TPW Commission

Commission Meeting, November 10, 2020

Transcript

TPW Commission Meetings

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

November 10, 2020

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

COMMISSION HEARING ROOM

4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744

COMMISSION MEETING

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I'll take roll call. I'm present.

Vice-Chairman, are you on?

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Present.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell present.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell present.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo present.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand present.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer present.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton present.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Scott is here.

All right. This meeting is called to order November 10th, 2020, at 9:36 a.m.

But before proceeding with any business, Mr. Smith has a statement to make.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. A public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agenda has 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 the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, Carter.

Just a reminder that -- for the Commissioners if you speak, please announce your name for the record.

First item is approval of the minutes from the Commission Meeting held August 27th, 2020, which have been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin approved.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Is there a second?

Commissioner Scott, thank you.

James, do we -- do we -- if you make the motion and second it, do you still have to record your vote or can I just ask if there's --

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Chairman, we do ask for the --

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right.

MR. MURPHY: -- formality on this --

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Okay.

MR. MURPHY: -- on these Teams calls. Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Okay. Voting will occur by roll call. I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries.

All right. Next, is acknowledgment of the list of donations, which has been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell makes a motion for approval.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you. Is there a second.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell second.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer second.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Latimer second, thank you.

Again, we'll go through the roll call. I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right. Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Next, is the consideration of contracts, which have also been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?

Commissioner Scott.

Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell seconds.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Bell, thank you.

Again, we'll -- I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Action Item No. 1, Designation of Nonprofit Partners. Ms. Brittney Zepeda, please make your presentation.

MS. ZEPEDA: Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Commissioners. My name is Brittney Zepeda. I'm the Texas State Parks Voluntary Program Manager, and today I'm requesting designation of nonprofit partners.

Slide, please?

We have decades of partnerships dating back to the 1930s. And in 1991, Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation was established as the official nonprofit partner. One of the legislative guidances enacted in 2001, was that the Commission vote on the designation of nonprofit partners. While we work closely with many nonprofits, like CCA or Ducks Unlimited, these designated nonprofits are considered closely related nonprofit partners that exist primarily for the purpose of a specific facility or program.

Slide, please?

In accordance to criteria established by the Texas Administrative Code, nonprofit partners must follow rules of federal and state law. They are to be organized as a nonprofit corporation, and follow the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act. Work with -- must be consistent with the Agency's mission and goals.

Slide, please?

There will also be a written agreement between the nonprofit partner and the Agency. Nonprofits are designated by the Commission in a public meeting, and groups may be removed from the list by the Commission.

Slide, please?

You can find the list of nonprofits in your agenda, including the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation as the official nonprofit.

Slide, please?

So recommended action today would be approval of the list of nonprofit partners.

Slide, please?

Thank you so much for your time. Do you have any questions?

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?

We now hear from those signed up to speak. Do we have one -- we have one person -- okay. All right, good.

Any other comments?

All right. Is there a motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell moves we approve the non -- designation of nonprofit partners.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: And seconded by Commissioner Scott.

I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Action Item No. 2, Rule Review, Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes and Completed Rule Review: Chapter 51, 52, 55, 60, and 61.

Mr. Murphy, please make your presentation.

MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I'm James Murphy, General Counsel for the Department. And today I will present on our rule review on Chapters 51, 52, 55, 60, and 61.

Next slide, please?

I'll begin today with a summary of the rule review process. This is in Texas Government Code Section 2001.039. All state agency regulations or administrative rules must be reviewed no less frequently than once every four years. Review must include an assessment of whether the reasons for initially adopting a rule continue to exist. Notice of a proposed rule must be published in the Texas Register for public comment. Regulations must be readopted, adopted with changes, or repealed based upon the review.

Next slide, please?

Our rule review is on a chapter-by-chapter basis and occurs over three Commission Meetings. In the first meeting, staff notifies the Commission of the beginning of the rule review process and then notice of the review is published in the Texas Register. The second meeting, staff seeks permission to publish any proposed changes or repeals resulting from the review. This goes into the Texas Register for public comment opportunity. And then in the third meeting, staff seeks adoption of any proposed rule changes and repeals. We also seek adoption of the completed rule review, which means retention of the remaining rules.

Next slide, please?

Just to orient you on the schedule, we're here today to adopt changes to 51, 52, 55, 60, and 61.

Next slide, please?

There are no changes proposed to the following chapters: Chapter 52 on stocking policy, Chapter 60 on maintenance reviews, and Chapter 61 on design and construction.

Next slide, please?

Turning to the proposed revisions that are up for adoption. Beginning in Chapter 51 on the sick leave pool, this is an amendment to Section 51.141 to remove a requirement that donations to the sick leave pool be made in writing, as all such donations are now made online.

Next slide, please?

Our next revision is to Section 51.642. This is repeal of the San Jacinto Historical Advisory Board. With transfer of the site to the Texas Historical Commission, this advisory board is no longer needed.

Next slide, please?

We have a change to Section 51.80 on mandatory hunter education. Amendment to reflect a duplicate certificate of completion of hunter education requirements may be obtained online, allowing a certificate saved on a wireless communication device to be accepted as proof of completion, and changing of references of deferred hunter education to hunter education deferral.

Next slide, please?

We have changes to Sections 55.302 and 55.303 regarding boat speed limits and buoy standards. Here we have elimination of references to slow, no wake designations, and replacement with more precise language referencing regulated areas under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code reflecting that our authority is greater than simply slow and no wake zones authority to protect water safety.

Next slide, please?

Our next amendments are to sections 55.401 and 55.402 on party boats. This is removal of a definition of livery vessel and the addition of a generic description of the types of rental craft that are exempt from the provisions of the subchapter. It clarifies that party boat operators are not exempt from Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Section 31.040, which prescribes licensing and titling requirements for livery vessels.

Next slide, please?

We have changes to Section -- Section 55.805, 55.802, 55.803, 55.804, and 55.807. These are changes to marine safety office -- enforcement officer course standards. The first is to -- we do now have Parks and Wildlife led courses, so we have a repeal of the instructor course. We have a change in the acronym for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement to TCOLE and we have an amendment to include and address online course providers and provide for payment from -- from online providers.

Next slide, please?

We have a corresponding amendment to Section 53.50. Chapter 53 is not proposed generally for adoption here today. However, in response to the changes to the marine safety enforcement officer instruction courses, we do have a conforming amendment to the fees for those courses, particularly the online course fee in Section 53.50.

Next slide, please.

We have received no public comments on any of the proposals.

Next slide, please?

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motions: Motion 1, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendment to Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 51.80 concerning mandatory hunter education course and instruction -- instructors; and amendment to Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 51.141 concerning sick leave pool; the repeal of Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 51.642 concerning the San Jacinto Historical Advisory Board; and amendment to Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 53.50 concerning training and certification fees; amendments to Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 55.302 and 55.303 concerning boat speed limit and buoy standards; amendments to Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 55.401 and Section 55.402 concerning party boats; and the repeal of Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 55.805; and amendments to Sections 55.802, 55.804, and 55.807 concerning marine safety enforcement, training, and certification standards, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the September 25th, 2020, issue of the Texas Register cited as 45 Tex Reg 6704, 6705, 6706, 6708, 6709, 6711, 6712.

Next slide, please?

Our second motion today: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the completed rule review of Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 51, 52, 55, 60, and 61, as published in the July 17, 2020, issue of the Texas Register cited as 45 Tex Reg 5015, finding that the original reason -- 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.

That completes my presentation. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, James.

No one has signed up to speak. And do I need to make two motions, or can I do this with one motion?

MR. MURPHY: Preference today, sir, just because of the formality of the virtual --

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right.

MR. MURPHY: -- meeting, to go through them separately.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Is there -- is there a motion for approval regarding the first motion presented by Mr. Murphy?

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: So moved, Aplin.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Aplin.

Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Bell, thank you.

All right. I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Is there a motion for approval regarding the second motion presented by Mr. Murphy?

Motion by Commissioner Scott.

Second by...

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Latimer. Commissioner Latimer, thank you.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Or Hildebrand.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

We'll move to Action Item No. 3, Deer Breeder and Other Permitting Rules, Recommend -- Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes. Mr. Mitch Lockwood, please make your presentation.

MR. LOCKWOOD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Mitch Lockwood. I'm the Director of the Big Game Program. This morning I'm seeking adoption of proposed amendments to rules governing the deer breeding, DMP, and Triple T permitting activities, as well as amendments to the comprehensive CWD rules.

Since we discussed these amendments in detail during the Work Session in August and again yesterday, I intend to give an abbreviated presentation today; but certainly I'd be glad to elaborate on anything as you see fit.

Next slide, please?

Beginning with housekeeping amendments, we propose to remove redundancies and inconsistencies with other regulations in statutes and simply reference those more recently adopted or enacted rules and statutes.

Next slide, please?

We proposed clarification to -- of several existing allowances and restrictions, such as requirements for regarding the transfer of deer; legitimate sources of breeder deer; that hybridizing White-tails and Mule deer, possessions of hybrid deer, and cloning of White-tails and Mule deer are not authorized activities; and also clarification regarding the timing of transfer permit activation and the requirements and instances in which a transport manifest should be required.

As I stated yesterday, there were three reasons in the rule proposal or three situations in which a transport manifest may be required. Upon adoption, if adopted, that third instance may be -- may be removed from the language because it states that that would include a single instance of transport that involves stops at multiple destinations; but that actually would require multiple transfer permits.

Next slide, please? We also propose to clarify what we expect to be included with a facility plat and that facility standards apply to nursing and medical facilities as well, in addition to deer breeding facilities, and that those standards should include infrastructure appropriate for the humane treatment of deer.

Next slide, please?

I did share with you again yesterday an instance in which a transfer permit is not required to transfer deer from a deer breeding facility and that's in case of an emergency treatment when a deer may be moved quickly to a veterinary facility. But we did propose that in the event that the deer is actually removed from the trailer for treatment and is housed in a pen or a room or a location in that facility that has housed other species susceptible to CWD, then a transfer permit should be activated prior to transferring that deer back to the breeding facility.

Next slide, please?

If this proposal is adopted, staff do recommend an amendment to the proposal and that, again, is related to the emergency transfer to veterinary facility. After receiving this request from Texas Deer Association and Deer Breeders Corporation, we agree that the rule should be clear that if the deer dies in the veterinary facility, that the mortality should be assigned to the source breeding facility.

Next slide, please?

We also propose that the duration of fawns in a nursing facility be limited to 120 days following the deer's birth. Again, in response to comments and requests from Texas Deer Association and Deer Breeders Corporation, we would recommend -- we do recommend an amendment to this proposal, if adopted, to state that TPWD may authorize fawns to stay in a nursing facility for a period beyond that 120 days under extraordinary circumstances.

Next slide, please?

We also propose that a facility be defined as one or more contiguous enclosures in the aggregate. I did share with you some opposition to this aspect to the proposal yesterday. I believe I focused on the opposing comments regarding the concern for a separate permit fee for each individual facility on a property. I think I failed to mention another common concern that we've heard and that is the potential for additional CWD testing requirements as a result of this.

It is possible that a deer breeder could meet the 80 percent -- the minimum testing requirement of 80 percent of adult mortalities for all disjunct sets of pens on a property without testing any mortalities from one set of pens. And we acknowledge that that is possible and if adopted, this rule -- this rule would actually require testing at each facility; but staff actually believe that's very important, and was the intent all along for each independent herd to have surveillance requirements.

Next slide, please?

We also proposed that mortalities be reported within 14 days of discovery and that CWDs be submitted to a diagnostic lab for CWD testing within 14 days of collection. Clearly, mortality reporting and CWD testing early and often is critical for early detection. I shared with you some opposing comments to this aspect of the proposal yesterday, as well.

Next slide, please?

In attempt to address the concern with deer escapes, we have proposed that in the event deer escape from a permitted deer breeding facility, that the permittee notify the Department not only of the escape, but also the intended actions to recapture the escaped deer and to also notify the Department daily of the efforts to capture the deer until the escaped deer have been recaptured. If they haven't been recaptured after ten days, then those deer would be considered free-ranging deer and not -- not available for recapture.

We also have proposed that the deer breeder provide evidence of facility enhancements to prevent subsequent escapes. And then finally, we also propose that in the event deer escape from a facility with a not-movement qualified status, which typically means there's been inadequate or insufficient CWD surveillance, then that permit holder be issued a disease testing plan for the deer breeding facility and the property to which the deer have escaped, provided that it's under the same ownership, it's contiguous property, and that that testing plan would involve CWD testing requirements of hunter harvested deer and/or potentially some antemortem testing in the permitted deer breeding facility.

Next slide, please?

We also proposed that residency within a deer breeding facility be limited to the White-tailed deer or the Mule deer that are included in the current herd inventory. Again, as we discussed yesterday, in response to a number of comments we've received from stakeholders -- including Texas Deer Association, Deer Breeders Corporation, conversations with some elected officials, including a letter we received from Representative Darby yesterday -- we do -- I do recommend an amendment to this proposal, if it is adopted, to allow other species that are not known to be susceptible to CWD to have access to a deer handling facility that may be included on the plat for a White-tailed deer or Mule deer breeding facility. I believe that addresses most of the concerns with that aspect of the proposal.

Next slide, please?

We also propose that White-tailed deer and Mule deer be transferred only to counties that have an open season for the species. In other words, within the historic or native range of the species.

Next slide, please?

And we also propose to change the title of the person who is required or who may inspect new or prospective deer breeding pens and facilities and that would be an authorized pen inspector. And then we propose to codify the required qualifications of those pen inspectors, which include education and experience requirements and also evidence that there's -- there haven't been issues of noncompliance with -- with deer breeding regulations or statutes.

Next slide, please?

Now, moving on to some proposed amendments to the deer breeding rules.

Next slide, please?

We propose to remove the language in the disease detection section of the DMP rules and simply reference the comprehensive CWD rules.

Next slide, please? And hit enter one more time, please?

We also propose to remove some gross errors in the DMP regulations and remove some terms. Remove the term "wild" and "private property" from those rules and clarify that all deer in the State of Texas -- or since all deer in the State of Texas are wild and are a public resource belonging to the people of the State of Texas, that deer that are released from the DMP facility are free-ranging deer.

Next slide, please?

And moving into some Triple T rule amendments.

Slide, please?

We propose to, again, remove the language that is currently in the disease detection section of the DMP rules and reference, once again, the comprehensive CWD rules, to make some amendments to the Triple T rules to address Triple T of game birds, and to allow aggregate acreages to apply as a trap site or release site, and then we also propose some language regarding permit denial, which is similar to the permit denial language for other deer permitting activities; but, again, we also propose to include in the factors that could be considered for permit denial with regard to violations of Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 43. We propose to include violations of Subchapters F, G, and H as grounds for permit denial, which are the subchapters that are governing aerial wildlife management, depredation permits, and private bird hunting areas.

Next slide, please?

I do have an update to this slide on public comment. I received a few more comments last night and even this morning. The count now is there's seven supporting comments and nine opposing comments. I shared a good bit of the reason for those opposing comments yesterday. The supporting comments that come from -- I should say the supporting comments have come from Texas Wildlife Association, Humane Society, Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Texas Foundation for Conservation, and we received a letter from Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Association this morning stating they've long supported our efforts to limit the spread of CWD and that these rules are another step in the ongoing battle to prevent the devastation we lose associated with CWD and they also recommend that the Department continue to work very closely with private landowners to control this disease. We certainly agree. There's no way we could be successful in this effort without the support of the private landowners.

There was some of the -- in addition to some of the comments I shared with you yesterday, one of the opposing comments was that TPWD has no business regulating deer breeding activities. I think the two themes really, the more common themes for opposition, have to do with the definition of a facility being contiguous pens and considering disjunct sets of pens in separate facilities and then also the opposition regarding facility residency being limited to White-tailed deer and Mule deer; but I do believe we've addressed that concern by allowing for other species to have access to essential working facility that's included in the deer breeder's plat.

Next slide, please?

So with that, staff recommends the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to 31 TAC 65.101 through 65.103, 65.107, 65.109, 65.111, and 65.115 concerning permits to Trap, Transport, and Transplant game animals and game birds; and amendment to 31 TAC 65.133 concerning deer management permit; the repeal of 31 TAC 65.604; amendment to 31 TAC 65.601 through 65.603, 65.605, and 65.610 through 65.612 and new 65.604 concerning deer breeders permits; and 31 TAC 65.92 concerning CWD testing, with changes as necessary and as we discussed again this morning to the proposed text as published in the October 2nd, 2020, issue of the Texas Register.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'll be glad to entertain any questions that you might have.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right. Thank you very much. Any discussion --

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Hey, Reed?

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yeah. Mitch, I have -- and this is Commissioner Scott. I have a question I just want to be on the record as understanding clearly. It is my understanding and I understand why we want the separate raising pens for different animals that are CWD susceptible, but my understanding from numerous of y'all is that once they are released, after maturity as determined by the breeder, when they're released to the wild to be hunted, then there is no separation rules going to be applied. Is that accurate?

MR. LOCKWOOD: That is correct, Commissioner. There's -- this proposal would not have any impact on the different species that might be present or allowed to be released onto a release site.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you. Any other Commissioners' comments?

We have one speaker signed up. Mr. John Shepperd with Texas Foundation for Conservation.

Okay. Mr. Shepperd?

MR. MONTEMAYOR: Mr. Shepperd, are you ready to speak?

MR. JOHN SHEPPERD: Oh. Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Yes. All right.

MR. JOHN SHEPPERD: Okay, there we go. Thank you, sir. For the record, my name is John Shepperd. I work for the Texas Foundation for Conservation, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about the proposed rule changes related to the deer breeding industry. We did submit written comments, which I will not repeat here; but I do want to mention some other considerations.

I'm as perplexed as anyone as how more than 10,000 deer can disappear from breeding pens over a period of years and so since the simplest explanation is most likely the right one and, in this case, the simplest explanation is some deer breeders are poor record keepers, either by accident or perhaps by design. Hopefully, these new rules will help to hold them accountable.

As Commissioner Hildebrand expressed during the, I think, it was the last Commission Meeting, in any industry the bad players actually harm the guys who are working and operating within the rules. So regarding the changes to the CWD testing protocols, the proposal as I understand it, would allow to 14 days for a deer breeder to report fatalities and submit samples for CWD testing. And I'm guessing it takes the lab several more days to process the sample and get a definitive result. So as I understand the proposal, the deer breeder would then have two to three weeks to operate normally while waiting on test results and a lot can happen in two to three weeks. A lot of deer can be transferred in and out of that facility. And so I suggest that the Commission might explore a variable approach to incentivize the good clients in the industry and, for example, Tier 1 facilities may have the full 14 days to report deaths and submit samples; but Tier 2 and Tier 3 facilities only have seven days since they represent a higher risk category.

And this gives the lower tier facilities

another incentive to level up and perhaps there's some other areas in the existing rules in which the good players could be incentivized.

Finally -- excuse me -- the preamble to the propose -- proposed rules, the refers to the persistence of CWD in the environment and we know that prions are shed in feces and urine and can survive in soil and water. At some point, I hope the Agency will look at this prion reservoir as a potential disease vector. Larger breeding facilities and several hundred animals, ofter have some sort of flood mitigation infrastructure to prevent or minimize runoff in the event of a large rainfall. You see these protections in livestock operations to minimize runoff into public waters and these precautions would be appropriate for deer breeders, as well.

I do appreciate that these rules focus on disease traceability and containing the spread of the disease from breeding pens. And I am happen to answer any questions if you have some.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Mr. Shepperd, thank you for your comments and all the work you do.

Anybody have any comments? Suggestions?

All right. Well, thank you very much.

With that, I'll move on to a motion for approval. Do I have a motion?

Commissioner Bell just moved. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Yes. I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Do I -- do I have a second?

Is that Commissioner Abell?

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right. I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Scott is yes.

Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to Action Item No. 4, Statewide Oyster Fishery Proclamation, Temporary Closure of Oyster Restoration Areas in Galveston Bay and Aransas Bay, Recommend Adoption of Proposed Changes. Ms. Emma Clarkson, please make your presentation.

MS. CLARKSON: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners. My name is Emma Clarkson. I'm the Team Lead for the Habitat Assessment Team in the Coastal Fisheries Division. Today I will be presenting a recommendation to adopt an amendment to temporarily close six oyster restoration sites until November 2022.

Next slide, please?

So the Natural Resource Code TPWD Chapter 76 grants the Commission the authority to close an area that is being reseeded or restocked. Multiple reefs across the coast are being planted with cultch material or material such as limestone, river rock, shale. It's any material that oyster larvae can settle on and these materials restore degraded and lost substrates.

A two-year closure gives the oyster larvae that recruit to that fresh cultch the opportunity to grow to harvestable size and repopulate the reef. In the past, restoration efforts have been funded primarily by grants; but the conservation measures of the Shell Recovery Program of Senate Bill 391, which was the 82nd Legislative Session in 2011, and the Dealer Cultch Recovery Program of House Bill 51, which was the 85th Legislative Session in 2017, have led to a more stable source of funding for oyster restoration and we expect this to result in continued large-scale, long-term oyster restoration activities in the future.

To date, the Coastal Fisheries Division has restored 420 acres of oyster reef in Galveston Bay, 25 acres in Sabine Lake, 17 acres in Matagorda Bay, and 30 acres in Aransas Bay using cultch planting techniques. Over 18,000 cubic yards of cultch have been placed as a result of House Bill 51 alone.

Next slide, please?

In 2020, this year, six reefs are being restored using this cultch planting method, including five in Galveston Bay and one in Aransas Bay. Funding for these restoration projects was generated from a mixture of sources, including the Shell Recovery Tag Program and the Dealer Shell Recovery Program, as well as various grants including the National Marine Fisheries Hurricane Harvey Disaster Relief Grant and the Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund. Over three and a half million dollars are been invested into the restoration of these reefs.

The temporary closure is requested only for the exact footprint of the restoration site and not the entire reef on which the restoration occurs. A total of 175.9 acres would be temporarily closed, including 95.9 acres in Galveston Bay and 80 acres in Aransas Bay.

Next slide, please?

This map shows the location and acreage of the proposed temporary closure areas in Galveston Bay. So as you see, the dark -- the dark area is the land form and the light gray is natural oyster reef and you can see Pepper Grove is kind of off in East Bay -- East Galveston Bay. There's three -- the Sanctuary Reefs and the Harvestable Reefs are in the Upper Trinity area near the north end of Galveston Bay and Resignation Reef is just west of the Houston Ship Channel.

Next slide, please?

This map shows the location and acreage of the proposed temporary closure area in Aransas Bay. So Grass Island Reef, again, is on that light gray, that natural oyster reef and that's directly east of Fulton and kind of southwest of Goose Island State Park in Aransas Bay.

Next slide, please?

The amendment that we proposed in August was to temporarily close five oyster restoration areas in Galveston Bay and one oyster restoration in Aransas Bay and to rename one closure area in Galveston Bay from South Redfish Reef to Pasadena Reef. That reef mis -- renaming is a housekeeping issue. The misnomer was a clerical error when it was published last year. The coordinates were published correctly in the Register. It was just the name that was mispublished. The restoration -- the restoration area on Pasadena Reef is currently temporarily closed until November 2021, per last year, and we want to avoid confusion with another reef named South Redfish Reef that's currently open for harvest. So this proposed amendment was published in the September 25th issue of the Texas Register.

Next slide, please?

Five -- actually as of this morning, we got one more -- so six public comments were received during the comment period in support of the proposed temporary closure. One of these comments was on behalf of CCA Texas, one was from the Nature Conservancy Texas, and one was from the Pew Charitable Trust, and this morning we got a letter of support from the Galveston Bay Foundation.

Next slide, please.

Staff recommends that the Commission adopts the regulation changes as published in the September 25th issue of the Texas Register for the temporary closure of these oyster restoration reefs. Thank you for your time, and I will take any questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you for your presentation.

Is there any discussion amongst the Commissioners? Questions?

There's no one signed up to speak on -- did someone -- in that case, I'd entertain a motion for approval.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So moved.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Scott. Seconded by Commissioner --

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell seconded.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: -- Bell. Thank you.

I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

We'll move on to Action Item No. 5, Exotic Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants and Fee Rules, Recommended Adoption of Proposed Change. Ms. McGarrity, please make your presentation.

MS. MCGARRITY: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Monica McGarrity and I'm the Senior Scientist for Aquatic Invasive Species Management in the Inland Fisheries Division. Today I'll be presenting on proposed amendments to the exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants rules and the associated fee rules.

Next slide, please?

Today I'll give a brief review of the proposed rule changes presented to the Commission in August and a summary of public outreach and public comments received.

Next slide, please?

These changes to the exotic species rules were proposed to improve organization and accessibility and address changing needs of the regulated community, recent introductions, and potential threats. The proposed rules also updated the permit's fee structure to accommodate key changes.

Next slide, please?

Seven species were proposed for addition to the controlled exotic species list. Four fishes and two shellfish were added proactively. These species are not yet present in the state and some are not present in the U.S. Two plant species were proposed for addition that have been introduced in Texas and become problematic, requiring active management.

Next slide, please?

We've proposed several changes to the rules pertaining to aquaculture of exotic species, including the creation of multiyear permit renewal, elimination of the reporting requirement for Tilapia, allowance for culture of an additional Tilapia species, and elimination of the permit requirement for noncommercial home aquaponics.

Next slide, please?

We also proposed to create a new permit for sellers of Tilapia and Triploid Grass carp for pond stocking who do not culture the fish, along with an allowance for all species of Tilapia used in aquaculture to be stocked. We proposed a zonal strategy to protect against the impacts of escapes of stocked Tilapia on imperiled fishes, with Department approval for stocking required in a designated conservation zone. In the remainder of the state, the stocking zone where there's high economic importance of the Tilapia pond stocking trade, such approval would not be required and we also propose fast-tracking the permits for ten or fewer Triploid Grass carp in this zone.

Next slide, please?

We also propose changes to the rules regarding possession of controlled exotic species to allow fish and shellfish other than oysters to be possessed if killed by several additional means and to allow landowners to possess exotic plants, Zebra mussels, and Apple snails removed from shorefront property for the purposes of disposal without a permit.

Next slide, please?

Additional proposed changes clarified rules related to disposition of unlawfully possessed exotic species, established a new permit for biological control production, and created an exemption opportunity for partners actively engaged in Department-led efforts to monitor or manage exotic species.

Next slide, please?

Proposed changes to the fees' rules would establish fees for the two new permits and update aquaculture permit fees to accommodate the new multiyear renewals and the five-year inspection interval.

Next slide, please?

Early in the rule revision process, we obtained feedback from the Texas Aquaculture Association. Following the August Commission Meeting, we conducted additional outreach, including a presentation to the Texas Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee. We also sent e-mails to exotic species permit holders and Zebra mussel and conservation partners that summarized key changes of relevance to them and invited public comment.

Next slide, please?

We received seven public comments with six in agreement. Three of these individuals specifically supported rule revisions that make it easier for pond owners in West Texas to purchase Triploid Grass carp from out-of-state sellers, as Texas sources are not available in their area. One commenter disagreed with the proposed rule changes.

Next slide, please?

Specifically this individual, a longstanding aquaculture permit holder, disagreed with the proposed changes to the permit fees to include a prorated inspection fee, while agreeing on other streamlining measures. The proposed fee changes are related to the need to inspect these aquaculture facilities more frequently. While this individual has remained in good standing during the course of the permit without violations, staff have encountered other instances where facilities were found to be in violation of regulatory standards for preventing escape and many facilities have not been reinspected in some time. We believe that the need for inspections is justified for the permitting program to be effective and that a five-year interval is a balanced approach to ensuring compliance and a standard that must be applied equitably to all permit holders for these prevention purposes.

The proposed rule changes prorate the current inspection fee to account for the five-year inspection interval to aid in recovering cost to the Department of staff time and travel. For a longstanding permit holder eligible for a five-year renewal permit, the increased cost per year would be $25.60.

Next slide, please?

At this point, I'll pause my presentation for any questions or comment.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, Ms. McGarrity.

Are there any questions?

Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion. There's no one signed up to speak, so --

MS. MCGARRITY: Next slide, please?

I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I got ahead of you.

MS. MCGARRITY: I paused for a second for this.

Staff recommend that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt Sections 57.111 through 57.128 concerning the exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants rules and Section 53.15 concerning miscellaneous fisheries and wildlife licenses and permit fees, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the September 25th, 2020, issue of the Texas Register cited as 6707 and 6714. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you.

Okay. No one has signed up to speak. There have been no questions. So I'll ask for a motion.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: So moved.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Abell. Seconded by Commissioner Scott.

Voting will occur by roll call. I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the hearing -- the motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to Action Item No. 6, Grant of Pipeline Easement, Brazoria County, Approximately 30 acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area, Mr. Hollingsworth.

MS. CLARKSON: Ted, you're muted.

MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I'm not technologically really literate, but I -- I am now Ted Hollingsworth. I am with the Land Conservation Program. Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

This first item that I'm bringing to you this morning, you've seen both in May and August. It is brought to you as the result of a request for a pipeline easement at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area.

Next slide, please?

That area is in Southeast Texas.

Next slide.

About 70 miles south of Houston and just a couple miles south of Freeport, across the Freeport Ship Channel from the City of Freeport.

Next slide.

As all of you know, the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area is approaching 16,000 acres. To the -- to the east of the area is a lot of heavy industry, including a unit of strategic petroleum reserve and commerce and industry associated with the Freeport -- the Channel of Freeport and the Port of Freeport and due north of the wildlife management area are the communities of Jones Creek, Lake Jackson, and Clute.

Next slide.

You've seen this slide. I won't go into a lot of detail, but the Justin Hurst was named after a Game Warden killed in the line of duty in 2007. Just a really, really, really significant conservation asset for the Department. A wide variety of wetland habitats, including intermediate and brackish and freshwater marshes, ponds, creeks, prairie, coastal wildlife -- I'm sorry -- coastal Live Oak forest habitat, and it is just a very, very significant natural resource asset for the Agency and attracts -- attracts birdwatchers, wildlife watchers. Attracts a lot of hunters, especially waterfowl hunters.

Next slide, please?

The applicant is Sentinel, requesting permits on behalf of their subsidiary GulfLink that would result in them installing a 36-inch and a 42-inch pipeline across almost four miles of the wildlife management area. Ultimately, their project is to -- intended to construct an offshore crude oil export terminal and the pipelines would take oil back and forth from a tank battery north of the wildlife management area and the strategic petroleum reserve just east of the wildlife management area.

Next slide.

The status is that the draft environmental impact statement should be published shortly, initiating a public comment period. MARAD, the Maritime Administration, is wrapping up their review of the project and I believe will declare the applicant administratively -- administratively complete shortly. The General Land Office is also working on their reviews of the pipeline routes and the Coast Guard also has to review and approve portions of the project.

Next slide.

This is the route that you're being request to authorize an easement for this morning. This route is a compromise of earlier proposals from the applicant. You'll notice in the left -- I'm sorry -- the northeast/northwest quadrant of the WMA, that the pipeline leaves the WMA and reenters the WMA. That's the result of your insistence and the insistence of staff that that pipeline take the shortest possible taking of the wildlife management area. That -- that diversion right there saved about 1.6 miles of impact to the WMA itself. In addition, the Commission insisted and the company has agreed that all -- all segments, all reaches of the pipeline on the WMA will be directionally drilled so that there is no surface expression, further minimizing those impacts in compliance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code.

Next slide.

We have received no comments on this item.

Next slide.

And the staff does recommend that the Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt the following motion: The Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A. And I would be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, Ted.

Are there any questions?

No one has signed up to speak. So I'll entertain a motion for approval.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So moved.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Motion by Commissioner Scott.

Seconded by...

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell seconds.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Bell, thank you.

I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Moving on to Action Item No. 7, Acquisition of Land, Presidio County, Approximately 60 Acres at Chinati Mountains State Natural Area, Mr. Hollingsworth.

MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. My name is Ted Hollingsworth, for the record. I'm with the Land Conservation Program. This item involves a purchase of an inholding at the Chinati Mountains State Natural Area.

Next slide.

This area is extremely remote. One of our most wilderness sites. It's in southwest Presidio County.

Next slide.

About 40 miles southwest of Marfa and about a dozen miles west of Big Bend Ranch State Park.

Next slide.

The state natural area consists of almost 40,000 acres. The core of the state natural area was donated in 1996. Again, it is very remote. It is very much a wilderness experience. Equaling that, I would argue, of Big Bend Ranch State Park. It is a designated dark sky site. It is very dramatic in terms of its topography ranging from about 2,700 feet above sea level to over 7,200 feet in the northeast corner of the state natural area. It does include some live springs, some live water. Tremendous, tremendous wildlife asset and, again, for -- for our visitors who truly, truly want a unique wilderness experience, want some real estate all to themselves for a while, this is -- this is quite the destination.

Next slide.

You can see in the picture the Chinati Mountain Range, which is a delightful range. It's a -- it's a very -- it's not connected to other ranges. It's sort of a standalone, what they call a "sky island range" in West Texas. The subject tract is an inholding very near the dead center of that state natural area. It includes the intersection of two trails or roads, of which there are very few. So it's significant in that respect. It also is the site of the historic of the Burney mine, which back in the -- primarily in the 70s and 80s, produced is zinc and copper primarily and also a small amount of silver and gold.

The owner of that inholding has known of our interest for a long time. He's also a fan of the state natural area and contacted us recently indicating that he was ready to sell at a fair market value.

Next slide.

Again, if you can make out that little red polygon in the center of the state natural area, it is centrally located and has long been a goal of ours to plug that inholding.

Next slide.

You can see from this sort of bird's eye view that the state natural area itself encompasses most of that -- of that mountain range and you can also see that the subject tract is right in the center of that and if you can see the picture in the -- in the -- at the bottom of that slide, you can see that that 61-acre tract straddles the side of that central peak in the state natural area.

Next slide.

We've actually received one comment at this point opposed to the acquisition with no explanation.

Next slide.

And staff recommends that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorize the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 60 acres of land within the Chinati Mountains State Natural Area in Presidio County. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?

No questions. We have no one signed up to speak. So I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Motion from Commissioner Scott. Seconded by Commissioner --

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: -- Bell. Thank you.

I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Not hearing any opposition, the motion carries.

Move on to Action Item No. 8, Acquisition of Land, Galveston County, Approximately 3.7 Acres at Galveston Island State Park. Mr. Ted Hollingsworth, please make your presentation.

MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Chairman, Commissioners, again for the record, my name is Ted Hollingsworth with the Land Conservation Program. This is another item that we're particularly pleased to be bringing to you. Although it is a small tract of land, it is an inholding completely surrounded by state park.

Next slide.

Galveston Island State Park, as the name implies, is on Galveston Island. It actually straddles the island from the Gulf all the way to the bay.

Next slide.

It is easily the largest remaining open space on the island and as such, is a very, very popular respite location for not just folks of the island, but folks throughout the Galveston -- throughout the Houston area, in part because it includes 1.6 miles of beach and under a coastal lease with the General Land Office, we're able to close that beach off to vehicular traffic, making it very, very, very popular for families that want a safe place to be able to play in the surf with their children and collect seashells and do such things. It's also very significant for its natural resource values.

Next slide.

It is the northernmost example of what's called a strand prairie, which is a tall-grass prairie unique to the barrier island and barrier peninsula system of Texas. And beyond that, there are lagoons. There are bayous. There are emergent marshes. There are ponds. There are trees. Just a magnet for wildlife and, quite frankly, an island for -- an island for wildlife on the island. Very, very popular destination for birdwatchers and, of course, for folks who are interested in a safe beach experience, attracting about 150 visitors -- 150,000 visitors a year.

Next slide, please?

Five years ago, we acquired 47 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to the park across Stewart Road; but otherwise adjacent to the park. It was acquired as mitigation for some development taking place near by, but it is undeveloped and we have worked with the donor to restore emergent marsh and other wetland habitats to that 47 acres. But that 47 acres wraps around a 3.7-acre lot with frontage on Stewart Road. It is commercial property. We have been -- we've been trying to acquire that tract for -- since at least 2015, we've been attempting to acquire that tract. Recently the owner approached us and made us an offer on the property that we feel like is at or below fair market value.

Next slide.

You can see from this picture, the park is outlined in yellow. That little red square is the subject tract and even though it's not really obvious here, as you drive down Stewart Road and you cross that reach of park, you do get that sense of open space that would certainly be very much compromised if somebody were to acquire that tract and put a commercial establishment on it or build homes on it or otherwise develop it. So this is really going to preserve that to open the green sense, the green space sense of the east end of the park. We're very -- again, very excited about the option, the opportunity to plug that hole.

Next slide.

Again, to update this slide, we have received one comment opposed to the acquisition; but with no further explanation.

Next slide.

Staff does recommend that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorize the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 3.7 acres of land at Galveston Island State Park in Galveston County. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, Ted.

Any questions?

No one has signed up to speak. So I'll entertain a motion for approval.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell moves on --

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Bell.

COMMISSIONER BELL: -- the motion as presented.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you.

Seconded by Commissioner Scott.

I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Move on to Action Item No. 9, Acquisition of Land, Marion County, Approximately 745 Acres at Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area. Mr. Ted Hollingsworth, please make your presentation.

MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, my name is Ted Hollingsworth and I'm with the Land Conservation Program. This item is again very exciting for us. It's always -- it's just -- quite frankly, it's a thrill to be able to add a significant tract of high-value conservation property to any of our sites. This -- this particular acquisition --

Next slide, please?

This particular acquisition will be at the Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area in far Northeast Texas in Marion County.

Next slide.

Again, just adjacent to Caddo Lake State Park and not very far from Louisiana.

Next slide.

The Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area, as you can see, is over 8,100 acres. It sort of wraps around and actually takes in a significant part of Caddo Lake. Caddo Lake State Park is on the south side of the lake. The wildlife management area encompasses the acreage that we own on the north side of the lake.

Next -- next slide.

The wildlife management area actually started out as the state park. The land -- land originally acquired for that -- for those sites was acquired in the 1930s. The state park was developed by the Civilian Conservation Corps. Over the years, with a lot of help from partners interested in preserving East Texas and preserving Caddo Lake, in particular, the state park grew so large that it was not -- it was -- it was difficult to manage all of that land as a state park. So in 1997, the land north of Big Cypress Bayou/Caddo Lake was designated wildlife management area and has been managed as a wildlife management area by the Wildlife Division since that time and now consists of over 8,100 acres: Open water, swamps, floodplains, adjacent forests, variety of forest communities, very popular destination for fishing, waterfowl hunting, deer hunting, and nature watching and for paddlers and others who just enjoy that really unique experience on Caddo Lake.

Next slide.

I'll just go over this very briefly. We brought this to you last November. The fact that the Natural Damage -- Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees were distributing funds for or making grant awards of funds that were settlement for damages from Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation who had a wood-treating facility in Texarkana that resulted in many discharges into a local creek and ultimately the Trustees negotiated a settlement and distributed approximately $20 million to several projects in Northeast Texas in an effort to offset those impacts caused by those discharges.

One of the projects that was selected was approximately $6 million to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to expand the wildlife management area and state park, to add lands that, again, preserve that bottomland forest, riparian habitat ecosystem.

Next slide.

I won't go into a lot of detail here. As you know, the intention of the Trustees and of the staff is to add as much land as possible to the wildlife management area and/or the state park that does preserve those bottomland habitats, including open water, including swamps, emergent marshes, swale wetlands, isolated wetlands, springs and bogs and then, of course, the associated transitional and upland habitats that make up that entire ecosystem.

Next slide.

Last November this tract was included in the map we showed you that included our priorities for acquisition. This particular tract being the highest priority because of its landscape position, because of its adjacency to the wildlife management area, because of the quality of those habitats, because we had a willing seller there at fair market value, and because of the size of the tract. There are not a lot of really large tracts adjacent to the state park and the wildlife management area and this one, again, was our highest priority and we're very pleased that we had a willing seller at fair market value.

Next slide.

We did contract with the Nature Conservancy to negotiate that contract for the purchase of that land and to help us with the due diligence and closing efforts there. We've also -- they were also retained to -- to make contact to other adjacent landowners that have tracts that we consider priorities for acquisition. We did that because the Land Conservation Program just simply did not have the staff capacity to go out and make all those calls and contacts and negotiate those contracts and assist with the due diligence and closing process. The Nature Conservancy has done a wonderful job bringing this one to the table. We look forward to working with them to bring additional transactions to the table until we've used up that $5.9 million grant.

The grant does allow us to acquire both fee acquisitions and conservation easements. In today's request, we're not only asking that you approve our acquisition of the 745-acre tract, but that you give us permission to move forward with any other tracts that are contiguous to the state park or the wildlife management area and that meet those habitat criteria and meet the approval of the Trustees and the -- and the staff of the Department.

Next slide.

We have actually had three comments now. One in support, two in opposition. One of those in opposition did not add any information. The other one said that -- said that they needed more information.

Next slide, please?

With that, the staff does recommend that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorize the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 745 acres of land for addition to Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area and additional tracts as grant funds permit for addition to Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area and Caddo Lake State Park in Marion and Harrison Counties. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you, Ted.

Any questions by Commission?

We have one speaker who has signed up, Mr. Donny Lynch, who is against the acquisition.

Mr. Lynch, would you please give us your comments?

AT&T OPERATOR: Donny Lynch is not on the line at this time.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Okay. Should he call in, just let us know.

With that, I'll take a motion for approval.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Commissioner Bell moves we approve.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Commissioner Bell, thank you.

Seconded by Commissioner Abell.

With that, we'll do the roll call again. I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing -- hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Action Item No. 10, Acquisition of Land, Bastrop County, Approximately 44 Acres at Bastrop State Park. Mr. Trey Vick, please make your presentation.

I think your mute -- yeah.

MR. VICK: All right. I'll start again. Good morning. For the record, my name's Trey Vick. I'm here to present an acquisition of land in Bastrop County, approximately 44 acres at Bastrop State Park.

Next slide, please?

Like I mentioned, Bastrop State Park is in Bastrop County.

Next slide, please?

Bastrop State Park sits approximately 32 miles southeast of Austin.

Next slide, please?

Bastrop State Park consists of 7,200 acres in central Bastrop County. The state acquired the park in the early 30s. It was a Civilian Conservation Corps park. Today the park is a very popular Central Texas destination for hiking, biking, birding, camping.

Next slide, please?

Staff has negotiated the option to purchase an approximately 44-acre tract adjacent to the park boundary. This proposed acquisition would add critical Houston toad habitat, protect the park's viewshed, and would expand recreational opportunities for the park such hiking, biking, birding, fishing, and camping.

Next slide, please?

Here's a map of the overall park outlined in red. The 44-acre acquisition is outlined in yellow.

Next slide, please?

Here's an up-close view of the park -- of the acquisition.

Next slide, please?

We've received one comment in opposition. There was no reason left. It was just a comment in opposition check.

Next slide, please?

Staff recommends that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 44 acres of land for addition to the Bastrop State Park in Bastrop County. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you for your presentation.

Any questions by the Commission?

No one has signed up to speak. So without any other comments or questions, we'll entertain a motion for approval.

Motion by Commissioner Scott. Thank you.

Second by --

COMMISSIONER BELL: Second from Commissioner Bell.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Bell, thank you.

I vote yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN APLIN, III: Aplin yes.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell yes.

COMMISSIONER BELL: Bell yes.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo yes.

COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand yes.

COMMISSIONER LATIMER: Latimer yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton yes.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott yes.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.

Now, we'll move on --

MR. VICK: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you.

Now, we'll move on to Briefing Item No. 11, Update on Dove Hunting Regulation Enforcement, Mr. Stormy King.

MR. KING: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Stormy King, Assistant Commander of Wildlife Enforcement for the Law Enforcement Division.

Next slide, please?

Today we'll be here to provide an overview of the state of dove hunting and dove regulation enforcement in Texas and I'll begin with a quick reference to the Federal Harvest Information Program or HIP survey information. They make it quite clear that data on harvest and harvest numbers in Texas make up a significant portion of the nationwide totals of Mourning dove hunters and take. You'll see an average of around 30 percent per year of the national take and hunter participation.

Next slide.

Federal survey data continues to show an overwhelming majority, anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of harvest and participation, of White-winged dove in the U.S. occurring in Texas, as well. The information in this and the preceding slide substantiates the popularity and importance of dove hunting to participation and the economic impact of the sport. A 2006 study contracted by TPWD indicated the total economic impact of dove hunting in Texas to be in excess of $315 million annually. Adjusted only for inflation, that's over $400 million in today's -- in today's dollars.

Even at these substantial levels, there's some suspicion that modeling used at that time failed to capture the economic impacts in their entirety. So it's quite clear that dove hunting in Texas is quite a large economic contributor. Surprisingly, hunter participation rates at the time of this study were strikingly similar to numbers of hunters estimated during portions of the period covered here and we have not consistently seen this number increase as a percentage of a growing population.

Next slide.

Here you'll see estimated dove population data compiled by Wildlife staff over the past several years. The surveys provided in these estimates by staff are conducted annually from May 15th to June 5th -- June 15th. You'll see a noticeable spike in Mourning dove for the period of 2015 through '17, and we'll discuss this in greater depth throughout this presentation; but it's important to note from the onset, that this spike is considered to be due to natural climatic and habitat conditions that the levels in years prior and since are more typical of normal conditions and that this variance is not considered to be the result of hunter harvest or management practice.

You'll also notice that throughout the entirety of the evaluated period, White-wing population estimates portray a general and consistent incline. The last few years represented on this graph for White-wing are preliminary estimates dues to challenges posed to modeling by the changes to habitat that accompany the rapid urbanization we're experiencing in Texas. Interesting -- interestingly, we see White-wing becoming more and more concentrated in urban areas throughout much of the state. So numbers continue to rise as the state becomes more urban, which may seem contrary to conventional thought in some cases.

Next slide.

A recurring theme that will appear throughout this presentation is the effect of that anomalous increase in dove populations over a two-year span at the beginning of the evaluation period. It is interesting to note that the apparent effects of this spike in dove populations can have on participation and enforcement trends. Downward trends seen here are indicative of return to normal conditions following ideal habitat and environmentally condition years. It is also logical to assume that -- excuse me. It's logical to assume that independent of these observed trends, that Hurricane Harvey also figured significantly into the equation due to its impact on hunter opportunity and participation, as well as enforcement efforts during that 2017-18 hunting season.

It appears possible that this disengagement, so to speak, may have bled over into subsequent years; but I'm not aware of any research to support that. We have yet to assess what effects the COVID-19 pandemic may have on this year's season or those to come; but there has been a noticeable -- to this year-to-date -- decrease, at least, in the number of citations. So I would suspect that would be probably be accompanying a lower participation rate.

Next slide.

Seen here, harvest estimates based on responses to the Wildlife Division's annual Texas small game survey, harvest estimates more or less parallel both population and hunter participation trends, you'll -- as you can tell from the graphic there.

Next slide.

I've attempted here to construct a scaled visual representing how some of these numbers correlate. I've also begun to introduce the enforcement aspect of this presentation. For instance, you may see the number of Texas dove hunters represented by the orange bar here to be around 450,000 for 200 -- for 2016, indicated by various surveys to be comparatively higher in years that we estimate large populations of birds represented by the green line here at nearly 50 million combined White-wing and Mourning dove population in that same period.

It is appropriate to again mention the atypical spike in Mourning dove abundance. You'll also notice the citation numbers represented by the blue bar do not always react directly to either hunter numbers or dove population and I'll attempt to provide more detail on this.

Next slide.

These citations include the most common violations encountered, combining both Mourning dove and White-wing. You'll notice significant variation in these numbers from year to year. While the granularity of detail we can glean on each specific case from our citation data is limited, I believe we can articulate the logic behind some of these trends. For instance, the rate at which we encounter violations related to things such as illegal shotguns and migratory bird stamp endorsement violations is likely directed -- directly related to how many hunters, especially novice or first-time hunters, we check in the field.

You see the numbers of these violations cited to be higher in the years with the most hunters. In turn, the high hunter numbers and the participation of more new hunters can likely be attributed to greater abundance, which provides more and better hunter opportunity. Conversely, you'll see a general increase in incidents of baiting violations in more normal or lower population years with relatively fewer birds than hunters. One could theoretically attribute this increase in baiting violations to hunters or outfitters competing for relatively fewer birds or simply trying to increase opportunity at their respective hunting sites in the absence of an overabundance of birds.

It's interesting -- interesting to note that citation data indicates that although our dove seasons in Texas run from September 1st into January, with the closure in parts of November, December, the great majority of citations and harvest -- up to 85 percent -- occurred and are issued during the first three weeks of the season. While this may seem skewed, it tracks well with observed behaviors of hunters as historically overwhelming majority of dove harvest occurs in this timeframe, as attention to turns to waterfowl and deer hunting as we move into October and beyond.

While dove hunting is truly the kickoff of the hunting year, survey data shows the average time spent annually in the field pursuing dove to be only four days per hunter. This is important in that due to high conservation of hunting -- hunting activity into a small timeframe, the percentage of hunters that can be inspected by Law Enforcement may be effectively reduced.

Next slide.

In order to evaluate our enforcement efforts, I found it interesting to focus on violations related to hunter behavior as opposed to those that can likely be attributed solely to higher participation rates. We've already touched on the fact there's possibly contributing to the rates of baiting-related violations. This leads to a deeper look at the most common violations -- excuse me -- not directly reflective of hunter numbers or dove abundance.

The most encountered violations of that category are those related to take or possession in excess of legal limits. The graph here shows that these violations appear to be less dependent on the population numbers and perhaps vary based on other factors. These limit cases occur in a few ways. One, the hunter we encounter has simply lost count and went a bird or two over; two, the hunter who was either in the birds or the beverages or both and just couldn't help him or herself and consciously chose to disregard the limits; those who hide birds while in the field hunting; and finally, those who may set out with the intention and a plan either on their own or in cooperation with a guide or an outfitter to secret a portion of their take, a limit taken during a morning hunt, for example, and return and take another limit later in the day, a practice commonly referred to as "double-dipping." We'll focus here today, is this scenario possibly represents the highest per hunter number of birds taken in excess of legal limits.

Next slide.

We encounter some hunters who simply don't understand or profess to be confused about the regulations. This is typically conveyed as, "I thought the limit was 15 in the morning and 15 in the afternoon."

There's no reason to believe with the long existence of this limit structure that there's a lack of understanding among a significant portion of the hunting public, but I'm sure there are some exceptions. Offloading morning birds during the midday break is a common scenario we see when we encounter cases of double-dipping. Game Wardens typically discover such violations through informal tracking methods or by interviews or other investigative techniques.

A notable example of this is a case from last year in Willacy County in which eight hunters stashed 140 birds from their morning hunt at their hotel and were checked in the afternoon and were fund to be in possession of second bag limits while in the field. Some creative tracking methods and communication among the Wardens in the area led to an informed questioning of the hunters, which led to admissions and criminal charges being filed. In all, these eight hunters had exceeded their collected bag limit by 20 birds even before their afternoon hunt. Assuming each intended to take no more than a second a legal bag in the afternoon, which is entirely possible when the shooting is good, the hypothetical outcome in a case such as this would be the take in excess of legal limits of 140 birds in one day by this one group of eight hunters.

Another scenario we sometimes encounter in extreme cases of facilitation of bag limit violations by outfitters, we see them collecting and transporting harvested birds out of the field throughout the hunt. This allows paying hunters to continue hunting without fear of being found in violation by inspecting Wardens. Thankfully, this is not all that common due in part the outfitter's desire to not overshoot their fields; but they may do this for longtime returning customers or for, quote, unquote, big money groups as it could help to ensure their continued business.

Curtailing this activity often requires hours of surveillance that may not be feasible during times of high hunter concentrations during the early weeks of dove season. Information from landowners or even other hunters may initiate an investigation into this type of activity.

Another perhaps more common practice used by some outfitters is to provide more shooting opportunity is to rotate hunters to different fields or counties during the day. In some cases, we have been alerted to this by leasing landowners. This is logically a less risky technique for the outfitters, while they may be facilitating circumvention of regulations, they are not actively participating in the violations. This is most common in areas with heavy commercial hunting activity and high volumes of both birds and hunters.

Thanks to tips from the landowners and observations by Game Wardens, some outfitters have been known while participating -- while not participating in any illegal take or possession of the birds, to facilitate such activity by rotating hunters for no apparent reason related to quality of the hunt or field management to different fields within a county or even many miles away in a different county in an apparent effort to prevent the hunters either being checked by the same Wardens or being remembered or documented as having had a number of birds on the previous hunt in the same day.

Next slide.

Though violations related to dove hunting will always occur, the overwhelming majority of hunters encountered, enjoy our abundant resources responsibly and legally. Anecdotal accounts from Game Wardens in high volume dove hunting regions indicate that while we may see a relative uptick in incidents -- incidences of violations such as double-dipping in specific areas around the state, that there are so -- corresponding periodic decreases in such activity in another.

Generally speaking, violation-specific citations tend to ebb and flow based on several factors. Various of these are obviously tied to hunter participation and hunter opportunity relative to target species abundance. Others appear to be based more on hunters behave -- hunter behaviors that while may be tied indirectly to these factors, are more indicative of an intentional response to the circumstance rather than a natural product of them.

In short, no violation related to dove hunting is perceived by our staff to be more pervasive now than at any other time. Our Law Enforcement staff continue to prosecute and deter such activity through diligent patrols and reliance on investigative and observation techniques developed and refined over the years. Considering the number of hunters participating in dove hunting every year in our state, the number of violations cited each year indicate high numbers or high levels of compliance, even while accounting for the odds that hunters are checked due to the condensed nature of the season.

And that concludes my prepared presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Any questions?

I have one. What's the -- on the citation, what's the difference between bait and hunting over bait?

MR. KING: There's two violations. One's for hunting over bait and one's for placing bait to attract birds, which is usually something that's more typical you'll find. It could be the hunter, but we do encounter cases where, you know, a landowner who's leasing their land or an outfitter is actually the one physically placing the bait to get the birds into the fields for their hunters. So two separate violations there.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

I guess we're all law-abiding hunters. So thank you for your presentation.

MR. KING: Thank y'all.

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: All right. The next item is a Briefing on the Palo Pinto Mountains State Park. Mr. Franklin and Ms. Anne Brown, please make your presentation.

MR. FRANKLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Rodney Franklin, Director for the State Parks Division. I'll be presenting an update on Palo Pinto Mountains State Park, how the design has -- design is progressing and I'll be presenting with Ms. Anne Brown of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation, who you'll hear from a little bit later.

Just as a point of departure, a little background on Palo Pinto Mountains. The property we're talking about today was acquired through proceeds from the sales of Eagle Mountain Lake in the Fort Worth area so with those proceeds, we were able to acquire about 3,000 acres just to the west of Fort Worth and the thought was we wanted to provide an opportunity for -- recreational opportunity for the Metroplex within a two-hour drive of that area. So with that, the search began in several counties to try to find the right property.

Next slide, please, Andra?

So as you'll note, we settled on some property in Palo Pinto County after working with the Nature Conservancy to search Parker County, Johnson County, Tarrant County, and we settled on a property that is exactly halfway between Abilene and Fort Worth. It's exactly 76 -- 75, 76 miles from Fort Worth and 76 miles from Abilene, giving it the perfect opportunity for day-use drive from both of those metropolitan areas for folks to drive and enjoy the day for day use. So I think it's in a perfect location and as we zoom in a limit bit --

Next slide, please?

You'll see that it's located just off of I-20. So it's not far off the interstate, right outside the small community of Strawn and it's going to be -- it's going to provide an opportunity for folks in the Metroplex to drive out I-20 and just a short drive and enjoy Palo Pinto Mountains State Park. You'll notice there right in the heart of the park is Tucker Lake, which will be a great draw for that property. We're going to zoom in just a little bit and take an overview of some of the amenities there in just a bit.

Next slide, please?

So this is a zoomed in view and I know it's a little bit hard to see, but I wanted to give you an idea of the layout of some of the amenities there. You can see in some of the lines there, there's going to be plenty of trails and the thought here is that the property was going to be light on the land. It's not going to be an overdeveloped property. We're going to end up with people being able to enjoy nature and get away and get outside, but we also wanted to provide some amenities for folks. So as you drive from east to west or from right to left on your screen there, you come into the visitor center, which we'll dive into a little bit. Just to the north of Tucker Lake, you'll notice a little flat section. That is the dam. That area is going to be the equestrian area. So we're going to have an equestrian area in the park. We'll have RV camping, water/electric sites. There will be plenty of trails for people to enjoy. Plenty of day-use amenities. We'll also have primitive areas and walk-in camping as, well.

And other thing I want to call out is that of the -- we ended up with over 4,800 acres -- the developed area of the park is less than 25 acres. So it's going to be a small area there.

Next slide, please?

So to zoom in on a little bit of the headquarters or the visitor center of the park, this is some of the detailed drawings that have come and I know it's a little bit small on your screen; but this is where all the administrative functions of the park will take place, but it will also be where visitors will have their first orientation to the park, as well. You'll -- a couple of things to note here. It will house, of course, the park superintendent and the administrative staff; but there's also going to be an interpretive area there so we can educate our visitors, as well as provide retail opportunities there at the headquarters. And I also want to point out the conference room there, which will not only be used by TPWD staff for training and meetings and such as that; but also it can be a public space for visitors and organizations that may want to use the meeting space as a retreat or a business meeting. So we'll have that opportunity, as well.

Next slide, please?

So the next few slides are going to be renderings on the amenities we have at the park. This is our visitor center and a couple of things I want to point out there on the visitor center, as you'll see a theme throughout, is that we wanted to make our buildings and our facilities blend in with the landscape. We wanted that -- the landscape and the nature to be the draw. So none of the buildings would take away from the hills and the mountains you see in the background and the natural landscape and this is the view of the headquarters as visitors approach.

Next slide, please?

After you get that warm welcome at the headquarters, if you wanted to enjoy the park for the day, this is a rendering of our day-use area. And, again, the thought was to build the amenities within the landscape and let the nature be the draw there. You can see there's a playscape area. So if you want to come out and just watch the kids play for a bit, you could do that. You could enjoy a picnic with friends and family, and the thought is that you would be doing that in the nice Cross Timbers area of Texas.

Next slide, please?

While the day-use area offers -- it will be right there close to Tucker Lake. So you'll have amenities such as fishing, kayaking. You'll be able to do a little hanging out near the Tucker Lake area. We also have a group pavilion that this rendering here is going to have -- offer a nice view of the landscape. It's going to be a perfect place for families and friends to gather for family reunion and you'll note that we'll -- we also have -- plan to have some solar to help with the -- power the lighting in that area and then some rain catchment, as well. So it's going to be a perfect place for families to enjoy the natural setting of Palo Pinto Mountains.

Next slide, please?

And then this is a rendering of our equestrian area, which as you can see it fits that theme of building amenities within the landscape, nice trees, lots of trees. The equestrian riders can come and spend the night in that area and then hit the trails in the morning and ride all day and also spend a lot of time there at their campsite enjoying nature. And as you'll recall from the earlier slide, the equestrian area is just below the dam area. So you'll be able to hit the trails from that area, ride around the lake, and then ride throughout the property there.

We're going to have quite a few trails for hikers and bikers, but we also wanted to have amenities for our equestrian users. So this is going to be a nice, a beautiful spot that's currently used as a park area for the community of Strawn currently; but we're going to convert that to our equestrian area and it's going to be a nice amenity for those that like to get out and ride their horses.

Next slide, please.

So with that, before I turn things over to Anne, I want to talk about just how special this project is going to be. It's going to be the first park we've opened in quite some time, but it's made possible through a public/private partnership. We're going to be relying on TxDOT to build quite a bit of this infrastructure, but also an important component of that is -- of this project -- is the work that Anne and the Foundation will be doing to raise funds for this project.

We'll also be doing -- leveraging grant opportunities with Land and Water funds. So there's going to be a lot of partners contributing to Palo Pinto Mountains State Park, but none more important than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation and the work that Anne will -- is currently doing and will continue to do.

So with that, for an update on the fundraising effort, I will turn things over to Ms. Anne Brown.

MS. ANNE BROWN: Thank you, Rodney.

Good afternoon -- morning, Commissioners. Nice to be back.

Next slide, please? Is there a slide up? Technology.

So the Foundation is thrilled, as always, to be a partner on this project and as Rodney said, it's an innovative public/private partnership. Approximately, $30 million. And $21 million is in public funds. $9 million is going to be in private funds. The Foundation has secured $4 million to date. Graciously a challenge grant from former Commissioner Warren kicked that off and the Amon Carter Foundation came in with a million-dollar naming opportunity for the equestrian center.

We are working with other donors that are listed here, but we -- we feel positive and confident in our ability to raise the funds. COVID has been a challenging time for us on the fundraising; but honestly, bringing people out to the park and having them see it in person, it pretty much sells itself. It's a fabulous location. It's gorgeous and I think we've all realized the need during these times for more outdoor spaces. So I think that's a -- that's a huge selling point for us.

Next slide, please.

We hope to have the fundraising complete by next year and we're looking at a break-ground in February for TxDOT to start on roads and utilities and in conjunction with the centennial for state parks, the 100 years, we're going to open Palo Pinto in 2023.

And that's the end of my presentation. Any questions, Commissioners?

CHAIRMAN MORIAN: Thank you. Thank you, Anne.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you.

With that -- I can't adjourn without making those on the phone just think of duck and the serenity on the top of the water, but you ought to see the paddling that's going on around here under.

All right, Mr. Smith, this Commission has can completed its business and I declare us adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

And thank all of y'all for participating. You Commissioners on the phone, thank you. And hopefully we can be back in person sometime soon, so.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.

(Commission Meeting Adjourns)

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: December 31, 2020

1007 Lime Rock Drive

Round Rock, Texas 78681

(512)779-8320

TPW Commission Meetings