TPW Commission
Commission Meeting, March 25, 2021
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
March 25, 2021
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION MEETING
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Good morning, everyone. At the get go, I will apologize. The tree pollen has gotten me. So I'm pretty scratchy and all that; but anyway, other than that, before we -- before we begin, let me take a roll -- roll call.
As everyone knows, Commissioner Morian and Aplin are both at the Capitol on Agency business and will be here as soon as -- as they can get finished over there. So let's go down the -- the list and everybody declare.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell here.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell here.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo here.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand here.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer here.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton here.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Dick Scott here.
Okay. This meeting is called to order on March 25th, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. Before proceeding with any business, I believe Mr. Wolf has a statement to make.
MR. WOLF: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agenda have been filed in the office of the Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as the Open Meetings Act. I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioners, as a reminder, please announce your name before you speak and please remember to speak slowly for the court reporter.
First item is the approval of the minutes from the Commission meeting held January 21st, 2021, which have already been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell makes a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. We'll do a roll-call vote again. So all in favor, please say, "aye."
(Chorus of ayes)
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Everybody except --
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: -- Commissioner Morian and Aplin have voted in favor.
Motion carries.
Next is an acknowledgment of the list of donations, which has also been distributed.
Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton motion.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Is everybody -- vote in order here, if you would please.
Commissioner Abell?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Hearing -- hearing no opposition, motion carries.
Next is the consideration of contracts, which have also been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: So moved, Hildebrand.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. We'll do the roll-call vote again.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Motion carries.
Okay. Now we get down to the action items. We heard -- anyway the -- the recommended adoption of these proposed changes and completed Rule Review, Chapter 57, Fisheries; and Chapter 58, Oysters, Shrimp, and Finfish; and Chapter 65, Wildlife.
Mr. Murphy, please make your presentation.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. I'm James Murphy, general counsel for the Department; and I'm here to today to present our final set of rules considered for adoption pursuant to the periodic rule review.
The next slide, please?
Okay. Our rule review process is set out in Texas Government Code, Section 2001.039: All state agency regulations, also known as rules, must be reviewed no less frequently than once every four years. This review must include an assessment of whether the reasons for initially adopting a rule continue to exist. Notice must be published in the Texas Register for public comment; and these rules must be readopted, adopt with changes, or repealed based upon the review.
Next slide, please?
Our rule review process is on a chapter-by-chapter basis, which usually occurs over three Commission meetings. The first meeting, staff notifies the Commission of the beginning of the rule review process. It is then published in the Texas Register. Second meeting is permission to publish any proposed rule changes in the Texas Register, again, for public comment. And then our third meeting is we seek adoption of any proposed rule changes and repeals. We also at that time seek adoption of the completed rule review; meaning, retention of the remaining rules.
Next slide, please?
Here's our calendar associated with the -- this 4-year review cycle. As you can see, we are in the last step of this for the final three chapters; and I'm pleased to announced we'll be not doing this for a few years.
So next slide, please?
We have no proposed changes to Chapter 7 -- 57 on fisheries. No proposed changes to Chapter 58 on oysters, shrimp, and finfish.
Next slide, please?
Our first change is to Chapter 65, under Wildlife, under Subchapter H, related to our Public Lands Proclamation. This concerns competitive-hunting dog events, field trials, and fees. These are events conducted on Parks and Wildlife wildlife management areas. We have an amendment to require an applicant for a field trial permit to supply a Social Security number as part of the application process; and then corresponding with that, we are eliminating the requirement that all participators and spectators in the field trial conducted under that permit provide Social Security numbers.
Next slide, please?
Our second change is to Subchapter O, Commercial nongame permits. This is just an amendment to remove an unnecessary internal reference that was caught in the rule review process.
Next slide, please?
Since this slide was prepared, we've had two additional comments in support, for six total. We continue to have one in opposition, but no explanation was provided.
Next slide, please?
And with that, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motions: Motion One, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to a Title 31, Texas Administrative Code, Sections 65.194 concerning competitive-hunting dog events, field trials, and fees and Sections 55.327 concerning commercial nongame permits with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the February 19, 2021, issue of the Texas Register, cited as 46 Texas Register 1226 and 1230.
Second motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the completed rule review of Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 57, 58, and 65 as published in the December 18, 2020, issue of the Texas Register, cited as 45 Texas Register 9253. Finding that the original reasons for adopting the rules continue to exist as required by Government Code Section 2001.039 and authorizes the publication of a Notice of Adopted Rule Review, to that effect in the Texas Register.
And with that, I've completed my presentation and available to answer any questions. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Thank you, James. There are no speakers signed up to speak. So any additional comments from the Commission or staff? Okay. Having none, is there a motion for approval regarding the first motion?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: So moved, Abell.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Once again, the roll-call vote. Please go down the list.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Hearing no opposition, motion carries.
Okay. That gets us to Action Item No. 2, but before we -- before Ken gives his presentation, I have a few words to say.
Many of y'all have not been here near as long as I have; and I haven't been here near as long as Ken has. And Ken -- Ken has got 33 years of service and is going to retire and there's only one person I know for sure that has given more presentations to the Commission than Ken and that, of course, is Ted, but I think I must have heard at least hundred; but Ken has done over 114 fishery rule proposals during his career.
He -- he probably knows more about Inland Fishery -- about all the Inland Fishery issues than anybody that I know of around here. I mean, he's -- he's -- he's issued and done so many presentations it's amazing. He -- he's covered alligator gar, catfish, everything in-between. He's past President of Multi-American Fishery Society's Texas Chapter and the Fisheries Administration Section and he did survive rule proposal questions from former Chairman Duggins, which y'all may not appreciate. Y'all would have had to be around to appreciate that.
Ken, congratulations on your retirement and your many years of dedicated service to this Agency. It -- it -- it definitely has been appreciated, and you will be missed.
Having said that, we'll go to Action Item 2: The 2021-22, Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation, Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
MR. KURZAWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners and Chairman Scott for your words. It's always been a privilege to come before all the Commissioners, and I've just always appreciated your dedication to this Agency and to doing everything to protect the resource and management it properly. And as far as Chairman Duggins, he kept us on our toes. So that's what I would like to say about him.
With that, good morning, Commissioners. I'm Ken Kurzawski with TPW's Fisheries Division, and today I'm presenting the proposed changes to freshwater fishing regulations along with a summary of public comments for your consideration and approval.
Next slide, please?
Our current statewide regulations for blue and channel catfish consists of a 12-inch minimum length limit and a 25-fish daily bag, which combines both blue and channels. We also have multiple exceptions in place. A team of our biologists over the last few years reviewed how we manage catfish. We also use information from previous surveys of anglers and gathered additional input last summer. Anglers told us they want to protect catfish populations, but also want to harvest fish. Those were our guide posts for our evaluation of existing regulations.
Next slide, please?
Our proposal is to remove the 12-inch minimum limit on blues and channels. We would retain the 25-fish combined daily bag limit; but of those 25 fish, anglers could harvest no more than 10 fish 20 inches or longer. Impacts on anglers with the graduated bag restriction will be minimal. From our angler-harvest surveys, we know few anglers harvest 25 fish, or even fewer harvest more than 10 catfish over 20 inches. Most anglers said they would rather catch catfish to eat and this regulation is designed for that, while also providing some protection for larger fish to improve quality and big fish potential. This regulation will be used for most waters statewide.
Next slide, please?
We received a hundred -- a total of 198 comments on our proposals. Statewide, those in agreement expressed that this was a good choice to protect the population and allow for harvest. We did receive a substantial number of comments and disagreement and most favored more restrictive regulations even though the proposed new statewide is more restrictive than the current regulation.
We do see some benefit of restricting harvest of fish 30 inches or greater; and that is what I -- we -- am proposing for the next 12 reservoirs with high-quality catfish populations. We do believe that the 10-fish, 20 inches or greater bag is more appropriate as a statewide regulation. We have looked at minimum lengths for catfish and do have a few reservoirs currently with no minimum length limit. We were trying to get encouraging where there's an overabundance to harvest some of those smaller fish; but anglers do seem to select for the larger fish 12 inches or greater for harvest. So minimum length limit will have little benefit.
Next slide, please?
This exception to the statewide regulation for blue and channel catfish, no minimum length limit and 25-bag; but as noted in yellow, modifies the number of fish 20 inches or larger that can be harvested from 10 fish into two categories. Five fish over 20 inches and of those, only one fish 30 inches or larger. This regulation directs harvest to smaller, easily replaceable fish and protects larger fish while allowing the harvest of one large fish. While it is designed to improve blue catfish populations, it will also mean quality in channel catfish populations.
Next slide, please?
We propose 12 locations for this category. In the first column, the six locations that are noted in white are all currently under statewide regulations. In the next column, Kirby and Palestine currently have no minimum length limit, a 50-fish bag, and a limit of 5 fish over 20 inches.
Louisville, Richland, Chambers, and Waco are currently under a 35-to-40-inch slot limit and Tawakoni is currently under a 25-bag with limits of 7 fish over 20 and 2 fish over 30. As noted, we received specific -- fewer specific comments for these, and those comments were similar to the ones we received for the statewide proposal. Many respondents made similar comments for each of these locations and, we just received a few comments on the complexity of this regulation.
Next slide, please?
The final proposed exception for blue and
channel catfish is a 14-inch minimum length limit and a 15-fish combined daily bag. This regulation will be used to address specific population issues where there are concerns about limited spawning, high harvest, which could damage the population or to rebuild a population after a catastrophic event, such as a fish kill.Next slide, please?
All these lakes listed here are currently
under statewide regulations. Fewer individuals commented disagreement for these -- about five to six each -- and once again, a few -- a few comments centering on restricting of more harvest of larger fish and also mentions of restricting the number of jug and trotlines.Next slide, please?
We also proposed to have two, large East Texas
reservoirs, Lake Livingston and Sam Rayburn Reservoirs, with similar catfish populations, to an existing regulation category. Livingston currently has a 50-fish bag with a 12-inch minimum, and Rayburn is under statewide rules. This will have the benefit of having three big East Texas reservoirs under the same limits and some anglers do fish for all three of those reservoirs.Next slide, please?
We did see a few more individual comments
specifically for Livingston. Some both for and against commercial fishing on that reservoir. Also, mention of a need for minimum length and a few asking about the higher bag limit.Next slide, please?
We have a separate section for commercial
regulations. So some exceptions that are proposed to be implemented in the areas legal for the sale of catfish will also be listed in the commercial section to be enforceable. This would apply to the Texas-Louisiana border waters, Livingston, Rayburn, and in those smaller lakes with bag limits that limit the harvest to five catfish. Individual comments were for and against allowing, once again, some of the comments about commercial fishing.Next slide, please?
We propose to standardize float dimensions as
length and width rather than height and diameter. We also inadvertently listed the width of the float for minnow traps as 6 inches, and it should be 3 inches. Among the individual comments there was mention of further restricting these devices and that the float requirement was considered by some to be too onerous.Next slide, please?
That -- that concludes my presentation. Based
on public comment, the staff would not recommend any -- any changes to our existing proposals. If you have any questions or comments, I'd be happy to answer those.COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well, there's nobody signed up to speak. So are there any other comments from the Commissioners or the staff? Seeing none -- seeing none, I need -- I need a motion for approval.
MR. KURZAWSKI: Commissioner, I believe -- I believe Dakus Geeslin will make the motion at the end of his proposal as it covers both freshwater and saltwater fisheries.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. We'll wait for that.
[Audio muted]
MR. MONTEMAYOR: Commissioner, you're muted, sir.
MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: You're muted.
Try it again. As a housekeeping matter, back on the first motion, I did not ask for a motion and a second and a vote. So when -- we need to go back, and I need a motion to approve that item.
COMMISSIONER GALO: To approve the second motion?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: The first motion. For the Rule Review.
MR. MURPHY: Yes. Thank you. This is James Murphy, General Counsel. We're just going back to the second motion on the rule review and just getting a first and a second and then and all in favor on that, please?
COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell seconds.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Let's do the roll-call vote again.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So that get us --
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: To Dakus' presentation.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I'm not sure I follow what Ken was saying. I don't show anybody signed up to speak on -- on that motion on No. 2.
MR. WOLF: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yes.
MR. WOLF: -- this is Clayton Wolf. Yes, sir. We've got -- Mr. Dakus Geeslin is up to handle the coastal proposals on the statewide.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. I don't have that on mine. So if Dakus is on the line, please give us your proposal.
MR. GEESLIN: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dakus Geeslin. I'm at our Coastal Fisheries Division. Today I'm going to present our statewide saltwater fishing regulation recommendations for adoption and a summary of our public comments received for license year 2022.
This includes recommendations for changes regarding crab-trap fishing in Aransas Bay and a bag-limit clarification item for Red snapper.
Next slide, please?
Current regulations on Aransas Bay include prohibitions of both commercial and residential use of crab traps. The current regulation prevents waterfront homeowners and shore-based recreational crabbers from fishing for crabs with crab traps with items such as piers or docks and bulkheads. Just as a refresher, our coast-wide crab trap regulations include a crab trap limit of six traps per license user and you can only fish those traps and actively check those traps during that time from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset with no active nighttime fishing. You must also use a valid gear tag attached to a buoy or to a pier.
Next slide, please?
In -- this map shows the restricted -- currently restricted crab trap fishing area indicated in orange. The area begins in the north at Hail Point, extends a half mile from shoreline, down around Goose Island, past the towns of Rockport and Fulton and Ninemile Point and ending near Talley Island.
Next slide, please?
The purpose of our recommendation is to provide an additional opportunity for crab-trap fishing from docks, piers, and bulkheads. This is a recreational harvest is expected to be limited. The item that crab traps must be securely tethered to a fixed object such as a dock, pier, or bulkhead. And this would -- wouldn't include any open-water trap fishing.
Next slide, please?
Our next item is strictly a clarification for red-snapper bag limits. As states are authorized to establish season and bag limits for Red snapper harvested from federal and state waters. The bag limit in state waters is four fish and currently two fish in federal waters.
Next slide, please?
The recommendation would clarify that those two Red snappers caught in federal waters during the period of time when the federal waters are open count as part of the state bag limit of four fish. The intent is to hopefully prevent any confusion amongst anglers that they may believe they can catch two Red snapper from federal waters and then come closer to shore and catch additional four Red snapper from state waters.
Next slide, please?
As part of our public -- public scoping process and gathering input, we held a scoping meeting -- a scoping meeting back in early December, followed by a Coastal Resource Advisory Committee in early January, where the Committee supported the statewide proposals. And then more recently we held a public hearing, all done virtually. And through -- through those public venues, we heard broad-based support to allow recreational crab-trap fishing from a fixed structure with a three-trap limit. We also gathered public input through web portal, e-mail, comments, and phone calls.
Next slide, please?
And Pacific[sic] to the crab-trap item, we received, as of this morning -- and we actually received 82 comments. So that's an update from the 77, as I talked about yesterday; but that number -- that support number just went up a few percentage points.
Of those, we have 8 percent opposed -- and some of the concerns we heard were related to the the restriction to fish crab traps from a fixed -- fixed object, concern over abandoned crab traps, and a perceived negative impact to other recreational opportunities. As you can see, over 30 percent were neutral on the recommendation.
It's worth noting that we also received support from mayors of both Rockport and Fulton, the Aransas County judge, the Aransas County Navigation District; and although it's not on the slide, we also heard from the Coastal Conservation Association, which did voice its support for both the crab trap item today and the Red snapper bag clarification.
Next slide, please?
In relation to the red bag -- red-snapper, bag-limit-clarification recommendation, we also received 82 comments. As far as support, we saw a little over 67 percent, just under 19 percent opposed, where some of the concerns we heard were related to the preference for increased bag limits, matching of federal and state bags limits, and increased enforcement. Right around 13 percent were neutral on the recommendation.
Next slide, please?
With that, staff recommends the amendments to the statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation as published in the February 19th, 20 -- February 19th, 2021, issue of the Texas Register. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have some.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Thank you, Dakus. Nobody's signed up to speak. So any further comments from the Commission or the staff? Seeing none, I need a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell makes motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand, second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Let's do the roll-call vote again, please.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Hearing no opposition, motion carries.
Going on to Action Item No. 3, 2021-22 statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamations, Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes. So we have three people going to -- from staff going to speak.
Mr. Gray, Mr. Oldenburger, and Mr. Cain, would y'all make y'all's presentations, please?
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Shawn Gray; and I'm the mule deer and pronghorn program leader. And this morning I'd like to seek adoption to the proposed Pronghorn hunting regulation changes.
Next slide, Andra.
As I shared with you yesterday, the Commission adopted new Pronghorn regulations in March of 2013, to allow landowners to determine their own harvest strategy for bucks through an experimental system in the Northern Panhandle. This was a novel approach when it comes to Pronghorn management as in other areas, we use a limited quota system where permits are issued to landowners. Therefore, these regulations were proposed and adopted as a pilot project.
In March of 2017 the Commission expanded and extended the experimental system for another four years because staff believed that more data were needed over a larger area to better examine the impacts of the experiment. TPWD has conducted this pilot project over the last eight hunting seasons, and staff have monitored populations through annual aerial surveys and mandatory harvest check station. Staff have also used hunter and landowner opinion surveys to evaluate the support for continuing and expanding the experimental system.
Next slide, Andra.
Staff believed after the experiment if data suggested minimal or no decline in Pronghorn numbers, sex rations, average buck age structure and hunter success, then no negative biological impacts would occur with the landowner-controlled system for bucks.
Next slide?
Again, this is the map that demonstrates our current Pronghorn herd units in the Northern Panhandle. And the herd units in red, we initiated in 2013; and the herd units in blue, we initiated the experimental system in 2017.
Next slide, please?
The data that I shared with you yesterday and in previous meetings indicate that the experimental concept seemed to have little to no impact on Pronghorn population sustainability; however, the intensive buck harvest for eight hunting seasons has had a negative impact on buck age structure and sex ratios within the experimental areas. With impacts to buck age structure and fewer bucks on the landscape, hunter satisfaction is decreasing; but hunters still like the concept. This is contrasted to landowners whose satisfaction and support for the experimental concept are declining. When given the option, a majority of landowners prefer a 16-day season with TPWD issuing permits and setting quotas over a 9-day season using the experimental concept.
Next slide?
Staff have intensively monitored populations
and propose to cancel the experimental seasons for bucks in the Northern Panhandle based upon excessive buck harvest causing younger buck age structure and more skewed sex ratios. In addition, the opinion survey showed that landowner and hunter satisfaction has decreased within the experimental areas, as well as landowner support for continuing in the current areas or expanding the season to new areas. Also when given a choice, the majority of landowners would rather use a 16-day season with TPWD setting quotas than the 9-day season with the experimental concept.Staff also propose to extend the current
season from 9 days to 16 days statewide since staff issues Pronghorn permits to set harvest quotas for each property; and that most hunters and landowners in the November opinion survey liked a 16-day season better than a 9-day season. For the one-week extension, staff proposed the season be changed to start the Saturday closest to October 1, which is the current opening and continue for 16 consecutive days based upon the high response rate and opinions of landowners since there are no concrete biological reasons on where this extension should occur.Next slide, please?
Again, we've had just a few more public
comments since this slide was created, but the public comments made online so far are -- have indicated that 76 percent of the respondents agreed with the Statewide Hunting Proclamation Proposal with only 5 percent disagreeing completely. There were 16 germane comments disagreeing with extending the Pronghorn season from 9 days to 16 days, and these commenters were mostly from the Trans-Pecos and more specifically from Hudspeth County.And I'll just take a little -- a little bit of
time here to kind of talk about Hudspeth County. There is a portion of Hudspeth County that has some outstanding Pronghorn habitat and is what we call the land of Boone and Crocket Pronghorn. Every year there's Boone and Crocket Pronghorn harvested in this area; and, in fact, our state record was harvested in this area.So yesterday I had a couple of phone calls
from two landowners that are within this area and these landowners are great friends of the Department. And our local biologist, Jose Etchart, has done a phenomenal job working with these landowners and other landowners in Hudspech with Culberson counties on all things Pronghorn from it being harvest management, habitat management, research, and even predator management.And I just wanted to make sure that I brought
their concerns forward; and those concerns, again, like I said yesterday, where they believe that the 9 days were long enough to hunt Pronghorn and the extra week, they thought, would put too much stress on the animals and that TPWD does not have biological justification to extend the season.Next slide, please.
And so this concludes my portion of the
Statewide Hunting Regulations. I'd be happy to address any questions that you might have on -- on these proposed Pronghorn changes before I turn it over to Shaun Oldenburger.COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any questions? I don't believe we have any.
So, Shaun you're up.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Good morning, Chairman and fellow Commissioners. For the record, my name is Shaun Oldenburger. Toda, we'll be presenting proposed changes to the Statewide Hunting Proclamation and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation. And we'll just wait here a few seconds for the next slide to come up.
Next slide, Andra?
First, we're going to start with proposed changes to the upland game bird regulations.
Next slide, Andra?
First, we'll talk about a fairly simplification of the current regulations regarding to plain Chachalaca hunting in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. We do have a few counties open to this species. As I mentioned yesterday, this is a species where we're at the northern range of it. This specious goes about two-thirds the way south in the South America, a very widespread upland game bird, been only hunted in the United States and the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Staff recommend to change the opening day for Chachalacas to align with the quail opening date. This will be the Saturday nearest November 1st, which is the current regulation and moving that to Saturday, nearest October 20th. So just a simplification of -- of regulations and make those seasons concurrent.
Next slide, please?
The next proposed change by staff would be to close Spring Eastern Turkey Season in Panola County. This has method-decision variables for closure, as in past closures with counties in East Texas. On average, less than one bird has been reported harvest over the past three Spring seasons; and just as a reminder for Commissioners, this is mandatory reporting harvest in these counties due to our current work in the Department to restore this population and to better understand populations and harvest. There is fewer than 50,000 contiguous acres occupied by wild turkeys in this county, and that's based on occupancy surveys done by our TPWD biologists in the field.
Next slide, please?
Just to look at harvest in Panola County over the past 20 years, you can see the graph in front of you. We generally considers basically harvest to be linear with population size in these counties with Eastern wild turkeys. You can see there in early 2000s and 2001, we harvested 14 wild turkeys during this season; and then it bumped back up in 2005 to about 16 individuals harvested. However, since then harvest has basically linearingly declined to the point where in 2018 and 2019, there were no birds harvested. So this indicates a population decline in this county. Therefore, staff are recommending to close season next year in Panola County during this Spring-only season.
Next slide, please?
Moving on to next proposed changes, once again with wild turkeys, this has to do with what we call our "one western-gobbler counties." You can see the map in front of you. That has two areas shaded in gray. The ones along the Red River and along the Louisiana border. Those are eastern wild turkey Spring counties that are open. Then we have in the darker gray, those are our "western one-gobbler counties" in South Central Texas. That is a season that occurs from April 1st to April 30th. You're only allowed one harvested bird in this county -- in these counties. We're asking for mandatory reporting for the fact we get very limited information on harvest with our small-game harvest survey. I mentioned yesterday, for instance, in Bastrop County, which tends to be our better habitat within these counties, we may get, of those 25,000 people we randomly select for the survey, we may be lucky enough to get one every three years to report a harvested in Bastrop County.
So therefore, staff have really limited information on harvest. Therefore, we can't really make any recommendations on how to move forward with any -- either restrictions, further restrictions or further liberalizations in these counties. We do have support from wildlife management associations and wildlife cooperatives in these respective counties in the past. In most counties in question recently transitioned to white-tailed deer reporting requirements during the doe days that started last year.
And so once again, this would be with the My Texas Hunt Harvest App or going online would be the two ways to mandatory report these harvests in these two counties.
Next slide, please?
Moving on to the next wild turkey proposed change by staff, this would be to align the North and South Turkey Zone boundary to be consistent across the Spring and Fall seasons. This was a Commission request a few years ago and just following that Fall boundary along Highway 90. This would be impact 26 counties with some them moving into the north zone and some of them moving into the south zone; but once again, this biologically make sense. It simplifies regulations based on research that we actually did in the 1980s through 1990s. We actually find that those current counties north of 90 currently in the south zone open a little early. So this would actually allow a lot more female turkeys to get bred during this time of the year and get on nests before we actually open hunting season.
Next slide, please?
Moving on to the last proposed change by staff with small-game program, with the Statewide Hunting Proclamation, this once again, presented this yesterday during the work session. The two maps in front of you are basically citizen-science collected data through I-Naturalists. The one on the right is where locations of basically, fox squirrels have been located through citizen science, and the one on the left is where gray squirrels have been located and those -- those are reported. We've actually seen both squirrel populations expand outside of the historic range in Texas.
We currently have 46 closed counties in the state of Texas. So for simplification and with regards to a few requests we've occurred in the Panhandle, and even the Trans-Pecos in the last few years, would be to open those counties and just make sure those counties have consistent regulations with open year round with no daily bag limit. These counties, there's not a biological concern because this isn't traditional squirrel habitat. This may expand hunter harvest opportunity somewhat but not substantially.
We do see even harvest into the Rolling Plains. And so some of those counties are adjacent to where we do see current harvest and through our small-game harvest survey. So once again, just a simplification of regulations to basically expand squirrel hunting statewide where that opportunity may exist in the future.
Next slide, please?
As far as public comment with regards to these changes and the Statewide Hunting Proclamation, we did receive a very minimal comment. We did have some folks that recommended the turkey change years ago with regards to the North and South line; and also we did receive a number of e-mail comments regarding supporting open squirrel hunting in the closed counties.
Next slide, please?
I will move on to proposed staff changes during the '21, '22 Migratory Game Bird Proclamation.
Next slide, please.
Basically, we have no federal framework changes from this last hunting season. So therefore, staff recommend to maintain season lengths and daily bag limits from this previous season because of no changes by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We're also recommending calendar progression for season dates for all migratory game bird seasons. So basically, no proposed changes with migratory game bird regulations except one.
Next slide, please?
We did request last year to the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand our special white-winged dove days in the south zone. You can see the map in front of you actually shows the zones across the state of Texas. North, Central, and South Zone. We did expand the special white-winged dove days to the entire South Zone a few years ago; and basically, what we're going to propose to do is go from that 4-day afternoon-only season to a 6-day afternoon-only season.
Next slide, please?
Looking at the staff recommended changes to the special white-winged dove days on the calendar, you can see the proposed changes for next year with gray being the regular season. Once again, reminder for Commissioners, we can only open the regular season as early as September 14th by the Federal frameworks and our Fish and Wildlife Service. However, you can see there in what would be the traditional proposed days for the special white-winged dove days in yellow being September 4th, 5th, the 11th and 12th.
And we are basically proposing to add those two extra days to Saturday the 3rd on that Friday and then the following Friday on the 10th, to allow folks a 3-day -- a long 3-day weekend possibility for hunting if they choose to select that. That seems to be the simplest way to move forward with the six days. Future calendars will probably be a little bit more difficult to look at; but this year, this is an easy proposed change.
And as the Chairman asked yesterday, we did have to pull those days off the regular season because we are only allowed 90 dove days for harvest underneath Federal Regulations. And so we did pull those days at the end of January when we really have very limited dove-hunting opportunities still occurring in January. There are still plenty of doves around. It's just most folks have moved on to other things by that time in January as far as hunting; and so we do see limited opportunity occur during those days.
Next slide, please?
As far as public comment on the Migratory Game Bird Proclamation, we've basically seen no change since yesterday's slide. We did have 27 people comment online. 22 of the 27 agreed completely. We did have five disagree specifically on a number of items.
Next slide, please?
Basically, a public comment was -- we did have support, too, for the two additional special white-winged dove days; but disagreed specifically on wanting to open the South Zone duck season with deer season, eliminate the split and open later in South Zone, open the South Zone Duck Season earlier.
And so you can see there wherever you are on the map, in that large South Zone, whether you're in Port Mansfield or in the Chenier Plain, you have different opinions on that South Zone. And so that seems to be the largest public comment that it was only a few; and then the other proposed public comments were suggestions outside of Federal frameworks or WMA regulations; for instance, wanting to have a duck season in February, which is not allowed by Federal law.
Next slide, please?
And with that, that concludes my presentation; and I'll be happy to take any questions before I turn it over to Mr. Alan Cain.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: I've got one. Hildebrand -- Commissioner Hildebrand. You -- you talked about a data-collection process by the general public. I think it was referencing the squirrel -- sightings of squirrels. What's the methodology? How -- how -- how does one actually, you know, identify the squirrel and then get it into some database? I'm just curious as to how you guys recover that information.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah. And so that's in -- iNaturalists is the program. I think Tania is on -- later on to actually discuss that program with I-Naturalists and some of the stuff we do in urban areas, as well, across the state; but once again; it's just an application that's on your phone. You can take pictures of various things. You submit them online -- through online or actually through your phone; and then people review those for state research grade or others if you have pictures.
And it's just built a database of basically where those species occur occupancy-wise across the state and across the Nation and across the world. Citizen science has become very important through data collection through us and through wildlife biologists, as well. We do have limited number of staff; and so whenever we can use the public and their data collection to support regulation changes one way or the other, we obviously look at those opportunities. And this is just another one; but I believe that will be explained a little bit further with more detail and more expertise than I can too later, Commissioner, later on.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you. When -- when we hear the presentation, I'd like to know how many downloads of this iNaturalist do we find that the State of Texas -- how widely used, and is it being disseminated because I -- I've not heard of it before. So anyway, that -- I -- I'll -- I'll wait for the full presentation.
MR. OLDENBURGER: All right. Yes, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any further comments?
Okay, Alan, you're up.
MR. CAIN: Thank you. While Andra's getting my slide up, good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Alan Cain, White-tailed Deer Program Leader. And this morning I'll be seeking adoption of several proposed changes to statewide big-game harvest regulations.
Next slide, Andra, please?
So the first change being proposed is a minor housekeeping change to include the crossbow and the definition of lawful archery equipment. The current definition includes longbow, recurved bow, and compound bow; however, in the archery section under "lawful means," the regulation refers to lawful archery equipment and crossbows rather than a single reference to all legal archery equipment, simply an artifact left over from the time where crossbows were added as a legal means of take during archery season but the lawful -- or lawful archery equipment definition wasn't changed to include crossbows at that time.
Next -- next, please, Andra?
And so in order to simplify the regulation and provide some clarity as it relates to lawful archery equipment, staff are proposing to include crossbows in the definition.
Next, please? Next slide.
The next change being proposed is the modification of the definition of a muzzleloader. The current definition defines a muzzleloader as any firearm that's loaded through the muzzle; but that definition is ambiguous on what must be loaded through the muzzle, whether that's the bullet, projectile; or does that require the powder to be loaded, as well? This lack of clarity in the regulation leads to questions by hunters and others as to what's considered a legal muzzleloader in Texas especially with changes and enhancements to the current muzzleloading technology.
And so with the direction from the Commission at yesterday's meeting, staff are proposing to amend the definition to clarify that a bullet or projectile in powder can only be loaded through the muzzle; again, amending this definition removed any uncertainty for hunters and firearm manufacturers or others as to what's legal and not legal in Texas with regards to muzzleloaders. And I'll just mention that we will work with Legal to make sure we have the correct terminology to describe powder appropriately and make sure that works.
Next?
And then the next change being proposed involves the trailing of wounded deer with dogs in ten East Texas counties. Over the last several years, staff continued to receive requests to allow these dogs to recover wounded deer in these ten counties. And after further review, staff no longer consider illegal dog hunting to be an issue or a resource concern in these counties. Therefore, staff are proposing to completely remove the prohibition in six counties -- those in green, which include Angelina, Hardin, Nacogdoches, Orange, Shelby, and Tyler counties. And then those counties in yellow, which include Jasper, Newton, Sabine, and San Augustine, staff would propose to allow trailing wounded deer with no more than two dogs on a leash.
Next slide.
To date, we've received a hundred and 76 public comments from the website; and this includes all the statewide proposals -- Statewide Hunting Regulation proposals, not just specific to the proposals I just reviewed. We've also had a handful of comments via e-mail; and we did hold a public hearing Zoom meeting on March 16th that had 38 participants. And of those that provided comments on the website, we had 68 with written comments.
Next, please, Andra?
And so those that disagreed with the dog-hunting portion of the proposal, we're concerned about -- you know, that the proposal would result in resurgence of dog hunting or trespassing issues. We had one individual that commented that they would like to see trailing a wounded deer for all dogs to be on a leash in all counties in the state. And then we had another individual opposed to the proposal and actually wanted to liberalize it to three dogs to recover deer and remove the leash restriction in those four counties that I mentioned.
Next, please?
With regards to muzzleloaders and crossbows, most of the comments were favorable to the proposal; but one commenter recommended muzzleloaders be defined by the using -- by the use of black powder rather than smokeless powder. Another commenter suggested muzzleloaders be restricted to the more traditional flintlock, percussion style. And with regards to crossbows, those comments that disagreed with the proposal, simply did not support the use of crossbows during archery season as a legal means of take. And these were more traditionalist in what they believed legal archery equipment was; but really, that's not germane to the proposal, since crossbows are already legal for -- as a means of take during the archery archery season. So this is simply language cleanup for that particular part of the proposal.
And next, please?
So staff are recommending the adoption of the following amendments with modifications to the muzzleloader language, as necessary: To 31 TAC -- in Chapter 65.3, 6511, 6519, 6530, 6532, 6540, 65.42, 65.46, 65.64, and 65.66 concerning the Statewide Hunting Proclamation. And amendments to Chapter 65.314 through 65.320 concerning the Migratory Game Bird Proclamation with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the February 19th, 2021, issue of the Texas Register.
So that concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: This is Commissioner Abell. I would just -- I'd like to make one request. We -- we got into some discussion yesterday, you know, trying to define what a muzzleloader was. You showed us the slide that had four different types. I remember the first two being flintlock and percussion. I can't remember what -- how the second two were defined.
But I'd like to ask the Department to do a little research and -- and give us some information as far as what percentage of muzzleloader hunters are using what I would call a "classic" muzzleloader; you know, being, the first two probably with -- with no optic versus the second two. Just with -- with the thought in mind, I think the original intent was that of -- giving the extra two weeks of the season for muzzleloader hunting was that it was more challenging. And as I think we might want to look at whether that's the case, you know, if whether the second two types of muzzleloaders, you know, that have a brake breech and -- and an optic are -- are truly more challenging than a modern sporting rifle. And to that end, we probably ought to do the same thing with, you know, figuring out what percentage of the people are using sort of an advanced crossbow with an optic and laser; and there again, you know, should -- should that be allowed in an archery-only season.
MR. CAIN: We can certainly circle back around with our team and -- and investigate --
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Sure.
MR. CAIN: -- the best we can. That's -- that would be challenging but I think we'll --
COMMISSIONER ABELL: I'm not proposing we change anything about today's recommendation. I just would like to have a little more information going forward whether that's -- whether those are things that we might further define.
MR. CAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Any further discussion? There's nobody signed up to speak. So if there aren't any more comments from the Commissioner or staff, I'd like a motion to approve this.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Commissioner Latimer so moves.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell, second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Well, we'll do our roll-call vote again, please?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Motion carries.
That gets us to Action No. 4, acceptance of Donation of Land, Fort Bend County, Approximately 300 Acres at Brazos Bend State Park. Mr. Ted Hollingsworth, please --
MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Commissioners, good morning. My name is Ted Hollingsworth. I'm with the Land Conservation Program. I'm delighted to be bringing this item to you this morning. This is the result of a long -- a long friendly relationship with a neighbor at Brazos Bend State Park.
Next slide.
As I think all of you know, Brazos Bend State Park is in Southeast Texas, not very far from the sprawling suburbs of South Houston.
Next slide.
Because of proximity to several million people, it is visited by a quarter of a million people a year now. Again, this is a very, very popular park, one of our crown-jewel State Parks, I would argue.
Next slide.
We acquired it in 1976. It now consists of almost 5,000 acres, a couple of miles of frontage on the Brazos River. The -- the majority of it is bottomland hardwood forests, although there are some nice remnant tall-grass coastal prairies and just a variety of wetlands, abundant wildlife. The park is probably most noted for it's alligators. Anybody on almost any day can go to the park and get a look at a -- at a big alligator. And the park is -- is, again, just very popular for a variety of day uses and for wildlife watching.
Next slide.
Joe Wessendorff owned a ranch on the north side of the park at the west end of the park, a little over 300 acres. His ranch included the north 100 acres of a 900-acre lake called Pilant Lake, an old oxbow lake at the river.
In addition, he excavated out a 12-acre lake. His property has been well -- relatively well-maintained. The coastal forests are intact. He has about a hundred acres of -- of coastal prairie, which have been largely converted to improved pasture, which would be readily -- I say, "readily" -- will lend themselves well to being restored back to the historic tall-grass prairie.
Mr. Wessendorff passed away a few years ago. He left the real property of his estate to the Henderson Wessendorff Foundation with the instruction that the -- his ranch at Brazos Bend was to be donated to the Department for addition to the State Park.
Next slide.
And you can see on this map where that lies in relation to the park. You can kind of make out the -- the tan kidney-bean-shaped Pilant Lake. You can tell that the north end of that is included. You can also see that that gives us additional frontage and access to the areas north of the lake that are otherwise very difficult to get to from the county road. And again, just a tremendous asset, both for its conservation values and the recreational opportunities it would add to the -- to the state park at a time when the visitation is steadily growing. And, of course, Houston is getting closer and closer all the time.
Next slide, please?
We were saying eight responses. All are in support of adding -- adding acreage to Brazos Bend State Park.
Next slide.
Staff does recommend that you adopt a motion today, that Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the executive director to take all necessary steps to accept the donation of approximately 300 acres in Fort Bend County for addition to Brazos Bend State Park. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any questions from anybody? Hearing none and there no speakers signed up to speak, I need a motion for approval, please?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo moves to adopt the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand, second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Let's do our roll-call vote again, please.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes. Billy had stepped out. So hearing no opposition, the motion carries.
Move on to Action No. 5, grant of Drainage Easement, Hidalgo County, Approximately One Acre at Estero Llano Grande State Park.
Ted, you're up again.
MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Commissioners, good morning, again. My name is Ted Hollingsworth. I'm with the Land Conservation Program. This is an item that you heard in January. You asked the staff to gather some more information and do a little more homework, which we've done. So we're back to request action on this item.
Next slide.
This is a -- involves a drainage project that -- at the City of Weslaco -- Weslaco that would include the Estero Llano Grande State Park, which is one of the three World Birding Centers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. This one's in Hidalgo County.
Next slide.
And all that this slide says two miles south of Weslaco -- the city of Weslaco. At least it's almost to the World Birding Center. The World Birding Center State Park is surrounded by ag lands and -- and new urban development -- or suburban development.
Next slide.
This is an outline of the state park. The -- the -- the long narrow water body on the south is the Llano Grande. The -- the inholdings are -- are remnant RV spots, which are systematically being added to the state park and eliminated.
Next slide.
Right now the park consists of 230 acres of native thorn -- thorn forests and a variety of wetlands, including emergent marshes and ponds. It attracts an incredible variety of birds due to that combination of native habitats. Well over 300 species of birds have been documented. The site is quite the destination for bird watchers from around the country and -- and quite frankly, from around the world because of the variety of birds that can be regularly dependably seen there at the -- at that world bird -- World Birding Center.
Next slide.
The city, which is immediately north and essentially, is upstream from the state park as it grows has experienced increasing issues with trying to get rid of water during -- especially these tropical storms, which are not all that uncommon in the Valley. And the city has maintained a series of drainage canals since the early, early 20th Century, one which runs right through the state park; and they regularly maintain these canals, including the one in the state park.
They would like to increase their -- the drainage of the city with some improvements in the city, including retention ponds and enlarging the profiles of some of those drainage features in the city. They anticipate that this will increase the amount of water entering the state park. And so they would like to replace the round culverts under an adjacent county road and the park entrance road with larger profile box culverts; and they would like to add riprap -- they would like to go ahead and clean out those canals like they do periodically and add riprap to minimize any scour that might occur with the increased flow of water.
Next slide.
The footprint of the area that they would like access to is largely within easements that already exist. The easements -- because they're well over a hundred years old -- are difficult to -- to really map out and get an exact footprint. The City requests -- and park staff and Department staff agree -- that it would be advantageous for the City and for the Department to go ahead and more carefully codify their easement rights to enter the park and continue maintaining those canals, as well as their right to install that riprap and those culverts.
We have looked carefully at the change in flood elevations that would occur as a result of the drainage project. We do not believe there is any increased risk to park infrastructure. There may be an increase in ponding time, retention time in the park; and as a result, we've asked the City to agree to install a pump station at the extreme -- at the outfall for that drainage canal that would allow them to move water much more quickly out of the park and into the Llano Grande.
It would also allow them to take water during the lower flow events and pump it from the canal up into the park's ponds and marshes. That water is currently purchased from the Irrigation District, and we believe that the pump station would reduce -- reduce our operating costs by making that water -- or making water available to us at other times of the year at no cost. So we believe this is a win-win situation, both for the City in their need to improve drainage and for our need to keep our wetlands hydrated.
Next slide.
You can see in this map where the area is of the proposed easement in the northwest corner of the park. You can see in blue the existing irrigation canal, or drainage canal, which again, has been there for well over a century. And you can see where that pump station would be that would pump water out of the park and into the Llano Grande.
Next slide.
And this is just a closeup of that area where they would like to add the culverts and the riprap to control again, any potential for erosion that might occur with increased flows into the park.
Next slide.
We received two responses, one in support and one in opposition. The one in opposition just felt like there are other tools that can be brought to bear to help -- to help deal with runoff water from the city.
Next slide.
Staff does recommend that the Commission adopt the following motion that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Since there is nobody lined up to speak, we would entertain a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell so moved.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton second.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Let's do a roll-call vote again, please.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Motion carries.
Okay. That gets us to Action Item No. 6: Disposition of Land, Harrison County, approximately 7 acres at the Caddo Lake Wildlife Management area.
You up again, Ted.
MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Commissioners, good morning again. My name is Ted Hollingsworth. I'm with the Land Conservation Program. This is an item -- this is a second reading of this item. You heard it in January.
Next slide, please?
This involves one of our boundary areas within the Caddo Lake Wildlife Management area. The Wildlife Management area actually straddles two counties; but this specific boundary that we're concerned about is in Harrison County.
Next slide.
As you can see, Caddo Lake and Wildlife Management area are -- are associated facilities for the Department, and they are about 20 miles northeast of Marshall, in extreme East Texas.
Next slide.
Caddo Lake itself covers almost 27,000 acres. Actually, depending upon the rainfall, it varies quite a bit; but the Wildlife Management area covers almost 9,000 acres today and is best known for its cypress swamps but also consists of bayous, a variety of marshes, and -- and other types of wetlands, some open water, bottomland forests, uplands, transitional habitats, between those open-water habitats and uplands. A very, very popular hunting destination for deer, hogs, waterfowl. Also popular for wildlife watching.
Next slide.
So we actually began acquiring land at Caddo Lake in the 1930s with the formation of a state park, which was a CCC park; but because -- because the resource is so special and so unique and so Texan, we -- we began adding land in earnest in the 1980s and '90s; and we've sprawled over onto the north side of Caddo Lake, which created issues -- management issues for state park staff. So in 1997, we took the acreage that had -- that we had acquired on the north side of Caddo Lake and turned it into a wildlife management area, which again, now consists of almost 9,000 acres.
Dozens of transactions over the years have resulted in the current configuration of the Wildlife Management area. One of those transactions was the residue of a subdivision, which was primarily intended to provide people with waterfront homes, canal-front homes, lakefront homes access to the lake that -- called Cypress Village. And once most of those were sold, arrangements were made to transfer the remaining lots to the Department.
Next slide.
You can tell in this map where that Cypress Lake subdivision is in relationship to the rest of the Wildlife Management area.
Next slide.
The problem with this -- with this conveyance is that some of those tracts actually provided access to -- to roads. Some of them provided some connectivity between units; but some of them were actually sandwiched, if not surrounded by private lands, which -- which has resulted in a very convoluted boundary; and it's been almost impossible to keep those boundaries marked and to keep adjacent landowners from trespassing in some cases, just inadvertently and in other cases, I believe, folks just felt like no one had ever noticed that they had put a -- a subject field or fence or part of a building onto adjacent undeveloped property. And so it's become quite a time-consuming effort for staff at the WMA to keep an eye on those lots and to try and minimize those trespass issues. Today most of those lots have mobile homes or cabins or fish camps on them.
Next slide.
Again, just the odd configuration of that land
and -- and the amount of boundary in common with the adjacent landowners and the tiny size of some of those adjacent lots has just resulted in a constant stream of trespass issues that really are a more of a liability than an asset for the Department.Next slide.
And this is just a visual image of -- of what
that subdivision, or what that area, looks like.Next slide.
And this is a map. The -- the pale blue lots
are those lots that were already sold. Most of which, again, have -- have structures on them. Some people live there full time. Some have those as weekend places or seasonal places. The lots in dark blue are the lots we would prefer to keep, again, because they provide access to roads or because they're adjacent enough or connected enough to what we own that they make sense to continue managing for their -- for their conservation value.The lots in the bright pink are, for the most
part, surrounded by private property. They are the lots that have caused us a great deal of time and effort to try and monitor and work with the adjacent landowners to -- to minimize and prevent trespass, not always successfully. 17 lots in total. The proposal would be to sell those at or above current market value. In many cases, adjacent landowners have already expressed an interest in acquiring those from -- from us at market value and then to take those funds and use them to acquire property that really would contribute to our mission and really would make good sense from a conservation and recreation standpoint.Next slide, please?
Next slide, please?
And this is just a closeup of -- and you saw
the closeup yesterday. So we have received four responses. Three are in opposition. In this slide, again, you can just see that -- that we had four responses. Those that were in opposition just all said the same thing, which was that we should never -- we should never part with land that has been added to a Wildlife Management area or a state park. One made the comment that if we did part with land, we should take those proceeds and use them to acquire more land with -- with higher value which, of course, is the plan and is statutorily required for land sale proceeds anyway. So this is the comments we received.Next slide.
And the staff does recommend that the
Commission adopt this motion this morning. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A.And I'd be happy to answer any question.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any questions from anybody?
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Hildebrand. Clearly, we need to sell the property for fair market value and/or above and seems like a very elegant solution to, you know, a complicated issue; but are you going to give -- and I don't know if you can do this via state law -- but do you give some preference to the contiguous landowner? Because it seems as though they should have first shot just to, you know, be a good neighbor. So any -- any thoughts of that? And then secondly, is this the area where they were doing the kind of shade-tree dredging operation with a backhoe on a barge? Is this the same, if I recall.
MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Yes, sir. The slide that we -- that we kind of skipped over actually included those tracts that had the homemade canal across them. And to your first point, 15 years ago, this -- yes, sir. You can -- this slide -- in fact, you can even see in that sort of that north -- northeast portion of those three pink tracts, you can see the -- the shadow of that canal that was dredged across these.
So, yes, sir, that's a good example of the kind of issues that we -- that we've fought over the years; but your first point: Probably 15 years ago, the Commission directed the staff to prepare a policy -- a land policy -- for dispositions and instructed us to make it very clear that preference would be given to adjacent landowners.
So our procedure is that we -- that we work with a local broker and -- and we have a local broker in this case who's been a tremendous friend of the Wildlife Management area and has helped us add lands to the -- to the Wildlife Management area, at no cost for his services for 20 years now and -- and to get a fair market value on those -- to bump it up a notch -- and then to offer it to -- to specifically offer it to the adjacent landowner first; and then if they decline to purchase, then we -- then we go open market with those. But yes, sir, to your point, the Commission felt 15 years ago -- and has signaled regularly that they -- that they feel like that's -- that that's a good-faith way to deal with our neighbors and work with our neighbors in cases where we are just dis -- dis -- we're getting rid of land.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
Well, if that's the case, there's no speakers signed up. So I need a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: So moved, Hildebrand.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Second, Galo.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Let's do our roll-call vote again, please.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
Motion carries.
So that gets us to Action Item No. 7, and our Chairman has gotten here. So I'm assuming that you're going to -- you're going to do it.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right. Thank you for running the meeting this morning and looks like you've made good progress.
I'll move into Action No. 7, land Acquisition Strategy, Bastrop County, Approximately 150 Acres at Bastrop State Park. Mr. Trey Vick.
MR. VICK: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Trey Vick. I'm with the Land Conservation Program, and I'll be presenting today a land acquisition strategy in Bastrop County, approximately 150 acres at Bastrop State Park.
Next slide, Andra, please?
Bastrop State Park is located in Bastrop County.
Next slide.
It sits approximately 32 miles southeast of Austin.
Next slide, please?
Bastrop State Park now consistent of approximately 7200 acres. It's a significant example of the Lost Pines Ecosystem. The State acquired a good portion of the park in the '30s by private -- from private owners in the city of Bastrop. The CCC constructed the earliest park facilities. Bastrop being so close to the Austin area is an extremely popular destination for Central Texans for hiking, birding, and camping.
Next slide, please?
Park staff has an interest in negotiating an acquisition of several tracts of land totaling approximately 150 acres, all from willing sellers. This is contingent upon the Commission's authorization. These strategic acquisitions are all located adjacent to the park and have been identified as top priorities by staff and state park management.
Acquisition of these tracts would allow for future public use. It'll protect that Lost Pines ecosystem, protect critical habitat, and would just be a good add-on to Bastrop State Park.
Next slide, please?
Here's a general map of the park itself and an outline of adjacent tracts in that area that we're going to be targeting.
Next slide, please?
As of this morning, we've received a total of 11 comments. Ten in support and one in opposition.
Next slide, please?
And staff recommends the Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorize the executive director to take all necessary steps to acquire several strategic tracts of land totaling approximately 150 acres in Bastrop County for addition to Bastrop State Park.
Next slide, please?
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you.
Is there any discussion by the Commission?
No one is signed up to speak. Therefore, I'll entertain a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo --
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Galo.
COMMISSIONER GALO: -- moves to adopt.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell second.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Bell second. Thank you very much.
Again, we're going to go through the roll-call. I vote, yes.
COMMISSIONER APLIN: Aplin yes.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: And hearing none -- hearing no opposition, the motion carries.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Action Item No. 8: Acquisition of Land, Anderson County, approximately 430 acres at the Big Lake Bottom Wildlife Management area.
Mr. Jason Estrella, please make your presentation.
MR. ESTRELLA: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jason Estrella with the Land Conservation Program; and this morning, I'll be presenting on a land acquisition in Anderson County, approximately 430 acres at the Big Lake Bottom Wildlife Management area.
Next slide, please?
The Big Lake Bottom Wildlife Management area is located in southwest Anderson County.
Next slide, please?
It's along the Trinity River, approximately 10 miles southwest of Palestine.
Next slide, please?
The WMA comprises approximately 3900 acres; again, along the Trinity River and is a part of the Middle Trinity River Ecosystem Project. The WMA was acquired to preserve a relic tract of bottomland hardwood habitat within the Post Oak Savannah Region beginning around 1990. Currently, the WMA is utilized for hunting, fishing, several non-consumptive recreational activities, and to facilitate research and demonstrations in a manner compatible with protection and management of WMA resources.
Next slide, please?
The subject tract is an adjacent approximately 430-acre tract and has been a high priority acquisition for the Department for many years. Acquisition would clean up the boundary of the central area of the WMA, which you'll see shortly, would provide an additional 2 miles of frontage on the Trinity River, along with additional recreational opportunities. Staff had reason to believe that the property was going to be placed on the open market and had requested the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation secure the property under contract to preserve the opportunity for TPWD's acquisition. Recently, the foundation has worked closely with the estate and presented them with a contract, which the estate is currently considering. Acquisition is contingent upon the authorization of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.
Next slide, please?
As you can see, the subject tract in yellow -- except for the Trinity River, which flows along the southern boundary, the -- tract is surrounded by the WMA, as you can see there in red.
Next slide, please?
To date, we have received ten responses all in support. The consensus being any opportunity to acquire public land for recreational and conservation opportunities is a -- is a positive thing.
Next slide, please?
So staff recommends that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt the follow motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the executive director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 430 acres in Anderson County for addition to Big Bottom Wildlife Management area.
Next slide, please?
And I will be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, Jason.
Is there any discussion by the Commission? No one has signed up to speak?
So I entertain a motion for approval. Do I
have a motion?COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Commissioner Latimer.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Latimer?
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo second.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: I'm sorry. Who seconded this?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you very much. Again, I do the roll call. I vote, "Yes."
COMMISSIONER APLIN: Aplin yes.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.
COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton yes.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right. Thank you very much. The motion -- no one opposed, the motion passes.
Moving on to Briefing Item No. 9, the Texas Nature Trackers Program and the City Nature Challenge.
Dr. Tania Homayoun, please make your presentation. I may not have said that right.
DR. HOMAYOUN: No, sir. You have that correct.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Oh, good.
DR. HOMAYOUN: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Tania Homayoun, Texas Nature Trackers biologist with the Wildlife Division.
Today, I'm going to be talking about our experiences using the City Nature Challenge Event to rally interest and participation in community science according to the Agency's conservation work in Texas.
Next slide, please?
The Texas Nature Trackers Program engages naturalists of all ability levels and interests in community science data collection focused on native plants and animals. The program offers opportunities that both grow and enrich the naturalist community and generate data that contribute to research and informed conservation decisions.
One of the particular goals of the program is to collect data on Texas species of greatest conservation need. Today, most Nature Trackers' projects are hosted on the iNaturalist platform. This is available both online via website and via mobile app and in multiple languages and it's part database and part social network.
Users can create a free account and upload observations that are anchored by photos or sound files, which the rest of the community can then use to suggest identifications. One of the benefits is that this means people can enter at any knowledge level.
Next slide, please?
Currently, we manage 12 long-term taxonomic projects in iNaturalist, as well as projects targeting specific conservation issues. We also use iNaturalist to host bioblitzes, which are nature censuses that create a snapshot of biodiversity for a specific place and time, which is a great means of engaging a broader audience who might just be starting out as naturalists.
Next slide, please?
The ultimate goal is to use the iNaturalist projects as community science data inputs to the natural diversity database, our statewide database and record for natural resources, where they'll supplement data from our biologists, researchers, and contractors and be used to assist with on-the-ground conservation decision-making. Since its creation, one of our projects, the HERPS of Texas iNaturalist Projects, has generated a current total of 4900 records for tracked HERP species that have been added to or updated in the natural diversity database.
Next slide, please?
As the core community scientists in Texas grows, the Nature Trackers Program offers multiple levels of engagement. We invite new community scientists to join entry-level bioblitzes and from there, grow their interests and abilities to a place where they generate high-quality data for our long-term taxonomic projects. More experienced community scientists can join advance projects, such as assisting with field research, designing and executing camera-tracking projects, and supporting curation of our long-term projects.
Next slide, please?
One challenge we face is the reality of Texas as a rapidly urbanizing state. With more than 85 percent of our population now living in or around a major metro area, how do we successfully engage urban and suburban Texans with natural resource and monitoring insurgent in a way that's relevant to them and impactful to the Agency's work?
Next slide, please?
We had the opportunity a couple of years to get in involved with the City Nature Challenge, which is a global city-scale bioblitz event that frames an urban biodiversity survey as a friendly competition between cities. Founded in 2016 as a competition between San Francisco and Los Angeles, today the event engages hundreds of cities across the globe including multiple metro areas in Texas. To facilitate partnerships and collaborations between cities in our metro areas -- and they found a reason for the event clearer to our event participants -- parks and Wildlife staff encourage using county boundaries to delineate these metro areas.
Next slide, please?
The events hosted in iNaturalist and each city or metro has its own project page to track results. Participants spend four days collecting observations and uploading them to the iNaturalist project and the following six days are spent going through the accumulated data and adding identifications.
Next slide, please?
Roughly, one month prior to the 2020 City Nature Challenge, we were faced with the challenge of how to safely pivot event programming in response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. All of our metros still participated respecting local regulations and social-distancing practices. In-person group events were canceled, and individual or household participation close to home was encouraged. While we expected some engagement, we were impressed with the even turnout, which generated more than a hundred and one thousand observations of over 6400 species made by 4700 observers and verified by 1800 identifiers in just 4 days.
Next slide, please?
In spite of the major challenges imposed by the pandemic, the 2020 event numbers were up statewide in all categories from the previous year, netting an additional 3,000 observations, 100 species, 1300 observers, and 300 identifiers.
Next slide, please?
The 30 percent statewide increase in participants making observations is significant because one of the outcomes we're finding for participation in the City Nature Challenge is that it appears to result in deeper, sustained engagement with iNaturalist and our community science work.
Next slide, please?
When looking at iNaturalist user activity, we found patterns pointing to increased engagement with iNaturalist in its projects after participation in the City Nature Challenge. The process typically begins when users who have an account but have only made sporadic observations, attend an iNaturalist training workshop. They leave with a greater understanding of the platform and the Nature Tracker Program's mission and goals, as well as a call to action to participate in the City Nature Challenge.
During the event, some of these users may log a few hundred observations and identifications. What we see afterwards is a much higher and sustained level of of engagement with iNaturalist including sharing observations with our Agency's long-term, taxonomic projects that feed into the Natural Diversity Database.
Some users who may have mobility or access challenges find their niche online in making identifications for others. We also have participants who become skilled and passionate iNaturalist users and, in their turn, teach their own workshops, thus further enlarging our corps of community scientists.
Next slide, please?
More than half the data submitted to the City Nature Challenge projects for Texas last year were designated as research-grade quality in iNaturalist, marking them as high-quality, robust data that we have a high level of confidence in. Research-grade in iNaturalist refers to observations that are wild organisms with photo or sound vouchers that are of a quality to merit a species-level identification by the majority of identifiers who look at the observation. This designation is also one of the necessary baselines for inclusion in the Natural Diversity Database.
Next slide, please?
Data generated for the City Nature Challenge and other iNaturalist projects are also used to support local conservation work. In some places, these projects document biodiversity in parks and open spaces that have been overlooked, filling data gaps and informing habitat management and restoration work. These data are also used to make recommendations for protecting natural resources in the process of planning energy projects, transportation corridors and land acquisition.
The City Nature Challenge has also been a powerful tool for fostering willful partnerships and collaboration among municipalities, community groups, and the Agency; and through this event, many of our partners are able to engage historically underserved communities with the nature around them.
Next slide, please?
Some of the most valuable data generated during the City Nature Challenge relates to rare species. In 2020, observers logged over 1700 research-grade observations of 123 species of greatest conservation need across participating project areas. These observations provide valuable information about where and when our most at-risk species have been documented in our most-developed and rapidly changing counties in the state, which can inform conservation of land-use-planning locally and at a landscape scale. These observations are also the ones with the greatest potential for inclusion in the Natural Diversity Database.
Next slide, please?
In 2019, the City Nature Challenge uncovered a previously unknown population of a rare Texas plant in Dallas County when a rare-plant botanist with a botanical researching student of Texas identified an iNaturalist observation as "Engelmann's bladder pod." Found in limestone prairies from Southern Oklahoma to Central Texas, this plant historically occurred in several areas in Dallas; but prior to this discovery, only one population was believed to remain, making this record significant for the conservation of this rare species.
Next slide, please?
As we grow community-science participation, we are creating a network of eyes and ears on the ground that can support Agency biologists. In the 9-county Houston/Galveston area, the 2020 City Nature Challenge observers outnumbered Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists in the area 84 to 1.
When posed with unique opportunities like documenting the impact of February's winter-storm [inaudible] on wildlife mortality, we put out the call for observations, and we have a network that responded. In one week over 640 community scientists submitted over 2700 observations to our winter-storm project, enabling us to collect data on a scale beyond what staff alone could manage.
Next slide, please?
While the pandemic posed a considerable challenge to our work this past year, what we saw in the City Nature Challenge numbers and statistics mirrors the reports, anecdotes, and stories of people rediscovering nature right outside their doors. Texans place a high value on contact with nature and time outdoors. We saw sustained and, indeed, expanded participation in the City Nature Challenge and community science over the past year.
People contributed to our projects even when restricted in their travel and remain dedicated to sharing their observations with us. Their data document biodiversity in and around our cities of scale the Agency and our partners alone cannot achieve. and these volunteers who participate in the City Nature Challenge often stay with us more for than the four days of the event. They begin to engage with us, they stick with it; and as they do, they're developing into committed community scientists.
Next slide, please?
The 2021 City Nature Challenge is coming up soon. Observations will run from Friday, April 30th through Monday, May 3rd with identifications wrapping on Sunday, May 9th. Even though observations need to come from specific areas, we promote participation across the state, as people can make identifications from anywhere. More information about the event and detailed results from previous years are available on the Agency's website.
Next slide, please?
And the scope of the event continues to grow. We had eight projects in seven major metro areas covering 45 counties in 2020.
Next slide, please?
And in 2021, that number has increased substantially, as we welcome six new project areas, bringing the number of participating areas to 14, covering 78, or nearly 30 percent, of the state's counties. We're looking forward to seeing what our network of community scientists finds this year. Thank you. And I'm happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you very much. That's fascinating. It always amazes me, Carter, how much goes on around here that we don't really know about. So thank you. That's fascinating. Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BELL: Mr. Chairman, I did.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Yes, Commissioner Bell.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Hi. These -- I find this very interesting, very fascinating. How many of the -- and I like the last slide where you talked about the expansion to the -- to the additional counties. And since we're doing it by county, you're -- and I'm looking at the map -- what's your sense of maybe smaller and rural counties coming online and having an interest? Because a lot of those people are outdoorsmen in those counties.
How do we -- how do we get the message out to them? And I just -- I just loaded the app on my phone. So...
DR. HOMAYOUN: Oh, fabulous. So one thing that did not make it into the slides that was fairly recent addition was that this year the global organizers for the whole project planet-wide have actually opened up a project that is open to anyone anywhere. So you do not have to be in one of the participating project areas. Anywhere you are -- and that includes all the rest of our Texas counties -- there is a specific project for people to be able to join; and if they want to get involved in this event, they are welcome to submit their observations to that particular project to be counted; but certainly, when we go out and promote the work that we do, we are really asking people to be thinking about the nature that they can observe, wherever they are, whether that is outside their door, whether that's on a trip out to a state park or WMA.
Or just even driving down the road, if they happen to see something that looks interesting, if they're able to safely document it, all of that is data that we encourage that people try to share with us.
COMMISSIONER BELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Yeah, thank you very much. Any other questions or comments?
Okay. Thank you, Doctor. That's wonderful.
All right. At this point, Mr. Wolf, Carter, this Commission has completed its business; and I declare it's adjourned at 11:20 p.m. [sic].
(Meeting Concluded)
In official recognition of the adoption of
this resolution in a lawfully called public meeting of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, we hereby affix our signatures this _____ day of ______________, ________._______________________________________
S. Reed Morian, Chairman
_______________________________________
Arch "Beaver" Aplin, III, Vice-Chairman
_______________________________________
James E. Abell, Member
_______________________________________
Oliver J. Bell, Member
_______________________________________
Anna B. Galo, Member
_______________________________________
Jeffery D. Hildebrand, Member
_______________________________________
Jeanne W. Latimer, Member
_______________________________________
Robert L. "Bobby" Patton, Jr., Member
_______________________________________
Dick Scott, Member
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF TRAVIS )I, Paige S. Watts, Certified Shorthand
Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above-mentioned matter occurred as hereinbefore set out.I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceedings of such
were reported by me or under my supervision, later reduced to typewritten form under my supervision and control and that the foregoing pages are a full, true, and correct transcription of the original notes.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and seal this Turn in date _____ day of ________________, ________.___________________________________
Paige S. Watts, CSR
CSR No.: 8311
Expiration: January 31, 2023