TPW Commission

Work Session, March 27, 2024

Transcript

TPW Commission Meetings

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

March 27, 2024

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

COMMISSION HEARING ROOM

4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744

COMMISSION WORK SESSION & EXECUTIVE SESSION

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Welcome. Welcome, everyone. Good morning.

Before we begin, I'll take roll. Chairman Hildebrand, Jeff Hildebrand present.

Vice-Chair Bell?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Abell?

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Foster?

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Rowling?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Scott?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.

This meeting is called to order March 27th, 2024, at 9:01 a.m.

Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: A public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas 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 this meeting.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Dr. Yoskowitz.

Commissioners, as a reminder, please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak. Please remember to speak slowly for the court reporter.

The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous Work Session held January 24th, 2024, which have already been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell so move.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Foster second.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say aye.

(Chorus of ayes)

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 1, Update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Progress in Implementing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan, Internal Affairs Update, Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan Update. Dr. Yoskowitz, please make your presentation.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. I would like to provide you an update germane to the Land and Water related plan and functions inside the Department. As is customary, I will start off with an Internal Affairs update.

Earlier this month, Major Mike Durand and Assistant Commander Jarret Barker traveled to the Game Warden Training Center to present information the the game warden state park police cadets regarding the complaint investigation and resolution process, as well as what to expect during an internal investigation. Detailed information was provided about the authority of Internal Affairs and how their role is applied during various critical incidents such as officer-involved shootings.

Explanation was given regarding the differences between an administrative investigation and criminal investigation, as well as what to expect as an employee during each. In addition, cadets learned about the difference between a Miranda warning and a Garrity warning and how each are applied during an investigation based on case law and precedent.

As for the Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan Update, I would like to highlight a few of the action items and the progress that has been made during the first quarter of fiscal year 2024. Due to Commission and reporting deadlines, there is a slight lag in the timing of reporting. Therefore, I will provide updates through the second quarter during our May Commission Meeting.

Action Item 5.2 -- which our goal is to host ten science events annually to facilitate information sharing among TPWD scientists, external cooperators, stakeholders, and the public -- staff have been busy and have exceeded the fiscal year goal already by hosting 34 events. Coastal Fisheries Division staff have conducted nine virtual and 23 in-person events for students in kindergarten through 12th grade.

In addition, the Wildlife Diversity Program has conducted two webinars in the wildlife diversity webinar series. The first was searching for a needle in a haystack Louisiana pine snakes and camera traps and the other was on raptors of the Rio's ecology of the Riparian-Obligate birds of prey in the Trans-Pecos.

Action Item 10.4, provide outdoor programs at TPWD sites reaching 226,000 youth annually. We have reached over 68 youth so far through the first quarter of this year. The fall provided the perfect timing and setting for families to enjoy the outdoors and with the unseasonably warm winter and the upcoming spring and summer months, we expect those numbers to climb over the next couple of months. In addition, we'll have continued state park first-day hikes, the solar eclipse events where our state parks in the area of the total eclipse will be very busy, among other opportunities.

Action Item 11.2, certify 60,000 students annually in hunter education. Almost 27,000 students were certified in the first quarter of this fiscal year. That's about 45 percent. Due to the timing of hunting season, it is normal that the first quarter of the fiscal year has a very large influx of students to complete that hunting education and the remaining quarters generally even out.

Item 11.3, certify 30,000 students annually in boater education. Nearly 4,000 certified so far in the first quarter; but as we approach the spring and the summer months, the boating season kicks off and we expect that number to increase significantly.

Action Item 11.4, reach 400,000 Texans through the delivery of angler education, aquatic education, and shooting sports and other outreach and education programs. At the end of the first quarter, we've reached over 100,000 or about 25 percent of our goal. Therefore, we're right on target to reach that goal of 400,000 for the year.

What I would like to talk about is going forward in the presentation of the land and water recreation plan. I've asked the staff to develop a dashboard that would track progress overall on the goals, the objectives, and the actions given our key performance indicators. So what you see in front of you is a mock-up of what you will have access to and what I will share going forward so we can get a high level overlook at each Commission Meeting as how we're making our progress on those goals and objectives throughout the year. This will first take place at the May meeting -- May meeting coming up.

This concludes my presentation, Chairman. With that, I'll take any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you Dr. Yoskowitz.

Any questions or comments by the Commission?

David, in the Land and Water Plan, how many objectives do we have?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: So we have 14 objectives, 103 strategies, and 68 specific action items. And so what you see in front of you here is a mock-up of what we call -- we'll be using Power BI. It's a Microsoft software, so we'll be able to bring in all that data and then in realtime, as we get the data in, be able to track progress.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So for example here just in your Objective 1, you'll do this on a quarterly basis that you'll -- you'll come back to us and say Objective 1 we're 13.8 percent complete --

DR. YOSKOWITZ: To the goal.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- to the goal.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, yeah. Well, each Commission Meeting you'll get -- you'll get -- you'll get an update and this the Power -- and this will be updated as we get the data in from the various divisions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And do you think, I mean, and on a quarterly basis will there be enough kind of demonstrative, you know, advancement of these objectives? I mean, do you believe that we'll --

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- really see that incrementally?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah. I mean, there -- you know, as we talked about this morning, there's a seasonality to a lot of these objectives. So, for example, boater education, right? That is going to ramp up significantly in the second quarter and end of the third quarter as we get into summer. So you should see a significant bump. So that seasonality will kick in in making progress towards our goal.

The important thing is, if we're not seeing progress to our goal and we're missing those seasonal bumps that we would expect, then we need to course-correct and figure out what's going on.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Okay, thank you very much.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Work Session Item No. 2, Mr. Reggie...

MR. PEGUES: Pegues.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Pegues.

MR. PEGUES: You're getting there.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. I'll get there. Please make your presentation. Thank you, Reggie.

MR. PEGUES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Reggie Pegues, Chief Financial Officer. This morning I'll be presenting the financial overview through the ending February. I'll be covering the following items: Revenue summaries for hunting/fishing license revenue, state parks revenue, boat-related revenues, and FY '20[sic] budget adjustments through February.

Starting with license revenue, we have a five-year comparison. You will see a trending downward from the record years of license years '21, '22, to settle at 81.9 million for license year '24. About a half percent drop from license year '23.

Next is a monthly breakdown of the 82 million for the year. You'll see the typical season parroting with the majority of the revenues occurring through September and December and then a flattening for the rest of the fiscal year. For February, we had 3.4 million visits, 18 percent higher than last February. And you'll see this across all the different revenue lines for the month of February. With think it's because February was unusually warm, the third warmest February in recent memory. So that kind of just cascade through each type.

Next is a breakdown by license revenue type. You'll see a 5.2 percent increase in our resident hunting and 1.1 percent in our nonresident hunting and this is offset by slight declines in other license types for an overall variance of .6 percent.

Moving on to state parks. Again, a five-year comparison. You'll see a slight leveling off from the record years of FY '21 through FY '23, to settle at FY '24 at 29.3 million. About a 1.5 percent drop from FY '23.

Next is a monthly breakdown of the 29 million dollars. You'll see the typical season pattern. You'll see the ramp-up from November through February as we enter the busy spring months. For the month of February, revenues of 5.4 million. We're 3.5 percent higher than the prior February. Again, we attribute this to the warm February weather.

Next is a breakdown of the state parks revenue by revenue type. You'll see a 5 percent increase in activities and concessions. Again, offset by slight declines in the other areas for an overall variance of 1.5 percent.

Moving on to boat revenue, you'll see at license -- FY '21, we had record revenue of 8.8 million. Since that time, you've seen a slight decline as we move towards pre-COVID amounts of 6.8 million versus 6.9 in FY '20; but still relatively strong historically.

Next is a breakdown of the 6.8 million. Again, the same pattern. As we ramp toward the warmer spring months, you'll see a ramp-up in revenue. Revenue for February of 1.5. It was 9.6 percent higher than the prior February.

And here's a breakdown about revenue by revenue type. Slight decline across all lines. 18 percent in retained sales tax revenue, for an overall variance of 8.1 percent.

Next I move over to budget adjustments, beginning with the approved number. On December 31st, which I presented the last Commission Meeting, we've had 12.9 million dollars worth of changes since that point. These changes are 1.9 million for operational noncapital. That's entirely related to Operation Lone Star reimbursements from our activities at border for our Law Enforcement Division. Federal and UB of 4.7 million. In our original budget, we have estimates for federal funds. We get the final -- what we call final apportionment during the month of February and this is -- this 4.7 million is part of trueing up our estimate with the actual dollar amounts.

Next category is appropriated receipts and UB, 1.6 million. These are just various donations made to the Agency and just different fees that we have the authority to spend.

Next is construction of 3.1 million. These represent unexpended balances from prior years that we brought into the new fiscal year. And the last item, 1.6 million of employee fringe. Again, these are adjustments that we make throughout the fiscal year for retirement, insurance, Social Security based on our estimated payroll expenditures.

This gives us an adjusted budget of February 29th of 1.996 billion dollars.

This concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.

Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Reggie, just out of curiosity on that last slide and you mentioned it on the border. That's the 1.9. Is that accurate?

MR. PEGUES: Yeah, that 1.9, that's -- that's reimbursements to date for this fiscal year. Overall, we've received about 21 million.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So are we doing pretty well on being reimbursed on the border issues there? You know, when we started all that, you know, we had -- you weren't -- you weren't even here then, but we did have a lot of issues on getting the reimbursements, you know, for our additional costs that we incurred. So is all that kind of washing out and balancing out now?

MR. PEGUES: Yes, sir. We've never been denied a reimbursement. Everything we've requested, we've received. And usually the approval is within a couple of days of our -- of us sending the request.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Good. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?

Just a little further on that. If a game warden goes to the border, do we get to allocate his time 100 percent to the feds and get full reimbursement of all comp, benefits, mileage, food, you know, all that?

MR. PEGUES: Yeah, we receive reimbursements for salaries, even overtime, supplies, any equipment that we purchase.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So full reimbursement?

MR. PEGUES: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Okay. Do we have any idea how many -- how many game wardens do we have on the border now?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Right now, we've -- we're about 30 game wardens that we're sending down each week. Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And is there a kind of methodology as to who goes, why they go? I mean, why do we send any? I mean, I understand helping the State of Texas, which I'm absolutely all for. But what's the -- what's the process?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chad, Colonel.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And maybe we can talk about this later.

COLONEL JONES: Yeah. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, my name's Chad Jones, Law Enforcement Director. It's a voluntary basis, as we do it now. Game wardens sign up voluntarily to go to the border. They go once every week, Wednesday and Thursday changeover and they just -- they're operating at Anzalduas Park down there doing a 35-mile stretch of river as part of the DPS initiative and the Governor's initiative on the border.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So it's voluntary?

COLONEL JONES: As of right now, it's voluntary. Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Interesting. And who takes their post back in the county that they're supposed to be in actually applying game laws and so --

COLONEL JONES: That can be a struggle for us at times, but usually a partner and game warden in another county will take those calls over. We make sure that the calls are answered appropriately.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Well, just absolutely let's make sure we get full and complete reimbursement from the federal government for the cost associated with sending our men and women down to the border.

COLONEL JONES: Yes, sir. Will do.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, just a clarification. The -- we get reimbursed from the Governor's Office.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: From the Governor's Office?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Interesting. So the feds don't pay that at all?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: No, no. It's all State moneys.

MR. BONDS: Operation Lone Star.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Operation Lone Star, yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. That all Operation Lone Star. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell, I have one additional question.

COLONEL JONES: Yes, sir.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Just in the interest -- because we're so active down there, could you maybe take a look at if there's an opportunity for a Commissioner to go down and visit with your group, that maybe we could see if we could put something on the calendar that if anyone's interested, they could pop in and just kind of handshake -- shake hands with everybody down there, thank them for the work they're doing and also we can lay eyes on it ourself?

COLONEL JONES: Yes, sir. Most definitely. If -- we can work with Ms. Halliburton to make sure that we look at schedules and let you know when the opportunity is available for that.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: All right. Thank you.

COLONEL JONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Any other questions?

Yeah, I'd certainly like to go down to the border and get in a boat and see what's going on down there.

So, all right. Thank you.

All right. Let's see. Work Session Item No. 3, Briefing, Strategic Plan Update. Mr. Michael Goldsmith, please make your presentation.

MR. GOLDSMITH: Good morning. My name is Michael Goldsmith. I'm the Performance and Strategic Planning Coordinator in TPWD's Financial Resources Division. Today I will be briefing you on updates to the Agency's strategic plan.

Strategic planning is a long-term future oriented process of assessment, goal setting, and decision making. For this process in Texas, all state agencies are legislatively required to complete and submit an updated five-year strategic plan every two years. At TPWD, this takes the shape of the Natural Agenda.

The strategic planning process is intended to set direction for all the Agency's operations; communicate Agency goals, directions, and outcomes to the Legislature and to stakeholders; and guide budget preparation; and establish a basis for measuring success through development and use of performance measures.

The LBB and the Governor's Office give instructions for what must be included in the plan and the part it plays in the budget process. The strategic plan instructions include Agency goals, objectives, and strategies and assessment of internal and external factors impacting the Agency, and a set of performance measures to assess progress. This guides budget preparation in two ways.

The goals and strategies in the strategic plan comprise the budget and planning structure for each agency, which provide the framework through which agencies request and receive legislative appropriations. Also identifying funding priorities by communicating departmental needs, sets the stage for exceptional item requests and the Legislative Appropriations Request.

Within the formal requirements or what must be included, the Agency can use the plan as an opportunity to communicate what it thinks is important and what factors are affects its ability to be effective. The strategic planning process we're now working on is part of the budget cycle configured by the LBB and the Governor's Office. Decisions made now about the strategic plan structure have implications on how budgets get set up in the future. The goals, objectives, and strategies in the budget structure provide the framework through which agencies request and receive legislative appropriations. These goals, objectives, and strategies are used in budget development to create our Legislative Appropriations Request based on the budget structure approved in the strategic.

We also have the opportunity to create narratives around our priorities and our internal and external environment that gives context to the LAR items so that agencies understand our current operating environment and are not taken by surprise by the items in our submission. And defining performance measures in the strategic plan can inform decision-making internally and externally when performance measure projections are set during budget development. This leads to our ability to report on performance measures, track expenditures, and evaluate our progress to make decisions about our needs and our operations in the future.

The budget development phase begins in the spring, with final submission of the Natural Agenda due in June and the LAR development beginning in June and due at the end of August. After the LAR is submitted, the LBB holds budget hearings with agencies to better understand their requests and ask questions. For each agency, they make recommendations about funding levels and which requests will be included. This becomes the starting point for the General Appropriations Act the budget bill.

The legislature meets from January to May of odd numbered years. We're given a certain amount of money from the legislature and the GAA, which begins the budget implementation phase. Based on this funding level, we create an operating budget and implement action plans to show how this money will be spent in support of our goals and strategies.

The final phase is budget monitoring. We report on our performance measures, track expenditures, and evaluate our progress to make decisions about needs and operations in the future. This round, there are no proposed changes to the goals, objectives, or strategies, possibly because in the last round two years ago, TPWD underwent a vigorous process of public, stakeholder, and internal review of the strategic structure as was recommended by Sunset Commission.

Proposed changes to performance measures this round include two re-scopings of Communication Division measures; number of visits to the TPWD website as proposed to replace number of unique visitors to the TPWD website, as the new analytic software does not provide the number of unique visitors on a fiscal year basis. Average number of people who access the TPWD magazine content is proposed to replace average number of TPD -- TPWD magazine copies circulated. So that this measure would include not only print copies of magazines, but also magazine app and website content. Other proposed changes include minor revisions to better capture the activities of divisions in various program areas, to reflect updated business systems, or just use clearer language, particularly capital construction and repair measures for Infrastructure Division.

These proposed changes have been approved by Executive Office and have been submitted to the LBB and Governor's Office who we will be discussing future steps with. Their approval is necessary for these proposed changes to become final.

Other elements of the strategic plan include an internal and external assessment of challenges, opportunities, and major initiatives to be undertaken within the 2025 through 2029 timeframe, statutory challenges for the Department's ability to fulfill its mission and possible fixes, an analysis of the Department's workforce ability to meet present and future challenges, an analysis of the recent customer service satisfaction survey, and information relating to contracting with Historically Underutilized Businesses. Initial division submissions have been submitted and are in the process of being compiled and edited. Once compiled, our team will meet Executive Office to determine priorities. We will distribute drafts to divisions and then we'll need to get approval and signatures of the Executive Director and the Commission prior to finalization.

We have received division feedback on the various sections of the Natural Agenda and will be compiling, editing, and meeting with Executive Office to decide what issues and priorities will be highlighted. We will also soon be engaging with LBB and the Governor's Office on the budget structure and measure change requests. A full draft of the plan will be distributed to EO and divisions in May and components of the plan will be presented at a high level at the May Commission meeting. The final document is due electronically to LBB and the Governor's Office on June 1st.

With that, I will close and ask for any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you.

Any questions for, Mr. Goldsmith?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. One question. You've described the process. Are we also going to do a session where we're -- and, I mean, I know we have the document and can read through it. But are we also going to do a process where we maybe do an executive summary, high points of what's in the document that you want to tell us what you feel is most important about the strategic plan and what we should be looking at?

MR. GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. We'll do that in the May Commission meeting.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

MR. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Mr. Goldsmith.

Work Session Item No. 4, Internal Audit Update. Ms. Brandy Meeks, please make your presentation.

MS. MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks. I'm the Internal Audit Director. This morning I'd like to update you on the status of our fiscal year '23 and '24 internal audit plans, as well as our recent external audits and assessments.

So this slide shows the status of last year's audit plan and with the completion of the TAC 202 cybersecurity audit, I am pleased to inform you that we have now complemented last year's plan.

This slide and the next slide shows the status of our current plan. Please notice the statuses in yellow to the right. We are in the planning phase for our cloud computing cybersecurity audit. We are also in the planning phase for our audit of our recreation grants. We are in the reporting phase for our infrastructure change order process advisory. We recently completed or Sea Center point-of-sale inventory advisory. We are still following up on all items due during Q1 and Q2. We also attended a steering committee for the BRITS rewrite and I'm happy and pleased to inform that we have now filled our two vacancies and have two new auditors starting in the next two weeks.

This slide shows the status of our fiscal control audits. We've completed six law enforcement office audits. We are currently in the fieldwork phase for our South Houston law enforcement audit, and we will be getting started on our state parks audits soon with our new auditor.

As far as external audits and assessments, nothing has changed since the last time we met. We still have three external audits going on. We have the Deepwater Horizon Texas Trustee audit, the Office of the Governor's Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, as well as the Comptroller's post-payment audit.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions if you have any.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. Meeks.

Any questions?

Hearing none, thank you --

MS. MEEKS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- very much. Appreciate it.

Work Session Item No. 5, License, Permit, Boat, and Motor Fees and 2024-2025 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation, Oversized Spotted Seatrout Tag, Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes. Mr. Dakus Geeslin, please make your presentation.

MR. GEESLIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. Good to see y'all again. For the record, my name is Dakus Geeslin. I serve as our Deputy Director within the Coastal Fisheries Division. Today I bring you-all a proposal related to Spotted seatrout regulations, specifically related to a tag system of oversized trout and those associates fees.

As a reminder, following our actions here at the Commission in January, the following Spotted seatrout regulations went into effect yesterday, March 26th. Just as a reminder, that included a three-fish daily bag limit, a 15- to 20-inch slot limit, and the allowance of one oversized trout greater than 30 inches as part of the daily bag. That's what we have in effect as of yesterday.

Now based -- based on the feedback we've -- and extensive feedback we've collected through our public scoping meetings in the fall, followed by our discussions here at the Commission Meeting in November, and then following that, the public hearings in January and more recently our January Commission meeting, I'm here before you today and we've developed a proposal related to those oversized Spotted seatrout and the tag system. We've developed that proposal, and that proposal includes the following:

The allowance of one Spotted seatrout over 30 inches per licensed angler per year via a tag system just like that that we have in place for our Red drum, oversized Red drum. Additionally, an optional purchase of a bonus tag per year for a $3 fee. This -- again, this is exactly like what we have in place for our Red drum at the current time. We also propose the removal of that one fish over 30 inches as part of the daily bag until that oversized tag system is implemented and in place for the next license year. Just as a reminder, those license year 2025 licenses will go on sale August 15th and those regulations and tags will be available for purchase at that time. Those regulations go into effect on that next license year September 1, 2024.

Now as we think about this proposal, I'd like to share a few of the associated benefits and impacts. When we looked at this proposal in the context of our harvest monitoring program -- that's our program where we do our creel surveys of all of our boat ramps and boat docks -- we looked back at the previous five years before the freeze and what we see, we see a very small percentage of those larger trout being harvested and coming across through our creel program. Based on average annual landings, a ballpark of about 350,000 trout, all sum and total. You see that one-one-hundredth of a percent are greater than 30 inches. Similarly, eight-one-hundredths of a percent of those trout that come across our creel program are greater than 28 inches. Simply put, those larger trout don't account for a significant portion of the population and I'll get to that in the next slide. But that being said, we certainly feel that these larger fish are incredibly valuable to the fishery and to our fishermen and women, as we provide that -- you know, by protecting these larger trout and leaving more of those fish in our bays and the waters for our anglers to catch and providing that additional angling opportunity for our anglers to catch that trout of a lifetime.

Now I'd like to share what we see in the trout population. This is conducted through what we call our fisheries independent monitoring and that's simply just multiple gear types that we use to assess the fishery population. This particular gear type are coast-wide gillnets -- we've talk about extensionally -- targets our adult trout and this is a reflection of the size structure of those Spotted seatrout population. On the Y axis, is the percentage of total fish caught and that X axis is simply the size class and inches of trout. And when we look at these larger trout in the coast-wide population, we see that almost -- almost 10 percent -- 9.1 percent, actually -- are 25 inches and greater. 2.3 percent of those trout are larger than 28 inches. And as you would expect, a very small percentage -- not even 1 percent -- exceed 30 inches. And you may ask yourselves: Why is -- why are those percentages higher than what you just showed coming across the creel program?

That's exactly what we would expect is that natural population out in our bays are reflected here and the anglers don't have that efficiency to capture and catch those fish that are reflected in the creel surveys and we -- we believe anecdotally that, you know, as folks catch some of those larger trout, they're practicing catch and release. And again, by protecting those bigger fish, we provide that additional angling opportunity for folks that want to catch those big trout.

I'll now walk you through a timeline of the new trout regulations and the proposed regulations. I felt this may be beneficial as there's been a lot of trout talk in the last several years. But I'll start and benchmark in our last Commission meeting, our previous regulation proposal -- including that three-fish bag, the 15- to 20-inch slot, and one fish over 30 -- was approved at our January Commission meeting. I just indicated that those regulations went into effect yesterday and today I'm here before you with a tag proposal.

If that proposal is adopted tomorrow, it would go into effect sometime in mid-May. That would prohibit the harvest of oversized trout -- those 30-inch trout -- until such a time that a tag system is put into place. And finally, if adopted, that tag system would be in place for license year 2025. And again, those license sales start on August 15th and with the regulation in place on September 1st, 2024.

As part of our public effort, we held a virtual public hearing just last week and as a means for gathering public comment through our website or online public comment portal, we divided the proposal into two sections. One being the -- relating to the tag system, with the optional bonus exempt tag and the purchase with the fee for $3. The next section or the second section related to the oversized trout distinction of being set at 30 inches.

Just as a summary of those public comments related to -- related to the oversized tag and the $3 fee, I'll give you an update as of 4:00 p.m. yesterday. We received 888 public comments. The percentage changed slightly. We had 47 percent wholly support and agree with the proposal. We had 39 percent disagree with the proposal, and 14 percent shared a neutral position. Those in opposition, the flavor of that opposition shared that they didn't want a tag system, didn't want any harvest of oversized trout, didn't want a bonus tag, and felt the bonus tag fee should be higher and felt that the proposal was government overreach. Of note, some of our organizational -- it's not on the slide -- but some of our organizational comments. First, our advisory committee. Our Coastal Resource Advisory Committee recommended we prohibit the take of an oversized trout -- and that oversized would be 28 inches -- until such a time that that trout tag could be implemented. Again, similar to our Red drum tag. Coastal Conservation Association Texas is also in support of the proposal of a tag system for an oversized Spotted seatrout, except for the digital bonus tag. They held a neutral position and they suggest an oversized tag for trout 25 inches or greater.

Now for the public comments related to the length determination of an oversized trout. Our proposal has it greater than 30 inches. As of 4:00 p.m. yesterday, again, we've received 888 comments. 46 percent of those wholly agree. 42 percent disagree. They felt that the length should be at 25 inches, at 28 inches, no oversized harvest, no bonus tag, no tag system at all, and again felt that it was government overreach and a small percentage -- 12 percent -- had a -- held a neutral position on the proposal.

So with that, I will request the item be placed on the Thursday agenda for public comment and action and I'm happy to field any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Geeslin.

Any questions for -- for Dakus?

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. Can you pull up that last slide? On the -- on the ones that opposed, do you have any kind of breakdown in that percentage? Like, I'm curious how many -- like, of the ones that wanted to change the length to 25, if that was the majority.

MR. GEESLIN: We do. We had approximately -- when we peeled that apart, Commissioner Abell, we saw that roughly 50 individuals suggested 25 inches and then 13 individuals suggested 28 inches and then another 13 suggest it at 20 inches, which is currently the max -- max. So there's the breakdown of that oversized determination.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Okay. Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Dakus, Commissioner Bell. You know, I've spent a little bit of time trying to talk to some staff about some of the numbers reflected. So not just on this slide, but on the two previous slides also. But, you know, the note here that these -- that these separate categories are not cumulative, not everyone said that. They were a couple said this, a couple people said that in terms of the opposition. So that's not a -- that's not a blanket opposition of 41 percent on all those items to kind of --

MR. GEESLIN: That is correct.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: -- for clarity. But it seems like the -- you know, we kicked around the 30-inch number a lot at the last meeting. We actually had been higher than -- I was actually one that had even said higher and I think we were a little bit comical and giggling a little bit when we talked about some of the numbers. But it seems that 28 inches really seems like a more practical number. It lines up with the -- with the -- kind of with the Red drum number. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MR. GEESLIN: I do and I figured you might ask that. And, you know, just as what we see in the population, you know, there's more of those 28's than there are 30. But I would say as a new angler or someone that is not familiar with a tag system at all, I believe there's a lot of value with that similarity with a Red drum tag in the event that folks buying a license go down to the coast and they catch that oversized fish and now what to do with it. They're thinking, you know, "Okay, we've got a 28-inch for a Red drum," I think there's a lot of value in having that similarity or parallel with the Spotted seatrout as well, so I --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. So if we had -- if we look at maybe an option that might say -- we might look at a modification here to maybe move that towards the 28 for the sake of uniformity, but we wouldn't apply that until when? The new reg -- the new season?

MR. GEESLIN: That's correct. We wouldn't -- the tag system would be in place on August 15th and then you could start fishing for those fish come September 1 and --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. That's my -- and the only thing, I have a question for any other Commissioner if they had a question on how would we should handle that in interim. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any comments?

Okay. Are you -- any further lines of questions? No, okay.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I'm good.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, Dakus, we did -- as Vice-Chair Bell talked about, we went from 25 to 35 inches just -- and as he said, tongue in cheek in many of them. But it seems to me as though consistency, uniformity, simplicity, all of those things are really critical to both the enforcement of the new regulation and the understanding of anglers as to what's the appropriate catch and what's not.

Once again, if we go back to this, I think the new regs are perfect, save and except the 30-inch. And if -- so if we went to 28, kind of walk us through. Is that -- is that much simpler for the game wardens to enforce, and is it statistically fairly insignificant in terms of the number of fish that are going to be taken out of the bay?

MR. GEESLIN: So I'll peel that apart into two questions. I've got the utmost confidence in our game wardens. They're able to enforce all kinds of different regulations that we throw at them. I don't think this is so complex that they can't. And we can effectively message that through some of our education materials and then come, you know, the next license year effectively enforce that.

That -- to your second question, the proportion of those fish, biologically the impact is de minimis. It really is. There's just so few of those fish out there; but again, protecting -- protecting those larger fish does add that added benefit for our anglers. But biologically, Mr. Chairman, I believe the impact is de minimis. We're talking two inches. Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Chairman, can --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, sure. You bet.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: -- I just ask a more questions?

So you did get some feedback about the bonus tag and, one, whether or not we should have it and, two, whether $3 is the right amount to charge. Which does seem incredibly low to me, but I'm sure there's some magic to that. Can you address that --

MR. GEESLIN: Sure.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: -- quickly before we --

MR. GEESLIN: And I think we heard two things, Commissioner Foster, through those comments is, one, being the bonus tag should be higher. And my understanding of -- and I don't want to play lawyer for right now, but I don't believe we can go higher than that within the body of this current proposal. But we had a fair amount of comment suggesting that should be higher. That is in line with what we do have for the Red drum -- for the Red drum tag. I think it's easily -- easily implemented. You know, at the point of sale, you have that option to purchase that additional bonus tag when you buy your license, both through paper format and through the digital. Or if you don't do that at the point of sale, you can come back and do that for your $3 fee. Yes, sir.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. One other question or comment. You know, absent objection from my peers here, it just seems that maybe the proposal as it is today seems like the one modification that might make the most sense is that we adjust that length, maybe leave everything else as it is. Is that -- I mean, have you heard that in the commentary as well from --

MR. GEESLIN: No, we have.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: -- the public comment?

MR. GEESLIN: Most definitely and to your point -- sorry I'm missing the question, Commissioner Bell. That point there about the determination of what constitutes an oversized trout has been the most commented on component of this proposal and I've heard everything from, you know, everything over 20 to 25 to 28. I think there's a lot of -- a lot of support for the 28, but through our comments and I think through also through some positioning from the conservation organizations that have opined here, they suggested a 25. So you see the range and I would say the 28 and -- 25 ranked the highest and 28 was right below that. Yes, sir.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. I have a couple more. My one concern I've got is the removal of the fish over 30 just in that gap between --

MR. GEESLIN: Right.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: -- May and September. Just that that in itself is confusing because we just changed it yesterday. So, you know, given that there's so few fish caught over 30 anyway, do you think it would make sense just to leave it as it started yesterday until the tag system is implemented?

MR. GEESLIN: Commissioner Abell, I believe that if you -- if you left it in place, the impact to the Spotted seatrout population is negligible.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Okay. On that point, that's what I would be for. And the second, if we wanted to change the bonus tag fee -- I understand that's separate from this. So if we wanted to change the bonus stag fee for both trout and redfish, how soon could we -- could we accomplish that by next license year or not?

MR. MURPHY: I would say -- for the record, James Murphy, General Counsel. I'd say for the next license year beginning September 1, no, I don't think we'd have the time in place to get that properly loaded into the system with a new proposal, say, heard in May. So I think at this point, what we'd probably be looking at is a look at those tag fees for the following license year beginning September 1, 2025.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Okay. David, could we go ahead and look at that? Put that in system to look at that and see what proposed changes would be? What an appropriate fee should look like --

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Right.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: -- for bonus tags?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, Commissioner, I think. And to the point that it's $3 for -- it could be $3 for Spotted seatrout and $3 for Red drum, keeping those -- moving those in be lockstep, if that's where we end up, would be the appropriate thing to do. And so we -- the team can run some various scenarios looking forward to the next fiscal year.

MR. GEESLIN: Doctor Dr. Yoskowitz, if I may.

Commissioner Abell, we -- as we did in November, we always like to socialize this with our anglers. That's why we do extensive public scoping to really get the pulse of our constituents and come back and brief you-all on that and I think that would be a -- that would be my recommendation is to really take that -- if that's something the Commission wanted to do, is to really take that out into the fall and talk with our -- talk with our anglers, set up again some public scoping meetings and really get the feel from what the anglers would like to do.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, if I -- could I ask Dakus to maybe go back to that timeline slide? Just, I think, one more time for everybody in the room and the Commissioners, just stepping through to the points that have been made by Commissioner Abell, as well as Commissioner Bell. Just, if you could, step through again please --

MR. GEESLIN: Sure. No, absolutely.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: -- for the Commission.

MR. GEESLIN: So I'll start where we are today and those regulations -- that three-fish bag, 15- to 20-inch slot, and the allowance of one over 30 -- that's in effect right now. Right? So we're meeting here today and depending on how the outcome -- based on tomorrow, we would expect our team to be able to turn around the response to comments and get that into -- working with our legal team to get that into Texas Register to where that rule becomes effective sometime mid-May. That's essentially about the time it took from our last January Commission meeting to get these new regs into play. So about two months.

But from that point forward, from May -- depending on where we land -- from that point forward, you could have, you know, a tag system in place by August 15th for sale and then the one kind of uncertainty right now is where you would either allow that 30-inch, that oversized trout to be harvested through the summer, May through end of the summer, or not.

So you do have that window there, Commissioner Abell, that you identified. Yeah.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Well, if there are no more questions, I'd propose to eliminate that no-harvest time period and to change the oversized to 28 instead of 30.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And I think that's where I was leaning towards as well. And would you -- but we're not going -- we're not going to impact that 60-day window, are we? We're going to leave the current regulation in place for the 60 days?

MR. GEESLIN: Correct.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And --

MR. GEESLIN: Correct --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: But change -- change the size to 28 would be the proposal?

MR. GEESLIN: The 28 -- the 28 would start --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: For the new regulation year, for the new year?

MR. GEESLIN: Yes, correct. Okay.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Now that we've sufficiently confused you a lot.

MR. GEESLIN: Again.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: There's a lot of moving parts.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Who's on first? Okay.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Any other -- any other comments?

So what I'm hearing is, one, current regulations are in effect -- three bag limit, 15 to 20, one daily over 30, period. That started yesterday. Those regulations run through when?

MR. GEESLIN: Those would be in effect until September 1.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: September 1.

MR. GEESLIN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thereafter, whatever we agree to today would then go into effect.

MR. GEESLIN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, great. So we're not talking about changing and confusing people when we set -- set our regulations and then we change them immediately thereafter. So we're going to run the current regulations through September 1. Thereafter, if I'm hearing this correctly, we would move forward with a resolution in terms of these regulations, save and except one item and that is we would move the 30 inches down to 28 inches, tag stay the tame, all of that. We're going to do some work on tags to understand -- to Chairman -- or Commissioner Foster's point, I've always been -- it's a bit -- a $3 price tag for, you know, one additional bonus fish seems just incredibly, you know, de minimis in terms of cost and so we ought to do an economic study to understand and we want to bring people into the sport. We don't want to push them away, and so there is a balance between what that fee is; but $3 seems a bit low to me. But I'll let you guys take a look at that.

So with that in place, do I need a motion to modify the regulations as stated, taking the 30 to 28 inches.

MR. MURPHY: Chairman -- James Murphy, for the record -- I think we have enough information on the record to prepare for the motion for tomorrow's action item. So we'll modify the motion in accordance with what we've heard today and have --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Wonderful.

MR. MURPHY: -- that prepared for tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.

MR. GEESLIN: And just -- just so I'm crystal clear, we are confirming we're going to strike that last bullet on my slide here. Removal -- as Commissioner Abell articulated, we're going to strike that from the proposal.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.

MR. GEESLIN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. I mean...

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Just to make sure. And modify the seatrout to 28 --

MR. GEESLIN: Twenty-eight.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: -- not 30. Okay.

MR. GEESLIN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. It's crystal clear for all of us, so.

MR. GEESLIN: Hear you loud and clear.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Is everybody good with this? Any problems?

All right. Okay, thank you. So I don't need a motion? All right. We will do that --

MR. MURPHY: Chairman, I --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- tomorrow.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. We'll have that modified motion prepare for you for action tomorrow and I think we have clarity.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you for the great clarity, Dakus. We appreciate it.

MR. GEESLIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Work Session Item No. 6, 2024-2025 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation, Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes. We've got three presenters: Mr. Fitzsimmons Mr. Hardin, and Mr. Korzekwa. Mr. --

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: -- Vice-Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Owen Fitzsimmons. I'm the Webless Migratory Game Bird Program Leader for the Department. Today, Wildlife Division staff will present the proposed changes to the 2024-25 statewide hunting and migratory game bird proclamation.

I'll begin with items pertaining to the migratory game bird proclamation and my colleagues will follow with statewide and staff will later request permission to move the proposed changes to tomorrow's agenda for potential action.

There are eight proposed changes to the migratory game bird proclamation. I'll cover these proposed changes in more detail in the following slides. And aside from these proposals, staff are proposing calendar progression and no changes to all other seasons and regulations.

We've presented a lot of information to the Commission over the last couple years regarding Mid-continent light geese. To briefly reiterate and provide some additional background information, in the 1990s, Mid-continent light goose populations were rapidly growing and the waterfowl conservation community became increasingly concerned about the potential for impacts to areas of the Arctic. There was concern related to Mid-continent light geese overgrazing and potentially irreversibly destroying critical breeding habitats. To address the situation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the Light Goose Conservation Order in 1999 and the Conservation Order is defined by the Service as a special management action outside of the normal federal frameworks for hunting seasons that uses extremely liberalized regulations, such as the removal of bag and possession limits, unplugged shotguns, extended shooting hours, and the use of electronic calls to try and greatly increase harvest as a method of population control. The establishment of a management action like this outside normal federal frameworks was and still is unprecedented.

Historically, the Texas Gulf coast was the primary wintering area for this population. Light goose estimates in Texas reached their peaks in the late 90s, leading up to the establishment of the Conservation Order and as you can see in front of you, the overall trend of wintering Mid-continent light geese in Texas has declined substantially since then. Liberalized hunting regulations and near year-round pressure on these birds across their range, have resulted in significant changes to Mid-continent light goose distribution and behavior, both in Texas and throughout the Flyway. Texas now supports an all-time low wintering population of Mid-continent light geese.

Along with the decline in Mid-continent wintering in Texas, we've also seen a concurrent decline in hunter harvest participation in 1999 when the Conservation Order started, Texas had approximately 27,000 people participating. We now average just over a thousand. Harvest has decreased form a high of over 100,000 birds and now averages less than 10,000 and that's harvested during the Conservation Order statewide.

Additionally, is population of Mid-continent light geese have experienced a substantial and unprecedented population decline in recent years from a high of 19 million in 2007 to less than 3 million birds in the most recent estimate which just came out last month right after the January Commission meeting. That's a decline of 86 percent over the past 15 years. That decline is not due to Conservation Order or regular season harvest. In fact, researchers have now concluded the Conservation Order and the liberalized regulations associated with it, have been largely ineffective at reducing light geese as intended.

The recent decline instead is primarily due to very poor recruitment of young birds into the population. Climate change is impacting seasonal timing the Arctic, creating a mismatch of resources during the very limited summer breeding window and the young birds are simply not surviving to adulthood. Staff have discussed these issues considerably and are very concerned about the trends in Texas. This is a serious resource issue that requires our immediate attention. We cannot afford to wait until the Flyways and the Service respond.

Staff delayed proposals for over a year to gather more information for clarity and sought to achieve more public input. We held two public scoping sessions this last November in Richmond and El Campo, Texas, and those results were presented to you at the January Commission meeting. Based on the public feedback from those in-person scoping sessions, along with discussion and guidance from our Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee who unanimously supports the proposed changes, staff are proposing the following:

The Conservation Order is not a hunting season as defined by the Fish and Wildlife Service since it occurs outside of normal federal frameworks. Rather, it is defined as a special management action established to reduce what was once considered an overabundant population. That population has already declined 86 percent and it was -- it had declined over 50 percent just in the past year. Due to the low numbers of wintering light geese that remain in Texas and the rapidly declining population, staff feel strongly that the Conservation Order is an optional management tool that is no longer necessary and is not compatible with current conservation needs for light geese in Texas. We have a serious issue with a very valuable state resource that requires immediate action.

For 25 years, this population of geese have been the most pressured game birds in North America. They are hunted nearly year-round across their entire range. The proposals here will alleviate some of the pressure on Texas birds, as well as improve regulatory management by simply going back to federal frameworks where TPWD can better assess and adjust annual regulations as needed moving forward to ensure the long-term sustainability, future recreational opportunity, and overall recovery of Texas light geese.

In addition to eliminating the Conservation Order, staff propose to decrease the daily bag limit in the regular season from ten to five and to standardize the possession limit to three times the daily bag limit, making it consistent with all other migratory game birds. Currently, there is no possession limit.

Removing the Conservation Order will also allow Texas Parks and Wildlife to extend the regular light goose season by 19 days in the Eastern Zone to use all 107 days allowed under federal frameworks. I'd like to emphasize this is additional hunting opportunity into the middle of the month of February.

As of this morning, we've received 292 total responses, including one e-mail and one letter that I believe came through a couple of your offices. We have 25 percent of the commenters agree in support and 75 percent disagree. Many who disagreed commented about a loss of opportunity. Again, it's worth noting that increasing hunter opportunity was never the intent of the Conservation Order and the number of Conservation Order hunters in Texas has been just over a thousand in the past -- for many years.

I'd also again like to emphasize the proposal to extend the regular goose season in the Eastern Zone. As proposed, that's a 107-day season. That would be a 23-day difference from the Conservation Order, which is past years would run through early March. Late February, early March, most of the light geese are moving or have moved away from the coast and just in the past year in gathering more information to assess what we -- what action should be proposed, staff replicated the midwinter survey, the typical midwinter goose survey in the first week. We replicated that on the first week of the Conservation Order to assess changes in the number of geese on the coast. So from the third week of December when the normal midwinter survey was conducted to -- which is in the middle of the regular season -- to the first week of February, which is the start of the Conservation Order, we saw a 40 percent decrease in the number of light geese on the coast. So that 107-day season as proposed runs to February 14th. So the difference between that and where the Conservation Order would be is 23 days at the tail end of the wintering season for these birds when the majority of them are moving or have moved away from the coast.

I'd also like to point out that there -- in the commenters, there's still a lot of misinformation that this population of light geese remains overabundant and that is simply not true.

For the proposal to reduce the daily bag limit from ten to five, as of this morning we've received 286 total responses. 65 percent support. 35 percent disagree. The comments that disagreed primarily revolved around reduced hunting participation and once again, misunderstood the overabundant population.

For the proposal to standardize possession limits to three times the daily bag limit, we've received as of this morning 234 comments total, with 69 percent in support, 21 percent that disagree. I'd like to note that the majority of the disagreeing commenters actually agree with this if the Conservation Order is eliminated.

And then finally the proposal to extend the regular goose season by 19 days, as of this morning we've received 254 total responses. 54 percent in agreement. 46 percent that disagree. I'd like to note that about a quarter of the comments that disagreed were not germane to this proposal. And on those, we received a number of comments -- pretty wide variety of comments relating to season structure and timing and several that agreed with this if the Conservation Order is eliminated.

Moving on to dark geese. Most goose populations in North America are managed cooperatively by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the four Flyway Councils, including the Central Flyway Council. Last March, these groups approved a new management plan for the Mid-continent population of Greater white-fronted geese that winters in Texas.

As a result of new information from research that Texas Parks and Wildlife assisted in funding, the Greater white-fronts do not appear to have high fidelity to wintering areas and have been expanding into other parts of the Texas brush country and high plains. Thus, in this cooperative management plan, the restriction on daily bag limits for the species in the Western Zone in Texas was removed.

To be consistent with the cooperative management plan, staff propose to remove the Greater white-fronted goose bag restriction of no more than two in the Western Zone, as you see in circled area, and create a simplified dark geese aggregate daily bag limit of five, with no species restrictions, as you can see this slide.

As of this morning, we've received 256 total responses. 59 percent in support. 41 percent that disagree. Those that disagreed primarily commented that this would make the daily bag too high, result in too much pressure, and we had several comments that the bag should be the same both in the Eastern and the Western Zones. I should comment that recent surveys of Parks and Wildlife show 153 percent more birds in Western Zone than the Eastern Zone in recent years.

The next proposed change is in regards to Mexican ducks. The American Ornithological Union, or AOU, is the leading authority on taxonomy of birds in North America. In 2020, the AOU determined based on recent research that the Mexican duck qualified for specie status. Following this finding, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepted the Mexican duck as a species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by amending their 1013 list in 2023.

Since this species will be available for harvest during open duck seasons in all zones, Texas Parks and Wildlife will need to amend state regulations to be consistent with federal regulations by replacing Mexican-like with Mexican duck in our regulations. Dusky ducks will then be defined as mottled ducks, Mexican ducks, black ducks, and their hybrids.

So to date, we've received 179 total responses. 81 percent support. 19 percent disagree. Essentially all the comments that disagreed actually misunderstood the proposal.

Moving on to doves, this proposal relates to the Special White-winged dove area which encompasses the entirety of the South Dove Zone as shown in yellow. As a reminder, the Special White-winged dove days are a six-day special season allowed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the opening of the regular season in the South Zone which can occur no earlier than September 14th under federal frameworks.

For the last few years, the Commission has approved a season that spaced six special days across the first two Friday, Saturday, Sunday periods in September prior to the regular season opener on the 14th. Due to this year's calendar progression, combined with a leap year, September 1st falls on a Sunday and under federal rule, we cannot open any migratory season prior to September 1st. So this year we don't have two Friday, Saturday, Sunday periods available before the 14th.

To remain consistent with providing as much hunting opportunity during the special season as possible, we present the following calendar to take advantage of weekends, holidays, and Fridays. So the special days are shown in yellow, with the regular season starting on the 14th in gray.

For this proposal, to date we've received 168 total responses. 86 percent in support and 14 percent that disagree. Those that disagreed stated that we should open the first Friday of September, open the first full week in September, and then we had one comment that came in recently that asked to have September 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, so that Tuesday added to that.

For the North Dove Zone, we had request -- a request to move a week at the beginning of the second segment to the end of the second segment for more hunter opportunity when people are off work and school for the holidays.

To date, we've received 151 total responses. 76 percent in support. 24 percent that disagree. Several of those who disagreed misunderstood and thought this was referring to the first segment in September. Then we had some comments that thought this would conflict with deer and other seasons later in the year.

For all other migratory game bird, staff are proposing calendar progression and no changes to seasons and regulations. In terms of calendar progression and general seasons, for doves we've had to date 193 comments. 82 percent in support. For the rest of the webless migratory game bird species, we received 175 responses total, with 87 percent in support. For general goose seasons -- for all other goose seasons, we've received 224 responses, with 83 percent in support and for duck, as of this morning 233 total responses. 79 percent in support. We've received a wide variety of comments specifically on season structure and season timing throughout all the general season comments.

And then there's one last item that staff intend to include, a non-substantive clarification to clarify that all season dates apply to the 2024-25 hunting season. That concludes my presentation, and I would be happy to address any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Fitzsimmons.

Any questions by the Commissioners?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell. I have a question on -- well, I guess the first series you presented. We were talking about the Conservation Order and the perception -- I guess the perception that people have. Because the numbers you indicate -- I mean, that's the one area where we seem to have the most opposition. Everyone -- every other area, you had generally a kind of 60 percent or more, you know, a lot of it in the 80s on agreement with what's going on.

So how much of the -- how much of the impact on geese for the first proposal do you think is habitat? Is there something else we need to be doing to help with that solution as well?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes. Yeah, good question. So really in terms of what's impacting these geese and how many geese we have wintering in Texas and what's impacting them across their range as well as far as their distribution, it really comes down to the immense amount of hunting pressure and habitat. And in Texas specifically, we've lost a lot coastal marsh over the years that those birds historically used. We've lost 60 to 70 percent of our rice acreage that we had in the 80s and 90s since then. So it's a habitat issue in Texas. We, as a regulatory agency, obviously options are limited on what we can do as far as habitat in a privately owned state; but we are working on that diligently. So we have targeted management on our wildlife management areas. We're looking -- we're in the process of acquiring a property on the coast that's specific for waterfowl and then we have a program which is now, I believe, in its fourth year where we're working with private landowners in key areas of the coast to provide essentially sanctuary ponds. So we're working with these landowners to leave water on the landscape in February and March where these birds can go rest, put on the energy -- fat storage and energy they need to migrate out without being hunted on. So those are unmolested ponds through February and March. So that's the habitat side of things.

On the regulatory side of things, what we're essentially proposing to do with all these light goose proposals at the end of the day, is remove a management action that's really no longer necessary. The fundamental reasons the Conservation Order was implemented don't apply -- staff feel don't apply any more. So with that out of the way, we'll go back to federal frameworks like we have with all other migratory game birds, like we had before the Conservation Order, so that we can then really use the nuts and bolts of regulatory management that agencies do in terms of bag limits, season lengths, things like that to tweak as necessary moving forward to hopefully illicit a positive response from the geese in Texas. I hope that answers your question.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: It does. And just any -- do you have any perspective on why there's such a misperception --

MR. FITZSIMMONS: I --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Anecdotal -- because it's anecdotal obviously, correct?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yeah. I would say it was perceived to be such a critical issue 25 years ago, that this over-pop -- overabundant population be reduced and that message was put out because it was -- they were using hunter harvest to try to reduce it. Correct? So the message was sent to the hunting community that we need to reduce these things as much as possible, here's the Conservation Order where you can take the plugs out of your shotguns, you can do -- take extreme liberal measures to try to reduce these things.

And I think after 25 years of that, that message still persists. And I would also mention that there's been a really rapid change. I mean, we've seen 86 percent decline in 15 years. So we're essentially flip-flopped from what people were hearing two decades ago and I think that might be also why this persists.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is Commissioner Rowling. I mean, I'm not -- the numbers speak for themselves. But one of the comments said that no other states have acted on the Conservation Order. Is that correct? And if so, why have they not taken action on this?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: That's a great point. I can't speak to what other states are or are not proposing at this point in time. But, you know, the -- I think some of you were briefed and I'll spread this out too, this message, that the Central Flyway management plan for these geese essentially has two thresholds before an action is triggered to curtail a Conservation Order or reduce -- reduce the harvest -- reduce harvest and reduce season dates, things like that, be more conservative. And that is a three-year running average of 5 million or less, which we just now hit with this last estimate of 2.8 million, and a harvest rate of 11 percent. That's a target harvest rate of 11 percent.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, we've rarely seen the harvest rate rise above 2 and a half, between 2 and 3 percent. So realistically that's not going to happen any time soon. So in terms of action being taken at the broad scale either by the Service or Flyways, I can't speak to if or when they are going to take action. Essentially from a staff perspective, this is a Texas resource issue and we feel that immediate action is necessary for the resource in this state.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?

I've got a few. So it does -- to Vice-Chair Bell's standpoint or his line of questioning, every -- you know, all the other orders seem fairly, you know, required and there's buy-in from the public. This Light Goose Conservation Order, just a little more detail on it. Who actually implemented in 19 -- what was it? '99?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Who implemented that? Was that a federal -- that was a federal order?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Essentially the Fish and Wildlife Service allowed each state to opt in, from what I understand.

And maybe you've read some of this. Let's look at the legal experts.

The Service would essentially let a state opt in and it's an optional management tool that each state can use or not use including in -- throughout the fly away. Yeah. Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And as we know it, all states have opted in to the Light Goose Conservation Order and have continued to stay in it.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Correct.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So to date, no one has excluded themselves from it.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Not to my knowledge.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. And the primary issues or regulations that the Order allows are what? Bag limit ten?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: No bag limit.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: No bag limit.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: No bag limit.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: What else? Kind of walk through.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Electronic calling and --

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- no plugs in your gun and so help me with all that.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes, sir. No bag limits, no possession limits, extended shooting hours -- so another half hour past sunset, I believe -- electronic calls which are not -- none of these are allowed during regular federal frameworks -- and also outside of the normal dates of federal frameworks. So after March 10th these could be used and they are used pretty much throughout the Flyway. So these birds are under hunting pressure through the Conservation Order essentially throughout their entire range.

So another way to think about this in terms of Texas taking this action is by removing the Conservation Order, we're providing essentially the only known rest period from hunting pressure throughout the bird's entire range, if that makes sense.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And those provisions that you just listed, those are in effect for the entire hunting season?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Just for the Conservation Order.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And what period of time is that?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: In past years, Texas has used the Conservation Order essentially the beginning of February to the beginning of March.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So basically 2/1 through 3/1.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Around there. Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. And --

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Some years --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- what? You modify that every year?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes, sir. I think it's been -- it's been -- the length has been decreased over time as we've had less geese wintering here and staying longer. So you go back ten years, it might have gone into the end of March, mid-March. I'd have to look back at those dates. But -- but essentially, yes, it's going to be after the regular season. Which typically we close the light goose season even though we have 107 days under federal frameworks in the Eastern Zone. For dark geese, we have 88 days. So typically we'll run the 88 days out, which usually ends the end of January and then the Conservation Order will start after that. So the 107 days for light geese, we typically cut off at 88 because we have the Conservation Order in place for light geese.

I'd also like to mention when the Conservation Order is open, all other waterfowl and crane seasons must be closed.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. And do you have good data from Feb 1 to March 1 in terms of the taking of light geese under this Conservation Order in the state?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: We do. We do conduct harvest surveys, specifically for the Conservation Order. That's part of being able to opt in with the Service. I don't know -- I could check and make sure -- check and see what the timeline looks like from February 1st to March 1st, but we do know that based on surveys, you know, including surveys that we did just this past year with the midwinter around the third week of December and then we replicated that the first week of February, we saw 40 percent less geese on the coast during that time period. So the first of February, they're already starting to move out. By mid-February, you have less. By the end of March -- or by the first of March, they're essentially -- most of them are gone from that area. So reduced hunting -- or reduced harvest opportunity.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Well, look, I understand the data. I'm a little suspect in terms of Texas leading the way in terms of taking us out of the Conservation Order when no other state has done it previously to this.

And so, James, is there a way that we can get a little more up the curve on this from a Commission standpoint to understand, you know, what is the real impact in that period of time as to the light goose population, just to get a little more data? And what -- if we do approve all the other elements of the resolution, save and except this one, tell me what the timing would look like.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, Chairman. For the record, James Murphy, General Counsel. One option that you have that I would recommend would be to continue to have the full package of the statewide for public comment tomorrow, get a little bit more information from the public on the Light Geese Conservation Order, and then ultimately make a decision whether to move forward with adoption of that item or to remove that component and just adopt the remainder. And we can handle that on the fly with a modified motion tomorrow after the public comment period if that's your decision.

What you could then do would be to gather more data, do some more targeted perhaps data collection or instruct staff to do that, and then ultimately reconsider this during the next statewide cycle next year. And that would be a November preview where you would, you know, hear the results perhaps of some of that data and then a permission to publish in January and adoption in March. So if you wanted to get, you know, a little bit more understanding of the issue before making a decision, it could be postponed to the next proclamation cycle next year. But, yeah, we can certainly handle that tomorrow after public comment on the item.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Well, I would think let's take it one step at a time. Let's hear public testimony tomorrow. Then we'll -- we'll make a decision thereafter.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Yeah. Commissioner Abell. Could you pull up the graph?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: I think -- I believe that's slide...

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Seven.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Slide 7, if we could go to that please. And looking at my notes to answer some of what you were getting at, Mr. Chairman, the light goose -- five-year average light goose harvest during the regular season is 57,000. The five-year average during the Conservation Order is 8,800, so --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: How much?

MR. FITZSIMMONS: 8,800.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So 57,000 versus 8,800.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Correct. During what has been an 88-day season during the regular season and the Conservation Order which has been around 35 to 40 days.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So 8,800 divided by 40 -- what -- 200 a day? I'm just trying to get...

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes, sir. The average daily bag -- or the average bag per hunter per day, five-year is two and a half. The average seasonal bag, the five-year average is 6.7 during the Conservation Order.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. I think to that point and to the Chairman's point, I'm just afraid -- it's clearly an environmental problem, not a hunting pressure problem. You know, we're not -- we're not taking the Conservation Order away because of anything scientific or data driven. So, I mean, I think that's why there's such a negative perception from the hunting community because we're talking something away that they're not causing. So I think we should take another look at it.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah. Okay. I think so.

Any other comments?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I would just say hunting may not have caused it, but it is what it is and the numbers are what they are and we've got -- if there's a problem with the population, I think that's why staff has recommended this.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: I would add to your point that pressure is a major reason why these bird are not in Texas anymore. So that's something we're trying to address by removing these extremely liberal regulations, going back to just federal frameworks where we can start to control that moving forward with bag limits, season dates, things like that.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Last point to your Slide 7. I mean, there's been no significant diminishment it looks like in the population since '09.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes, sir. That's the hunters and harvest in Texas.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Uh-huh. Right. So, I mean --

MR. FITZSIMMONS: The population itself has decreased.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- the harvest is, you know --

MR. FITZSIMMONS: The population itself has decreased --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I mean, there was a huge decline -- I mean, as Commissioner Abell said, this is all environmental. I mean, we don't farm rice in the State of Texas anymore because the cost of water is too high and lots of different issues and urban sprawl. But anyway, let's just hear public comment tomorrow and then we'll make a decision thereafter. Okay?

Is that all -- that's fine?

All right thank you very much. Appreciate it.

MR. FITZSIMMONS: Yes, sir. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Work Session Item No. 7, Banning Canned Hunts and Establishing Track -- Trap Check Standard Rules for Mountain Lions --

MR. MURPHY: Oh, Chairman. I apologize. James Murphy here. We do have a couple more presenters on Item No. 6.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Oh, okay. All right. My apologies.

MR. HARDIN: Not at all. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jason Hardin. I am the Wild Turkey Program Leader for the Wildlife Division, and I'll present the statewide hunting proclamation this morning.

Staff propose the following changes to the statewide hunting proclamation, including statewide mandatory reporting for wild turkey hunting, removing wild turkey subspecies from regulations, more geographically based, changing wild turkey hunting regulations in select counties, and closing additional counties or parts of counties to wild turkey hunting. I will expand on each of these in the slides that follow.

Staff propose to expand mandatory harvest reporting to all wild turkeys harvested in state for all seasons. Currently we have mandatory harvest reporting in all counties with a one-bird bag limit. In addition, all hunters utilizing a digital license have mandatory harvest reporting requirements for wild turkeys.

Our current small game harvest survey no longer meets the detailed information that is required to manage this resource. The harvest survey does not produces harvest estimates until nearly 18 months after the spring season closes. Currently 32 of 49 states with wild turkey hunting seasons require some form of mandatory harvest reporting in some fashion to gain more accurate harvest statistics for monitoring populations. The detailed information we receive currently for mandatory harvest reporting provides a wealth of information that allows us to better manage the species via harvest in a more detailed manner.

As you can see with recent harvest -- or mandatory harvest reporting, including the digital license holders, the data obtained gives a nice range map of the species where open seasons occur. Furthermore, we track increases and decreases in harvest at a much finer scale and use recent harvest rates obtained in Texas to produce annual population estimates. Recent research findings in Texas recommended TPWD move to mandatory harvest reporting to better track wild turkey populations.

Here's an example of the Missouri Department of Conservation's web page that is updated four times daily that show updated harvest information by county during the spring wild turkey season. Texas hopes to use this new and expanded dataset to provide a feedback loop to our hunters and other constituents.

Staff received 76 responses, with 76 percent of respondents who agree completely and 24 percent who disagree in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Those who commented in disagreement generally expressed that Rio Grande wild turkey populations are strong and expressed opposition to new or additional regulations in general.

Next, staff propose to close the southern half of Fannin, Lamar, Red River, and Bowie Counties, which is the area south of Highway 82 in these counties to support ongoing wild turkey restoration efforts south of the Sulphur River. Historically, this landscape has not supported large wild turkey population and limited hunting occurred in this area with only one bird reported per year through mandatory harvest reporting requirements in these counties in both 2018 and 2019.

This slide shows increased harvest in the landscape south of Highway 82 following recent and ongoing wild turkey restoration efforts since the establishment of three restoration sites near the border of the southern half of these open counties. Harvest reports rose from one per year to ten harvest reports during the spring of 2023. This increased harvest is believed to be -- believed to be directly connected to releases in prior years south of the Sulphur River. Our Agency's restoration efforts here are not to supply a put-and-take situation, but rather restore wild turkey populations across eastern Texas.

Staff received 57 responses on this item, with 75 percent in agreement and 25 percent who disagree with part or all of the proposal. Those who disagreed with the regulation change generally expressed concern with reduced hunting opportunity and some requested excluding southern Red River County alone from the rule change.

Expanding on closures, staff propose to close Williamson and Bell Counties east of I-35 and all of Milam County to wild turkey hunting. In the last couple of years, Army Corps of Engineers staff at Granger Lake have requested a wild turkey restocking effort on Corps of Engineer lands and private properties surrounding Granger Lake. To get input from surrounding landowners, TPWD and the National Wild Turkey Federation hosted a regional scoping meeting on October 25th in Davilla, Texas. Approximately 40 people showed up to the meeting and there was a near consensus to move forward with restocking the area while closing wild turkey season. 56 percent responses were received, with 77 percent in agreement and 23 percent who disagreed in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Those who disagreed expressed a concern with the reduced hunting opportunity.

Next, staff propose to change the season structure in areas of the state with limited wild turkey populations. As you can see from this map, we already pointed out the potential to close all or a portion of several counties in the red hatched area east of Interstate 35 on this slide. Staff also propose to reduce the season length and bag limit in the black hashed portion of these counties from the current four -- North Zone, four-bird bag limit, to a spring only season, April 1 to April 30, with a one-gobbler bag limit per county. These areas, which are all east of I-35 in the Blackland prairie, have been highly developed in the last decade and only a few pockets of connected habitat remain that hold wild turkey populations.

Staff propose to change -- the same changes to these counties west of the Pecos River where limited wild turkey populations occur, but currently these counties have a four-bird annual bag limit. Moving these seasons to April 1 to April 30, with a one-gobbler per county restriction will be more commensurate with the current population status.

55 responses were received, with 73 percent in agreement and 27 percent who disagreed in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Those who disagreed expressed concern with the lack of biological data and a perceived reduction in hunting opportunity.

Finally, staff propose to remove subspecies from wild turkey hunting regulations to simplify regulations and tagging processes. As you can see here, there are lots of variation in the coloring of these birds which may lead some hunters to think these are different subspecies. However, the birds pictured are all the Rio Grande wild turkey. With this change to the Texas Administrative Code, staff also propose to specifically describe the East Zone in the same manner as the description of the North and South wild turkey zones for consistency.

73 responses were received, with 74 percent in agreement and 26 percent who disagreed in whole or part with the proposed regulation change. Those who disagreed feel hunters should be responsible for identifying the subspecies in question, like waterfowl.

At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have before I turn it over to Mr. Blaise Korzekwa.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions?

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Patton. How is the mandatory reporting going to work from an enforcement perspective? I mean, is there going to be within a matter of time from the kill? Is it processing? You know, I'm curious how that's going to go.

MR. HARDIN: Yes, sir. So currently our mandatory reporting is 24 hours after the time of harvest.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Okay. So there -- okay. All right. Well, that helps. So there is mandatory reporting in some counties where there's a one-turkey county?

MR. HARDIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: All right. So, yes, please tell me about that. And then is the proposed regulation going to be identical if adopted?

MR. HARDIN: Yes, sir. Since the mid 90s, Texas Parks and Wildlife in East Texas where we have a one-bird bag limit has had mandatory harvest reporting historically with a physical check station where hunters had to move the bird to a physical check station and have it reported and all the data entered. Currently we have it in a digital format online on the Parks and Wildlife website or through the My Texas Hunt Harvest app. We've been doing that for quite a period now and recently added ten additional counties to includes all of our one-bird bag limit counties across the state.

In addition to that, we have digital licenses that are available and all digital license holders who harvest a turkey must immediately report their harvest similar to putting a tag on your bird. They receive a confirmation number that makes them legal. If they don't have service where that is entered, they can enter it, it will say incomplete. Once they get service, they open the app and it's completed, they get a confirmation number that they can include with that bird.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Okay. So if a hunter's on -- if I'm on my ranch and I shoot a turkey and a game warden rolls up on me, he's going to want to see my hunting license and then he's going to ask if I've reported it presumably and I'm going -- after I say, yes, of course I have -- I give him my -- the number that I'd have on my phone?

MR. HARDIN: Yes, sir. And you will have 24 hours from the time you harvest that bird. You will go ahead and put your tag on that bird if you have a physical license. If you do not, you'll have some other form of tagging through the digital license. He'll ask if you have the number. You will have 24 hours or you will provide that number that will be on your phone or that you'll get through the website.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Anyone else?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. This question may be of a little different nature, but -- and all comments are important. But is there any kind of thing we use internally to say when we have a statistically relevant number of comments? Because I've seen different issues where sometimes we have two or three comments. Other times we'll have a thousand comments. But when we start going into percentages of the comments, you know, if we start relying on the percentage, but it's a low overall number -- I mean, there's 30 million people in Texas. If we get 50 comments -- you know, obviously it's very important to the people that commented. But is there -- how do we -- you might say how do we place any reliability on our comments, or is that something we do?

MR. HARDIN: I think unfortunately in Texas, wild turkeys are not as popular as Mourning doves and White-tailed deer and quail. So the number of responses perhaps aren't as high as we might see with some of those other species or guilds of animals. I believe in this case that when we're reaching those high 70 percentage marks, that we're probably in good shape. But as far as obtaining a statistical measure of what was the impact of that response, I'm not sure we have that.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah. Commissioner, so in the past -- and I just conferred with Craig here -- we had just given the percentages and not the number of respondents and then that's been a change that's happened -- it happened recent. I'm going to turn it over to Craig here so you can get a better sense of, like, what are we seeing in terms of the number of respondents.

MR. BONDS: Yeah. Thanks, David.

For the record, Craig Bonds, Chief Operating Officer. I can recall -- and I don't remember what the year is specifically, but at times we might have just reported the percent agree or disagree and then we would go into the details; but we made a conscious decision to add the number -- the total number of respondents so I think we all can collectively kind of weigh the relative contribution of the number of people that comprise those percentages.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Sure. And again, my question isn't to try to diminish the importance of anyone's comment. It's just trying to kind of establish that relative basis that we might be looking at things as well. That's all.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. And this may be a question more for Stormy. Back on the digital tag -- and it would apply to deer as well -- so if you're in an area that has no cell service and you shoot a turkey, deer, whatever and so on your phone at this point it just says no signal or whatever. Are you -- is the hunter expected to leave that ranch within 24 hours to get to somewhere where he can get a signal or, I mean, how would that be enforced? If you showed up and all I've got on my phone is that, you know, I've tried to report it, but it's -- but I'm not able to.

MR. KING: For the record, Stormy King with Law Enforcement. That record is on their phone. They can show us their phone and documented they created the record and that's what we would accept.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Okay. And just so the fact that I haven't gotten that number generated yet, it wouldn't be a problem.

MR. KING: Right. Correct.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Hardin.

Next, Mr. Korzekwa.

MR. KORZEKWA: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Blaise Korzekwa, White-tailed Deer Program Leader. This morning I will present proposed changes to the statewide hunting proclamation that will be considered for adoption at tomorrow's meeting.

The first proposal is to adjust the Desert Bighorn sheep season. And currently, the season runs from September 1st through July 31st. The season has been closed when Department staff have conducted Bighorn sheep surveys. Historically, these surveys were conducted in August. However, after review of our Bighorn sheep survey protocol, the survey period has been changed to October 1st through November 14th to allow for cooler temperatures and safer flying conditions. And due to this change, staff are proposing that Bighorn sheep season be changed to November 15th through September 30th to avoid hunting during the survey period.

Staff are also proposing changes to terminology used when referring to Pronghorn. These changes would remove references to Pronghorn antelope and antelope and simply replace with Pronghorn because they are not, in fact, a true antelope species. This change would also help simplify the language used in regulations.

The next proposal is in regard to the expansion of doe days. Although doe harvest is permitted throughout much of the state for the entire duration of the general season, there's currently 89 counties that have some form of doe days. These counties with doe days have restricted season dates in which does may be harvested with a firearm, which allows for a conservative harvest while still allowing for hunting opportunity.

These 43 counties shown in green on the map, currently have a 16-day doe season and are located in the Oak prairie and Pineywoods ecoregions. Staff are proposing that these 43 counties be expanded to a 23-day doe season.

The State of Texas is divided into deer management units, which the Department uses to estimate populations and to monitor impacts of harvest regulations. Those 43 counties represented in green are comprised of Deer Management Units 15 through 21 North and based on the Department's deer surveys, these deer management units have seen an increase in deer density, as well as a skewed sex ratio of 3.9 does per buck. And even with the current 16-day does season, antlerless harvest is only about 45 percent of the total harvest.

Staff have also received feedback from hunters, landowners, and farmers that have voiced their concern with the increasing deer population. Many farmers on the western edge of these 43 counties have voiced concern over an increase in crop damage. Those same hunters, landowners, and farmers have also requested an increase in doe days.

This slide shows a calendar view of the current 16-day season on the left side and the proposed 23-day season on the right side during the month of November. The 16-day doe season occurs during the first 16 days of the general season. Hunters have provided feedback that the 16-day doe season does not incorporate the Thanksgiving holiday, which is a time when many hunters are able to spend time afield. The proposed 23-day doe season would incorporate the Thanksgiving holiday and run from the opening day of the general season through the Sunday following Thanksgiving. Those additional days added are shown in orange on the calendar.

Although it's called a 23-day doe season, due to calendar progression and the week that Thanksgiving actually occurs on, some years may extend longer than 23 days. The bag limit in these 43 counties will still remain at two antlerless deer all seasons combined.

The next proposal is the modification of rules regarding method of take for youth harvest of branched antlered bucks on properties enrolled in the Managed Lands Deer Program harvest option. Under current regulations during the first 35 days of the Managed Lands Deer Program harvest option season, bucks without at least one unbranched antler can only be harvested with archery equipment. This applies to all hunters on the property, including youth hunters. However, these 35 days will overlap with the early youth-only weekend in which youth hunters may use firearms to harvest any legal buck under county regulations. This overlap and difference in method of take has caused confusion among youth hunters and under current regulations, even though it may be the early youth-only weekend, youth on properties enrolled in the MLDP harvest option still must use archery equipment to harvest branched antlered bucks.

Staff are proposing that youth hunters on are properties enrolled in the harvest option be allowed to harvest any buck with a firearm on the same days that correspond to the early youth-only weekend for county regulations. This calendar below shows the early youth-only weekend for the upcoming deer season. Because harvest option tags are regulated and issued by the Department, there's no consequences of allowing youth on these properties to harvest bucks with a firearm on the same weekend that is already allowed for all other properties.

I will also note that the next proposal would add a day to the earlier youth-only season and any adoption of that proposal would be reflected on these changes as well.

Lastly, staff are proposing that the early youth-only seasons in the fall include Friday for White-tailed deer, squirrels, and wild turkey. The calendar below shows the early youth-only season for White-tailed deer for the upcoming season, with the orange date representing the addition of Friday. Based on the Department's harvest and survey data, hunting pressure from youth hunters is low and the addition of Friday would provide additional youth hunting opportunities, but have little to no impact on the population.

And in regards to the Desert Bighorn sheep season, we have now received 41 responses, with 95 percent in agreement and 5 percent who disagreed in part with the proposed regulation change. Reasons cited for disagreement were not germane to the proposal.

In regards to the changes in Pronghorn terminology, we have now received 44 responses, with 90 percent in agreement and 10 percent who disagreed in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Reasons cited for disagreement were not germane.

In regards to the expansion of doe days, we have now received 94 responses, with 88 percent in agreement and 12 percent who disagreed in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Reasons cited for disagreement included too much hunting pressure and other comments that were not germane.

In regards to the MLDP harvest option proposal, we have now 71 responses, with 90 percent in agreement and 10 percent who disagreed in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Reasons cited for disagreement were not germane.

And in regards to the fall youth-only seasons, we've now received 88 responses, with -- with 85 percent in agreement and 15 percent who disagreed in whole or in part with the proposed regulation change. Reasons cited for disagreement were not germane.

Staff are requesting that these items be placed on Thursday's agenda for public comment and action. That concludes my presentation, and I'm willing to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.

Any questions?

If there are none, I'll place the item on Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

Thank you very much.

All right. Work Session Item No. 7, Banning Canned Hunts and Establishing Trap Check Standard Rules for Mountain Lions, Request Permission to Publish Proposed Rules in Texas Register. Mr. Richard Heilbrun, please make your presentation.

MR. HEILBRUN: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Richard Heilbrun. I'm the Program Director for the Wildlife Diversity Program. At your direction, we're proposing rule changes related to canned hunts and trapping standards for Mountain lions.

In January, the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group completed their yearlong analysis and recommended that the Commission prohibit canned hunting of Mountain lions. And we're defining canned hunting as when a lion is released from captivity for the purpose of hunting or pursuing with hounds. We propose to prohibit the hunting of lions that are in captivity or have been released from captivity. The proposed language would also prohibit releasing a lion to pursue with hounds. However, hunting free-ranging lions with and without hounds would be unaffected. We also propose specific language that clarifies that a trapped lion can still be lawfully dispatched.

The next section focuses on a 36-hour trapping standard for Mountain lions. The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group/Working Group agreed that checking traps regularly is an important and ethical practice, that targeted trapping is a useful management tool, and that if the Commission were to establish new trapping standards, that it should be done in a way to allow electronic trap monitors to satisfy that requirement.

Staff recognize the importance of trapping as a management tool in depredation scenarios and as a recreational and commercial activity. We also know from well vetted research that public support for trapping is strongest when it is perceived that trapping is regulated and conducted ethically. Changes to the trapping regulations would also have the benefit of minimizing accidental bear captures in traps set for lions.

In the last two decades, we've been notified of 17 bears in lion traps and when we're notified in the first few days of being caught, we were able to release 13 of them or about 76 percent.

Our object -- our objective today was to design a clear, concise trapping requirement for Mountain lions with minimal impact on the trapping of other species. The proposal we have for you is specifically about the trapping of lions. However, there's no trap that only catches lions and there's no trap that only catches coyotes. And since we were asked to avoid affecting the trapping of other species, it becomes very complex very quickly. We're trying to thread a very small needle here, and there is no silver bullet solution.

If we regulate a certain kind of trap or a certain kind of trap setup, we risk following a moving target of new traps and new trapping techniques. Instead, we defaulted to a method that is flexible and would not need to be updated regularly. So for that reason, our proposal is to prohibit a trapper from keeping a live lion in a trap or snare for more than 36 hours. That word "live" is key. The 36-hour rule would not apply to lethal trap snares, which are usually designed to kill very quickly.

We know that some folks might wonder, "Well, what if a snare intended to be lethal doesn't kill a lion quickly," or "What if I accidentally catch a lion when I wasn't trying to?" To east this concern, we propose a blanket exemption to the 36-hour rule if snares are equipped with a breakaway device that disassembles with 285 pounds of force. A breakaway device is essentially a weak link in a snare. With a four-and-a-half-foot cable in a typical snare setup, coyotes would generate an average of 192 pounds of force, maxing out at about 250 pounds. We know that bears can generate more than 300 pounds of force and we know that a Mountain lion can drag a 200-pound buck of dead weight. So there's evidence that they may be able to disassemble a snare with a breakaway device.

It's important to note that our proposal does not require a breakaway device on snares. However, adding a breakaway device would provide reassurance that if a lion were to be accidentally captured or accidentally captured alive, there would be no violation. Each breakaway device costs about 20 cents and takes a few minutes to add to a snare.

So in summary, the 36-hour requirement would only apply to keeping a live Mountain lion restrained in a trap. If there are no lions present, if it's a lethal set, or if the snare disassembles, no violation could occur. This proposal would also prevent bears -- which are a threatened species -- from being killed in lion traps accidentally.

Since the publication of the proposal, we've already started receiving some useful feedback. Staff recommends publication in the Texas Register and can report back to you in May with a proposal. And I am happy to address any questions you might have.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Mr. Heilbrun.

Any questions?

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. Explain a little more about the breakaway device. I mean, is the lion at that point running around with a snare on its leg, broken away from where that was attached?

MR. HEILBRUN: A breakaway device disassembles the snare and --

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Okay.

MR. HEILBRUN: -- so if an animal were to get out of that by applying enough force, it would be completely disassembled and it would not be carrying around any equipment.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commission Foster.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: The 36-hour requirement, how -- is that electronic only or how do you -- how do you implement a 36-hour requirement and how do you monitor it and how do we enforce it?

MR. HEILBRUN: As proposed, it's not regulating the trap. It's regulating the restraint of the lion. And so essentially it would be up to the trapper to -- if -- to comply with the law to set a trap so that either it cannot catch a lion or if they're trying to catch a lion, that they would have to check the trap every 36 hours.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: And is there some record of that? How do we know they checked the trap every 36 hours?

MR. HEILBRUN: There would be no record. It would be similar to the furbearing regulations that require a 36-hour trap check and so there would be a couple different ways for wardens to enforce that, but it would match -- it would echo that -- the intent of the 36-hour furbearer regulation.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett. So help me understand. So the reason folks that are trapping the lions, is it to protect cattle, I suspect or does it have anything to do with fur or --

MR. HEILBRUN: No. It's typically not for fur. Typically it is for a depredation scenario.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: All right. Anything else that's the reason?

MR. HEILBRUN: Some folks enjoy trapping lions and that would be sort of their recreational activity. But by and large, the majority of folks that are trapping lions are doing so either preemptively or retroactively because -- to prevent depredation.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Right.

MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Have you had much pushback on the canned hunt aspect of this?

MR. HEILBRUN: We have not, no.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?

I've got one. How often are these traps remotely monitored, whether it be camera or some kind of device that when they move, they get a signal?

MR. HEILBRUN: Outside of research applications, we do not believe that they are typically remotely monitored. The feedback that we hear from our wardens, from landowners, and from trappers is that there's a -- there's a fairly significant contingent of folks that are setting lion traps and just not checking them or checking them once a month, coming back a month later, three months later on a rotation of several ranches. There's --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.

MR. HEILBRUN: -- not a lot of monitoring going on.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So obviously to Commissioner Foster's question, I mean the enforcement of this is going to be challenging; but I like it because it's a very straightforward regulation and that is Mountain lions -- if you're trapping for Mountain lions, it requires a 36-hour trap check. So there's going to be a lot of trust and faith in the trappers that -- that are engaged in this and so -- so as an Agency, I think we should relish in that and hopefully they will abide by that voluntary inspection, so -- because it's going to be challenging. I mean, how is a game warden going to check? They would have to check the trap, see the Mountain lion, come back 48 hours later and see that same Mountain lion and then -- I mean, that's certainly very problematic.

MR. HEILBRUN: It is challenging. I will add that enforcement in the canyon of West Texas generally for wildlife regulations is pretty challenging, but this does put a lot of trust and autonomy --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Uh-huh.

MR. HEILBRUN: -- in with the trappers. But the scenario that you outlined would be one way for the wardens, you know, to enforce it.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: The expert's behind you.

MR. KING: You're running a risk saying that. Again, Stormy King, for the record. It will be challenging, Chairman, as anything -- as Richard mentioned -- out in that country is. You know, we're also always going to have to be mindful of what's necessary and any criminal case would be culpable mental state, which this addresses in some ways because it was -- as Richard called it -- trying to thread a needle to not be too burdensome on people who aren't trapping lions. Is that, you know -- under this structure, if you're trapping in, you know, 75 percent of the state, you're probably not going to catch a lion. So you wouldn't reach a culpable mental state of recklessness if you did and just happened to violate this, if that makes sense.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes, understand.

MR. KING: But it is going to require some cooperation on behalf of trappers for sure.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Sounds like a classic trust, but verify scenario, so.

MR. KING: Just on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Stormy, what's the -- what's the proposed penalty for violation?

MR. KING: It would be a Class -- Class C misdemeanor. Yes, sir. A fine-only offense.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. Just I'm going to take it that since we're going to talk about the management plan next, is there -- is there any thought process that goes into maybe the management plan can help with some ideas about how to regulate this more efficiently or to create more awareness?

MR. KING: I'm not immediately familiar with any aspect of the plan that would directly address enforcement; but as we develop it, I mean, we'll all be in the room together sitting down. So --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

MR. KING: -- it will be a part of those discussions for sure.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thanks, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

Let's see. If no further questions, I'll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.

Work Session Item No. 8, Briefing, Mountain Lion Management Plan, Voluntary Reporting Strategies, and Research Needs. Mr. Jonah Evans, please make your presentation.

MR. EVANS: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jonah Evans. I am the Nongame and Rare Species Program Leader within the Wildlife Division.

At the January Commission meeting, staff were directed to explore the development of a Mountain lion management plan, voluntary reporting strategies, and Mountain lion research needs in Texas. This -- in this briefing, I will discuss progress on each of those fronts.

The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group found broad agreement that TPWD should develop a management plan for Mountain lions. This plan would serve as a roadmap for the actions the Department will take and define clear goals and objectives and improve communication and transparency. The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group members recognize that Texas is lacking data on Mountain lions and felt that the plan should focus heavily on addressing this issue.

It was important to many Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group members that the plan preserve the ability of landowners to manage Mountain lions on their property. And importantly I'll just say that this is a plan for the actions the Department will be taking. This is not a plan for what landowners will do or should do on their property. This is a -- this lays out the actions of the Agency going forward.

So while we are still in the earliest conceptional stages, we expect the plan to contain the following key elements: A summary of Texas Mountain lion research to date; clearly defined management goals and objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound; a timeline for updating the plan and evaluating progress made towards management goals. The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group members specifically asked for a regional approach rather than a single statewide approach that accounts for differences in habitat, land use practices, cultural perspectives, and Mountain lion populations; a focus on research and monitoring population status and stakeholder engagement and outreach to affected landowners, ranchers, trappers, houndsmen, and others; and lastly, guidance for landowners on ways to manage Mountain lion conflict issues.

Staff plan to begin working earnest after the conclusion of the May Commission meeting and expect completion of the plan within a one-year time period. So during the remainder of 2024, staff plan to begin to outlining the document, complete a first draft, and gather regional stakeholder input. Oops. And then in 2025, staff plan to deliver the final draft to the Executive Office for review and approval and then come back to the Commission at that point and present you-all with the final draft.

Moving on to harvest data. Harvest data can be an inexpensive and valuable source of information on Mountain lion populations. One reason states gather harvest data is to estimate mortality rates within a region each year. And importantly, exact locations where Mountain lions are harvested do not need to be reported. And county level data should be sufficient for population modeling purposes. The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group recognize the value of harvest data; however, they were closely split on whether to recommend voluntary or mandatory harvest reporting going forward.

Bear with me. This is a little bit of science here. It's not too deep though. So a slight -- so directly estimating Mountain lion populations is notoriously difficult and expensive. States often accomplish this by combining data from previous research with harvest reports to create a population model. In its simplest form, the change in a population size is the result of the number of new individuals from either births or immigration minus the number of individuals who leave from either deaths or immigration, animals leaving the population.

So Mountain lion birth rates and movement in and out of a population are considered to be relatively stable and somewhat predictable and they certainly fluctuate with droughts and food availability; but these fluctuations tend to be relatively stable, and states periodically conduct new studies to update these estimates. Death rates, however, are more dynamic and are usually the largest factor impacting population change. For this reason, estimating death rates is a particular interest to managers. Like birthrates, natural death rates -- just background death rates in the population -- are generally estimated from past research. However, human causes of mortality are the primary source of Mountain lion mortality in western states and in all previous Mountain lion studies in Texas. And human causes can fluctuate unpredictable and significantly impact populations. So the challenge for managers is to accurately estimate the total deaths in a population each year, especially the human caused deaths.

So staff are reviewing options for how voluntary harvest data may be used in a population model and states with mandatory harvest -- or in states, rather, with mandatory harvest reporting, managers often use surveys of Mountain lion tag holders to confirm the number of reports that they're getting from the public and generally compliance with mandatory reporting rules is close enough to 100 percent to accurately represent the total harvest, as in the bar on the left.

And so one common misconception is that we simply need more voluntary reports in order for the data to be suitable for population modeling of some kind. The challenge of voluntary data, however, is that number of reports we receive is an unknown proportion of the total number of harvests that take place. So in addition to seeking to increase the number of reports, our efforts going forward will focus on ways to determine the proportion of total harvest that is reported voluntarily each year.

So staff are currently in the process of developing a Mountain lion module within the My Texas Hunt Harvest app. This app is used to report harvest of many other species with a smart phone. We are optimistic that this tool will guide hunters to provide good quality data on harvested Mountain lions, though we are uncertain whether this will result in a large increase in reports. Data will be collected at the county level, and customer data will be held confidential as it always is within the app.

So staff have considered a wide range of research needs for Texas and the following were identified as the highest priority. First, we need to better understand the status of our Mountain lions. We are lacking regional data on the size and trends of Texas' lion populations. Multiple research methods could be used for this, but it is likely to require capturing and collaring in various regions of the state. Noninvasive techniques such as trail cameras, have still not yet proven reliable for determining Mountain lion population status at large scales.

Other research priorities, including determining if the South Texas population is self-sustaining or in trouble genetically, as some previous research has suggested -- so, I'm sorry. Other research priorities include determining if the South Texas population is self-sustaining or in trouble genetically, as some of the previous research has suggested. This project would include a genetic analysis to better understand if populations in South Texas are being supplemented by Mountain lions moving in from other regions. And if a large-scale study is conducted, it's likely that this particular study would just be wrapped underneath the large-scale study. Similarly, there have been questions about whether Mountain lions in West Texas are self-sustaining or if supported from Mountain lions moving in from Mexico and New Mexico.

So lastly, while most recent public attitude surveys provided -- I'm sorry. While the most recent public attitude survey provided important insights into the opinions of Texas residents as a whole, it has been pointed out that the survey does not provide direct insight into the attitudes of West Texas landowners. So TPWD would like to pursue a specific public attitude survey targeting those living in close proximity to Mountain lions. This could help the Agency better address landowner concerns and mitigate conflict.

And that concludes my presentation, and I'll be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.

Any questions?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Yes, I have a question. Do we know if there's been any kind of public comment on the voluntary versus the mandatory harvest reporting?

MR. EVANS: We have not sought public comment on that issue, Commissioner Galo. We do -- I believe that was an item that was addressed in the statewide survey that was conducted. I don't recall offhand what the statics were that were reported in that.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Because I know it was very pretty much split down the middle in the stakeholder group and -- but something that was discussed in those discussions is that probably, you know, 30 years ago a Commission tried voluntary harvest reporting and it didn't go so well, did it? And they had an intention of making it mandatory and it never happened. And so we find ourselves here 30 years later with the same question do we do voluntary or mandatory and I think we've seen with deer that voluntary didn't really work and maybe with turkeys, I don't know if it worked. And so are we going to go down that road kind of again? Because imagine had it been voluntary -- I mean, had it been mandatory instead of voluntary 30 years ago, imagine all the data that we would have right now. And I know that overwhelmingly in the group it was the opinion that we need data.

So are we going to take it slow and we've seen that this voluntary really hasn't worked in the past or are we going to try to make it mandatory and get that data and see how we can manage the Mountain lions? And do the best for the Mountain lions.

MR. EVANS: Commissioner, I think that this is -- we are following the direction of the Commission here and so I would sort of redirect your question back to your fellow Commissioners, rather than ask me to provide opinion on it.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay. Fair enough.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: That was well-done.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That was really excellent, I agree.

MR. SILVOSKY: That was well-done. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Silvosky, Wildlife Division Director.

One comment I may add to that, Commissioner Galo, is the technology we have available for reporting now is much more significant than what we had the first time we attempted that voluntarily. So we're hopeful that with our -- I'll say addiction to devices, that we'll be able to get better cooperation with voluntary reporting than we have in the past. It won't be perfect because as Jonah described, you know, because we won't know how many people aren't reporting; but hopefully we'll get better data than we had before, so.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Oh, go ahead.

MR. EVANS: And I will add that the intention is for us to spend the next year working on a management plan and really diving deep into testing and experimenting with ways that we can make voluntary reporting work. If the Commission would like, we can report back on that, on the progress we've made on that front in the one-year timeframe.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Well, I think that was going to be my next comment that if we want to try the voluntary, how long are we going to try it and see if it works? So you kind of...

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Do you want to answer that?

MR. EVANS: Oh, I --

COMMISSIONER GALO: Well, it's --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Well, look, I would just say --

COMMISSIONER GALO: It's our decision. It's our decision.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- I wasn't around 30 years ago, but -- well, not in the Commission. But, I mean, with the use of technology, trail cameras, I mean, those just didn't truly exist back then. So I think the incremental approach is certainly the way to go and, you know, we'll see what we see. I mean, we'll see what the voluntary reporting is and how much -- what kind of data we get and once again, it's always easy to put more regulation on. It very rarely comes off and so let's -- let's take it slow, let's go voluntary, and we'll see if we can get some good data. So it sounds like a good --

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Chairman, I --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- plan to me.

Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: I don't -- I don't really share your view there. I --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You do not. Okay.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: I think it should be mandatory. I think the people that don't want to report, don't want to report for certain reasons and I think we need the data and I think we need to have some teeth in the regulation in order to get the data. We do have much more advanced technology now. It's easy to report and so I'm --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Nope.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: -- not quite on board with your opinion there.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Yep, understand.

COMMISSIONER GALO: And --

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is Commissioner Rowling. I guess I'm against more regulation, but in this -- we haven't collected any data. It's hard to collect data on these animals. And I guess my question for the stakeholders -- which, in my opinion, are the landowners in West Texas, which Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Patton are -- I mean, my question would be what's the downside, as long as it's anonymous and it's at a county level so you don't know what ranch it's coming from, it's -- you know, there's no names associated with it. I don't know what the downside is of collecting the information and making it mandatory to report.

COMMISSIONER GALO: If I could --

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: There's people against it clearly. But you don't know who it is, don't know where it's coming from. I would like to understand the people who are adamantly against it what they don't like about it.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Because the harvest -- the harvest reporting is already established, correct, and it is confidential and it's cost effective and it's easy to implement and it's easy for hunters and trappers to do. So I share your opinion. Really what's the downside to it?

MR. EVANS: Commissioner, I think during the stakeholder committee meetings, there was a variety of reasons that people held for why they did not like it. Some of them ranged from simply additional regulations and this feeling of more and more government regulations continuing to creep into our lives and tell us what to do and how to behave on our land. Other people felt like they were uncertain how the data would be used by the state and they were a little bit wary about that. Even in the context of confidential data, there was some concern and I think some of that is just latent miss -- lack of trust and a need to continue to build good, strong, trust-based relationships with landowners.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. Just as we're rolling out the plan, maybe one option is obviously some of the land that needs to be looked at or some of the habitat that needs to be looked at it is going to be either -- could be state park, might be federal park -- may be dependent on how we approach that monitoring on our property to provide data, we could suggest some best practices to people and keep it -- you know, maybe as we look at our approach, what would also be easy -- you just might say -- for the individual landowner to do as well and they -- and we could suggest that they mirror those activities.

MR. EVANS: I think that's good feedback.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is Commissioner Rowling. I'm kind of --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Kind of repeating myself here. But one of your slides had a comment about getting particular feedback from the West Texas landowners. In my opinion, that's paramount in our decision-making. I mean, as much as we may have opinions, people living in Austin or Dallas or Houston -- I mean, we need what they people that, in my opinion, are the real stakeholders care about and there's huge swaths of land out there. It's not that many owners. I think we need to really work on getting their feedback.

MR. EVANS: Agreed. Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. I think I'm gong to say basically the same thing. But I think, you know, as you set up those regional groups to get that regional opinion, I would generally fall with Commissioner Foster that I would like the reporting to be mandatory; but if there's something we're not aware of, if there's some valid reasons for not having it mandatory we need to know what those are.

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: All right. Well, Patton. I think one thing that we'll probably hear from ranchers, Texas Parks and Wildlife typically is regulating managing game animals, hunting activities, fishing activities. The harvest of Mountain lions is not a hunting activity. We're -- you know, we talk about the reporting and going to the My Hunting app or whatever it's called and I immediately envisioned some of the ranchers that may not have that app. They're like, well, this isn't a hunting activity.

We're talking about regulating something that is -- at least in my impression -- well outside of our scope as it relates to other activities. We're talking about managing a rancher's/landowner's nonhunting activity and I think it's probably the first time that we're really trying to do that. So it's kind of the first step down a slippery slope where we're attempting to regulate something that is kind of outside of our -- what we do. But if it is -- if it is what it is -- you know, if a Mountain lion was a game animal, that would be one thing; but it isn't and I just feel like we're getting ready to get into telling a rancher and a landowner how to -- how to conduct their business. And that's where I think we're going to get the most pushback.

MR. EVANS: And thank you for that, Commissioner. I'll just share that from what we've learned from the stakeholder committee, in South Texas most of the Mountain lion hunting is opportunistic from hunters sitting in a deer blind and they get the shot of a lifetime walks in front of them. In West Texas, it is a large component, this depredation, or -- and it's mainly related to deer hunting operations in West Texas, but we have -- we are becoming aware of an increasing number of ranches and outfitters that are doing pay-to-play Mountain lion hunting operations and also houndsmen out in West Texas. So we are seeing that that dynamic is a little bit more complicated than we initially thought.

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: And not to totally repeat myself, but the challenge you have -- and I think it's obvious by the comments you got -- is the people that are opposed to reporting voluntarily aren't going to report at all. So if half of them don't want to do it, then only half of them, I think, are going to provide us any data at all and, to me, that makes it kind of a useless program.

So again I reiterate, I think we -- you know, as Commissioner Rowling said, we're not asking them to identify themselves or identify what ranch -- publicly what ranch that the harvest takes place. We're trying to collect data and I don't think that's unreasonable, so

MR. EVANS: Thank you, Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: What are the reporting requirements for furbearing trappers, bears, coyote -- I mean, certainly coyotes is -- there is none. So kind of walk through what are the reporting requirements for other nongame animals that are being trapped for various purposes.

MR. EVANS: I'm going to have to dig deep to make sure I get this right, so -- because it's not the same as with the game animals where there is a reporting system in place. So first of all with Black bears, they are a state threatened species. So the hope is if you accidentally kill one, you immediately report that to a game warden and that's what we've typically seen or if it's dep -- a situation of defense of your property.

With other furbearing species, there are CITES, it's the federal Commission of International Trade of Endangered Species, I believe, agreement and that requires tracking the sale and tagging the sale of any furs for that species and we do require that licensed fur dealers report back any of the furs that they're buying from trappers and that any trapper that is a licensed trapper in the state, reports any sales of furs outside of the state. So from the trapper perspective, you're required to report what you sell outside of the state and if you sell something to a licensed fur dealer, you don't have to report that because that licensed fur dealer does the reporting.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it. But there's not mandatory reporting at the point source of when that animal is trapped. It's only --

MR. EVANS: Yeah, that's correct.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- when the fur is sold. But, of course, Mountain lions we're not selling the fur and -- well, look, you know, we've got a division here. I -- I mean, I look back to our stakeholder group that did a lot of work on this and can we get more discussion item -- more discussion from that group? Do we have more facts around how many in that group were for and against mandatory reporting?

MR. EVANS: I believe it was almost exactly 50/50. I think there might be one member difference because it was an odd number.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That's the wrong answer.

MR. EVANS: It was very close to the same as the trap check requirement.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Yes, it was 50/50. But overwhelming, they all agreed that we needed more data. Is that not correct? I mean, I just don't see how we're going to get that data with voluntary reporting. I mean, we tried voluntary reporting with deer. It didn't work out either. That's just -- I mean, I'm also repeating myself. So if we're going to get to where the majority, if not all, the stakeholder group want it to be, I just think that this Commission is going to have to break that tie I guess is what I'm saying.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, let me -- if I could offer up something, let me --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Please.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Let me get with the team. There's not an action item here. We're not requesting, you know, permission to publish. It's just informing you of the plan going forward, the development of the plan. Let me get with the team, talk a little bit more, especially about the mandatory versus voluntary reporting, get back to you, get back to the Commission before we go forward.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I think that would be great.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Look, I mean, we accomplished what set out to do: No canned hunts, 36-hour trap check. I mean, that is the stopgap measure. That is huge. This is a long-term program and so let's be thoughtful about it, to Commissioner Patton's perspective, to Commissioner Foster's perspective, and so let's just get more data and understand is mandatory required or should we remain on a voluntary basis. But no action required today.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: No action required today.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Good.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: It's just informational.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you.

MR. EVANS: Thank you-all.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Good robust discussion. Thank you very much everyone.

All right. Work Session Item No. 9, Chronic Wasting Disease Detection and Response Rules, Containment and Surveillance Zones, Check Stations, Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions and Disposal Requirements, Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in Texas Register. Mr. Hunter Reed, please make your presentation.

DR. REED: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. My name's Dr. J. Hunter Reed, Wildlife Veterinarian for Wildlife Division, and I'll be going over some proposed items for CWD detection and response rules.

So as quick overview, these are the items that I will be discussing today. The first is to implement statewide carcass disposal measures; second would be allowing for the deboning of carcasses; third, modifying CWD zone boundaries; fourth, removing surveillance zones 10, 11, and 12; and then fifth, implementing voluntary check stations and procedures; and then lastly, proposed Real County surveillance zone.

First, staff are proposing statewide carcass disposal measures here in Texas that is known in improper carcass disposal such as seen in the picture on the right of this slide, has facilitated CWD transmission. Currently the transmission risk from carcass movement is only managed within CWD zones and can present some inconveniences for hunters there, especially if they're unfamiliar with quartering of animals. Furthermore, staff recognize that efforts need to be made to address the risk of CWD transmission from carcasses outside of CWD zones where the disease may be present, but not yet detected.

While this proposal would also regulate carcass disposal for animals outside of zones, the carcass disposal measures being proposed today would provide hunters within zones a much greater rate of carcass movement options compared to current carcass movement restrictions. The options provided under the rule would change nothing for the majority of those who already properly dispose of their carcasses, as outlined under this proposal rule.

Staff hope to have these measures in place prior to this next year's hunting season. And to be abundantly clear, the proposed measures -- or carcass disposal measures, would only apply to deer harvested in Texas and to carcasses or carcass parts leaving the property of harvest. If carcasses or carcass parts are not leaving the property of harvest, then these proposed measures would not apply.

Staff proposes that if a deer is harvested in Texas and a hunter would like to transport the carcass or carcass parts from the property of harvest, there are a few options for that individual. The hunter, first, can take the whole or quartered carcass or alternatively as outlined by this proposal but not currently allowed for many properties is that the hunter would be allowed to debone the animal at the property of harvest for transport to a final destination.

If the hunter chooses to debone at the site of harvest, three requirements would have to be met. First, all meat from each carcass needs to be in a separate container. That plastic bag, cooler, whatnot. Second would be all muscle groups need to remain intact. So no meat could be ground, sliced, chopped. And then third, all required proof of sex and tagged documentation must be retained and accompany each individual carcass.

The hunter can transport the carcass of a harvested animal from the property of harvest by each of these routes, so long as all unused parts are disposed of. And they could be disposed of in a couple different fashions. First would be directly or indirectly into a landfill approved to receive such waste or buried and covered by soil, depth of 3 feet or more. Of course, the hunter would also have the option, if they prefer, to leave or return as much of the unused carcass as possible to the site of harvest.

These proposed carcass disposal measures will provide a greater range of disposal and processing options for hunters within the zones and additionally, this will provide greater clarity to hunters in Texas but outside of CWD zones on how to properly dispose of unused carcass parts, but still providing an array of disposal options that many hunters are already utilizing.

The next item being proposed relates to size of surveillance zones surrounding CWD positive deer breeding facilities. Right now, the Department's approach is to establish a 2-mile surveillance zone surrounding a property where a CWD positive -- or where there is a CWD positive breeding facility and including all properties partially or wholly within these boundaries. As you've seen through multiple zones adopted over the past year, many of these vary greatly in the size of the infected CWD positive property, as well as the surrounding properties that may be incorporated by the 2-mile zone. And staff are proposing only to establish a 2-mile surveillance zone surrounding the breeder pens, not the whole property and to remove the language "all properties lying wholly partially within."

An example of these changes can be seen for the Kimble County zone here on the right, where the red is the size of the current zone and the yellow incorporates the proposed changes. Hunters can still utilize the relatively new features on the My Texas Hunt Harvest app to aid in determining whether or not they are within the zone. And these changes will reduce the impact of surveillance zones surrounding CWD positive breeding facilities, while also maintaining important surveillance around the site of initial detection.

So an additional modification to CWD zone boundaries that staff are proposing would implement an expansion of the panhandle containment zone and surveillance zone. This past sampling season, two detections occurred within the surveillance zone, as indicated by the enlarged dots on the graphic on the left. Consequently, staff propose to expand the containment zone and surveillance zone to incorporate -- or expand the containment zone to incorporate these latest detections, as well as expand the surveillance zone eastward to incorporate properties where CWD would be expected based on a 25-mile range for free-ranging Mule deer.

Third, staff are proposing to remove three surveillance zones. That would -- oh, okay. So in each of these three zones, the facility owners for Surveillance Zone 10, 11, 12 -- 10 and 11 being in Uvalde County and then 12 being in Limestone County -- the facility owners have cooperated with the Department, as well as the Texas Animal Health Commission and United States Department of Agriculture by signing and continuing to comply with a herd plan mitigating the CWD transmission risk on their property.

Two of these facilities were depopulated after being allocated federal indemnity funds. While the other facility is utilizing a suite of risk mitigation strategies and surveillance, while still maintaining a breeding herd with no subsequent CWD detections within that herd. In either case, staff are proposing the removal of these three surveillance zones as the CWD transmission risk on the property is being mitigated through a signed herd plan agreement and multiple years of mandatory testing has not shown any free-ranging detections of the disease on any surrounding properties.

Next, staff are also proposing the creation of voluntary check stations and sampling procedures. Staff are proposing this change as it would give the Department greater flexibility in responding to epidemiological information gathered from our CWD zones, especially for free-ranging zones which require long-term monitoring and like the Trans-Pecos and panhandle zones, may have years of historical sampling effort that may not necessitate mandatory sampling each and every year.

With this enhanced flexibility, staff also could better balance surveillance needs with the current restrictions required within mandatory containment and surveillance zones. Most notably, carcass movement restrictions and mandatory CWD sampling. As previously presented, staff hope to alleviate the impact of carcass restrictions movement within the zones by proposing statewide carcass disposal measures. Similarly, staff also hope to alleviate the impact of mandatory sampling requirements by allowing for the development of voluntary check stations and sampling procedures when indicated.

And then currently, staff propose to transition the Trans-Pecos, Del Rio, South Central, Lubbock, and 2020 Kimble County containment zone and surveillance zone to these voluntary sampling procedures. Staff also propose to transition only the panhandle containment zone to a voluntary sampling -- to voluntary sampling procedures. However, the panhandle surveillance zone would remain mandatory due to the recent detection, as previously mentioned, of the panhandle zones.

And then lastly, staff would like to propose a surveillance zone in response to CWD detection in a deer breeding facility on March 11th of this year. This detection in a ten-year-old White-tailed deer doe was confirmed by the National Veterinary Surveil -- or National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, just yesterday. And it should also be know -- be known that there's a three-month delay in detection at this facility, as the animal died on December 1st of this past year, but was not submitted until the end of February of 2024, not in compliance with current rules. As is consistent with this -- with our current proposal, staff propose a 2-mile surveillance zone in response to this CWD positive detection.

Thank you for your attention, and I'm available for any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions for Dr. Reed?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. I have a couple. Just in regard to the current carcass disposal rules, if you're -- where you talked about if they go off property. What's the disposal rule if it remains on property?

DR. REED: Those would -- those would not apply. So they could leave the carcass parts on top of the ground, they could bury on site. There's no restrictions if those parts are staying on that property.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And the only reason why I ask is just if we're -- it would seem like we -- however we dispose it, we would want it aligned. If you need to bury it off property, it seems like you would need to bury it on property. But we'll -- I'll leave that.

The -- I did have a question on Slide 8 and Slide 10 on the -- on the -- on the expansion. How -- what's the distance? Because we were talking about 2 miles, just this yellow zone. What's the -- is that 2 miles or am I misunderstanding? Because if the current proposal for the new zone would be a 2-mile radius, so to speak, is that 2 miles from that --

DR. REED: No.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: -- detection point?

DR. REED: No. It's much larger. So these are free-ranging detections of CWD. So these are not confined to deer breeding facilities. So -- and we're also dealing with a different set of species up there. So we're dealing with elk, we're dealing with White-tailed deer and then also on the exotic side of things -- oh, sorry. Elk on the exotic side of things and then Mule deer and White-tailed deer.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And so -- and so what's the impact then on property owners --

DR. REED: So --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: -- if they're in that area?

DR. REED: So currently folks that are not within -- that are being added into the additional yellow area proposed on that second slide, they would be engrossed by the CWD zone. But if we move forward with carcass -- currently, that would mean that there would be mandatory sampling and carcass movement restrictions. Moving forward though, if we move forward with this proposal, there would be carcass disposal rules in place of carcass movement restrictions and we are proposing that at least in that surveillance zone -- well, in the surveillance zone area it would be mandatory sampling; but in the containment zone area, that would be switching to a voluntary sampling approach.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. And final question and then I'll let someone else come on in. It's just -- I'm just trying to understand if, so to speak, if all the proposals, so to speak, align so that, you know, if -- for -- in my mind, when you say a 2-mile radius, that's easy to understand. And so when I see -- when I see that additional yellow and I see those big swaths in West Texas in the Pecos and up in the panhandle, I'm just going those just seem to be bigger than what we're talking about. So how do we -- how do I -- how do I align all of that for explanation?

DR. REED: Yeah. So we're dealing with a different reality there. In breeding facilities where we're actually able to go in and we are able to either depopulate a facility or enact a herd plan, an alternative approach that implements genetic testing as well as whole herd antemortem testing, we're able to much more efficiently manage the disease in that context.

When we're talking about a free-ranging detection of Chronic Wasting Disease, unfortunately we do not have that same luxury. So we have to create larger zone in order to encompass the full area of where those animals might be dispersing to or moving to. And that's also to make sure that hunters and landowners in that area are cog -- are aware of the risk of transporting carcasses out of those areas that quite possibly could be infected with Chronic Wasting Disease. So --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. And in this case, I think you said it's 25 miles?

DR. REED: Yes, because of a different species, Mule deer.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Sure. And So my flip side question would be why not 10, so to speak? You know, I'm just throwing it out there. Why is it 25? Why isn't it 10? Why isn't it 50?

DR. REED: So this -- it's been consistent with our CWD management plan, of which we -- we need to make revisions to, but it is based off of biological data related to the amount of dispersal and home range size of Mule deer. So that's where that's coming from.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I have question.

DR. REED: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett. So how many acres is the new proposed zone adding to the zone?

DR. REED: I...

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: The yellow. The yellow on your map.

DR. REED: I do not -- I'm not aware exactly, but that's a number that we can certainly provide.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: It looks like thousands.

DR. REED: Certainly. Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay. So the follow-up to that -- so thousands of new acres. I know you have two new sightings, but is the data still the same as it has been historically that less than one-half of 1 percent of free-range have been detected with CWD?

DR. REED: So there's a lot to unpack there. So what we're -- for this zone, at least in the panhandle, this is one of our more heavily infected zones. We have -- we do have a higher prevalence of the disease. So when you really look at the actual amount of disease in that area, it's around 4 to 5 percent. So -- and it is to say that we have a very biased sampling -- sample -- or sample population there. Most of it being bucks. So that could be slightly inflated based on what we know about Chronic Wasting Disease.

Regardless, when we're talking about this specific zone, it is certainly one of those that has increased over time these past few years. So -- and based on this new information that we're getting about the actual positive detections in the surveillance zone, it appears not only is the prevalence increasing, but also the distribution of the disease is increasing as well.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Could we get some data, the Commission? I think it would be very -- if we're going to add tens of thousands of more acres -- when you look, it's, you know, half of -- that's one full county, but then half of maybe six more counties. Could we get more data on the actual infections in that area, in the zone, specific zone we're talking about?

DR. REED: Are you specifically requesting the amount of tests, amount of positives, and --

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Right. And the --

DR. REED: -- locations.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: -- data you're using to expand the zone.

DR. REED: Yeah. We have that. That's readily available.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: That would be interesting. And in sort of a summary fashion would probably be better for us.

DR. REED: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: All right.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Scott.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: One question I have in past meetings, we've done or best to try to decrease the size of these surveillance and the zones and everything and now it appears we're reaching out and reversing the position that we had instructed y'all to try to accomplish. What's -- what's going on?

DR. REED: So I would say that we've actually been very successful in decreasing the size of surveillance zones and the amount of properties that have been engrossed by these zones and we're coming here today with a suite of options that would allow for greater movement of carcasses or more easier movement and proper disposal of carcasses outside of these zones, which is helpful to those that are currently within those zones. But also we're proposing voluntary sampling approaches for Trans-Pecos, panhandle, multiple other zones where folks that might be in the far-flung reaches of West Texas would not have to come in and provide a CWD sample.

So while we are -- we're increasing the size of this one zone here and proposing a surveillance zone, 2-mile surveillance zone in response to this next positive detection, I would say that we have come forth with many, many items to try and reduce that burden on hunters and landowners.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well, in that vein, I agree with Commissioner Doggett. I would like some more definitive numbers. I would like to see not just one little spot of it. I want to see how we are decreasing them. I want to see where we're increasing them. I would like a complete explanation on this topic.

DR. REED: Yeah. And I think it's important to we recognize that we have very different realities when we're creating zones in response to detections in CWD positive deer breeding facilities and when we're trying to respond to detections on free-ranging populations.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: And to finish my question that I just thought of. Where does Texas Animal Health sit on these new proposals you're doing?

DR. REED: Texas Animal Health and I -- and our Department, we move in lockstep. So they are in support of these and we are moving -- and we're moving forward with their support.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: That being the case, I would like somebody from Texas Animal Health to be here to answer some of these specific questions to make sure we're all on the same page.

DR. REED: Yes, that can be arranged.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. I have one other thing. You know, because on one hand -- I'm just trying to go with the preponderance of the information and I understand we're talking terminology of deer breeder pens versus free-ranging deer. But, you know, the other thing that I'm struggling with a little bit is when we're -- if we're trying to offer people some relief, as well as trying to manage this, you know, I was very hopeful when we said we were removing Surveillance Zones 10, 11 and 12. Right? But when I see what we're doing there -- and maybe those are breeder facilities -- but I see a dot on the map that we're offering relief to and then I see this where we're taking swaths of stuff and putting back it back in. So on one hand, I go net-net we are -- we have -- we now have more under surveillance, so to speak, than we did before until I see the rest of the map where the other zones have shrunk, so to speak, to the 2-mile radius. So the visuals -- I'll just say this. The visuals are not helping me think that we're offering relief and simultaneously managing this, which is I think is what we're trying to get to. So that visual is just not helping me.

DR. REED: So I think there's a couple different directions there. I can't -- that's just the reality of Chronic Wasting Disease. It's one of these diseases that once introduced in a free-ranging landscape, it is very hard to control, it disseminates within that population, and we just have very limited tools in that setting to try and negate that.

Of the situations where we have compliance and we have cooperation with deer breeding facilities -- of which we've received from some, but not all -- we have been able to remove -- or we're trying to propose removing some of those zones that popped up just a couple of years ago. As we move forward here in trying to mitigate and manage the risk that occurred within the past year, that -- we're just starting to work through that; but the hope is, is that we go in that same direction on those same properties.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: One more, Jeff.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yep, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: On that vein you just said, I guess another question comes to mind. Where is the data, where are the assumptions, or how are you making the assumptions that we need a five-year trace-in, five-year trace-out? I'd like to know where that long of a period and I'd like to see who's making these statements. I'd like to fully understand that issue. I think all the Commission would like to know where we come up with some of these broad deals that we're now expanding things that I don't think need to be expanded. Thank you.

DR. REED: Well, that's an easy question to answer and we lean on our federal partners with USDA and we reference the CWD program standards in coming up with those sorts of guidelines. As we try and manage the disease at least in deer breeding facilities and to be in compliance with the herd certification program, not us, but Texas Animal Health Commission are -- have to basically abide by some of those standards in order to be in compliance with those expectations. So that five-year trace back is really a derivative of that and it is trying to really harmonize any sort of rules, regulations that we have between the two agencies and obligations that we do have.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I just go back to my statement. I would -- when we're making the statement that y'all are in lockstep with Texas Animal Health, I think it'd be very helpful to have somebody, a representative from them to sit here and say that we're in lockstep.

DR. REED: We can arrange that.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Any other comments?

I'll just make a couple. Look, I do think we're making some progress. I mean, maybe it's one step forward, two steps back; but you have increased the surveillance zones -- actually, are those containment -- those are containment zones, right?

DR. REED: The red is a containment zone, the yellow is the surveillance.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Surveillance zone. So you expanded those quite substantially. That's all a free-ranging -- free-ranging issuing, right? And --

DR. REED: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And you've got good scientific data as to how you set that boundary, that yellow boundary that extends to the east and -- east and south?

DR. REED: So it -- there's two things that we're trying to do here. So we're trying to really encompass really the home range of the species that are infected, but also what we're trying to do because this is a free-ranging zone, create easily definable boundaries for hunters to follow just because of the amount of folks impacted and as well as just trying to make things simpler, more seamless out in the field, and for enforceability.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And, I mean, I understand. I mean, controlling CWD free-ranging versus breeder sites is a totally different exercise. So, okay. But we are removing some zones, correct?

DR. REED: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That's a positive.

DR. REED: Well, proposing. Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Proposing. We are moving to a voluntary check station versus mandatory in some areas, correct?

DR. REED: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That's a positive. We are moving from just catch it all to a 2-mile radius around deer breeder operations?

DR. REED: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And that is statewide, correct?

DR. REED: Yes. So that 2-mile boundary would be for any CWD positive deer breeding pens.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So any surveillance zone that was around a site that was previously 20,000 acres, lets say just for an example, a 2-mile radius is about 8,000 acres. Every surveillance zone will shrink to 8,000 acres.

DR. REED: Yes. If we don't have any free-ranging detection of the --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Right. I understand. It's all --

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- deer breeder.

DR. REED: Just deer breed -- yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So any idea how much reduction in acreage that impacts?

DR. REED: I did not calculate that figure, but that is something that we can --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That would probably be great for this Commission. They'd --

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: -- like to see something like that. I mean, show you're wins because that is -- that is a win that -- to reduce that down to 2 miles. And then the carcass disposal is clearly a nice, new ease of regulation. So anyway, one step forward, two steps back; but let's keep at it. You've heard the comments. Let's get Tex -- let's get Animal Health Commission here next time and work through, David, some of the data that people want to just get more specificity around this. Okay?

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So if further questions, I'll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.

Thank you.

All right. Work Session Item No. 10 -- hopefully, everyone likes this -- CWD Detection and Response Rules, CWD Testing Requirements at Deer Breeding Facilities, Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in Texas Register. Dr. Reed, please make your presentation.

DR. REED: Thank you. Good morning again, Chairman and Commissioners. Name is Dr. Hunter Reed, Wildlife Veterinarian for the Wildlife Division. I'll be talking about CWD testing requirements at deer breeding facilities.

This proposal, a little bit shorter and it includes three different items. First, removal of Tier 1 rules and I'll give you an overview of that and that means. Two, requiring the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive deer. And three, nonsubstant -- substantive housekeeping changes.

For the first item, proposing the removal of Tier 1 rules, I would like to briefly clarify what Tier 1 rules actually are. Following the detection of a CWD positive at a facility, the Department initiates an epidemiological investigation which traces all facilities that have transferred deer into and out of a CWD positive facility within what we just discussed, the five-year period. That is shown -- the positive facility obviously shown in red there. All breeding facilities that receive a deer from a CWD positive facility within that five-year period are considered trace-out facilities.

These trace-out facilities shown in orange here, in turn, may have transferred deer out of their herds after they received a CWD exposed animal. These animals termed the Tier 1 animals shown in white there, could be infected with CWD and may be a source of transmission to other herds. As a result, Tier 1 facilities or breeding facilities that have received a deer from a trace-out facility within five years of a CWD positive detection, are converted to non-movement qualified status until the disease risk can be evaluated through postmortem and/or antemortem testing.

While these rules have provided an extra layer of protection for breeder herds until sufficient information is gathered to assess a particular disease exposure, staff are proposing that these Tier 1 rules be removed in light of the improvements in our CWD surveillance system for breeding facilities, such as 100 percent postmortem testing, increased postmortem substitution requirement, antemortem testing prior to release, and most recently adopted antemortem testing prior to transfer to another breeding facility.

These combined improvements provide the Department with greater confidence that CWD infected herds are being quickly and reliably detected across Texas. This also means that trace herds are being converted to non-movement qualified status in an appropriate period of time and that there is a very small likelihood of any animal being exposed in a trace-out facility and still being transferred to a Tier 1 facility under our current surveillance system. So consequently, staff propose to remove these Tier 1 rules.

The second item proposed would be to require the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive deer. With enhanced antemortem testing surveillance for Texas breeder herds, the Department has encountered situations where CWD positive -- or confirmed CWD positive animals may still be present in herds. Currently, our rules only require deer in epidemiologically linked facilities to remove and postmortem test confirmed CWD positive animals and additionally, herd plans developed in cooperation with Texas Animal Health Commission, TPWD, USDA, and the facility owner, require removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive animals.

However, there's no requirement for the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive animals if they are not in an epidemiologically linked facility or have yet to sign a herd plan. So staff propose to address this gap to reduce the risk of CWD transmission within and outside the breeding facility.

And then the third item related to these non-substantive changes involves moving previously adopted items from our transition provision section to existing sections for -- just for clarity.

But with that, I'll answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions for Dr. Reed?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I've guess one thing while we still have you up here, Doctor, and I'm a little late on this. So I was looking up, you know, just Hudspeth County alone is a million acres. Right? So we're folding that into the surveillance and then the other counties are about 500 to 600,000 acres and there's six of those. We're adding half. So we're adding 2 million acres it looks like to the surveillance zone for -- and we had two sightings?

DR. REED: I will say, yes, it's large.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Yeah.

DR. REED: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: 2 million plus acres. So I think that just underlines our need really to see the data on these two sightings and the other data that would make us want to expand a zone 2 million acres. It makes the other seem sort of inconsequential that we're shrinking when we're adding 2 million.

DR. REED: Yeah. And I just have to say that that's just a very different reality up there. So we're trying to balance really impact, but also make sure that we have a biologically relevant and cognizant strategy up there that addresses not just White-tailed deer, but also Mule deer and elk which have much larger ranges.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: That will be very interesting, the data on that, your summary of that data.

DR. REED: Yeah, we'll provide that to you.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. In your previous presentation, there was one new zone added where there was a postmortem test, but that it was submitted way past the deadline. What was the consequence for that or punishment?

DR. REED: So that's very recent. We just got confirmation back today, but we're certainly going to follow-up with that and we're going to actually meet with that facility owner soon. But, yes, our intent is not to have that occur in the future.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Right. Up to this point, it seems like a lot of times there's -- you know, there's a rule, but there's not much of a consequence. So, I mean, I think the consequences are pretty important for compliance.

DR. REED: Yeah. No, I'm confident we'll have law enforcement response following this detection.

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Good.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. I have one question on the last presentation, and you might have said it when I had stepped out. But as far as the proposal there, did we say how many facilities that frees up to be movement qualified? Did you indicate that?

DR. REED: The Tier 1s? Is that what you're referencing?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Yeah. Because where you -- in the -- in the diagram, we had the Tier 1s, we had the trace-outs. So with this change, some facilities should now become movement qualified basically as soon as -- shortly after this is passed, if we pass this; is that correct?

DR. REED: That will -- yes. So in light of this most recent detection and then also our past kind of outbreak situation over the last year, we've worked through a lot of those facilities already. I think the most value from it is in future detections is that we're not going to tie up those additional facilities considering the types of surveillance system that we have in place right now, which is much safer.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Well, because the Chairman had mentioned before, so to speak, be able to take your wins too and I was trying to -- I was trying to figure out if there was a win some place. Because, you know, my understanding when I got an earlier brief on this, that there was a fairly significant number of properties that were freed up to be movement qualified. I'm just trying to verify that.

MR. SILVOSKY: I'll call it good afternoon. Again, John Silvosky, Wildlife Division Director, for the record. So this is somewhat of a moving target because people become movement qualified and not-movement qualified as Dr. Reed alluded to. But as we put this rule proposal together, we had 139 properties/permittees identified that if we implemented -- changed the Tier 1 status on that date, those people would have been freed up at that time. But don't hold us to that number now because --

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: No, I'm not.

MR. SILVOSKY: -- it changes. But we'll just say more than a hundred.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Right. So -- and I'm just trying to get that, so to speak, the opportunity to get that estimate on the record because if people are interested in what we're doing and how we're doing it and trying to work with all the stakeholders involved, you know, that's a positive. And I'll go back to Commissioner Doggett's comment about, you know, two deer and 2 million acres, that's just mind boggling to me. Right? So, I mean, that's why we need some more data around that too so we can -- so this win doesn't get diminished by something else that we're doing. So that we're moving across the board in a right way and everybody can feel good about it, regardless of where they are on the issue, that something's being done and that all interests -- we're try -- we're doing our best to address all interests. You can't make everybody happy. We know that.

MR. SILVOSKY: I would agree with that comment that we're doing our best to address all interests in this and it's quite challenging, but we are trying to address those.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Any other questions?

I'll just make a comment. I do think excluding the Tier 1 facilities is fantastic. I mean, that has been a real area of agitation to landowners and I can see why logically. As well as non-movement qualified, you can't put DMPs on the property either. I know you guys have prevented them from doing that, correct?

DR. REED: Yeah. So that's our current policy is we do not allow DMP on trace-out release sites.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But if we approve this, then in the future that will go away?

DR. REED: So this proposal doesn't directly address DMP.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: It does not?

DR. REED: No, no. So Tier --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. So why -- why would you not be -- I mean, why would not the two be equivalent to each other? I mean, why would we approve non-move -- that you can now move deer off, but you can't put a DMP pen on a trace-out Tier 1 facility when we've talked about the testing has become so specific and so exacting at the point source, you're now going to a third tier and precluding them from putting a DMP pen on --

DR. REED: So to clarify, we don't allow DMPs on trace-out release sites. What we're addressing today is Tier 1 facilities. So trace-out's have received deer directly from a --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Right. I'm not talking about trace-outs.

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Tier 1s. Can I put a DMP pen on a Tier 1?

DR. REED: We currently do not -- so that doesn't incorporate -- Tier 1 facilities are only breeding facilities. They're not release sites, if that makes sense.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So a Tier 1 is only...

DR. REED: Only breeding facilities.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Only a breeding facility.

DR. REED: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. So -- well, they're a DMP by nature, I mean, or a scientific breeding pen. So they can have a DMP pen, I mean, effectively.

DR. REED: Well, that would be on -- that's a different designation. They're --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I understand.

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: It's -- what -- scientific breeding or something, so. But importantly, now a Tier 1 deer breeding facility can be now movement qualified.

DR. REED: Yes.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Okay, fantastic.

DR. REED: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. That took -- all right. My apologies.

Okay. Any further questions?

If not, I'll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.

Thank you. I -- let me ask you one thing. Sorry. Trace-out facilities. So landowner -- landowner gets an infected deer from a breeding facility. Those rules are all still the same, correct?

DR. REED: Yes, for breeding facilities and release sites.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And release sites. Trace-out?

DR. REED: Trace-outs, yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Trace-out, okay. You know, it seems like deer breeders should be Tier 1 and like trace-out should be Tier 2, you know, but anyway, I'm not --

DR. REED: It took me a while to learn all the regulations.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Sounds like government speak, but okay. Thank you very much.

Work Session Item 11, Disease Management, Special Take Authorization Rules, Request Permission to Publish Proposed Rules in Texas Register, Mr. Stormy King.

MR. KING: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. For the record -- or good afternoon now. For the record, I'm Stormy King, Assistant Commander of Wildlife Enforcement for the Law Enforcement Division. I'm here today on behalf of staff to request permission to publish to the Texas Register proposed amendments related to special take authorizations associated with disease management.

During the 88th Texas Legislative Session, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3065 which was signed into law by the Governor and became effective on September 1st, 2023. The resulting amendments to Parks and Wildlife Code allow the take of wildlife by persons authorized by TPWD as part of a program or event designated by the Executive Director to be for the purposes of diagnosis, management, or prevention of a disease in wildlife.

These authorizations will facilitate the more timely and efficient collection of wildlife that historically would have had to have been conducted either by TPWD staff or under the provisions of a recreational hunting season and in accordance with bag limits, means and methods restrictions, tagging requirements, et cetera. Such authorizations can be a benefit to both the Department and landowners by, for example, providing for the quicker clearance of a release site in a trace scenario.

House Bill 3065 granted the Commission authority to adopt rules to implement provisions of the new law. While many species can legally be taken year-round day or night by licensed hunters, this is obviously not the case with our deer in Texas. It is also obvious that at least at the current time, deer present the most likely need by the Department to address a disease concern and as such, pose the most likely need to provide a special take authorization to a landowner.

As perhaps the most iconic of Texas wildlife, it is imperative that we develop rules to govern these authorizations that reflect the economic and cultural value of deer to this state. The rules, as proposed, would create processes for application and issuance of authorizations, specify requirements for disease testing and reporting, and provide reasonable limits on activity conducted under the authorizations to protect the integrity of the intended purpose and provide accountability by enforcement action for noncompliance.

And with that, staff request permission to publish proposed changes to the Texas Register. And I'd be happy to address any questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Questions for Stormy?

Okay. Hold on. A hypothetical. So I'm a deer breeder. I've got a deer that I've tested that has CWD. Currently, I cannot terminate that deer?

MR. KING: In a deer breeding facility you can.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You can, okay.

MR. KING: You can currently euthanize for disease testing purposes within a deer breeding facility.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: In a breeding facility. So now that deer's gone to a trace-out facility.

MR. KING: He's at a release now.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: At a release site.

MR. KING: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: If that release site is a deer breeding facility --

MR. KING: (Shakes head negatively).

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: No. All right. Definition. So that's just on a ranch?

MR. KING: Basically we're talking about being able to grant someone the authority. Say they bought deer from a deer breeder at some point and they're now implicated as being an epi-linked or they have -- you know, they're a release site that's received deer from an epi-linked facility. So in order for them to be able to clear themselves, they -- ideally they go out and collect those specific deer that they were able -- that they purchased, that can be identified. This allows us to authorize them to do that in July or August, instead of waiting -- instead of them having to wait until deer season to harvest those deer for that purpose. So does that make sense?

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah. No, it makes sense and it's logical. And is that going to be a cumbersome process to get the approval to do that?

MR. KING: No, not the way --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: No?

MR. KING: Not the way we currently have in the rules. I mean, we obviously -- as I mentioned in my presentation, we do want do be very serious about issuing such things. We don't want it to turn into some kind of secondary commercial hunting market or, you know, let's make videos of night hunting with thermal scopes, stuff like that. But I anticipate the process for application, issuance, approval will all be basically electronic and very --

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And would you be able to take those deer with thermal -- with thermal --

MR. KING: Under certain circumstances. It wouldn't be something that we would readily -- just because of the implication of neighboring landowners and things like that.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understand.

MR. KING: Right.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Who wants to deer hunt in July and August anyway, right?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you, Stormy.

MR. KING: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: If there's no further questions, I'll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.

Work Session Item No. 12 through 18 will be heard in Executive Session.

At this time, I'd like to announce that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 551 Government Code referred to as the Open Meetings Act, an Executive Session will be held at this time for the purpose of deliberation of real estate matters under Section 551.072 of the Open Meetings Act and seeking legal advice under Section 551.071 of the Open Meetings Act, including advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation. We'll now recess for the Executive Session at 12:10 p.m.

(Recess taken for Executive Session)

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. We'll now reconvene the Work Session on March 27th, 2024, at 1:47 p.m.

Before we begin, I'll take roll. Hildebrand present.

Vice-Chair Bell?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Abell?

COMMISSIONER ABELL: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Foster?

COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Galo?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Rowling?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER PATTON, JR.: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Scott?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Present.

CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.

We are now returning from the Executive Session where we discussed the Work Session Real State Item Nos. 12 through 17 and Litigation Item No. 17[sic]. If there are no further questions, I will place Items No. 12 through 15 on the Thursday Commission Meeting agenda for public comment and action.

Regarding Item No. 16, no further action is needed at this time.

Regarding Item No. 17, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.

Regarding Item No. 18, Litigation Update, no further action is needed at this time.

Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its Work Session business and I declare us adjourned at 1:48 p.m.

(Work Session Adjourns)

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF TRAVIS )

I, Paige S. Watts, Certified Shorthand

Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above-mentioned matter occurred as hereinbefore set out.

I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceedings of such

were reported by me or under my supervision, later reduced to typewritten form under my supervision and control and that the foregoing pages are a full, true, and correct transcription of the original notes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand and seal this Turn in date ______ day of _________________, ________.

___________________________________

Paige S. Watts, CSR

CSR No.: 8311

Expiration: January 31, 2025