 prairie dogs, fortunately. 2 The standard measure for -- that's 3 being used by the interstate and the state 4 committee and accepted by the Fish and Wildlife 5 Service is actually acres of prairie dogs, rather 6 than actual numbers of individuals simply because 7 it's so much easier to get those -- the acreage. 8 The acres inventoried -- we're inventorying the 9 acreage in Texas using the most current remote 10 sensing techniques and publicly available images. 11 And our statewide survey will be completed at the 12 end of this year. 13 In Texas, a prairie dog working 14 group was formed very soon after the interstate 15 group was formed, that is, in 1999. We've met 11 16 times. The group consists of diverse 17 stakeholders, represented by private landowners, 18 ranching interests, other producers, groups, state 19 and federal agencies, and conservation groups. 20 The mission statement of the -- for 21 the working group is as follows: "To develop and 22 initiate a statewide plan that will conserve the 23 black-tailed prairie dog, while simultaneously 24 protecting personal and private property rights." 25 Progress to date: The draft plan . 49 1 will be -- the final draft plan will be available 2 later this summer. We have obtained a Section 6 3 planning grant to fund a State Coordinator to 4 implement the plan. And we -- that coordinator 5 should be hired by the end of the summer. 6 I'd like to add that three years 7 ago, we didn't know very much about prairie dogs 8 in Texas nor in many other states. And there's 9 been a virtually herculean interstate and state 10 effort to find out about -- to inventory prairie 11 dogs and to assess threats. And so we're in much 12 better shape than we were three years ago. Any 13 questions? 14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Anyone have 15 any questions? I know there's a lot of prairie 16 dogs in West Texas, so I'm glad to know they're 17 doing well. 18 No further questions? Thank you. 19 Thank you all. Appreciate it. Look forward to 20 hearing the -- seeing the report. 21 The balance of the items on the 22 conservation committee, items 6 through 9, will be 23 taken up further in executive session. So at this 24 point, we'll recess the conservation committee and 25 move on to the Finance Committee. . 50 1 *-*-*-*-* 2 (MEETING ADJOURNED.) 3 *-*-*-*-* 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 51 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF TEXAS ) 3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS ) 4 I, MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, a Certified 5 Court Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do 6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing 49 7 pages constitute a full, true and correct 8 transcript of the minutes of the Texas Parks & 9 Wildlife Commission on MAY 29, 2002, in the 10 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks & 11 Wildlife Headquarters Complex, Austin, Travis 12 County, Texas. 13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that a stenographic 14 record was made by me a the time of the public 15 meeting and said stenographic notes were 16 thereafter reduced to computerized transcription 17 under my supervision and control. 18 WITNESS MY HAND this the 29th day of 19 July, 2002. 20 21 MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, RPR, CSR NO. 3226 22 Expiration Date: 12-31-02 3101 Bee Caves Road 23 Centre II, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78746 24 (512) 328-5557 25