TPW Commission
Commission Meeting, August 22, 2024
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
August 22, 2024
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION MEETING
CHAIRMAN JEFFERY D. HILDEBRAND: Okay. Good morning, everyone. Let’s see, I think we’ve got a quorum. So, I will take roll call. I’m Chairman Hildebrand. I’m present. Vice Chair Bell?
VICE CHAIRMAN OLIVER J. BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett?
COMISSIONER WM. LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Foster?
COMMISSIONER PAUL L. FOSTER: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER ANNA B. GALO: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. “BOBBY” PATTON, JR.: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Rowling?
COMMISSIONER TRAVIS B. “BLAKE” ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And I believe we have a quorum. All right. Thank you. All right.
This meeting is called to order August 22, 2024, at 9:10 a.m.
Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the office of the Secretary 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: Great. Thank you, Dr. Yoskowitz. First is the approval of minutes from the commission meeting held May 23, 2024, which have already been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell makes a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. Thank you.
Next is the acknowledgment of the list of donations which has also been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, ”Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any Opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. Thank you.
Next is the consideration of contracts which has also been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed. Thank you. Motion carries.
Now, we have the good element of the meeting, is the special recognitions, retirements and service award presentations. Dr. Yoskowitz, please make the presentations.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. As you note, Chairman, always the highlight of the commission meeting when we get to recognize our own.
I say that every time because it’s a fact. It’s true. And I know I have the pleasure of doing these recognitions and sharing those with you, the commission.
So first, we would like to recognize, excuse me… we would like to recognize the Midwest Officer of the Year and that is Allison Hatten.
Allison is a graduate of the 57th Game Warden Cadet class in 2012 and has a 12-year tenure in Val Verde County. Armed with a bachelor’s degree from Texas A&M University and accredited as a licensed Texas Master Peace Officer. She has exemplified exceptional dedication and expertise throughout her career.
Allison has significantly contributed to the law enforcement community serving as a firearms instructor at the Texas Game Warden Academy and extending her experience to her colleagues state-wide.
Her commitment to excellence is further demonstrated through her roles as an advanced law enforcement rapid response trainer and Texas Commission on Law Enforcement instructor where she shares invaluable knowledge and skills to law enforcement professionals around the state.
Notably, Allison also serves as a field training officer, playing a pivotal role in shaping the next generation of game wardens. In 2021, Allison was selected through a rigorous process to join the highly selective Texas Game Warden Rural Operations Group known as ROG, a highly trained tactical response team. This achievement underscores her unwavering dedication to protecting Texas’ natural resources and ensuring public safety.
Please join me in congratulating Game Warden Allison Hatten for this well-deserved award.
[ Applause ]
Next, we would like to recognize the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators— Game Warden for Texas 2024— Game Warden James Adcock.
[ Applause ]
Texas Game Warden James Adcock started with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 2015, and from the start, Warden Adcock has demonstrated unparalleled dedication to public safety through extensive patrols on Canyon Lake and other bodies of water in his jurisdiction.
His commitment is evidenced by his patrolling of over 300 marine safety enforcement hours for the past calendar year, ensuring compliance with water safety regulations and conducting numerous patrols late into the night. Warden Adcock has filled variety of cases in addressing water safety violations ranging from inadequate PFDs to boater education requirements showcasing his comprehensive enforcement approach.
Actively supporting BWI and BUI education, Warden Adcock participated in training sessions and in assisting fellow awards for their first cases, highlighting his leadership and mentorship qualities.
Warden Adcock actively engages with local media to raise awareness about water safety, participated in community events like National Night Out, and distributed youth-sized life jackets to promote safe boating practices.
In an effort to support his fellow wardens, Game Warden Adcock demonstrated his technological acumen by creating a wave point file to aid in emergency response on Canyon Lake ensuring all wardens have access to critical location information. He has also displayed compassion and professionalism in handling search and rescue recovery operations, supporting families during challenging times like responding to emergencies including performing CPR and drowning victims and exemplifying bravery and dedication to saving lives.
Warden Adcock’s outstanding contributions to boating law enforcement, community engagement and safety initiatives making him a deserving recipient of the 2024 boating law enforcement Game Warden Officer of the Year. Congratulations, Warden Adcock.
[ Applause ]
All right. That’s excellent.
Next, we would like to move into our service awards to highlight the work that our staff has done for many years in the department.
First, we would like to recognize Mark Miller, who began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on June 26, 1989, as a programmer in information technology as part of the application development branch.
In this initial role, he served as a liaison for the administration department with the database group in I.T. operations.
In late 1990s, Mark transferred to the I.T. operations group as a database programmer supporting the various servers and databases of the agency.
After 11 years of service in August 2000, Mark accepted a position back in the application development team as manager of one of the development teams.
Mark and his team have worked with most divisions in the agency.
Mark has a passion supporting internal and external staff, looking to find digital tools to enhance an experience in his daily goal… is his daily goal.
Mark can be found enjoying time with family out on his land, near Bastrop, carrying on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department mission— fishing and hunting with his grandkids, teaching them the love and respect he has for the Texas outdoors.
With 35 years of service, Mark Miller.
[ Applause ]
Next, we would like to recognize James Hess who began his career with the department in 1988 while in high school and college and worked through summers and various seasonal positions such as a microfilmer— I remember microfilm— at Austin headquarters.
He also worked as lifeguard, entrance fee collector and maintenance assistant at Lockhart State Park. And in 1996, he was hired full-time as a park ranger. In 1999, he was promoted to park manager at Lost Pines, and in 2004, James was promoted to parks superintendent at Lockhart State Park.
He brought new ideas to the park, which included interpretation, by providing nature talks to park visitors and fifth grade school programs. He was able to able to get the town involved in the park with partnerships all the while increasing park visitation. In January of 2016, James accepted the region 3 maintenance position where he is now responsible for facility maintenance and operations of 18 central Texas state parks and natural areas.
Some of the capital projects he has been involved with are the Bastrop swimming pool remodel and lake dam project at Bastrop and Buescher. Multiple water and wastewater projects at Garner, Hill Country, Pedernales Falls, and Lost Maples, these are small cities that he is dealing with.
Most recent projects are the new park headquarters at both South Llano River and the Inks Lake State Park, and he is part of the team developing the new Albert and Bessie Kronkosky State Natural Area.
With 30 years of service, James Hess.
[ Applause ]
Next, we would like to recognize Kim Shelton. Kim began her career with TPWD on April 1, 1994, in the purchasing and contracting branch in the chief financial officer’s division assisting solicitations for construction projects and other services.
In 1998, Kim moved to the infrastructure division to the contracting branch where she started out as a contract administrator.
Over the next 26 years, Kim was promoted to contract manager, then senior contract manager, and then to the position of contract program manager. She has been managing contracts for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s capital construction project.
Kim has stated that serving the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the State of Texas has been one of the highest honors in her life.
One of the greatest joys in her life has been the friendships and professional relationships she has built over the years.
With 30 years of service, Kim Shelton.
[ Applause ]
Susan Wagner began her career with the department in March of 1994 as a clerk in our boat registrations area.
In 2000, she transferred to our human resources department where she started as secretary for our training branch and since then has advanced her way to being the lead purchaser and division budget coordinator.
Her strong skill set of having excellent customer service, being detail oriented, organized and a continuous learner have served her well as she adeptly navigates all the complex requirements that come with purchasing and budgeting for the state.
While she loves getting into the flow of her spreadsheets, she is also quick to assist others with a variety of tasks without hesitation.
With 30 years of service, Susan Wagner.
[ Applause ]
Jennifer Barrow began her career with the department on May 1, 1994, with resource protection at Martin Dies State Park.
This was a temporary position to complete a vegetation anaysis and map of the park.
The position was extended through the end of the year and while she worked on the same project at Lake Livingston State Park.
On January 1, 1995, Jennifer was transferred to the Wildlife Division as a wildlife technician where she was primarily responsible for mapping and signing timber company lands into the public hunting program.
In April 1997, Jennifer transferred to District 3 for her current job as a wildlife biologist.
During her tenure in District 3, she has served as a regulatory biologist for Wise, Jack, Cooke and Denton Counties. Serves on the Migratory Game Bird Technical Committee and Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee.
She served as the Texas Big Game Awards Region 3 representative and is the area manager for Lake Ray Roberts’ public hunting area.
Jennifer is an at-large board member for the Texas Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation and Jennifer has been responsible for several key turkey research projects in her area.
She presented this research at wildlife division staff meetings and the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society meetings.
Currently, Jennifer is assisting district leader for District 3 while remaining the regulatory biologist for her original four counties in north Texas.
With 30 years of service, Jennifer Barrow.
[ Applause ]
Andra Clark began her career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on June 1, 1999.
After growing up in the tiny south Texas town of Taft— been through that many times— and going to college in Kingsville, moving to Austin was a major shock.
Luckily — these are her words— luckily, Andra spent her early years in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department traveling across the state to our Texas Parks and Wildlife Department properties providing training to our colleagues on the Microsoft Office suite of applications.
Andra has expanded her job duties over the years and now she wears many hats including yesterday afternoon plugging in the flashlight… red light system in the moment of the public hearing.
And has provided a number of important services to the staff throughout the department, but including really importantly, the executive office. She is our go-to individual.
In her personal life, she enjoys reading, walking on the beach and spending time with family. Andra and her husband, Dwayne, have been married for 30 years. They have no children, but their pup, Ginger, is almost human. Andra thinks that chocolate and ice cream can make most things a little better. I agree.
Of her job, she says this, “Even after 25 years, I think I have the best job in the world because I never get bored. There’s always new projects and new things to learn.”
With 25 years of service, Andra Clark.
[ Applause ]
Bob Gottfried began his career with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on April 1, 2004. He has held one position while working for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as the lead for the Texas Natural Diversity database, the most complete database for rare, threatened and endangered species in Texas.
During his time leading the database team, Bob has overseen its conversion from largely paper-based system— maybe microfilm— to digital, geo-spacial that is now the standard.
Under his guidance, Texas Natural Diversity database has grown to be an important tool for conservation planning, environmental compliance and environmental review, responding to over 1,600 requests for information annually.
Bob has also been fortunate to supervise numerous staff that have been critical to elevating the database to the important conservation resource that it is today.
With 20 years of service, Bob Gottfried.
[ Applause ]
Jay Gainer began her career with the department in May of 2004 at Hill Country State Natural Area as a seasonal clerk joining a team of three.
Jay continued her Texas Parks and Wildlife Department career at Hill Country State Natural Area, being promoted through the administration branch to a rank of office manager.
During her tenure, she supported three superintendents, three rangers, four interpreters and supplied administrative support to all other staff, park hosts, volunteers, and concession contract holders. Jay assisted in the testing of three different reservation software systems and has been responsible for training staff and volunteers on all the changes and upgrades.
Jay currently enjoys being the lead administrator for a complement of aid staff members at Hill Country State Natural Area.
Some of her fondest memories are being able to ride her horse on 40 miles of trail system, checking the trail and doing campsite checks via horseback.
She built an equestrian obstacle course for a special event at the State Natural Area and wrangled RFD TV ‘s “America by Horseback” to shoot an episode at the State Natural Area in 2005.
She has relished the chance to be part of a team at the Hill Country State Natural Area for her whole Texas Parks and Wildlife career.
With 20 years of service, Jay Gainer.
[ Applause ]
Last, we would like to recognize Sergeant Lynn Kuenstler.
Started his career with TWD at Enchanted Rock State Natural Area as a State Park Police Officer in 2004.
Lynn was the assistant manager at Galveston Island State Park before choosing to focus solely on law enforcement.
He served at Pedernales Falls State Park for 12 years, a state park police officer before being promoted to his current role as Sergeant assigned to Region 3, District 3.
In addition to his law enforcement duties, Lynn has earned his firefighter Type 1 fireman certificate and has served as a firefighter for 15 years, assisting the natural resources conservation of our managed lands and state parks.
Lynn also has earned his swift water rescue certification, EMT credentials, field training officer, and Texas Commission on Law Enforcement certification. He assists with training efforts at the Game Warden Training Center, training cadets and other Texas Parks and Wildlife Department employees and certification classes for ATV and UTV operations.
As a sergeant, Lynn enjoys being able to train new officers. He has worked on many deployments for disasters as well as Operation Lone Star.
Lynn and his wife of 25 years and four children, range in age from 18 to 27, and two full-time dogs.
In his spare time, Lynn raises cattle and grows fruit and vegetables in a small garden. His hobbies include hunting, hiking, and all things outdoors.
With 20 years of service, Lynn Kuenstler.
[ Applause ]
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you, David. Always, once again, I do the quick math.
A little more than 225 years of man and woman services for the department is really quite amazing.
So, one more round of applause for all of these wonderful employees.
[ Applause ]
Thank you all for your service. At this time, I would like to inform the audience that everyone is welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting, however, if anyone wishes to leave, now would be an appropriate time to do so. Thank you for coming.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I think we have a quorum here, so we’ll go ahead and get started again.
Action Item Number 1. Financial Overview. Fiscal Year 2025 Agency Budget by Strategy. Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Capital Budget. Budget Policy, Investment Policy and Retain 100% of Boat Revenues in Fund 9.
Mr. Pegues, please make your presentation.
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Reggie Pegues, Chief Financial Officer. And this morning, I will be presenting the financial overview.
I will be doing a recap of the following items that I did in more detailed review of in yesterday’s work session. I will be covering FY25 operating capital budget and budget and investment policy resolutions.
For the budget, I will be recapping the general appropriations act, or GAA, to budget and operating and capital budget summaries.
This first slide is a crosswalk from the Appropriation Act to our recommended budget. The starting point for the operating budget is Article VI which is our bill pattern in the GAA. We then account for fringe benefit for retirement, insurance, and social security. This gives us a general appropriation total of $534.1 million.
In addition, we have authority to increase our budget by supplemental appropriations, estimated federal funds, and other unexpended balances from the prior year. Here’s the layout of some of those items.
Beginning with estimated federal funds we have $163 million of carry forward. Next, we have Senate Bill 30 for park acquisition of $125 million, other capital construction of $107.8 million.
Rider 23- UB within the biennium. This is the special rider that the agency has that allows us to carry forward unexpended balances from the first year of the biennium to the second year of the biennium. These funds would otherwise lapse.
Next, we have appropriated receipts/other. Of this $23.8 million, about $15 million of that is related to unofficial reef related donations. This gives us an estimated UB balance of $472.5 million.
And just as a reminder, in prior years we would not count these estimated UBs as part of the budget. We would bring them in throughout the fiscal year. This created large adjustments which now we anticipate… we try to anticipate these UBs as best we can and include them up front in our initial budget. So, this gives us a grand total proposed budget of FY25 of $1.006 billion.
This next slide is a breakout of this same budget by method of finance. The largest portion is general revenue at $469.6 million, for 47%. This also includes Sporting Goods Sales Tax.
Next, we have federal funds at 24%. Followed by Account 9 at 25%.
Account 9 is our Game Water Safety Account. This is where we account for our license, fishing and boat revenues.
And next, we have Account 64, the State Parks Account at 5%.
These are our state park-related revenues.
And finally, we have “Other” at 4%. These are our appropriated receipts, inter agency contracts and license plate-related revenues.
Next is the breakdown of operating budget by object of expense.
First, we have salaries and other personnel costs at 43.2%.
This is an increase over last year. This accounts for the 5% across-the-board salary increase that all state agencies received, and also a similar increase in fringe benefits related to the across-the-board salary increase.
Next, we have “operating” at $106 million followed by “grants” at $29 million. Of this $29 million for grants, about $23 million of that is related to local park grant funding. And finally, we have capital at 15.3% of the budget. And I will go into more detail for the capital budget in a later slide.
Next is a breakout of the budget by division, by budget dollar amount and FTEs.
This first slide shows coastal fisheries through law enforcement.
The seond slide is legal through the remainder of the agency.
You will notice that law enforcement and state parks make up the largest percentages of the budget in terms of dollars and FTEs.
Next is the breakout of our department-wide budget. This is a special holding account for items that don’t lend themselves specifically to divisions that are more agency-wide in nature.
These include an estimated federal apportionment of $18.8 million for sports fish restoration and wildlife restoration funding.
Again, the across-the-board salary increase of $21.1 million.
And the way we account for that is we lower the increase department-wide and as we expend funds throughout the fiscal year, we allocate those funds to the spending divisions.
Next, we have payments to licensed agents of $7.8 million followed by strategic reserve, which is for emergency-type items, during the fiscal year of $1.6 million.
And finally, we have pass-through plate revenues that we pass through to nonprofit entities.
Next is the breakout of our capital budget as appropriated.
We have $5 million for park-related land acquisition, construction and repairs of $49.4 million and state park minor repairs of $10.3 million, information technology and data center consolidation of $9.2 million, transportation items of $4 million and capital equipment of $2.9 and cybersecurity of $700,000.
Next, we will move on to our budget and investment policy resolutions. These items have not changed in several years, but they are required for an annual review by the commission.
First up is our budget policy. No major changes in over a decade. Key highlights: Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the department’s budget. Budget adjustments greater than $250,000 require commission approval.
Donations of gifts exceeding $500 must be acknowledged by the chair, VICE CHAIRMAN or commissioner designee in a board meeting… commissioner meeting which you did earlier at this meeting.
And commission fund dedication:
All funds are authorized for any use estimated by statute or rule.
Next, we move over to the investment policy. The Public Funds Investment Act, PFIA, requires an investment policy and annual review for any state agency depositing and investing funds outside the treasury. These funds do not apply to funds deposited in the treasury and invested by the Comptroller, and at this point, all TPWD funds are presently deposited in the state treasury.
In the event funds are ever deposited outside the treasury, then this requirement kicks in that the agency hire an investment officer with the following exception, the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund is invested through the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company by statute. Currently, those funds are in the treasury. Through July, we generated over $20 million of interest at roughly 5%, which is historically high for interest rates.
Next, we move on to the deposit options for 15% of boat-related revenues. Prior to House Bill 448 in 2017, there was a mandatory transfer of 15% of boat-related fees from Fund 9 into Fund 64, the State Parks Account. This was to address funding concerns at the time. House Bill 448 modified this making the transfer optional instead of mandatory. And given current fund balances, we don’t anticipate any transfers taking place in FY ’25. But if such a transfer were to take place, it would be up to $2.7 million.
As of 5 p.m. last night, we had three comments. Two agree and one disagree. For the disagreement, there was no explanation or comments.
Staff recommends that the commission adopt the following two motions.
One, the executive director is authorized to expend funds to operate the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in accordance with the proposed FY ’25 Agency Budget by Strategy, the FY ’25 Operating and Capital Budget by Division/Object of Expense, the Budget Policy, and the Investment Policy.
And nber 2, the commission approves retaining 100% of all boat registration titling and related fees collected during FY ’25 in Fund 9.
This concludes my presentation, I will be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Pegues. Any questions by the commission?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: I have a quick question.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Foster.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Commissioner Foster. All the way back to the revenue slide, I think it said 24% of our revenues are federal funds?
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: What is that? How does that work?
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: So, we receive… We have a major source of funds where we receive what is called an apportionment from the federal government.
Major sources are our Wildlife Restoration funding, Pittman- Robertson funding, Sport Fish Restoration, Dingell-Johnson funding. These are used to fund our wildlife and fisheries division. And those are calculated at a federal level.
Each state receives an apportionment based on the amount of revenues they bring in inside the state. So, we are receiving an annual apportionment from those two funding sources, wildlife restoration.
For local parks, we receive boating and recreation grant related funding. Those are major apportionments. They typically come in around February. They vary in dollar amount, but internally, we try to budget on a more conservative basis. So, you will see those federal adjustments as we go through the fiscal year just because of that policy. But those are kind of annual apportionments. And in addition, we have one-off funding. Like we had Corona funding a while back. Different types of federal grants. But those are probably — sports fishing and wildlife- are probably our major sources… law enforcement and recreational, boating safety, roughly about 25% of the budget.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Thank you. So do we have people that are writing grants and applying for these federal funds all the time? Or is this sort of just an automatic process?
REGGIE PEGUES: Well, the apportionments are — I wouldn’t say — we get those every year but we do have within each division we do have grant writers that monitor the grants in local parks, you know, bringing the funds in and transferring the funds out.
And in addition, within the CFO office, I have a federal grant section that kind of monitors and makes sure that we are in compliance with all the rules.
And there are certain allowable and dis-allowable expenditures, and so we monitor to make sure that we are in compliance.
COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell. Hi, Reggie. As always, your information is very good. I have a question on two areas.
One, and it relates to what Commissioner Foster asked about tangentially. But do we have any… it could be federal money, it could be grant money. But you know, we have had a lot of conversation about CWD. Is there any way for us to have any money in the budget that might be dedicated towards us funding research?
Because we seem to be the leader right now in how the approach is going towards this. And we have a lot of activity, but we don’t seem to have a funding item clearly designated for that.
Is there anything that- and it may not happen right now— but is there anything you can recommend in terms of how we might look at allocating funding in that general direction?
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: Well, I know in our base we do have some…
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: I think there’s a couple of million dollars, maybe?
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: I don’t recall the exact dollar amount, but I know we had…last session we allocated internally a specific amount for CWD.
And I believe there are some federal opportunities.
In terms of the exact dollar amounts, I would probably defer to someone within the Wildlife Division but there are opportunities to match dicated Fund 9 with federal funding.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. And a second question. I noticed our line item for cyber. And the only question would be should we be allocating more money towards cybersecurity because you know…if someone gets you, they really get you.
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: This may be obscure, but I was showing my wife this presentation and she saw the lack of cybersecurity and she said, ”Are you kidding? That’s not enough.” So yeah, that’s what we have and that’s only the capital portion piece of it.
I believe there’s other funding within the budget that is not in the capital budget.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: We probably should just keep an eye on that. That’s my only suggestion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?
To Vice Chairman Bell’s two points. One is, David, we ought to determine is there some federal money available to us on CWD and you know a real implementation of deep research best we can as an agency. I know there is lots out there already but there’s got to be… there’s got to be a lot of funding, I would suspect, for this kind of disease. Yes, sir?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, John Silovsky, Wildlife Division Director. We do have a special grant fund that we manage CWD through and current number is $1.2 million.
We do contribute to a significant amount of research on an annual basis, but also all the testing and everything we do for managing the disease across the landscape, you know, from hunter harvested stuff. The things we do within the breeding facilities is all state money. But when we manage the disease, we do use federal funds.
So that’s matched with… every one of our state dollars is matched with three federal dollars.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Roughly, it’s $1.2 million a year?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: $1.2. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there any way to increase that budget from the feds or are we capped at that?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: We are not capped, you know. We can… we manage all of those grant budgets, whether we are managing Big Horn Sheep or CWD or white-tailed deer or anything that has eligibility for federal aid. We can maneuver those budgets as appropriately, the thing that drives how much we can spend is really how many state dollars we can appropriate to do that work.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: It’s a 1:1 match.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Three for one.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Three feds.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Three feds, one state dollar.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Oh, wow. Pretty good multiplier. Well, let’s take advantage of that as much as we can obviously. Great.
And secondly on the cyber, how much interaction do we have with other state agencies in terms of … I mean this… we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here. This has been done at many state agencies. We should determine what they are doing from a cybersecurity standpoint. Anyone want to talk about that? Cybersecurity.
MS. JAMIE MCCLANAHAN: Morning. For the record, Jamie McClanahan, IT Director. I apologize. Will you repeat the question?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: How much interaction do we have with other state agencies who have undoubtedly already tackled this cybersecurity issue and may have larger budgets than we do?
MS. JAMIE MCCLANAHAN: We do… Yes, sir. We partner with several other state agencies that are similar to our size, like DMV for example, but we also are part of the DIR organization. We all partner and are a part of the oversite within DIR as well so we do absolutely take part of state conversations.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And do you feel as though we have adequate controls from a security standpoint?
MS. JAMIE MCCLANAHAN: Yes, sir, I do. I think we do.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. All right. Well. We can never be too vigilant in that area.
MS. JAMIE MCCLANAHA Absolutely, yes, sir. I appreciate y’all’s support. Commissioner Bell is always very supportive of that. So, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Mr. Pegues, I believe that’s it.
Do we have anyone signed up to speak on this issue?
MS. DEE HALLIBURTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: No? Okay. Great. Any other…more comments from commissioners or staff? If not, I have a motion.
And the motion to be voted on is the Executive Director is authorized to expend funds to operate TPWD in accordance with the proposed FY 2025 agency budget by strategy, the fiscal year 2025 operating and capital budget by division/object of expense, the budget policy and the investment policy. Is there a motion for this approval?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell makes a motion.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.
Motion 2 is the Commission approves retaining 100% of all boat registration titling and related fees collected during Fiscal Year 2025 in Fund 9. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT. So moved, Scott.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Second, Patton.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.
Thank you, guys. Thank you, Mr. Pegues.
Action Item Number 2. Proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Internal Audit Plan. Ms. Brandy Meeks, please make your presentation.
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks.
I’m the Internal Audit Director. Texas Government Code 2102.008 states that the annual audit plan developed by the internal auditor must be approved by the state agency’s governing board.
I’m here this morning to ask you for your approval of our proposed FY 2025 Internal Audit Plan.
As you can see, we have budgeted some hours to help us complete our current audit plan. We are also proposing six assurance engagements, the first one being the audit of the State Park fiscal control specialist program. And I want to take a moment to describe this project a little further.
You might have noticed yesterday but for the two State park fiscal control audits rolled from our current plan to next year’s plan, there is no individual State Park control audits… fiscal control audits on next year’s plan.
This is because the State Park Division has a fiscal control specialist program that essentially does the same things that we do. They go out to review each State Parks’s fiscal controls to ensure they are in compliance with the state park fiscal control handbook.
They also perform these duties much more timely than they we are able to do due to our limited resources. I’ve been told they make it out to every state park every two years.
So, this year instead of auditing numerous individual state parks we would like to audit the state park fiscal control specialist program, learn exactly what they look at and what they test for, and gain assurance that that program is working as designed and that it provides a robust control to ensure that state parks are in compliance with their fiscal controls.
For our audit concludes that we can rely on this program in providing a robust control, then we would still do two to three fiscal state park audits each year, but this limited amount with of state park would then free up our internal audit resources to look at other high risk areas within state parks or within the agency in general.
So, the other five assurance projects that we are recommending for next year include the audit of the TPWD Friends Group oversight processes, selected loca park recreation grants, audit of the procurement processes and control, audit of selected key performance measures and then audit of our fuel charges.
We would also like to do two cybersecurity projects. We would like to audit our I.T. Help Desk as well as perform an I.T. governance audit, and then we’d also like to perform a law enforcement physical security advisory, continue on in an advisory capacity on the BRITS rewrite, and then we would also like to outsource an active directory audit.
I’m not sure if you remember but a couple of years ago, we sought and received the commission’s approval to outsource an active directory audit. After gaining your approval, our I.T. Director informed me that she could have Microsoft come in for free and perform an assessment— and when I say free, she was willing to use some of the credits that Microsoft gives our agency in order to perform this service.
So upon learning this, we were all in agreement that this would be a good first step.
So, our I.T. Division had Microsoft come in and perform an active directory assessment. Microsoft made recommendations, and I.T. has informed me that they have remediated the issues and are now ready to have an unrelated third party come in and perform the active directory audit.
I put it as a co‑source engagement because I would like to assign our I.T. auditor on that engagement as well so that we are able to follow up on any recommendations that they may have. And then of course, we have our administrative and other duties. We will continue to look at our state park continuous monitoring activities, we will follow up on all internal and external audit recommendations, we’d like to participate in internal audit peer review, so that we start gaining points for our next peer review. Of course, we’ll be performing our annual risk assessment, preparing our annual audit plan for FY 2026, doing our Chapter 59 review, which is law enforcement seizures and forfeitures, preparing our annual report and any other special projects, investigation liaison activities we have budgeted some hours for those as well. We had two public comments, both were in agreement with the proposed plan. And with that, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion, that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Fiscal Year ’25 Internal Audit Plan as listed in Exhibit A.
This concludes my presentation, and I’m available to take any questions.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I’ve got one. Scott. Brandy, I know over the years that I’ve been here we’ve had times when you all weren’t fully staffed. Where do we stand right now with that?
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: As of Monday, we are now fully staffed again.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Great. No, I’m really glad to hear it, because you all really do provide a great function. So, thank you.
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Thanks for all the work that went into this. Also, I like the fact that there were some opportunities to kind of partner that one— and‑‑ I’m sorry it is not on the slide, but the one you mentioned where the state park’s doing the internal piece. That is almost like a peer assessment, so that is a great opportunity. If you find that that works, that should free up some additional time. Being fully staffed, that will let you get to other areas, so good luck with that one.
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: Absolutely, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any other questions? Do we have anyone that is signed up to speak?
MS. DEE HALLIBURTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Do not? Okay. If not, is there a motion for… The motion is the internal audit?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: I will move.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Second?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)p>
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries, Thank you very much.
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Action Item Number 3, Job Order Contracting, Award of Master Job Order Contracts, Ms. Andrea Lofye.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Yes, sir. Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, Director Yoskowitz. My name is Andrea Lofye, Director of the Infrastructure Division. And this order is job order contracting award of master job order contracts.
Job order contracting is an alternative procurement method. It’s used to expedite maintenance, repairs and minor construction and at the time of procurement, delivery times, types and quantities are indefinite.
Contractors are pre‑selected and pre‑procured and pricing is predefined, and it’s listed in the unit price book. JOC was first established by the U.S. Army in the 1980s. University of Texas at Austin began a JOC program in 1997. Texas state agencies using JOC include the General Land Office, the Employees Retirement System and the Texas Facility Commission, who just recently started their JOC program. TPWD published a request for competitive sealed proposals for JOC contractors in May of this year. Solicitation will be for… or was for a $50 million program, $20 million initially, with three $10 million renewal options. We received 24 responsive proposals, evaluations of those proposals are complete, and we are ready to award. And JOC contractors can begin in fiscal year 2025. As of last night, we received two comments, both in agreement. Staff recommends that the commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to award master job contracts to the general contractors selected from the list in Exhibit A.
And I’m happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any questions from commissioners? Okay. Do we have anyone signed up to speak?
MS. DEE HALLIBURTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. If not, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say, “Aye.”-
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.
Thank you very much.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Action Item 4, Chronic Wasting Disease, Detection and Response Rules, Recommended Adoption of New Surveillance Zones, Mr. Olsen, please make your presentation.
MR. BEN OLSEN: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz.
For the record, my name is Ben Olsen, wildlife health specialist in the Wildlife Division. This morning, I will seek adoption of the proposed amendments pertaining to the establishment of new CWD zones in response to confirmed detections of CWD in deer breeding facilities in Texas for your consideration.
On March 11, 2024, staff received confirmation of CWD in a ten- and-a-half-year-old female white-tailed deer in a breeding facility in Real County. In response, staff propose establishing a surveillance zone within a two‑mile radius surrounding the positive facility, in accordance with department policy. The proposed zone is denoted by the yellow circle on this map and would encompass 8,883 acres. To facilitate testing, hunters may utilize the self‑service drop box located in Leakey denoted by the blue star on this map, they could access in-person check stations in Rock Springs or Hondo, or they could make appointments with staff by the phone. More detailed information on testing options will be available on the TPWD website, the newly updated Texas Hunt and Fish app or the Outdoor Annual app.
Next, staff propose a new zone in Edwards County in response to confirmation of CWD in two, two-and-a-half-year-old female white-tailed deer in a captive breeding facility in Edwar County. The detection was confirmed on April 22, 2024, and
the facility has since had an additional detection in another white-tailed deer. The proposed zone would encompass 8,902 acres, and the closest CWD check station would be in Rock Springs, which is denoted by the blue star on the map.
Next, staff propose a new CWD zone in Zavala County in yellow here following confirmation received in April 2024 of CWD in a two-and-a-half-year-old male white-tailed deer located in a captive breeding facility in Zavala County.
The proposed zone would encompass 9,315 acres and hunters can utilize the sample drop box located in Uvalde and in-person check station in Pearsall or call staff to make appointments for testing.
In June, the department received confirmation of CWD in a three-year-old female white-tailed deer in a captive breeding facility in Trinity County. Therefore, staff propose the zone denoted in yellow here in response. That zone would encompass 9,656 acres. The nearest drop box and in‑person check station for testing
would be located in Trinity.
Also, in June 2024, the department received confirmation of CWD in a two‑year‑old female white-tailed deer in another captive breeding facility in Sutton County.
This map provides a reference to the location of the proposed zone on the right denoted by the green arrow in relation to the current zone in Sutton County that has been in place since last year.
The proposed zone would encompass 9,025 acres. Hunters can use the drop box and in-person check station just east of Sonora denoted by the blue star already present in response to the initial Sutton County zone.
One final notice is the department received confirmation July 30th of a new detection of CWD in a captive breeding facility in Medina County. That was after the deadline for publishing in the Texas Register for this commission meeting.
The disease was detected in a two-and-a-half‑year‑old male white-tailed deer following postmortem testing. The new detection areas denoted on the map by a green arrow would encompass 8,861 acres.
To date, we have received 1,278 public comments on the TPWD webpage. 36, or 3%, agree with the proposal; 1,201, or 94%, disagree completely; 41, or 3%, disagree with specific parts of the proposal. Reasons for disagreement include, zones do not contain the spread of disease; zones are a burden on hunters and will negatively impact local economies due to decreased hunting; the voluntary testing would be a more positive approach without negatively impacting communities. Others feel the proposal is government overreach; other commenters believe zones do not go far enough to limit the spread of the disease. Finally, other comments were not germane to this proposal.
Additionally, the department received a letter from the Texas Deer Association in opposition of the proposed zones. The Texas Deer Association believes as deer breeders continue to test 100% mortalities and 100% of deer prior to movement coupled with the recent adoption of statewide carcass disposal rules provides an opportunity to move away from the zone strategy while encouraging landowner cooperation, hunter participation and hunter recruitment. Staff also received a letter from the Texas Wildlife Association in support of the proposal stating that until TPWD works with relevant stakeholder and advisory committees to revise and adopt alternate protocols adherence to the established standard is critical to upholding the public trust in the department.
Finally, staff received a letter from Judge Keith Lutes of Medina County in opposition of the proposal. Judge Lutes urges the department to consider discontinuing the use of zones, stating that a change would support property owners, hunters and wildlife managers whie maintaining the state’s commitment to controlling and preventing the spread of CWD.
Staff recommends that the commission adopt the proposed motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to 31 Texas Administrative Code Section 65.82 concerning Disease Detection and Response, as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the July 19, 2024, issue of the Texas Register.
That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.
I’d be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Olsen. All right, we’ve got several speakers set up to speak. So, maybe let’s hear them. And then Commissioners, we can have some discussion thereafter.
Okay. First, we’ve got, let’s see, twelve… Matt Wagner.
MR. MATT WAGNER: Greetings, Chairman Hildebrand and commission member. I’m Matt Wagner, Executive Director of the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society.
Since March of this year, CWD has been detected in an additional five breeding facilities in five counties, three of them new counties with CWD. We support the creation of surveillance zones in these counties to monitor the status of the disease going forward. We now have nearly 800 positive cases in Texas in 33 breeding facilities that have transported over 11,000 deer to 950 release sites all over the state. On top of that, 60% of the 950 release sites have not complied with required harvest reporting. Essentially, none of the released deer were identified with an ear tag and are therefore untraceable. According to Parks and Wildlife Code 43.3561, the department has the statutory authority to enforce visible I.D. for all deer released from breeder facilities. This is simply standard disease management protocol followed by animal health agencies around the country. Some would have us believe that CWD is no big deal and to ignore the impacts of accelerating the spread of CWD to new parts of the state. 18 other states and Canada are following standard disease protocols in dealing with CWD. Ignoring the problem leads to CWD endemic areas as in Colorado and Wisconsin, where up to 50% of the deer in these areas have CWD. The Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society greatly appreciates the difficult job you have in balancing the needs of deer breeders and protecting our wild deer from CWD. For decades, we have enjoyed the strong public/private partnership created when a public resource like deer resides on private lands. But today that partnership is threatened when a disease like CWD complicates the system. Please continue to fight this disease with every tool available, including surveillance zones.
And I thank you for the opportunity to comment.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Sarah Knux.
MS. SARAH KNUX: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners and Director. My name is Sara Lemone Knux. I’m an attorney from Coleman, Texas. But more importantly, I’m a landowner in Coleman, Texas. My family owns about 30,000 acres in Coleman County, which there’s 100,000 acres in a zone. Obviously, I disagree with my predecessor over there. I’m adamantly against zones. The reason why is because the economic impact it is going to have on my community. I think that zones are also confusing and I think that the commission and the department could work a lot harder to solve issues by using education. My community, wow— I’m nervous and I’m a lawyer—‑‑ but my community has pulled itself from the bootstraps in the past ten years. In 2018, our EDC tax money was only getting about $860,000. In Fiscal Year ’24 right now we are already at $1.3. Agriculture and hunting is the key to my community. Right now, nd values are being affected in my community. Real estate agents are ‑… it’s not that the values are being lowered, it’s that people are refusing to go even look at property that’s located in the zone. Ad valorem taxes next year for Coleman County, our appraised value will be reduced probably because of CWD. Not this first year, but next year. Why do I think zones are confusing? I’m a lawyer, I’m confused. People know lines on a page. Deer do not know lines on a page. Containment zones do not contain. Coleman, remember, I’m a low-fenced free‑range deer. It is in the wild, you guys. There is a matrix to get into a zone, but there is no matrix for Coleman County to get out of the zone. It is not measurable. We are stuck in something for how long? As far as education— I’m not at yellow yet— ‑ okay ‑‑ education. ‑‑
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You are green.
MS. SARAH KNUX: I’m still on green. I guess I need to slow down the way that I talk, sorry you guys. But as far as education, AgriLife Extension is a wonderful resource that the department and the commission could be using to educate people about CWD over the state. AgriLife Extension has about 900 people that work for it, which is about 250 different offices all over the state. The last time that AgriLife Extension updated their page about CWD was 2015. Keep in mind a lot of the people that hunt in Coleman County and other counties, they come from Highland
Park and other states.
They need access to information so that CWD doesn’t look like zombie deer and they understand and are educated about CWD and not fearful of it. Again, we had a wonderful meeting in Coleman. Thank you to the department for showing up. We are going to have another meeting in Coleman on August 30th at the Bill Franklin Center from 1:00 to 4:00. It’s going to be a come and go. Everyone is invited and I’d appreciate it for you to come spend money in Coleman County. Thanks.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, what is the County seat of Coleman County?
MS.SARAH KNUX: Coleman, yes, sir. And we have wonderful restaurants. We have five‑star restaurants.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: We will make an effort to come.
MS. SARAH KNUX: That would be awesome. Thank you, guys.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, thank you. Johnathan Letz.
MR. JONATHAN LETZ: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz.
For the record, my name is Jonathan Letz, and I am the President of the Texas Wildlife Association, a private landowner organization that has members statewide.
At recent commission meetings, and probably even before that, it appears that you in the department have been struggling with the rules, management and strategies and herd plans related to CWD. That is probably an understatement. Changes are being suggested and implemented at every commission meeting. This has created a very confusing landscape for the public, farms, ranches and deer breeders. I would encourage the department to follow the current strategies that the Department has adopted, follow the strategy of surveillance zones, follow the strategies of depopulation for positive deer in breeding facilities and follow the strategy for herd plans approved by this department and by the Texas Animal Health Commission. For today, follow the recommendation of department staff and establish the additional surveillance zones, as recommended.
This being said, I also recommend you direct staff to look at current protocols for CWD. A lot has cnged in the landscape related to CWD, including genetic testing, improved testing methods, improved technologies and more. Use your advisory committees to receive input and recommendations on how to deal with CWD and protect the wildlife of our state. This process needs to be quick and open to the public to be involved in decision‑making. The piecemeal approach that I see right now is confusing to everyone. I want to thank you for your efforts for protecting the wildlife of our state. And a final little comment is that it often appears this is an "us versus them" topic. I want the Commission to know that TWA is having continuous and open discussions with TDA, the Texas Deer Association. We’re trying to find areas of commonality, where we agree. I think we are making progress in that area. So, tThere is progress being made moving forward. But I do encourage you to use your advisory committees a little bit further in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Thanks for the collaboration. Appreciate it.
Maree Williams. And after Maree, we’ve got Kevin. ‑‑We only have 12. You don’t have to line up. Then Mary Meuth.
MS. MAREE LOU WILLIAMS: Hello. For the record, I am Maree Lou Williams.
I come today wishing to talk about the financial impact of having surveillance zones because it does financially affect the State of Texas in the fact that there is a law that was passed that you’re at the appraisal zone ‑‑ if you are in a surveillance zone, reduces your appraised value. So, I know that personally because Hunt and Kaufman County got to be recipients of that news this year. Also, too, it financially affects having a surveillance zone.
My father through the process has decided that ‑‑ he looked into selling part of his property to a solar company. We were informed in a meeting with them that they had been told that there needed to be a ten‑foot… ‑‑ the part they were going to buy, needed to have a ten‑foot fence put around it, when as breeders we are only required an eight‑foot fence, and also too, they were required if they bought the 68 acres that would be the breeding pens, which they’re going to put solar panels, they will have no deer; they will have no animals inside there; where we and our herd plan were told, we had to do one to two inches of soil. They were told they needed to remove a foot of soil. So that is all I have to say at this moment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Did you lease to the solar company?
Did you go ahead and lease to them under those conditions?
MS. MAREE LOU WILLIAMS: The contract is not complete.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.
MS. MAREE LOU WILLIAMS: That is still stuff to be ironed out. They were looking to purchase.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understand, okay. Just curious.
MS. MAREE LOU WILLIAMS: And leasing other land in the surveillance zone around there.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But you are saying even the solar company had an issue with what they perceived to be kind of a contaminated area?
MS. MAREE LOU WILLIAMS: No, they did not have any issue with that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: They did not.
MS. MAREE LOU WILLIAMS: The only issue that they had was with what Texas Parks and Wildlife had told them because my father had said as breeder we only have to eight foot and you’ve been told a ten foot. They are still in negotiations with y’all. I sent them my herd plan verifying the fact that one to two inches, they were willing to do, you know, so tt was the…‑‑ they are still in negotiations with y’all, but they called to verify to us and needed to know if those things were what we had to do as a breeder and as a high fence place.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it. Okay, all right, thank you. Kevin Davis.
MR. KEVIN DAVIS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. Thank you for a minute of your time today to speak on this issue.
Texas Deer Association. We heard a lot of comment yesterday about this zone proposal. A very small vocal minority suggested opposition based on policy, history or whatever. The comments are overwhelmingly against zones. Every time we are faced with having to implement a new zone, landowners comment and they always don’t like it. You are not going to hear landowners say, “Hey, please put my property in a zone.” That is not going to happen. We know the negative impacts. I’m not going to belabor you of that. I just want to remind the Commission that the Texas Deer Association’s position asking for a pathway around zones is simply asking for a pause during this cycle. Meaning that if this zone was adopted, it cannot be implemented either until hunting season is already going or just right before it. It is going to create confusion, it is going to create division among landowners. It is no secret that I used to work here, okay. The landowner relationship with the department employees and its outwardly facing divisions is key to success in any mission. And every time we stress it, we are putting up a wall. Every time we stress that relationship it makes it more difficult for landowners to want to cooperate. If you take a pause and vote this proposal down, that is all it is, a pause. It doesn’t remove the other zones and it doesn’t change policy. It sends landowners a message, hey, we are hear you, we are looking for another option, looking for another pathway. We want to go somewhere other than zones. With recent rule changes, we have
outlined the possibility for that pathway. That is the only point I want to make today. Thank y’all.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mary?
MS. MARY PEARL MEUTH: I go by both names. It’s a Southern thing. Mary Pearl. But you got the last name right, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mary Pearl.
MS. MARY PEARL MEUTH: Mary Pearl. Yes, sir. Greetings, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. My name is Mary Pearl Meuth, I’m honored to represent the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society as their President today.
Our membership includes wildlife students, and we have a few in the room from Sul Ross and from Stephen F. Austin, and I thank them for their trip here today. Chronic Wasting Disease is not just a problem for deer breeders; it is a problem for all Texans. The lack of alarm and apparent reluctance to take more decisive action to protect the state’s wild and free‑range deer is deeply concerning. If left unchecked today, the spread of CWD threatens our native ecosystems, our conservation funding, and the $9.6 billion rural economies that depend on healthy, thriving deer populations. We strongly support the establishment of the new zones, as outlined by Ben Olsen. These zones ensure focused, early detection, and containment of CWD and reflect your continued agency commitment to science-based management. The zones are not the issue here, CWD is the issue today.
We urge the commission to consider more stringent measures such as stopping the human assisted transportation of live deer, which is the most effective way to prevent the spread of the disease.
If that is not feasible at the very least we must ensure that all released animals are permanently and visibly identified and ‑‑to aid in disease traceability, as Matt mentioned in his testimony.
Think about the one million hunters in Texas that are gearing up this fall to take their daughters and their sons hunting for the very first time. They deserve to know where their first harvest animal came from and they should be encouraged to test their animal to have that confidence in their field-to-plate experience. Texas Chapter Of The Wildlife Society is committed to supporting the department in addressing this challenge. The solution must include stronger collaboration between the commission, your advisory committees, your field and your staff biologists, who are incredible, and external conservation organizations. Your staff needs the full backing of this commission and its leadership to ensure the protection of Texas’s wildlife resources. We are ready and willing to step up and collaborate. You have seen that in front of you today. With Texas Parks and Wildlife and your leadership, we are ready to help tackle the issues head‑on, but we need your leadership in the tough decision making. Thank you for your dedication
to conserving Texas’s wild places and wild things and for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you. All right, students, you get to stand up. Where are you? Stand up, students. Wow. There you go!
( Applause )
Thank you for making the trip to Austin. All right, Jody Phillips.
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz.
For the record, Jody Phillips, President of Texas Deer Association and Texas deer breeder. As I mentioned yesterday, deer breeders don’t occasionally test. It is a consistent practice in order to mitigate disease. This happens behind the fence of all facilities, not just CWD‑positive, but every single facility. Success in the prevention of CWD is not going to come from an occasional test. As deer breeders, we realize that; it only comes from what is done consistently, whether you’re testing for CWD, EHD or any other disease you might have in any farming aspect. I say this to point out, unlike deer behind a fence, you have no idea where the disease exists, where it comes from, how it gets behind the fence, where it is at outside the fence. But the entire state could arguably be a zone.
Successfully, deciding a boundary is almost impossible because of this. The rules that have been set up to find CWD have done exactly that. The testing rules are working. Now that they are working, we are angry that we found it. So, the tests themselves are doing exactly what they were designed to do. I have to believe that the anger and concern comes from a little bit of the confusion of what this actually looks like. So, I urge you to understand movement of deer. Understand what it looks like before a breeder can actually move a deer. How much is involved, how much testing is involved. The measures that you have to take just to be able to test and the measures taken to mitigate disease during testing itself.
When you move deer, you not only have to antemortem test them before you move them. You have to already be a movement‑ qualified facility, meaning you have met every single requirement that the rules have for you. So, you are already meeting the requirement before you ever even test. Then we are testing to see if we have the disease and then we are delivering a disease-free product to a farm that’s already tested for disease‑free product, receiving a disease-free product. So, the testing itself works. And, I have to believe that the rules were set up so we could find it, to protect all of us, right? I me, here we are today. There are quite a few more positives. But that is just ‑‑… that was the point, wasn’t it? To find it, so we can mitigate it.
And I mean deer breeders themselves want to find it. I know I do. If I had it behind my fence, I would certainly want to know. I don’t want to create it and I don’t want to spread it, and neither does any other deer breeder in the State of Texas. All deer breeders don’t agree on the same thing, but I can promise every one of us can agree to that.
Land values were mentioned yesterday. Everything about CWD devalues property, no matter how you slice it. There’s just no incentive for you to test. It is only risk, liability, labels on your property. The biggest thing I think with the landowner is what is the way out of the zone once you are in it? There is no possible way out. That is the fear, I think, of people that are in a zone. They are like okay, what now? Am I always going to be labeled? Can I not sell my property? Like she said from Coleman, I talked to several people tied up in like herd plans or people that are tied up in zones. It is not the value, it is the fact that they can’t get it sold. I know a couple properties that were on the market that have been taken off. You know, these land amounts are investments, so that has affected us. I just encourage you to stop living this same dilemma time and time again, when we have rules that we can work around to fix it and not upset and make people angry.
So, I appreciate your time and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any questions? I… I’ve got one. So, the majority of deer breeders in this day and age, have they all switched… not all but the majority of them… switched to this SS strain and are breeding specifically for that strain? Take 30 seconds, and what are you doing with the GG deer?
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Okay, absolutely. So, yes, deer breeders have absolutely switched to the genetic values and the 96 Codon. You know general business rule has made it happen, whether people wanted it to or not, just simply because of values. GG animals are not worth what SS animals are. So, I mean we are all business people and we know that, you know, we are all going to try to raise what is more valuable, right? The GG… I will say the GG ‑‑animals, a lot of people like myself, I killed 61 of them to get them off my farm. People have released them…‑‑
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: These were not positive deer…
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: No. GG.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: …they were GG and you terminated them?
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Yes, all of these deer were GG animals. This was back when we were tied up in tiers. I did it so we could test.
They were all GG animals. So there’s two reasons to do that: Number one, disease mitigation. I don’t want them on my farm if they are more susceptible than other deer. Correct? So, I want my entire farm to be durable, which in turn gives us another way to market those animals and sell a disease-free product that we know is resistant to not only CWD but other diseases as well. And then those animals at that particular time no matter what I paid for them are not the value that I had originally paid. The value just shifted. So, it did not make sense for me to, in a business aspect, to continue to keep those on my feed bill when I couldn’t move deer because we were non-movement qualified at the time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it.
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: The business itself has changed.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Last qustion. Three year, ten point… ten point three… 200 point deer SS, what’s that sell for?
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: The most recent SS with a negative breeding value below a three. That buck is worth around half million.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: How much?
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Half a million.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, well…
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: I have that in an auction.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, stocker buck?
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: An SS stocker is hard to buy. There are just not many of them. For years, we didn’t know some of the bucks that we were breeding were GG animals, so they were inserted and they were bred all over the place. Now an SS stocker is just not worth buying because the value of it is so high. So, I mean, most breeders are hanging onto them because it helps your herd. I would say that you could make a deal with somebody to get them for maybe $15,000 to $20,000.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But the valuation difference between
kind of an equivalent doe or buck, doesn’t matter, is like three ‑‑GG versus SS.
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Same deer, same antlers, everything’s the same. SS, three times the value of GG.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it. So, the market is, through free enterprise is actually breeding out these presumably genetically inferior deer for stronger deer?
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That may have resistance to the disease.
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Deer breeders themselves want the resistance in their pens so we can sleep at night. So that itself has made the value sky‑rocket of an SS animal.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it, thanks very much. Very informative.
All right, Alice Oehmig. Then after that’s John True and then Wendy Schmidt.
MS. ALICE OEHMIG: Good morning, Chairman…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Good morning.
MS. ALICE OEHMIG: …and Commissioners and Director Yoskowitz.
Well, we all know we are here. Some of the things I have heard, I can agree with and don’t agree with. It is a really hard sell. I had everything prepared and had a meeting with someone yesterday, and he gave me a recommendation. I think when these rules and policies and procedures were put in place, I think they were all within good faith. We saw a problem. How are we going to fix it? Let’s level this and bring all the great minds together and everything was written. I think, as in everything, it needs to be evaluated again. How are the rules, policies and procedures? Because it didn’t look at the end effect. One of the biggest effects and sitting next to Ms. Williams, that was right here with her father’s property. You have two large breeders. You have Blue Creek Whitetails, you have Robert Williams’ facility. And, we’ve both had a positive. This is how you should understand this testing really works. We had a manager, we no longer have that manager, but our manager ‑‑ and I take responsibility because it is my facility -‑chose not to test the deer because it wasn’t mandatory at that time. Chose not the test the deer. He said to save us money.
Again, it is my facility. I’m responsible for his actions. That one deer, one was a trace — there was a trace positive, came back. Immediately when we notified, Alan Cain called us, and said you’ve got a positive one traced. We eliminated that deer in that pen immediately. As soon as we send it off, it came back positive. She was a deer.he’s been there eight months. Our facility, we have breeding pens. They can’t commingle. You know we have everything lined up. We have alleys. Just different than big release sites. Everybody has a different template. This is how we choose to go. So, when we did this, Alan Cain, we said we are going to do this, remediate. I didn’t do two inches, we did six inches. We took whatever they asked for and did more. We did the burning, got the degrees, the CND, then made a very harsh decision, killing fawns. This is a doe pen. The fawns, everything. Everything came back, zero detection. You’ve got someone else that chose another path. I’m going to do this and this. The problem is we are not rewarded for good behavior, for what you would consider mitigating disease. I can’t judge what Mr. Williams did, because there is no path or opportunity available for good business to exist. If you look at the herd plans and everything else, it is ‑‑one of the things is, I test a deer and CWD‑ free and you guarantee it and now I’m supposed to send it to another place, I can’t control what happens to that deer. If it is as contagious as they were saying, if it catches CWD, the net casts back to me and anybody I’ve sold deer to. This is an impossibility. We’ve got to believe into this testing. The testing works. If our manager had tested… and I mean I know he doesn’t sleep at night because of that, we wouldn’t have been caught in this. It could have happened another way or whatever. We have to believe in the tools that are available. We have done everything in the world.
As far as some of also… the genetics, I really think we’ve got to look a little stronger. You don’t want to inbreed so hard that you cause other issues. This is something you really have to evaluate with science and say we have thousands of years of good South Texas genetics that are here that fight real disease. This is where we’ve got to get some minds together to field what is the best force of action to make a Texas‑durable deer. Then, we are a leader and ask for it in this industry. I need a pathway opened. I’ve done everything. Everything plus reassurance. I think somebody’s going to have to step out of a box, a comfort zone, and take a little risk on somebody that did it right to provide a path for people not to break rules because they are frightened what will happen. These regulations are forcing people to circumvent rules because they are scared. They don’t want to, but they are so frightened that they are going to lose everything. All I’m asking is somebody to step out and reward some good behavior. Show a path that you are not trying to close deer breeders down. And if you are, at least admit it so you can give us a path to get out. That is all I can do, plead one more time for some reasonable thinking and some minds to come together. I would like to form another committee. Was asked to do that by some legislators. Tried to do that. Tried to, you know, Kevin Davis came and told me… oh no, no, no, and told me something already exists in this. I said, but we need to do that. We need to have some more opinions. We can get some veterinarians, some scientists so that your staff can get other information when you need it. So, that is all I want to offer for you, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much, Ms. Oehmig. John True.
MR. JOHN TRUE: Thank you, Chairman Hildebrand, members of the Commission. Thanks for the opportunity. For the record, John True. I’m a Texas deer breeder.
To just touch on a couple of your questions to Jody, I sit on the North American Deer Registry that oversees submissions of D.N.A. and genetics. So far in the last year, we have had 24,000 submissions for fawns, 89% of those are looking at GEPP and D.N.A. Codon 96 information, something the whole nion is taking very serious. The value of bucks, there is always going to be a kind of an up charge. In the past, looks matter. If that buck is worth $6,500, it was worth $7,500 if it had a typical look to it. Nowadays, the more educated that the landowners are getting going forward, they see us as a tested product, the only safe product out there. That value’s probably $8,500 to $10,000 going forward right now currently, just from the education standpoint. I think it is relevant to point out again that the rules for surveillance zones and containment zones, what happens inside those zones was written in 2012. In 2021, even Clayton Wolf up here conceded that we weren’t using all the tools in our toolbox. In order to move live animals, as Jody and Kevin have mentioned, the breeder has to clear a hurdle of postmortem testing to even be considered movement qualified to have their switch turned on that they can move animals. To then move animals, they have to live test.
Jody pointed out yesterday, we are not testing one animal. That breeder is specifically looking at anywhere from 25% to 40% of their herd to move that year, so we are not only getting current information on postmortem testing but we’re getting a snapshot and a date‑of‑time at 25% to 40% of the herd. All of that mitigates the risk of moving live animals. The movement of dead animals is mitigated by the carcass disposal rules that you all put into place last commission meeting. I realize as we heard yesterday there are folks who have philosophical problems
with raising white tails behind a fence. I get that. But we are a legal and a viable industry with rules and regulations that you put into place, and we follow all of them. All we ask is to keep treating us as such. We have come a long way since 2012, and the zone approach has outlived its usefulness. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much, John. Wendy Schmidt.
MS. WENDY SCHMIDT: I’m already distracted by the fish. If somebody can hook me up with where these came from, I’ll be your best friend.
Good morning, Commissioners, I’m Wendy Schmidt. I attended the TDA convention last weekend. I haven’t been to one in three years. It was a reality check for me. Three years ago, there were about 100 deer breeders and vendors. This year, I counted 20. So, you can’t tell me there hasn’t been an impact on the Texas economy when well over half the businesses are gone. I like to ask a lot of questions, I love to visit. I’ve been doing a lot of that lately. Seems to me that the staff here doesn’t want to find a solution for CWD. The only goal is to shut down deer breeders and keep the federal funding. My daughter wrote a thesis about CWD about two years ago. Her proud grandfather handed that out here in hopes of finding… ‑‑ working together to find a solution. He kept the phones hot trying to get someone to acknowledge the thesis. Nothing, it’s swept under the rug. Ronny Eckels, owner of Lyssy and Eckels Feed, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his own pockets to help find nutritional solutions for CWD. All his work, swept under the rug. Dr. Chris Seabury has done all kinds of research and genetic findings, his work swept under the rug. Dr. James Kroll has years and years of experience, his knowledge has been swept under the rug. Horace Gore, 86-year-old experienced biologist and editor of Trophy Hunters magazine has written many articles on CWD. He’s been quieted. And his work, swept under the rug. Current wildlife depopulation questions, swept under the rug. Hollywood Park questions, swept under the rug. Questions and concerns about herd plans and unconstitutional violations of property rights, swept under the rug. True data facts and common sense, all swept under the rug. The White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee of to 24 members, consists maybe three or four members who are not anti‑deer breeders, let’s sweep those facts under the rug. Different strokes for different folks. If you are familiar with that saying, you will understand what I’m trying to say and that is that rules are being applied differently depending on who you are and who you know.
I realize you are all successful businessmen and women, and you don’t have time to meet with every individual, but please consider supporting a committee that equally and fairly represents the deer breeders. Surely, we can all agree we are all conservationists so let’s try to find a fair solution that benefits all of us and our white-tailed deer. And, we can start by applying the testing rules to every MLD permit holder. So much has been swept under the rug that it is almost impossible not to notice. It is time to do some major housekeeping. If you are familiar with the saying "boots on the ground", we have boots on the ground and we are going to turn over everything under those rugs until it is all exposed. I’d like to ask you, Commissioners, to help us support another committee that fairly represents deer breeders and property rights. Let’s clean this mess up together. Find a fair solution. Save our Texas deer and landowner rights before it’s too late. Thank you. And if you can still hook me up with this.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Okay, we’ll do that. All right, Mr. Schmidt.
MR. BOBBY SCHMIDT: I should change my last name.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, Bobby.
MR. BOBBY SCHMIDT: That was my wife’s daughter‑in‑law.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Your wife’s daughter-in-law?
MR. BOBBY SCHMIDT: My wife’s daughter‑in‑law. (Audience comment inaudible.)
She thinks she can anyway. Thank y’all for being here again. I know we heard a lot of testimony today again. One of the things ‑… I don’t believe in the zones; I don’t think they have done a whole lot of good. The damage has been done. I know a lot of realtors have been through this quite a bit. I heard talking about the genetic part of this, the SS as compared to the ‑, you know, to the SGs and GGs and all that. You know, it’s the same thing that they did with scrapies in sheep. She was talking about… what my granddaughter put out a while back. It is all in there about it…It is the same thing and Horace Gore, and he is big on it of course… It is exactly the same way they got rid of the scrapies in sheep, which the USDA here again says they can’t differentiate in it. That is something, and I think it needs to be looked at. You talking about other states, gentleman talking about other states than Texas, yesterday a gentleman talking about this, what we need to do here, because this is Texas. Well if you look at what Oklahoma’s done, Wisconsin has done where they tried to kill all the deer, they don’t have nearly all the regulations we have anymore. If somebody would look at it and get involved with it and see, they have really changed their strategy on it. I think we need to do that maybe. I mean, ‑‑ I was up here yesterday talking about maybe testing other deer, testing low fence places, testing MLD permits. I know Mr. Ken Walter, mountains out in El Paso, how many positives he’s found out there. He’s like well we don’t kill all the deer out there running wild. We as breeders, we want it fixed. We certainly want to find if we’ve got one and get it straightened out. We don’t want to turn one out, or do whatever. You bring up deer tags again, I think that was passed state law last time, but everybody wants to changethat all the time. Anyway, we are frustrated as much as anything. I appreciate y’all having us here. Don’t know what else to say but thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Bobby. Appreciate it. All right. Senator Bob Hall. Is the Senator here? All right.
SENATOR BOB HALL: Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a short video here I wanted to show y’all. It was just a couple minutes long, but they wouldn’t let me show it to the public here. So unfortunately, I can show it to you if you let me bring my computer up there, I can show you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Let’s hear your comments. Then go ahead and comment‑…
SENATOR BOB HALL: I will tell you what it shows you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Tell me what it shows.
SENATOR BOB HALL: First of all, I want to thank you for your comments about the free market. Free market is what has solved almost every one of our problems. Every time the government gets involved in trying to solve a problem it makes it worse. Just think about this. Covid has been around for a long time.
And it was not a problem until Parks and Wildlife decided they wanted to solve the problem. What they have done is simply make it worse. They have been misleading and lying to you and to the public about issues. There’s a documentary coming. This is a trailer for a documentary that’s going to come out. It’s going to be titled, "Rules for thee but not for me.” "Rules for thee but not…” — This is going to show you how little respect Parks has for CWD and all this facade they put on with biohazard suits and masks and things like that. After they left Robert William’s place, they left with the vehicles with mud all over. On the wheels, on the vehicles, and drove hundreds of miles, spreading it. The carcasses and everything were not in air‑tight containers in the vehicle. Air blows through there and if Covid is all that bad, it was spread all the way. When they get down there, they decided to clean something, they drove the vehicles through a commercial car wash to clean them up. They parked them in a parking lot and the fluids that were in the trailers leaked onto the ground there. And next to a Buc-ees, and you can see the sign in the background. In flip‑flops and tennis shoes and shorts, some with gloves or without gloves, they are handling deer parts and pouring contaminated fluid onto the ground right there. And it’s clear that they are state Parks and Wildlife vehicles doing this. This video documents that, and there’s more. There is a lot more. Going to show how I was man‑handled at the site, and I was prohibited from being able to collect information for legislative purposes. It was made clear to the personnel that that is why I was there, and I was still prohibited from doing anything. I can go on. There’s a whole lot more. The biohazard…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understood.
SENATOR BOB HALL: That when the public is watching. You go around to the public. They are off, around, no gloves, no masks, no nothing. It is a joke. I would like to say it. I will give you the memory stick. You guys can watch at your leisure, I can send it to you. Your choice.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. But Senator Hall, I got to respond in that these men and women at this department are fine, fine people.
[ Overlapping Voices ]
SENATOR BOB HALL: I agree there are many of them are. It’s the leadership.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I understand but the likelihood that they manhandled you…
SENATOR BOB HALL: You will see it on the video, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Fine. But they have respect for the citizens the State of Texas. And I will stand behind them 100%, so.
SENATOR BOB HALL: Majority personnel absolutely agree, some of the park rangers, some of the finest people in world. It is the top leadership that are driving this thing, that are misleading people and doing this. You will see it in the video. I’m not making this stuff up.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understand.
SENATOR BOB HALL: And one last thing, in a government document, you can’t see it from here, but it shows where CWD is a problem in the wild and where it is in the captive facilities. It will show that it is far more significant in Canada and in the United States in the wild is a problem than it is in the captive facilities. And I have an affidavit here to support this in which one of the people actually lies in the affidavit. I will share that with you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Senator Hall. Appreciate it very much.
SENATOR BOB HALL: How would you like to get the memory stick to you?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You can just give it to me, how’s that?
There you go. Just give it right.
MS. DEE HALLIBURTON: I’m Dee Halliburton. I will get it to him.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: They will get it to us. Okay. All right. Thank you, Senator. Anyone else wish to speak? All right. If not, so I’d like to open the floor to any commissioners who would like to speak on Action Item Number 4 on adoption of new surveillance zones. Yes, sir, Mr. Scott.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Knowing and hearing all this that we have been hearing, both sides, and knowing the direction that you and the rest of us have directed staff to try to come up with some new and innovative ideas about this situation, and having been here since the first two or three deer walked over from New Mexico, which was 14 years ago ‑‑or 13, I forget ‑‑ perhaps we could look at moving this issue down the road a little bit and try to get what the staff has been tasked with, trying to get some other alternatives to this idea.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
Yes, Commissioner Galo.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay, well, I just wanted to say that is our current plan perfect? No, it’s not perfect. And we all realize that; you all know that; we up here, we know that it is not a perfect plan. Can we do better? Of course, we can do better. All of us can do better. And it is really… ‑‑ I mean I’m very impressed with the willingness of both sides to help this agency and to help us as commissioners to understand better, to know more, to get to a better plan. And are the concerns of the breeders legitimate? They are legitimate. Are the concerns of the adjoining landowners legitimate? They are legitimate. The land values, is that a concern? Yes, it’s a legitimate concern. Some talked about being afraid to report. I’ve said it before. It happened in my family. We thought we had a CWD deer. We are not breeders, and I have partners. They were afraid. But we did call in. Carter got our previous veterinarian out there. And you know, we were lucky, it wasn’t CWD. So, I do understand. I think all of us up here do understand. But we only have one chance to contain CWD. None of us, none of us wants it to spin out of control. I know that we don’t want more surveillance zones, but right now I feel like we need to continue with our current plan until this new plan that we are talking about becomes a reality. I mean, I’m open to a new plan. I’m sure everybody up here…‑‑ I’m positive everybody up here is, you know, open to a new plan. But, I mean, if you are on a flight, do you change the engine while you are in the air? Noyou don’t. And so, I think as, ‑‑ you know, none of us want more surveillance zones, we all want this to go away. But I do support the surveillance zones for now that staff is recommending, because we don’t have that new plan, we don’t have that new program in place. I do want to do better. I know we all want to do better. I know that staff and leadership are going to take the direction and come up with a better plan. I’m hopeful that when we are back here at our next commission meeting, we will have a better plan. But for now, I just don’t think it’s prudent to change what we’ve been doing
without that new plan.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Sir, Mr. Doggett.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Thank you, Chairman. Leslie Doggett. I will say, respectfully, I certainly understand my co-commissioner’s view on this issue, but I would say that we’ve tasked our staff, who are very competent, to come up with a very robust analysis from data we have collected historically for our next meeting. And we’ve tasked them ‑, like I tell our teams at home, let’s think out of the box. Let’s look at this in a brand ‑new way and find solutions that can address all the issues that have boiled up here from both sides. So, we have a really competent staff that I think can come up with some really robust, new ideas that we can review. And I would just say personally no more surveillance or containment zones until we have that meeting and have a chance. The reason I say that is that we don’t, that I know of, don’t really have a clear solution to get out of those zones. For folks to impact the landowners with that, is not a small thing. It’s a huge thing. So, before we go any further on that front, I would — my vote would be to listen to the staff, let them come up with some solutions and let the commission evaluate all that. So, I mean, push this to the next meeting. And I think we have full confidence that we can come up with some strategies that we’ll go, “This is a combined effort”, Landowners, breeders, non‑breeders, deer hunters. This is a great solution.
That’s my input.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Commissioner Doggett.
Anything else, Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: No.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Okay, thanks very much. Commissioner Foster.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: I’m essentially in agreement with what Commissioner Doggett just said. It seems to me that since we have tasked the staff to come up with new recommendations, or at least to review what they’ve done, it would make sense to pause the implementation of these six new surveillance zones at least until we have a chance to review it at the next meeting so that we don’t just keep adding surveillance zones. So, I would be in favor in this particular case of pausing on these six recommended surveillance zones.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Commissioner Foster.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is Commissioner Rowling.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Respectfully, I’m in disagreement. I want to get rid of every one of these surveillance zones, and I do think we need a path out of every one of them, and these are the steps we’ve got to take to get out of them. But to Kevin’s point, if we are going to get the data, we got to do it now for hunting season. The only time we are going to get the testing is hunting season. If we kick the can down the road, we’ve missed the whole season. So, I would be in favor of moving forward with them and havin staff figure a way out of it as part of their task.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understand. Okay, thanks very much. Commissioner Abell.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: I agree with Commissioner Galo and Commissioner Rowling. I think, to be clear, I want — I can’t stand the containment zones or surveillance zones. I want a fresh look at all the policies, you know, where ‑‑ where we sort of primarily look at what do we do if we are not going to have surveillance zones or containment zones? And also, I can’t stand the whole herd elimination when we find it. So, what is an alternate to that as well? But I would say, ‑‑ as Commissioner Galo said, until we have that plan, I think we need to continue
with the tools that we have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understood. Okay, thanks very much. Anyone else?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: I was waiting to see if anyone else had anything.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Bobby.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, Commissioner Patton. If we are tipping our hand, I’m certainly in favor of the zones. I ranch in two of them, including the longest existing surveillance zone in our state. And I do wonder to what end it is served out in the five million acres of far West Texas. And there have been positives. There are no deer breeders out there but, you know, why do we have it? What purpose does it really serve towards, you know, fixing the problem? I will say, one thing it has created is almost an ingrained acceptance of testing mule deer, not white tail, for CWD. But again, to what end? I would offer that, to my end, there’s the personal satisfaction or knowledge that we don’t have CWD on any of my ranches out there. In Brooks County, where I kind of got included in the zone. I think because I was already used to it on a different property, it didn’t really bother me. I think it comes as a blunt force trauma when you find out — that you wake up one morning and now your property’s got a scarlet letter on it. But, I would like to know to what end? It is good to have the information but what are we as a department really doing with that information? And again, I would point to what I think is 15 years of gathering information in far West Texas, you know, to what end is it? At the end of the day, we are going to wake up maybe 10, 20 years from now, we will be in a statewide… ‑‑ we probably won’t call our state a surveillance zone. It will just be an additional burden to a hunter that if you shoot a deer it is going to get tested. It’s probably worth a look. I think if we are getting ready to vote on it here in a little bit, I’m still in favor of following the staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell. One, I will say this. I appreciate the robust conversation that we are having on the dais. On one hand, there is absolutely no need for us to, you might say, be all in agreement. We need to be able to express those opinions freely and where we stand. What is most interesting to me is that in terms of all the comments we heard today, we have also seen some other things. We have seen TWA and TDA kind of move in a little bit closer to each other because they are having conversations about possible solutions. If we have made this…‑‑ the Chairman has directed the staff to look at some things. What could potentially come out of that? Well first, we have a situation where we can help deer breeders understand what they need to do. We also have a situation where we talk about free‑range animals, and how we’re going to be addressing free‑range animals. Whenever we have a positive in a free-range scenario, the containment area is actually much, much larger than for a breeder. It was because of the range of the imal. So, we need to look at that. Because technically right now if we … let’s say we didn’t have any deer breeders at all, would CWD be gone? And based on how we handle free‑ranging deer right now in surveillance zones, our surveillance zones would be bigger than the two‑-mile zone we are putting around the penned deer. That’s what our history has been. The surveillance zones for free‑range deer have been much larger. To Bobby’s comment, you could almost say that there might be a point where the whole state might be a zone.
So, we can look at that. I have heard a lot about tagging. Somebody’s got to look at this tag thing. I know it may not be a popular thing, but we want everybody to feel comfortable. We can look at the genetics piece, we can look at the feed piece, we should have a research program. What we have to have behind all this, in my opinion, is consistency. The reason, at least temporarily, I would tend to support a pause would be this, I don’t want to whip saw people on the rules. We put a rule change in last time that hasn’t quite taken effect, about to take effect and we are working on other pieces. It might be advisable for us, as Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Doggett said, we have already got this directive out there. What is going to be the impact if we don’t move, so to speak, for two months? Unless you tell me, that in the two months we don’t put the six surveillance zones in we are going to have half the deer population ill, I would probably say let’s put the surveillance zones in. But that is not our historic trend, that’s not the way the — you might say the epidemiological model, I think that is the correct terminology, has worked. So, if we do pause, it is not ‑‑we would still have caution out there. The folks that have positives are not movement‑qualified, those deer aren’t going anywhere.
It just gives us a chance to take a look. The idea that one positive shuts an operation down. It’s a zero-tolerance policy. On one hand I favor zero‑tolerance policies, but when you have a zero-tolerance policy, the best thing you can do is meet the standards, you can never exceed it. It is playing whack‑a‑mole. One thing happens and you’re done. Also, just — we haven’t mentioned that the public comments are 9:1 against this. We should probably factor that into what we are thinking about. But, the overall reason that I would say that I would tend to lean towards at least taking a pause is so that if we have the strategy… ‑‑ and I have full confidence in the staff to be able to look at a strategy, especially if we are taking all these things into consideration. The goal would be if we implement something let’s be able to do it maybe once, have consistency. And as we look at the rules, the rules we are dealing with now, remember, there are rules. We did them. We don’t have to comply with anybody else. If it is our rules, we can change our rules. Right? We are not locked in by our rules. It is like being a good parent. I might have told my kid at one point in time don’t do this, now as they are getting a little bit older, I say now you can do this because you understand. We are evolving, so let’s evolve to a smart solution. And again, I respect everyone’s opinion up here. And however we come out on this, I will be okay. I will be fine. I will be in agreement. But I just wanted to state for the record.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you, VICE CHAIRMAN. Any other comments?
Well, thank you all for the public testimony today. Thank you for the comments by the commissioners. This is how I guess democracy works. People have differing opinions. That is what makes the world go around. So makes America great.
From my perspective, thngs have changed. I remind everyone that just as early as maybe a year plus or minus ago our definitions of surveillance zones was different. We used landmarks, we used roadways to determine geographic boundaries. So, it encompassed a lot more acreage and in some instances, maybe less. I wouldn’t say that we arbitrarily came up with the two‑mile radius, but it was a simple, kind of logical approach. But I’m not even sure where we got the two miles, to be honest. I mean it just … we put it in place.
So to Vice Chairman Bell’s point, evolution is good. Rules change, things change, testing changes. We are much more sophisticated on this process than we were a year or two or three years ago.
A couple of facts that really were striking to me is that if you look… ‑‑ if we implemented these surveillance zones, we would put another 54,000 acres under this surveillance zone definition. Now, the net acreage that we would affect outside of the pens… And‑‑ by the way, four of these six facilities are double‑fenced.
Double‑fenced, okay? And so, within that double fence there’s roughly 11,000 acres. So, we have affected the land values of 43,000 acres in these surveillance zones. To me, that just doesn’t sit right, especially with the fact that we’ve instructed staff. And once again, my perspective is, this is a pause. We have instructed staff to come back with a comprehensive and total package on re‑looking at these containment and surveillance zones. Once again, I remind everyone, these will be non-movement qualified facilities.
Deer will not come in, they will not go out in these six sites.
A couple other facts that you probably don’t know is, under voluntary surveillance zones… the lady ‑she … this is not approximate, this is accurate. We have 12,076,059 acres under voluntary surveillance zones in the State of Texas. That’s a lot of acreage. Now under mandatory, we have 2,580,605 acres, a lot of acreage. For me, a lot of value diminution in terms of landowners and angst and challenges. And so… From my perspective, I do believe that we should take a pause in the establishment of these particular six surveillance zones. And only a pause. It is a two- to three‑month period of time. You know, if we implement it, it is going to be in the middle of hunting season and it will create confusion. Then finally, as VICE CHAIRMAN Bell says, 94% of the people disagree with this action. Yeah, maybe there was a mail in ballot campaign by the deer breeders, I don’t know. I’m assuming that is a clean process, hopefully. And we want to listen to the people of the State of Texas in order to make laws, make regulation and do the right thing.
Most importantly, let the free-market work and not diminish market value of rural acreage in the State of Texas. So, with that…
COMMISSIONER GALO: I have a comment.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Chairman, I understand exactly what you are saying, but some striking facts to me were like what Mary Pearl said yesterday. Since August 2002, the average of CWD is nearly one detection per month since the year 2002. Somebody else, I didn’t catch their name, came up and said that there is noncompliance with these breeders that are in containment zones. And that’s a striking, you know, fact to me. And like I said earlier, I’m not opposed to getting a new plan. I want a new plan, I want to hear new ideas. I think I even asked Chairman Aplin, put me on the CWD Advisory. I want to learn more, I want to know more.
But I n tell you that you’re saying… and we have in front of us today, maybe it is 94%, 98% people against this plan. I don’t find that to be true in my everyday life when people of ‑‑ breeders come up to me and, you know, non‑breeders. It is more like a 50/50. It is not this skewed like this. And also, you know some of the things that we need to remember is that we are tasked to preserve the resource, you know, for generations to come and that’s the wild deer population. That’s what we are charged to preserve and to protect the natural resources of the State of Texas for generations to come. And that includes our wild deer.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Commissioner Galo.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I just have one more thing. If we don’t put these surveillance zones in place and I’m in a zone right now, tomorrow I’m like, you better get rid of my zone, too. We have a plan in place that we’ve been implementing. I’m fine with changing it. But if I’m in a zone right now and we don’t implement these, I’m hot.
(laughter)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Well, the law was enacted, and the law has been changed. I understand your point but, you know, this is a two-month process, okay. In many ways, we are splitting hairs on all of this. It is‑‑ in that we will get to a final answer. And I don’t know what the final answer is going to be, but I’m not north winding the staff because they will do their work, and they will do the science behind it. But the likelihood, as I have said, the containment zones around pens that is a steel trap and should be. From my personal perspective, I think every deer breeding pen should be double‑fenced, okay? That is a personal opinion, okay. Not based on science if we are all truly trying to do the right thing here. So, for me this is a symbolic statement to say we are going to pause on severe regulation until the staff comes back for two months. If they come back and they say we need surveillance zones across the entire State of Texas, well, we will vote on that and determine if that is the accurate way to go. Once again, I respect everyone’s opinion, on this as to however they vote on it. But this is the process that sometimes is a little messy. All right. With that, anyone else want to say anything?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I will say this, Mr. Foster gave me his proxy.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: (laughs) He did? Okay. Can he do that?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I was kind of curious about the procedure, Commissioner Patton. If there is a motion and a second, are we proceeding in voting or are you going to unilaterally, as a chairman, whatever a pause is, going to implement your pause? And then if we do have a motion and a second and we do vote, is there an actual proxy transfer from Commissioner Foster to Doggett?
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, in anticipation of maybe this coming up, I have asked James to dig into this, so James do you want to...
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yeah, for sure. James Murphy, General Counsel, for the record.
So, a proxy vote would not be appropriate in this situation. He does need to be physically present to provide the vote. If it turns out to be a 4 to 4 vote, that would mean that the motion does not pass. It needs to be a majority for that. So, it would be just a vote. It is not at this stage at the process a Chairman’s decision. It is a full commission’s decision by full record vote. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: On a tie vote, the motion does not pass because it requires majority?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Correct. Yeah, motion fails under Robert’s Rules, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell makes a motion.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, to approve the surveillance zones? ‑‑
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: I’m making the motion so that we can vote on the…‑‑ yes, I’m making the motion that we vote for consideration of how we move forward on this.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, got it. Perfect. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. So, all in favor please say, “Aye.”
COMMISSIONER GALO: Can you restate the motion? Because I didn’t…I was just…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Well, the motion is to put surveillance zones on, okay,
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: It’s exactly as we have all agreed to.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay. I didn’t understand Commissioner Bell.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, all those in favor say…
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: You just asked for the Ayes obviously.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, fine, so there’s four Ayes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I apologize, Chairman. I just want to make sure we get this accurate. If we could just slow a slight step on it. I want to make sure if we could do a roll call vote, so I think we heard Commissioner Rowling first with mics on please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, aye.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo, aye.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, no.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, no.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell, aye.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, no.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Hildebrand, no.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Foster, no.
(laughter)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That is enough. We don’t have his proxy.
All right, look, thank you guys. Truly, this is — I respect fully and completely everyone’s opinion on this. So, I get it. So…
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And, Chairman, if you would just announce that the motion fails that would help complete the record.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Not having the majority, the motion fails.
Okay, thank you. With zeal and urgency, okay, the staff needs to come back to us with the definitive, conclusive, comprehensive regulation around the surveillance and containment zones/p>
Okay, that is it. Thank you, guys, very much. Appreciate it.
All right. So, Action Item 5, Grant of Pipeline Easement, Jefferson County, three acres, J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area, Mr. Stan David. Mr. David.
MR. STAN DAVID: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, For the record, I’m Stan David. I’m with the Land Conservation Program. (off mic) Do you want me to state it again?
Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, For the record, I’m Stan David with the Land Conservation Program. This presentation is a grant of easement Jefferson County, approximately three acres at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area. J.D. Murphree WMA is close to Louisiana border, the red star migrated a little bit but it’s the county right at the border. You can see it is close to Port Arthur, Texas. The J.D. Murphree WMA consists of approximately 25,500 acres of coastal marsh and open water within the Texas Chenier Plain. It is divided into three units: Hillebrandt, Big Hill and Salt Bayou. It is adjacent to one existing LNG export facility and another is under construction currently. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP requests an easement crossing the north side of the Hillebrandt unit of the WMA. The proposed easement is for a 12-inch highly volatile liquid pipeline and would be approximately 2,672 feet in length and 50-feet wide. Chevron would construct the pipeline using underground horizontal directional drilling which means no surface damage to our WMA. This map shows in blue, the path of the right‑of‑way of the pipeline. A, B, C are small water bodies. The red area is a no public use area. The red line going outside of the Hillebrandt unit is the continuation of the pipeline. The unit is outlined in yellow there. 11 responses so far, three support, eight in opposition.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A.
I’d be happy to answer any questions if you guys have any.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Any questions?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell. Just clarification for the record. That easement, the pipeline that they are considering putting in, all of that would be underground so there would be no surface impacts… so, the entry and exit point would be outside the — our area, correct?
MR. STAN DAVID: Exactly. They would enter on adjacent neighbor, exit on adjacent neighbor. No trench, no digging, no disturbance on WMA property.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay, thank you.
MR. STAN DAVID: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Do we allow open pits or open construction of pipelines at all on any of them?
MR. STAN DAVID: It’s allowed but strongly discouraged. When available. When it is a long ‑, you know, a mile long they can’t directional drill everything. This one is short enough that they can. But it is strongly discouraged to open‑trench.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understood, thank you. If no other comments, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you very much.
MR. STAN DAVID: Yes sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Action Item Number 6, Acceptance of Donation and Expansion of Coastal Management Area Boundary in Brazoria County- Approximately 33.616 acres at Follets Island. Mr. David.
MR. STAN DAVID: Yes, sir. Commission, Chairman, Stan David, for the record, land conservation program. This presentation is for an acceptance of a donation expansion of the coastal management area boundary, Brazoria County.
The donation is approximately 33.616 acres at the Follets Island Coastal Management Area. Red Star- Brazoria County, close to Galveston. The circle there, Follets Island CMA is between Surfside Beach and the San Luis Pass. The Follets Island Conservation Initiative was established in 2014 with the acquisition of approximately 441 acres. In March of 2017, Commission authorized future acceptance of conservation tracts within a 1,300-acre area, known then as the Follets Island Conservation Initiative Area. In 2018, the Commission authorized expansion of the project area to approximately 3,000 acres. The boundary provided at the time, and the added tracts since, now make up the Follets Island Conservation… or Coastal Management Area, the CMA. TPWD has the opportunity to accept a 33.616-acre donation and pursue acquisition of at least two other tracts just northeast of the current project area with the frontage on Cold Pass.
Acquiring these tracts would allow permanent protection of coastal habitat and maintain, enhance, and restore their ecological functions and value.
Chronological order, phase 1, 2, 3 from the inside‑out, you can see Phase I was the smallest. In 2018, we opened it up more and we’re asking for a larger area now, there’s available tracts we are pursuing. Outlined in blue is the 33.616-acre tract; it’s undeveloped; you can see it’s close to neighborhoods, there’s a possibility it could be developed in the future.
16 responses, 15 in support, one in opposition.
Staff recommends that the commission adopt the following two motions:
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission accepts the donation of approximately 33.616 acres in Brazoria County for addition to the Follets Island Coastal Management Area.
Second, the Executive Director is authorized to take all necessary steps to expand the Follets Island Coastal Management Area through strategic acquisitions from landowners.
Be happy to answer questions if you have any.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. David?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton. Just out of curiosity, now that I know that the parks and SNAs are under the Parks Department, and WMAs are under the Wildlife side of the Department, where does a CMA land?
MR. STAN DAVID: Coastal Fisheries. We designated them a different name because they are on the coast, and Coastal Fisheries Division accepted the responsibility to manage those.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: All right. Every day I learn something new. Thanks.
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Me too.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: How many different management…?
MR. STAN DAVID: CMAs?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: No. CMAs, Parks, WMAs, how many different designations do we have?
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: I think we just have the four, Chairman, state natural areas, state parks, wildlife management areas and coastal management areas. Am I correct? I’m looki around, yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, and I’m sure there is good reason as to why we have them all named differently.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Different funding mechanisms primarily, yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, all right. Okay, thank you very much. Any other comments?
So, we have two motions, the first being, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission accepts the donation of approximately 33.616 acres in Brazoria County, for addition to the Follets Island Coastal Management Area. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye,”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.
Second motion: The Executive Director is authorized to take all necessary steps to expand the Follets Island Coastal Management Area through strategic acquisitions from landowners.
Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, seconds.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye,”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries, thank you.
MR. STAN DAVID: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Action Item Number 7, Acquisition of Land, Gillespie County, Approximately 630 acres at Enchanted Rock State Natural Area. Mr. Vick, please make your presentation.
MR. TREY VICK: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, my name is Trey Vick. I’m with the Land Conservation Program.
Today, I am presenting a 630-acre acquisition at Enchanted Rock. Located here in Gillespie County, shown on the map. It sits just outside the town of Fredericksburg. Enchanted Rock SNA consists of approximately 1,650 acres in the central Texas Hill country and protects the national natural landmark of Enchanted Rock.
It is located just outside of Fredericksburg and the state acquired and opened the SNA in 1978. Enchanted Rock SNA hosts approximately 250,000 visitors a year and is one of the most popular parks of the system. Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings along with adjacent properties from willing sellers to improve recreational opportunities and ensure conservation of Parks and Wildlife land.
Staff has identified a tract adjacent to Enchanted Rock totaling approximately 630 acres that would increase the total size of the SNA and allow improved access to the current SNA.
Here is a map outlining Enchanted Rock SNA in red, the acquisition is outlined in yellow. As of today, we have received 231 responses, 99%, or 229, in support with only two in opposition.
Today, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 630 acres in Gillespie County adjacent to Enchanted Rock State Natural Area from a willing seller.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Any questions for Mr. Vick?
Okay, if not, any speakers? No. If not, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say, “Aye.”
(Chorus of Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.
MR. TREY VICK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Let’s see, Briefing Item Number 8. 20th Anniversary of Fish Stamp… Freshwater Fish Stamp.
MR. TIM BIRDSONG: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Tim Birdsong, Director of the Inland Fisheries Division. The purpose of this presentation is to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the Freshwater Fish Stamp. So, fishing and hunting stamps were commonly sold throughout 1900s to provide a dedicated source of funding to manage and conserve specific species and provide related fishing and hunting opportunities. You are all familiar with the federal duck stamp.
I’ll give you a real similar example from Texas, from 1985 to 2003, we sold a freshwater trout stamp and that provided a dedicated source of funding to purchase rainbow trout and brown trout from cold water hatcheries out of state that were used to sustain winter trout fishing opportunities in creeks and rivers and community fishing lakes. Still a very popular program for us. The legislature took action back in 2004 to replace that freshwater trout stamp with a more general freshwater fish stamp. We continue to use those revenues to purchase fish as needed, rainbow trout and other species, to supplement
our state hatchery system.
But the real intent of that freshwater fish stamp was to provide a dedicated source of funding to construct new fish hatcheries and renovate and repair existing fish hatcheries. There were a couple of other major milestones in the life of the stamp. In 2011, the ten‑year sunset provisions were lifted so that the stamp would continue into the future. And then anglers came out in support in 2017 to expand the eligible uses of the stamp beyond facility construction and fish purchases, to also enable other fisheries enhancement strategies, namely fish habitat
improvements and angler access improvements.
So, this is the current list of eligible uses of the stamp funding. Over $130 million has been generated over the last 20 years. There was a discussion earlier about the Sport Fish Restoration Act. Federal funds that are available to all state fish and wildlife agencies around the country that are leveraged 3 to 1. Every dollar made available for operation of our hatchery system gets leveraged three times over. So, $1.5 million made available for hatchery operations ends up being $5.5 million operating budget for our state hatchery system. So also investing, as noted here in fish habitat and angler access improvements, that we also leverage many times over with partner dollars from local fishing clubs, watershed alliances, river conservancies and others. In the photo there, I want to spotlight the late commissioner John D. Parker. Commissioner Parker was a major supporter and advocate of the stamp program and of our hatchery system. That photo was taken at the ground‑breaking ceremony for what is now known as the John D. Parker East Texas Fish Hatchery. It’s generated over… it’s produced over 35 million fish for stocking in public waters since it opened in 2012, and it was one of the first projes that was constructed with stamp dollars.
If you want to look at statewide impacts of this program, you can see in orange all the fish stocking locations from fish produced by our five freshwater fish hatcheries. So nearly a half billion fish that have been produced over the last 20 years. If you look back to the beginnings of our state fish hatchery system in 1925, we have now stocked 1.5 billion fish in freshwater systems throughout the state. Just in the last 20 years, that is over a thousand different water bodies that have been stocked in Texas, shown on the map. Green dots show the facilities that have been constructed, renovated or repaired, and then purple are the fish habitat and angler access improvements we are talking about, fishing piers and kayak launches, other sorts of angler access enhancements. That photo shown in the middle there, that is a striped bass. We used stamp funds to be able to construct a holding facility for adult striped bass. These are our brood stock; these are the parents of the fish produced and stocked in dozens of water bodies all over the state. To give you an idea of local economic impact, the striped bass fishery at Lake Texoma alone is valued at $46 million annually. Large mouth bass shown on the bottom photo is raised and stocked in lakes throughout the state.
Economic impact studies done for individual lakes range from $20 million to $47 million. Lake Sam Rayburn is $47 million annually in economic impact. About half of the anglers targeting black bass fisheries there at Sam Rayburn are tournament anglers, so huge impacts to local economies from fishing.
You may not have heard this number before, but $11.1 billion in direct expenditures by Texas anglers. That was the most recent study done in 2022. We repeat that study every five years. We had 4.1 million Texas anglers who spend $11.1 billion going fishing. That is restaurants, that is gas stations, that is… ‑‑ there are ripple effects throughout local economies. The local economies set up around these river reaches, around these reservoirs, they’re benefitting enormously from investments. So, you want to look at return on investment from $130 million. Extrapolate that. It’s significant. We don’t even have…
For the latest study, we don’t have that extrapolation to say economic impact. Those $11.1 billion is direct expenditures. So once you apply the extrapolation, it will be tens of billions of dollars for the Texas economy. So, 75 projects that have been supported so far at about $52 million investment, an additional $35 million that’s been invested in hatchery operations. Again those, as I said earlier, that money gets leveraged 3 to 1 with the federal Sport Fish Restoration Act dollars. Half a billion fish stocked. The face of our habitat and angler access investments is shown in a sign there on the right, the Habitat and Angler Access Program. This is a program that allows our biologists to collaborate with communities and fishing clubs, other organizations to plan and design projects that are going to benefit those local fisheries.
And looking ahead, we have $65 million worth of additional needs, we’ve got about a $49 million balance. That may seem like a lot but to construct a new fish hatchery right now would easily cost over $40 million. We are working with the executive office right now to identify what the needs are for FY 26‑27 and beyond. Those get represented in our legislative appropriations request. We’ve got an ongoing need of about $2.5 million just to continue to support our habitat and angler access program.
And with that, I want to pause briefly and recognize a few folks in the room. We have a lot of the Inland Fisheries Division aff that have come today. This is a celebration for us. We have a luncheon afterward. You see a lot of fish stamps and fish replicas, quite a few of our state record fish here in the room. So, there will be a photo opportunity after the meeting concludes, so we hope you will join in on it.
I want to point out several folks in the room, if Phil Derosher, former Inland Fisheries Division Director could stand up. This is Phil’s vision. So, Phil, he developed the vision for this stamp program. He is the one that worked closely with our angling community, our constituency, worked with the commission, he worked with the Texas legislature to get this stamp established back in 2004. He also worked diligently to lift that sunset provision so that this money continues into the future.
So, I really want to recognize Phil and say thank you for his role.
(Applause)
And then I want to recognize Todd Engling, our Deputy Division Director in Inland Fisheries Division. He is the guy that made it happen on the ground. I mean he had a role in every single infrastructure project, every enhancement that was done over the last 20 years, so I want to recognize Todd. I also want to recognize Dave Terry, a retired fisheries management research branch chief. Dave was the visionary behind expanding the eligible uses to include habitat and angler access, really recognized that need there, in partnership with Craig Bonds, our Division Director at the time, worked with the Commission, our Legislature to expand eligible uses. I also want to recognize a couple others. Travis Tidwell, here, is one of our biologists who really stepped forward and provided structure and design for our habitat and angler access program, a relatively new program that’s just been implemented over the last three years. But it’s been a hit among our angling constituency. A lot of other Inland Fisheries folks in the room that if you can raise your hand and acknowledge that you are here.
I really appreciate all your efforts. Craig Bonds was a major leader in all of this as well. Thankful to have his continued engagement in supporting our efforts to manage and conserve freshwater fisheries resources. I just want to give a round of applause for all of these folks.
(Applause)
With that I’d be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any questions for Mr. Birdsong?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell. How do I get all 20?
Stamps.
MR. TIM BIRDSONG: We have them, yeah. I’ll be happy to.
‑ I almost brought you some. You know, yes, we have stamps that we would love to get in your hands. You can see the framed prints and stamps that we have around the room here. Fantastic artwork that’s been done. Unfortunately, the commemorative, collector’s edition stamps were not the best‑sellers, so we in recent years have shifted away from producing the stamps. It’s become an endorsement on your license. With advancements in fishing and licensing, you know, our licensing technology there wasn’t a need to issue a physical stamp anymore. We moved away from that but we do have all this beautiful artwork. And we continue our state fish art contest, which you may not have heard about, but it is a national program. So, Students around Texas, around the country, are all producing very beautiful artwork like you see here on the screen. So, we recognize the students and their scholarships. It is a great program.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I was going to ask the question, do we commission someone to paint the stamp every year?
MR. TIM BIRDSONG: We had a contract in place with n outside group that yes, painted stamps. That program actually ended in 2016.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, if you wanted to get like a set of frames with the large picture then maybe a copy of the stamp down below, which, like duck stamps, we’ve got that, how would one go about doing that?
MR. TIM BIRDSONG: We no longer sell those, but we have a number stockpiled that when folks request those we make them available.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, I think you’ve got two requests here.
(laughter)
(speaking together) Or three, four....okay.
MR. TIM BIRDSONG: If you tell me what specific prints you’d like or if you want the whole set, we will get them to you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That would be great. It really would. It would be nice. That would be a great retirement gift for each of the‑‑…
MR. TIM BIRDSONG: The primary user of each of the stamps is Dee Halliburton, as she produces retirement plaques for employees. That is primarily how they are used right now.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, well, thank you. Beautiful.
Thank you, appreciate it. Any other questions?
Okay. With that, real quick, I’m going to go back to Action Item 4 for a clarifying statement. Or just maybe some elaboration. You know, as Commissioner Patton said, to what end? Why are we collecting this data? I have yet to get a good answer on that. So, I trust that the staff is going to come back to say, why are we spending the time and the resources to do all of this invasive testing? If we are using it for some proactive, actionable item, fantastic. If we are using it as a science project, just let us know that and we make the decision based on what we think the value of that is. So, to what end are we collecting data?
Secondly, is… we have a plan in place with MLD permits and the ability to require landowners to test deer. I don’t know the geographic spread of those MLD permits. I suspect they are all over the state. It seems to me as though that would be a likely place to start with some form of comprehensive testing if we in fact value that and require some percentage of MLD permits for the deer to be tested properly. But once again, just recommendations. Then third, as VICE CHAIRMAN Bell said, as much as the deer breeders hate to hear it, dangle tags might be a part of the solution to do away with the surveillance zones. I don’t know that, but I want to open the slate to what are the availabilities, so we can do our best to reduce these surveillance zones to the minimum required, and no more, and still protect the wild deer of the State of Texas. So.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Can I add?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You may.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’d like to add to the mission, is if ‑‑we said… going to the premise, if we paused… if we did away with zones, what could we implement that would still get us ahead of this program? What testing could we require? Could we require all deer deaths? All carcasses? What could we do in lieu of the zones to still get us ahead of this process? Are there any initiatives, requirements, testing programs that we could undertake in lieu of zones? I would love to see that alternative, if it exists. That would be great.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Be creative is what you are hearing. If the recommendation‑… I don’t know this to be true and I don’t know the costs to be associated with it, but if double‑fencing is a solution to prevent the definition on 12 billion acres in the state of Texas and diminishing that value, then maybe that is the answ. Be creative, all solutions are welcome.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Commissioner Patton. And if… As this commission voted today, I quite frankly think it is a worthwhile exercise in looking at rolling back surveillance zones that we have put in place. To be fair, to be consistent, I don’t see any reason why we are pausing or ‑‑I don’t think we are pausing. I think we voted it, it failed today. I would be inclined to vote that we roll back the surveillance zones that we put in place. They are no different other than the period of time from today to a year ago. So, something to consider at the next meeting. I don’t know if it requires a petition or some such, but I think it is something we should look at.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: And I agree with Bobby, Commissioner Patton. I think we need to look at everything. We need evaluate where we are right now, where do we want to get to down the road. I think these are all valid discussion points.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You know I will emphasize that as well. I mean to Commissioner Rowling’s perspective, he’s agitated because he’s in one. But he’s fine. He will get over it.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I’m in one too by the way.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But the uniform application of what we want to create on a going forward basis would clearly mean doing away with surveillance zones as we know them today. Now what do we substitute for? But you are not going to be grandfathered, and from my perspective, you shouldn’t be grandfathered into a surveillance zone and then have yet another new interpretation of what that should look like. But just because that surveillance zone was put in place five years ago, that means you are in the trap forever. I would say, from my perspective, those go away. We change it or modify it and replace it with something different.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Commissioner Rowling. So, I think we need to stick to the mission though. The mission is not get rid of surveillance zones, I want to get rid of them. The mission is to contain the disease in the best possible way we can. So, we need to hear from staff how do we contain the disease. I don’t know if that is containment zones or surveillance zones or whatever, but the mission is dealing with the problem.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Correct, yes. To what end?
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: To what end, yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: To what end? What are we doing proactively to do something about this disease? Okay.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners for that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other comments? Okay, you guys have got your marching orders. All right. Thanks, everybody. I appreciate the process.
So, I would like to announce that the November 6th and 7th Commission meeting will be held in Corpus Christi, Texas. Details of the meeting will be forthcoming. But as a primer, we are going to do it at A&M Corpus Christi.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I think there’s a couple options of dividing things up, Chairman. But we will be in Corpus Christi.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, staff will have a good program set up for us. I think we should really try to implement ‑… historically you have done‑‑ you have moved it around once a year or twice a year?
COMMISSIONER GALO: No.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Just once.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Just once? Okay, so, I’m the Chairman, so we can do it this year. But when I’m not, they will make their own decisions as to what they’d like to do. For me, I’d like to gt out and see some of the facilities that we are involved with. So, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Jeff, quick comment. I have been to all of them that we have done. We have done Lufkin; we did up in…
COMMISSIONER GALO: McAllen.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: …in Amarillo and up that neck of the woods a couple times, then we went to McAllen and Brownsville. We had some of the greatest…‑‑ I mean it was unbelievable how the people showed up. They rolled out the red carpet. They really appreciated us coming.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You bet.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: And it’s a very worthwhile deal. And I think everybody will see that when we get down there. It’s pretty neat. Pretty neat.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, I think absolutely. Staff will be excited that we are there. The people in the general area will be happy that we’re there. So, let’s do a good job. Okay, with that, thank you everyone for coming today.
The Commission has completed its business, and I declare us adjourned at, let’s see, 12:01 PM.
Thank you very much.
(Commission Meeting Adjourns)
In official recognition of the adoption of this
resolution in a lawfully called public meeting of
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, we hereby
affix our signatures this _____ day of ______________,
________.
_______________________________________
Jeffery D. Hildebrand, Chairman
_______________________________________
Oliver J. Bell, Vice-Chairman
_______________________________________
James E. Abell, Member
_______________________________________
William "Leslie" Doggett, Member
_______________________________________
Paul Foster, Member
_______________________________________
Anna B. Galo, Member
_____________________________________
Robert L. "Bobby" Patton, Jr., Member
_______________________________________
Travis B. Rowling, Member
_______________________________________
Dick Scott, Member