TPW Commission
Work Session, August 21, 2024
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
August 21, 2024
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
WORK SESSION
CHAIRMAN JEFFERY D. HILDEBRAND: Okay, good morning, everyone.
Thank you for coming today. Before we begin, I’ll take roll.
I, Chairman Hildebrand am present. Vice Chair, Bell, no is not.
Commissioner Abell?
COMMISSONER JAMES E. ABELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER 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 Rowling?
COMMISSIONER TRAVIS B. “BLAKE” ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Scott.
COMMISSIONER DICK SCOTT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. This meeting is called to order.
August 21st, 2024, at — let’s see, 9:07 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 of State as required by Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as the Open Meetings Act.
I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Dr. Yoskowitz. Commissioners as a reminder please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak. First order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous work session held May 22, 2024, which have already been distributed.
Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So, moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say, “Aye.“
Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you.
Work Session Item No. 1, Update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Progress in Implementing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan.
Dr. Yoskowitz, please make your presentation.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Great. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. I would like to provide you an update germane to the Land and Water related plan and functions inside the department.
As is customary, I will start off with an Internal Affairs update. I’m pleased to announce the selection of Captain Cody Hatfield and Captain Joel Parker to the Office of Internal Affairs as the team’s newest captain investigators.
Captain Hatfield joined the Internal Affairs team starting July 1st of this year. He attended Sul Ross State University in Alpine, Texas, where he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Management in 2002. His career with the department began as a paid intern, within the LE Division, where he worked while attending college. After graduating from the Game Warden Academy in 2003, Captain Hatfield worked field duty stations in Edwards and Mason Counties. In 2014, he promoted to Captain Game Warden for the Law Enforcement Division, Region 7, District 2, which is comprised of Menard, Mason, Llano, Burnet, San Saba and Lampasas Counties.
Cody enjoys spending time with his family and watching them participate in many activities. In addition, he holds a great fondness for the land stewardship and actively participates in farming and ranching when time permits.
Captain Parker began his career in state parks at the age of 16 in Delaware. Although he was born in south Texas, he grew up in Delaware and attended Lynchburg College in Virginia where he studied Spanish and Environmental Science. In 2008, Joel began working at McKinney Falls State Park just in our back yard as a seasonal maintenance worker.
He has worked at multiple parks and in multiple roles during his careers at the department to include State Park Police Officer and Assistant Superintendent at Guadalupe River State Park, Dinosaur Valley State Park and Interim Superintendent at Guadalupe River State Park and Colorado Bend State Parks. In 2019, he promoted to Sergeant State Park Police Officer at Headquarters. Since then, he has been promoted to both lieutenant and captain over that team. Outside of the office, Joel enjoys spending time with his family and traveling whenever possible.
Joel will start his new role in a couple of weeks in Internal Affairs beginning September 1.
And Cody and Joel, are you in the room? Can y’all stand up?
Thank you for joining that team.
[ Applause ]
Next, I am pleased to announce that the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has awarded over $33.5 million in conservation grants from the Longleaf Landscape Stewardship Fund to restore, enhance, and protect Longleaf pine forests across the country. Of that amount, the Texas Longleaf Team was awarded $825,000 for the work in the state.
The team is made up of 15 governmental and non-governmental partners including the department, Texas Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, The Nature Conservancy, TLL Temple Foundation and several private timber investment management organization and Real Estate investment trusts.
The $825,000 allocated to Texas includes restoration work conducted on private property through the agency contracts where we serve as project managers and work with landowners to support their ongoing Longleaf research.
The Texas Forest Service serves as the fiduciary of those monies received by the team.
TPWD has been a part of the Texas Longleaf team since its creation back in 2014. Longleaf Pine as you well know was once the dominant forest type from eastern Texas all the way through Virginia, highly prized for its lumber and its byproducts but was largely cut out by the turn of the 20th century.
Restoration projects include reestablishing of longleaf forests on clearcut lands, conversion of nonnative pastures to longleaf and maintaining longleaf pine savannah through the use of prescribed fire.
In addition, department staff are currently assisting landowners with a recently funded series of projects within the 2023 Sherwood Creek wildlife impact area which is located in Angelina County.
It will restore over 1,000 acres of the burned area to resilient Longleaf forests and includes seven landowners that were impacted.
Next, we get to talk about a celebration we had just a little less than a month ago. It’s an exciting milestone in our marine fisheries operations and it also directly ties to the Land and Water Plan Action Item 1.7 where our annual goal is to produce 41 million fingerlings combined for both saltwater and fresh water.
On July 31, Chairman, myself, a lot of our partners, staff, were in Christmas Bay located near Lake Jackson when the coastal fisheries released the 1 billionth— that’s a “B”— one billionth hatchery produced saltwater fingerling, a red drum named, “Billy”. A name voted on by the public in anticipation of this achievement.
This milestone represents production that includes all fingerlings of Red Drum, spotted sea trout and southern flounder.
Many of our long-term partners were there, present, and I want to thank Phillips 66 for supporting this event.
In response to the declining Red Drum populations in Texas in the early ‘80s brought on by commercial net fishing, a partnership with then the GCCA, Gulf Coast Conservation Association — now the CCA— and Barnie Davis Power Plant Enhancement Program was born with the completion of the John Wilson Fish Hatchery
in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Governor Bill Clements released the first red drum fry in to grow out ponds that same year, and the first large scale production of fingerlings were released in Port O’Conner in 1983.
Since then, the program has continued to grow with the addition of Sea Center Texas in our partnership with Dow, and the inclusion of the Perry R. Bass Marine Fisheries Research Station in Palacios, and the addition of producing spotted sea trout and southern flounder in addition to the red drum.
The Fisheries Enhancement Program operates three hatcheries on the Texas coast producing more than 20 million fish that are released into Texas coastal water each year for sport fish restoration.
The criticality of this program has been made evident following winter storm Uri in 2021. As you all know, the coastwide state freeze caused significant mortalities of spotted sea trout.
And following that storm, the Marine Fisheries Enhancement Program more than doubled the previous year’s production of spotted sea trout in order to release fingerlings in the bays most affected by the freeze. This effort is key in helping the fishery recover. The impact has been significant over the last 30 years and has been done with our partners.
Next, I would like to draw attention to a couple more items in our Land and Water Action Plan. 7.1 and 7.—
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: David, let me make a quick comment.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, absolutely, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: What a wonderful event that was. And I will tell you if you have not gone and seen the three hatcheries that we have across the coast you should do it. They are really quite astounding, and as David said, 1 billion fish. You know, all too often we only hear the negative elements about regulatory agencies and compliance. But I will tell you this is one of the positive things that we do as an agency. 1 billion fingerlings over a 25-year period of time. And they do it in a very efficient and effective way. I mean these hatcheries don’t have a lot of employees and they are very simple and straight forward but this — if you want to feel good about State government, go to one of these hatcheries and see the great things that this department is doing.
So, I wanted to comment on that. Thank you.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman. In the top right corner, it’s hard to see Billy there, but he’s being held up in a tank that you can actually take a picture of him. Down in the right-hand corner, that’s the Chairman releasing — I think we did an additional – Robin, was that 10,000?
MR. ROBIN RIECHERS: 25,000.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: An additional 25,000 fingerlings in addition to Billy.
So, it was a great event.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And by the way, only 6% of those fingerlings, correct, that we release generally get to full maturity?
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Full size. Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, mother nature is tough.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: It is. Yes, it is. Thank you, Chairman for that.
So, what I would like to talk about is Action Plans 7.1 and 7.2 that relates to our Law Enforcement Division’s dedication to educate the public and enforce fisheries, wildlife, and water safety rules and regulations.
Through a comprehensive approach that includes direct engagement in educational programs, the department has successfully reached a broad audience, fostering awareness and compliance with state rules and regulations.
The department’s efforts are reflected in one notable way through the reduction in boating incidents and fatalities, underscoring the effectiveness of our strategie.
As of the third quarter of this fiscal year, we have dedicated 400,000 hours of our 500,000-hour annual target to fisheries and wildlife education and 115 hours of our 165,000-hour annual target for water safety.
The department is nearing its annual goals and demonstrating a clear dedication to safety and preservation of Texas natural resources.
These educational initiatives are not confined to traditional settings but are delivered through a variety of platforms and events, ensuring a wide reach. The impact of these programs is measurable.
We have seen a decrease of 20% in boating incidents and a 29% decrease in boating-related deaths in the first three quarters of this year as compared to the first three quarters of last year.
As for the fisheries and wildlife education, we have seen a decrease of 11% in the number of citations and warnings issued per hour of patrol during the first three quarters of this year compared to the same time last year. This is consistent with our mandate to educate and encourage voluntary compliance. And I appreciate the great work that the law enforcement team and volunteers have done to bring that forward.
And the last item I would like to cover with you today is the topic we discussed during the May meeting. As you are aware, the department is undergoing the process of reviewing all the rules and Texas Administrative Code, Title 31, Part 2.
Consistent with Government Code, Section 2001.039, the department reviews its rules on a four-year cycle to determine whether the reason for initially adopting a rule continues to exist, and it has been four years since that last review. The purpose of mentioning this rule review in the Land and Water bullets is to notify the Commission that this is occurring.
This notice also serves as a public record of the agency’s compliance with this law and the department will publish notice of its intent to review the rules in the Texas Register.
If the review finds that changes to certain rules are needed, or a need for a rule no longer exists and it should be repealed, the department staff will bring appropriate rule-making proposals to the Commission through the normal process.
In those cases where the department staff determined that the reviewed rule shall remain unchanged, staff will not propose changes to the Commission but will seek re-adoption of existing rules through the normal process.
To spread out the workload, the department reviews its rules in three batches as reported during the May meeting. The department began its review of the first batch and based on that review a presentation will be provided to you later this morning to request your approval to publish changes.
The first batch included: Chapter 51 — Executive, Chapter 52- Stocking Policy,
Chapter 55 — Law Enforcement, Chapter 60 — Maintenance Reviews, and Chapter 61 — Design and Construction.
The next group of chapters we are reviewing includes: Chapter 53 – Finance, Chapter 59 – Parks, and Chapter 69 — Resource Protection.
If the review of these chapters reveal changes are needed, staff will come to you in November to discuss those items. And finally, in November, we will include the third and final batch of chapters which include: Chapters 56, 57, 58 and Chapter 65. With that, Chairman, I conclude my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Dr. Yoskowitz. Any questions by the commission?
If not, Work Session Item Number 2 — Financial Overview Briefing of our Legislative Appropriations Request Fiscal Year 2026 through 27. Fiscal Year 2025 Operating and Capital Budget Approval and Other Items.
Mr. Pegues.
MR. REGGIE PEGUES: Good morning, Mr. 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 covering the following topics: a briefing on the status of the FY 26-27 Legislative Appropriations Request, and the following items that will be presented as action items tomorrow — FY 25 operating and capital budget and budget and investment policy decisions.
First up is the Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR).
We are currently in the process of preparing so many of these items may change prior to final submission. Prior to each legislative session, state agencies are required to submit an LAR, which is our funding request for the 26-27 biennium. The funding request consists of two parts.
The first part is the baseline request. The baseline is defined as general revenue (GR) and general revenue dedicated (GR-D) amounts expended, budgeted for the 2024-2025 biennium less items deemed one time in nature, which I will discuss later. The base request cannot exceed 100% of this amount. Any amounts above this base limit are requested as exceptional items in a separate part of the request.
TPWD’s due date is September 6th, 2024.
This next slide is a tentative calculation of TPWD’s base limit. Since we have not received final approval, these numbers are an unofficial estimate based on prior history. The GR total includes estimated amounts of Sporting Goods Sales Tax of $423 million and the GR-D includes amounts to be funded from GR-D 9, the Game, Fish, and Water Safety Account and GR-D 64, the State Parks Account. Any amounts above this $822 million will be submitted as an exceptional item.
This next slide is a listing of items funded in the 24-25 biennium that were defined as one time in nature and the related funding removed from the 26-27 base limits. The items on this list are either capital budget related such as construction, land acquisition, vehicles, and IT projects, or specifically directed items such as local park directed grants, and the oyster license buyback. Starting with the last biennium, non-law enforcement vehicles have been treated as one-time items and removed, but I would like to note just because an item has been removed doesn’t preclude the agency from requesting as an exceptional item.
Next are some highlights of items remaining in the base. Since there were no mandated budget reductions, at least at this stage of the process, divisions are funded at 100% of FY 24-25 ongoing operating. For capital construction and major repairs, a total of $85.9 million will be allocated in the base including $80 million for state parks-related projects and $6 million for Fund 9-related projects.
Next is the draft of potential exceptional items that may change as we finalize the process.
Capital transportation. As previously mentioned, all non-law enforcement transportation has been removed from the base. The agency will be asking for these amounts as an exceptional item.
Next is capital construction and repairs. As also mentioned, there is a limited amount of construction in the base, however, agency’s needs, specifically on the Fund 9 side, exceed the amounts sustainable in the base and necessitates an exceptional item.
Next is law enforcement. Additional resources for law enforcement including fleet maintenance, body cameras, additional game wardens.
Next is agency modernization. This includes network improvements, process automation, and digital tools.
The next item is employee compensation. The agency benefited greatly from the across-the-board and targeted salary increases but still lag behind fellow Article 6 agencies. We hope we can address that.
Next is Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation Program. Additional funding to increase grant awards for long-term conservation easements.
And lastly fisheries and wildlife, contemplating prioritizing fisheries and wildlife needs, that can be funded through dedicated fund balances.
Next, we move on to the proposed FY 25 Operating and Capital Budgets which will be presented as an action item tomorrow. This first slide is a crosswalk from the General Appropriations Act, the GAA, to the FY 25 Operating and Capital Budgets.
The starting point is the General Appropriations Act which has a base appropriation of $447.5 million. We then add in amounts appropriated for fringe benefits including retirement, insurance, and social security. This gives us a sub total of $534 million.
In addition to these amounts, TPWD has authority to adjust the budget for supplemental appropriations, estimated for federal funds and unexpended balances.
Prior to last year, we brought this amount forward during the fiscal year which showed huge adjustments to the initial budget.
Beginning with fiscal year ’24 last year, we worked with funds’ available balances and provided an estimate up front as a part of the initial budget which will minimize adjustments to actual amounts during the fiscal year.
These items are: estimated federal of $163 million including about $62 million in local park grant funding to be awarded. Senate Bill 30, supplemental park acquisition funding of $125 million, which the plan is to have encumbered at the end of this fiscal year. Other capital construction of $107 million.
Next, Rider 23 amount of $52 million. Rider 23 is a unique rider for the agency that allows carry forward of all remaining funding from the first year of the biennium into the second year of the biennium. This funding would otherwise lapse.
Next, we have appropriated receipts of $23.8 million which is primarily donations- related funding. This gives our proposed budget of slightly over $1 billion,
$1.07 billion.
This next slide is a breakout by method of finances contained in Exhibit A. General Revenue funding, including Sporting Goods Sales Tax at $469 million, makes up the largest amount at 47%. Federal Funds were next at 24%; followed by GR-D 9, Game, Fish, and Water Safety Account, which consists of hunting and fishing and boat revenues at 20%; GR-D Account 64, the State Parks Account, at 5%, consisting of park revenues and entrance fees; and, 4% for others including appropriated receipts, inter-agency contracts and license plate funds.
This next slide is a breakout of the budget by object of expense as contained in your Exhibit B. Salaries at $230.9 million represents 43.2% of the cost. This is an increase from last year and incorporates the additional 5% increase for FY25. Fringe benefits at $86.6 million also reflects the impact of the across-the-board salary increase.
General operating is $106 million.
Grants of $29 million at which the majority is for local park grants at $23 million, and capital budget of $81.5 million which I will cover in greater detail in a later slide.
Next is a view of our budget by divisions. By FTEs and dollar amounts, you will see that Law Enforcement and State Parks represent the largest amounts in terms of both of FTEs and dollar amounts, reaching a total of $534 for operating and our FTE cap at 3,160.9.
Next, this is a breakout of the department-wide budget. This is a place holder or clearing house division for the following items that are agency-wide in nature or don’t lend themselves to a specific division.
Our estimated Federal apportionment for wildlife restoration and sport fish restoration of $18 million. The across-the-board salary increase that I mentioned earlier, we load this into the department-wide budget and throughout the fiscal year, we allocate it to the spending divisions.
Next, are our payments to license agents of $7.8 million.
Next item is strategic reserve of $1.6 million. These are for special initiatives or emergencies that occur throughout the fiscal year.
And lastly, we have pass-through plates. These are revenues for license plates that we pass through to nonprofits.
This next slide is a breakout of the capital budget as I mentioned. We have land acquisition of $5 million for State Parks, Construction and Major Repairs at $49.4 million, State Parks Minor Repairs of $10.3 million, Information Technology and Data Center Consolidation includg PC replacement of $4.7 million, Transportation items for vessels, boats, UTVs, and capital equipment for mowers, radios and trailers.
Next up is a review of budget and investment policy resolutions. Your Exhibit C and D. Neither of these items have changed in several years but require an annual review.
First up is a budget policy which we will review and revisit every year.
There have been no changes in over a decade. Key points are commission authorizes the executive director to execute the budget. The budget changes over $250,000 other than federal and bonds require chairman, vice-chair, or designee approval.
Donations over $500 must be accepted by the chairman, vice-chairman, or designee and acknowledged at each scheduled commission meeting. And funds are authorized by any use permitted by statute or rule.
Next up is the Investment Policy, Exhibit D. No substantive changes since 2012, only a slight tweak related to the Centennial Fund.
Key points: the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA) requires an investment policy annual review for state agencies depositing or investing funds outside of the State Treasury. These requirements do not apply to funds inside the State Treasury, however.
And currently, all TPWD’s funds are currently deposited in the State Treasury.
In the event TPWD funds aren’t ever deposited outside the state treasury, the executive director will appoint an investment officer with the following exception- the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund is required by statute to be invested through the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company.
However, the funds are currently in the State Treasury. Interest to date, through July, is $28 million at a current interest rate of 4.94%, which is historically high.
Next are deposit options for 15% of boat-related fees. House Bill 448 modified language making the transfer of up to 15% of boat-related revenues from Fund 9, Game, Fish and Water Safety Account into the State Parks Account 64 optional instead of mandatory for cash flow purposes. Presently, Fund 64 projected cash balances through FY25 were sufficient and no transfer was needed. If a transfer were needed, we could transfer up to $2.7 million a year.
As of last night, we received two comments. One agree, one disagree. No explanation was given for the disagreement.
Staff requests that this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action. This concludes my presentation. And I will take any questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Pegues. Any questions by the Commission? If not, I will place the item on the Thursday commission meeting agenda for public comment and action. Thank you very much.
Work Session Item Number 3, Fiscal Year 2024 Internal Audit Update and Proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Internal Audit Plan.
Ms. Brandy Meeks, please make your presentation.
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks. I’m the Internal Audit Director.
This morning, I’d like to update you on our Fiscal Year 2024 Internal Audit Plan as well as recent external audits and assessments.
I would also like to explain the risk assessment methodology used to produce our Fiscal Year 25 Proposed Internal Audit Plan.
So, this slide and the next slide show the status of our current audit plan and please take note of the statuses in the yellow font to the right. Those are the projects through which we have made progress since our last internal audit update.
We are currently in the fieldwork phase for our audit of the co-op recreation grants as well as the audit of the external public safety programs. We have completed our Q1 through Q3 follow-up, and we are currently following up on all audit items due for remediation in Q4.
We also recently filled our two internal audit vacancies, so we are now fully staffed. We also completed our annual risk assessment and prepared our Fiscal ar 25 proposed internal audit plan.
As far as fiscal control audits are concerned, we are currently in field work for the Lake Casa Blanca and Meridian State Parks and in the reporting phase for the Government Canyon State Park.
We have completed 11 of our 14 fiscal control audits. So, three audits we will carry forward to next fiscal year.
As far as external audits and assessments are concerned, the Comptroller is still finishing up the post payment audit and recently the Department of State Health Services commenced an audit on the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act funding.
There have been no external audits or assessments completed since our last update.
So, to recap Fiscal Year 24, some highlights and accomplishments of the internal audit office. We successfully hired and onboarded four new internal auditors. We completed through fieldwork 77% of our fiscal year 2024 internal audit plan.
That’s 17 of 22 projects despite being short staffed most of the year. We received the highest rating possible on our quality assurance review. We participated in a team building activity during the first quarter of this year and we represented the agency by serving as the chairperson on the State Agency Internal Audit Forum as well as began serving on the Board of Governors for the Austin Chapter of the Institute of Internal Auditor’s.
So now, I would like to discuss next year’s proposed audit plan.
Texas Government Code 2102, also known as the Texas Internal Auditing Act, requires that the audit plan be developed using a risk-based approach by working with management to identify risks to the agency’s functions, activities, and processes.
After risk identification, we are to evaluate each risk’s probability of occurrence and the impact it would have to the agency’s financial, managerial, compliance and information technology processes in systems should the risk occur.
Lastly, we are to rank each risk according to its probability of occurrence and the impact to the agency.
So, this slide explains how our risk assessment methodology meets the requirements of the Texas Internal Auditing Act.
First, we consider division level risk factors such as recent internal and external audits, time since the last audit, recent turnover within the division, especially with management positions, the division’s budget, division’s contract dollars, and these factors given together give us a division level risk score.
Next, we identify agency risks by interviewing all division directors, as well as other selected managers, and we brainstorm as a team using our agency knowledge and past audit reports.
So, during our interviews with division directors and management, we not only discuss the risks within their particular division but any other threats or concerns they are concerned about outside of their division as well. And we also identified any issues or concerns they are currently experiencing with their I.T. systems and applications.
So, for all the risks identified during this process we discussed and scored the probability of occurrence and the impact that these risks would have to our financial, managerial, compliance, reputation as well as our I.T. systems should those risks occur.
And we input this information into a risk matrix to ensure all consistent evaluation among all identified risks. And lastly using the division level risk scores and the impact scores of the identified risks, we are able to rank and identify what we believe to be the top risks to the agency.
So, from the results of the annual risk assessment, we identify possible audit and advisory projects to address those risks and we also analyze the resources needed to perform those projects and presented the risk assessment and possible audit projects to executive management for discussion.
Our proposed Fiscal Year 25 internal audit plan is the result of those discussions. We prested this plan along with a risk ranking, which also included the high risks not addressed by the proposed audit plan, as well as other internal audit resource limitations to the audit subcommittee for input, review and comment.
And at this time, I would like to present our proposed Fiscal Year 25 Internal Audit Plan to the Commission.
So, as you can see, we budgeted some hours in order to finish this year’s current audit plan.
We also want to perform six assurance engagements: Audit of the State Park fiscal control specialist program, audit of TPWD Friends Group oversight processes, audit of our Local Park Recreation Grants, audit of procurement card processes and controls, audit of key performance measures, and an audit of our fuel charges.
We would also like to perform two cyber security projects: an audit of our I.T. help desk, as well as an I.T. governance audit. We’d also like to perform a law enforcement physical security advisory, continue on in an advisory capacity on the BRITS rewrite, as well as outsource an active directory audit. And then of course we have our administrative and other duties as well, which include continuing on the State Park continuous monitoring activities, following up on all internal and external audit recommendations, internal audit peer review participation. We also will be doing a course in annual risk assessment next year and a new plan.
Our Chapter 59 review, which is law enforcement seizures and forfeitures review, also preparing our annual report, and we have some budgeted hours for anything else that may come up such as special projects, investigations and liaison activities. We did have one public comment in agreement with this plan and no disagreements.
So, we request that this item be placed on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and action. And this concludes my presentation. I’m available to take any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. Meeks. Are there any questions by the Commission? If not, I will place the item on the Thursday Commission Meeting agenda for public comment and action. Thanks so much.
MS. BRANDY MEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You bet. Work Session Item Number 4, Rule Review, Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register, Chapter 51, Executive. Ms. Laura Carr, please make your presentation.
MS. LAURA CARR: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I’m Laura Carr. I’m an Assistant General Counsel for the department, and this morning, my presentation will be on proposed changes arising out of the first round of our rule review process.
As Dr. Yoskowitz already discussed this morning, we are undergoing rule review, and we are looking at whether the reason for our rules continues to exist. This rule review process also gives us the opportunity to make minor housekeeping type changes.
We have reviewed five chapters so far, and out of that, we are proposing three changes to Chapter 51.
The first change is to our rule regarding enhanced contract monitoring. By statute, TPWD is required to have a rule describing our procedure to identify which contracts require enhanced monitoring as part of a risk assessment process.
Our current rule lists 16 factors that we will consider. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, which oversees the state procurement process, has requested that we consider additional factors and will presumably make similar requests in the future.
Therefore, we are proposing to add some catch-all language to the rule that would allow the department to consider additional factors that it determines appropriate.
This would make the process more efficient and effective by allowing us to consider relevant factors without having to keep coming before the Commission to amend the rule.
And all of those factors will be clearly documented in our internal processes and documents.
The second change is a minor grammatical change to our rulregarding partnerships with nonprofits to promote hunting and fishing by resident veterans. That rule uses the abbreviation, NPP, for nonprofit partner whereas the rest of the rules in that subchapter use the abbreviation, NP, for the same term. Therefore, for consistency purposes, we are proposing to change NPP to NP to keep the abbreviations consistent in that chapter.
And then, our last proposed change is a repeal of 51.301, subsection A. This rule relates to the disclosure of customer information. In 2021, the department repealed many of its rules related to customer information disclosure due to significant legislative changes on this topic. Subsection A, which is no longer relevant due to those legislative changes, was one of the rules voted on for repeal but due to an administrative oversight in the final adoption process the rule was left intact. We are proposing to actually repeal it this time.
We are requesting permission to publish those proposed changes in the Texas Register for public comment, and with that I will take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. Carr. Any questions from the Commission? If not, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register. Thank you very much.
Work Session Item Number 5, Job Order Contracting, Award of Master Job Order Contracts. Ms. Andrea Lofye, please make your presentation.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz, my name is Andrea Lofye, Director of the Infrastructure Division. And this item is job order contracting, the award of master job order contracts.
Job order contracting, or JOC, is an alternative procurement method used to expedite maintenance, repairs and minor construction. With JOC, delivery times, types, and quantities are indefinite at the time of procurement.
Contractors are pre-selected and pre-procured, pricing is pre-defined, and it’s listed in a unit price book.
JOC was first established by the U.S. Army in the 1980s. The University of Texas at Austin began a JOC program in 1997 and right now more than three quarters of their capital construction portfolio is procured with JOC. Texas state agencies using JOC include GLO, the Employees Retirement System and the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC).
TFC just started their JOC program a few months ago.
TPWD published a request for competitive sealed proposals for JOC contractors in May of this year. The solicitation is for a $50 million program, $20 million plus three renewal options. 24 responsive proposals were received. Our evaluations are complete. We are ready to award, and JOC contractors can begin work in Fiscal Year 2025.
We have only received one comment. As of last night, it was in complete agreement.
Staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.
I’m happy to take any questions.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I’m just curious and this is more of a joking question than not. Do one of these contractors have anything to do with our elevator?
(Laughter)
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: No, sir, although that probably would have been a good candidate for it because we could have streamlined it much more quickly than it went.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions? How many- What is the dollar value, do you think, that will be utilized under the JOC program annually?
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Annually, probably about $10 million, and it’s going to vary. We are going to start slow with minor construction projects, but we do plan, once it starts going well, to expand it to some of our major construction projects.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And you said three or four different state agencies use it including UT Austin?
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Ok, alright.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: UT Austin uses it. More than three quarters of their portfolio is with JOC right now. They have expanded it rapidly.
CHAIN HILDEBRAND: Good. Okay. Alright. Great. If there are no further questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.
Thank you very much.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Ye, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Work Session Item Number 7. Chronic Wasting Disease.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: No, Chairman, I think we have one more.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: My apologies.
Work Session Number 6. Job Order Contracting- Delegating Authority for Approval of Contracts over $500,000, Request Permission to Publish Proposed Rule in the Texas Register.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Ye, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: My apologies.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Not at all. I will go quickly. I promise. Chairman, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz, I’m Andrea Lofye with the Infrastructure Division. And this item is also related to job order contracting.
This is a delegation of authority for approval of contracts over $500,000, and that’s so you do not have to hear every project that is valued over $500,000 moving forward.
So again, JOC is an alternative procurement method used to expedite maintenance, repairs, and minor construction. Delivery times, types, and quantities are indefinite at the time of procurement. TPWD published a request for competitive sealed proposals for JOC contractors in May of this year. This is a solicitation for a $50 million program. 24 responsive proposals were received, evaluations are complete, and we are ready to reward and our job contractors can begin work as soon as next month.
Staff request permission to publish a proposed amendment to rules governing department contract practices for projects greater than $500,000.
This amendment would delegate your authority to the executive director to award those job order contracts that are in excess of $1 million, and it would delegate the authority to myself and our deputy director for those projects that are greater $500,000 but not more than $1 million.
Government Code requires the governing body to approve each task over $500,000 but the same Government Code also provides that the governing body may delegate its authority. And this would be consistent with how we handle all of our other capital construction contracts and change orders.
Staff seeks permission to publish a proposed amendment to rules governing department contracting practices to the Texas register for public comment. I’m happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions? And that only relates to contracts under the JOC certification?
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: This amendment would only be for JOC. But it would make it consistent with the way we handle other contracts in capital construction.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you. If no further questions, I will authorize the staff to take the rule in the Texas Register.
MS. ANDREA LOFYE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Work Session Item 7, Chronic Wasting Disease, CWD Detection and Response Rules, Recommended Adoption of New Surveillance Zones. Mr. Ben Olsen.
MR. BEN OLSEN: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, and Dr. Yoskowitz. For the record, my name is Ben Olsen, Wildlife Health Specialist in the Wildlife Division.
This morning, I will present 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 and will request permission to- for placement of this item on tomorrow’s agenda for action.
On March 11, 2024, staff received confirmation of CWD in a 10-and-a-half-year-old female white-tailed deer in a deer breeding facility in Real County.
In response, staff proposes 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.
To facilitate testing, hunters may utilize the self-service droox located in Leakey, they can visit a check station located in Rock Springs or Hondo, or they can make appointments with staff over the phone.
Detailed information on testing options will be available on the TPWD website or the newly updated Texas Hunt and Fish app or the Texas Outdoor Annual app.
Next, staff propose a new CWD zone in Edwards County denoted in yellow on this map in response to confirmation of CWD in two, 2.5-year-old female white-tailed deer in a captive breeding facility in Edwards County.
The detection was confirmed on April 22, 2024, and the facility has since had an additional positive detection in another white-tailed deer. Hunters will be able to visit the Rock Springs CWD check station for testing denoted by the blue star on this map.
Next, staff propose a new CWD surveillance zone in Zavala County in yellow here following confirmation received in April of CWD in a 2.5-year-old male white-tailed deer located in a captive breeding facility in Zavala County. Hunters can utilize a sample drop box located in Uvalde, an in-person check station in Pearsall, or call staff to make appointments for testing.
In June, the department received confirmation of CWD in a 3-year-old female white-tailed deer in a captive breeding facility in Trinity County. Therefore, staff proposes a zone denoted in yellow here in response. The nearest drop box and in-person check station would be located in Trinity.
Also, in June 2024, the department received confirmation of CWD in a 2-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. 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.
As of last Friday, we have received 77 comments on the TPWD web page. As of this morning, we’ve received 1,168 total comments.
33%, or 3%, agree with the proposal. 1,100, or 94%, disagree completely, and 35, or roughly 3%, disagree with specific parts of the proposal.
Reasons for disagreement include zones do not contain the spread of the disease. Zones are a burden on hunters and will negatively impact local economies due to decreased hunting. That voluntary testing would be a more positive approach without negatively impacting the communities. Others feel that the proposal is government overreach. Other commenters believe that the zones do not go far enough to limit the spread of the disease. And finally, other comments were not germane to this proposal.
Additionally, the department received a letter from the Texas Deer Association in opposition of proposed zones. The Texas Deer Association believes as deer breeders continue to test 100% mortalities in 100% of animals prior to movement, coupled with the recently adopted state-wide carcass disposal rules, provides an opportunity to move away from the zoning strategy to incentivize landowner cooperation, hunter participation, and hunter recruitment.
And additionally, we received a letter from the Texas Wildlife Association this morning in support of the proposal.
Staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.
One final notice is the department received confirmation on July 30th of a new detection of CWD in a new breeding facility in Medina County. That was after the deadline to submit the proposal in the Texas Register for this commission meeting. That detection was in a deer that was a 2.5-year-old male white-tailed deer following post-mortem testing. The new detection area is denoted on the map by the green arrow. Staff here have looked at how we can continue to advance zones that takes pressure off of our hunters and landowners and still manages this disease.
Thank you for your me. And I’ll be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Great. Thanks. I will open it up to the commissioners on this topic. Any questions for Mr. Olsen?
Well, I’ve got a few and maybe it’ll spur your interest. Because I’m really interested in what the other commissioners had to think about this ever-increasing number of surveillance zones. I do think we are penalizing some adjacent properties,
landowners, hunters within these 2-mile zones, due to consequences of CWD and these breeding facilities.
We can’t always determine how it got into the facility. So a couple of questions. One, how many surveillance zones do we actually have in the State of Texas now?
MR. BEN OLSEN: Including these in this proposal, it would be 32.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: 32. And how much acreage is comprised within those 32?
John, you might want to jump up there.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, John Silovsky, Wildlife Division Director.
So, to answer the question about how much geography is covered in these zones around these positive breeding facilities, it’s probably most simply put that as you know, as we continue to reduce the extent of these zones to now this two-mile loop, those two-mile loops are essentially a little bit less than 10,000 acres.
So, if you did the math, 32 zones at 10,000 acres. You know. It’s a little over three million acres.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: John, this notion of a two-mile radius- rivers, roads, is landmarks to determine- I mean all very arbitrary, obviously, in terms of where the disease may exist. Do you feel as though the breeding facility, in itself, is potentially an appropriate surveillance zone?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: I do feel that the two-mile loop around a breeding facility is an appropriate surveillance zone. You know the discussion gets a little bit more complicated when you look at the impacts on the landowners and really what that does to the amount of sampling that we can achieve from those 2-mile zones. But the presence of the zone allows us to simply be able to have that surveillance that, number one, tells us the presence of CWDs and potentially the prevalence of CWD as well as the distribution of the disease within that particular geographic area that we’ve identified.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Alright. And then from a containment zone, any idea — how many containment zones do we have? And what’s the acreage?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Well, I don’t know the acreage. The containment zone conversation is a little bit different.
When we talk about specifically about positive breeding facilities, the breeding facility in and of itself acts as a defacto containment zone, so the premises of that property becomes a containment zone.
And then that 2-mile circle around the breeding facility is a surveillance zone, and when we move to the conversation to truly the containment zone aspect as per rule, we are talking about free-range detections whether that be low fence detections or detections on say a high-fence release site.
Once we have a detection in those types of areas, then we do, by following our CWD Management Plan, implement a containment zone which is more random. It is a 5-mile area, and we do utilize rivers, major highways and things like that so the hunters can recognize when they’re in the zone as well as the utilization now with the technology, we continue to evolve that they can look on their smartphone and look at the app and determine, “I’m in the zone, I’m 2 miles from the zone,” et cetera.
But I don’t have in front of me how many acres we do have tied up in containment zones, but I can certainly get that information for you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: John, this is a general question but hopefully it’s leading. With all of the imperfections of how we’re trying monitor this, because it’s not an exacting science. Do you believe we should do some more work on containment and surveillance zones and potentially come back in the next meeting with as comprehensive and thoughtful of a program in terms of what are we going to do about this on a long‑term basis? Do you think that you can make some definitive progress between now and our next meeting to give us more clarity on this?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: We could certainly have a much larger discussion on utilization of containment zones, the evolution of our rule-making process, the efficacy of the testing that we have right now, and how that relates to zone management.
You know, when we talk specifically about what containment zones do for us, and I recall from the previous commission meeting there was some consternation or, you know, some aversion to the use of that term, "containment," so maybe there needs to be another label for what we try to achieve with a containment zone.
But currently the containment zone provides us an opportunity to restrict movement of breeder deer from that containment zone knowing the prevalence of the disease, and it does exist in the containment zone. So that’s the importance of that.
We certainly could propose a different structure that would still accommodate that similar surveillance and, you know, restrict, manage that movement of breeder deer from places where we know CWD exists.
Now when we look at surveillance zone strategies as it relates to positive breeding facilities, you know, that number has been described, you know, has got quite large. It does have impact on landowners and hunters. You know, this whole conversation about how do we best incentivize surveillance, I think can be a part of that conversation, but it certainly needs to be a part of a conversation with our various stakeholder groups, advisory groups as well to really flesh out, you know, what is our current risk tolerance and how can we best achieve surveillance across the state as it relates to managing CWD.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, look… Obviously, no one is recommending we’re moving deer out of CWD infected facilities, and we have good protocol on that and that is going to be a steel trap from my perspective in terms of movement of deer out of breeding facilities that have been designated with positives. So that’s off the table in my mind.
But it’s this notion of diminishing the value of acreage across the State of Texas by labeling it in some ‑‑ with some nomenclature that personifies a negative element to it.
I mean we’ve heard some comments from other commissioners that land that had surveillance zone, the moniker it will diminish the land value by, I forget the number, but by a third or some amount.
And so my recommendation is that we pull these two‑‑ we pull the item from the agenda on Thursday and ask you to come back, implement staff to consider alternatives to implementing surveillance zones around positive breeding facilities, alternative nomenclature in structure other than containment zones and to really try to get to the clearest answer that we can on this so that we don’t feel good about this but we’re doing everything that we can to mitigate the disease in a rational, common sense-oriented fashion. Does that seem to make sense?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Yes, sir. I believe I understand. And I think you know what our focus should remain to be, is that we need to figure out the best method that we can get adequate samplings so we have an understanding where the disease exists or doesn’t exist on the dscape as well as you know landowners don’t feel like they are being penalized, and hunters don’t feel like they are being challenged and put in a situation that makes them think twice about hunting.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Maybe we think about something novel like incentives to test deer, like pay people to bring in their deer for testing.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: We have utilized incentives up in the panhandle to encourage people to bring deer, mule deer specifically, into those check stations and had people donate to lifetime licenses or firearms sometimes. So anybody that submits a sample puts their names in a hat. We have used incentives in localized places…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I’d love for you guys to get creative in that regard. I understand that’s sometimes hard. I’d love for you to get creative.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: We have good partners that can help us.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I’m talking a lot. Does anybody else have something here?
I wish to not talk.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Jeff, Leslie Doggett.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Let the Vice-Chairman go first.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay. Great.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: First, since I’m pretty sure I’m the only Commissioner that’s been here since the first three deer crossed over here from New Mexico, I have watched the progression of all this stuff for 13 years, 14, I don’t know, forever.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the Chairman has asked y’all to do. I think we’re at a crossroad right now to where different groups are finally willing to go to the bargaining table and let’s sit down and figure out ways to fix this issue that are not adversarial. That can be done, I believe, at this moment in time. So that’s what I would charge, and I once again agree 100% with what Jeff said.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: I’ll emphasize, too, the implementation last meeting of carcass disposal rule now that we’ll have in place for this hunting season enhances our ability to better manage on the landscape as well.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Absolutely. And that’s common sense.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: We’ve made some rounds at various hunting association meetings last month or so, and that topic has been very well received by those groups, those individuals at the meeting.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I would say we talked about the semantics of surveillance and containment. I’m really far less concerned about semantics than I am about the landowners, a lot of landowners feel as though they are under siege here. I mean, we’re talking millions of acres that are either in containment or surveillance. I know the intent is great, all right, but the net effect of that is pretty demoralizing for a lot of landowners.
As Commissioner Hildebrand said that the property values on millions of acres, are significantly impacted. So, we need to rethink it, rethink it.
I like what Commissioner Hildebrand said about testing, incentive for testing, but I would think, in the lieu of containment zones, if we require testing would be a lot more palatable to the people of Texas than having these millions ofcres under containment zones.
There’s got to be a better way to keep the disease from spreading but then also protect landowners’ values and still get the testing that you want. The state I feel is willing to invest in a new approach that would make the landowners of the state feel as though we’re watching after them and on their side, which we are. Again, I think the intent is solid, it’s good. It’s noble. But I think the effect is not what we want.
So, I think Commissioner Hildebrand has said by the next meeting, so we’ve got a timetable now. On the next meeting, if you could, come back to us with some really tangible new approaches or new ideas to… ‑‑ that could be solutions to all these issues that have arisen out of our current approach.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: I appreciate those comments, Commissioner. I think what’s important about that is specifically and especially for the Wildlife Division, you know, we can’t be successful in our work in Texas if we don’t have the support of landowners. We certainly need to maintain that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Rowling.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Commissioner Rowling. I guess first off, I’m all for getting rid of zones as soon as practical. To me, it doesn’t seem like now is the practical time. We’ve already reduced the size of them, which I’m all for.
Again, I want to get rid of these things, but we’re still finding the disease way too often.
I’d love to see numbers behind diminishing property values. I don’t disagree that it happened. It’s kind of tossed out there. And if this thing gets in the wild like it has in other states and really diminishes our deer population, then land values will plummet. No doubt about that.
There’s a lot of thought over years that we’ve all been here into these zones, which we actually reduced them a little bit arbitrarily from the thought process that went into the size of the zones.
Again, I’ll go back to my first comment, I want to get rid of these things. But it just doesn’t seem like the practical time is now when we’re finding this very commonly still.
I don’t have an answer or a solution proposed, but you know, just getting rid of these things when there’s a lot of thought that went into putting them in place doesn’t seem logical to me.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Well, I don’t think that we’re thinking about abolishing them fully. So, some modification thereof. As I said, no one is talking about moving deer out of contaminated facilities where there are positives. I mean that’s a nonstarter to me.
But it’s this notion of the intersection of containment zones, surveillance zones, the millions of acres out there that we have, I think, mandatory testing or voluntary testing. It’s so unclear.
I want to try to get this resolved and put a stake in it as best we can by the next commission meeting, so that we are just not in this do loop of regulation.
Maybe I’m simplifying it too much but we’re going to try to simplify it.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I think we can take real action items on a methodical way to encourage people to send in and test from all over the state. We sent in 225 last year. It’s not that hard.
Once you get the prss down, it’s pretty dang simple. Most people don’t even know how to do it, though. We could easily put processes in place of really encouraging the public to send in more tests, not just in a surveillance zone.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: To Commissioner Rowling’s comment and for a point of clarification for the commission as a whole, so the direction I believe we received here, we wouldn’t move forward with these five or six zones for an action item tomorrow. However, that still leaves in place all the other zones we’ve already implemented by rules. Those aren’t going away. Those would be in place for the upcoming season.
If when we come forward in November, action and potentially in January, then we’d essentially be setting us up for zone structure change for the following hunting season. So, what we have in place right now for this hunting season, upcoming hunting season, would remain in place with the exception of not moving forward with these six zones for tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Correct. Everybody in agreement with that? Ok, alright.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. I would kind of echo Commissioner Rowling’s feelings, I don’t want to arbitrarily just not do something because we’re trying to get to a goal. I agree wholeheartedly I want to see them go away at some point. But I want to make sure we’re not just doing that because we’re all tired of hearing about CWD.
I would like to take a good hard look at where we are today, knowing what we know today, and pair minimizing CWD also with minimizing landowner impact, minimizing the total acreage impacted. I’m not sure that we shouldn’t move forward with a vote on what we have in front of us and then reconsider everything going forward.
Just my thoughts.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. So, I want to make it clear, Commissioner Abell, I’m not arbitrarily saying we’re going to dissolve all surveillance and containment zones, so let’s not have that pushed out there. Okay?
So, I’m saying let’s take a good, hard look at the science, try to come up with the best solution we can. Maybe it’s not the full and final. My biggest emphasis is on not on the breeding pens but on the valuation decrease of low‑ fence acreage. Okay? So, I just want to make that clear.
It makes me sound as though I’m trying to arbitrarily dismiss these things. I’m not. So, what would you like to do?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I understand exactly where you’re coming from, Chairman, but I do see a valid point in what Commissioner Rowling and Commissioner Abell say because if we don’t do something moving forward in these several counties where these new CWD positives turn up, I mean how are we going to mitigate that?
Maybe that’s a question I need to ask you. If we don’t move forward with these containment zones that are proposed, that’s a lot of positives in a very short period of time. So how are we going to mitigate that from spreading if we don’t do something right now in those new areas?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: So, our primary focus remains early detection, containment of the disease when we find it. Unfortunately, most of the detections that we have found have been positive – in breeding facilities that subsequently became positive. that’s the result of most of our zones that we currently manage. So, as we went through this evolutionary process of minimizing impacts to neighbors to breeding facilities, we obviously shrunk these zones to now a two‑ mile loop. So that still gives us some surveillance.
We also were operating, in my opinion, under the philosophy that we wanted to know whether CWD came from outside that facility and got in or originated from inside the facility. So, if we focused our conversation here on positive breeding facilities and removing zones around positive breeding facilities, then beyond voluntary sampling that could still occur outside of that breeding facility, we focused our efforts on containment and mitigation within that facility.
We make assumptions that fence integrity, barring some catastrophic storm knocking the fence down, deer getting out, that we have the tools to mitigate for the disease in a breeding facility.
Sometimes that’s some aspects that are unpopular. Sometimes that’s total depopulation. Sometimes we’re removing deer from select pens as we learn more about it.
The technology continues to increase with the utilization of new science, technology, RT-QuIC, et cetera, so we have a better understanding of what’s occurring in a breeding facility now than we did, say, a few years ago. But the risk of removing a zone and not having mandatory sampling around a positive breeding facility is just that. We won’t get mandatory sampling.
It’s been demonstrated across the country that voluntary sampling is not as efficient or effective as voluntary [mandatory]. We should expect to get fewer numbers. But as the conversation continues if we develop incentives for hunters and/or landowners to participate in sampling, we may be able to boost those numbers and give us adequate surveillance around the breeding facility or even around a low‑fence, free range detection as we continue to move forward.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: John, just to clarify the statement to you, in these facilities, now six, these will be non-movement qualified facilities. Correct?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, no deer are going out of the facility. It is essentially the acreage outside of the pen and inside of a two‑ mile radius that we’re talking about.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I understand that, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: It’s Commissioner Rowling, so two things. We’ve had a zone in the Trans Pecos for a long time now. To my knowledge, values since that zone’s been put in place have gone up significantly in west Texas. That’s just a comment. Everybody’s talking of land values plummeting, I just don’t know if we have numbers to back that up.
Second thing, my thought is we have a process in place. I’m fine with changing it and figuring out a better way to do it. We’ve got a process in place. Let’s follow the process until we have a better process. That would be my view on it.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett. I just want to reiterate it is full speed ahead on containment is what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about, we’ve got a lot of really smart people with Texas Parks and Wildlife. Let’s use all those smarts to try to come up with alternative approaches, all right, that will diminish the size of these millions of acres that we have under containment and surveillance. There’s got to be a better approach. That’hat we’re saying.
We’re not saying, “Hey, look, let’s do away with zones of containment.” We’re just saying, “Let’s think of alternative approaches.” We ask you guys to really put some time and energy to come up and come back to us with it.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: My comment, you know…let’s assume that the commission directed us or we remove zones around positive breeding facilities. Our responsibility from a Wildlife Division standpoint, we would still have sampling opportunities, check stations, drop boxes, around those general vicinities where CWD is detected so that the hunter can, and or the landowner, make that decision that: I want to get this deer sampled, I want to have an understanding, I want to help TPWD out to know where this disease exists, and what that prevalence is, what the distribution is. Those opportunities don’t go away because we don’t have a zone. We’re just uncertain about how much participation we may get.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I think that’s the point that we’ve seen in the past, that participation isn’t there without these zones. You know, I agree, find a better way. We all want a better way. You know, this is, you know, a very concerning situation, and it’s difficult for us to make these decisions because we impact people when we make these decisions. But what’s going to be the impact if it continues to spread at the rate it’s spreading?
So, I think we should be consistent until we come up with that new plan, and that’s what Commissioner Rowling is trying to express. We know that the other zones aren’t going to go away but how are we just going to stop today with what we’ve been doing if we don’t even have that new plan in place yet? I think that’s… well, that’s my concern for sure.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: I’ll remind the commission, too, we did remove three zones last meeting, and we also moved several zones to voluntary sampling. So, we’ll have a much better understanding of participation for voluntary sampling after we work our way through this hunting season as well.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: John, question. On a percentage basis of the deer breeders around the state, how many are double fenced?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: It would just be speculation. Most…‑‑ I’ll just say in general terms, many breeding facilities locate that breeding portion of the facility inside a larger high fence, you know, so that in itself could be considered double fenced. Whether that facility is occurring on 1,000 acres or 500 acres. But most of them will generally locate a breeding facility in the middle of the property and have a larger high fence. However, we have had breeding facilities where their pens were fence line adjacent to the neighbors.
That type of facility was certainly created before the presence of CWD. So, we have an inspection process, et cetera, so I would assume and hope that people would have an understanding that that would be a bad place to have a breeding facility right next to your neighbor’s fence and that it needs to be located in maybe the middle of the facility, so that it is double fenced to protect from the exposure of those deer in the facility as well as free ranging deer outside the facility. So, there would be huge advantages to having a double fence.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yep. So last, once again, clarifying element, I mean, if we did not adopt this today… ‑‑ we are talking about a relatively small amount of acreage between the fence, the breeders’ fences, and the twoâle radius, correct?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Yeah. Correct. Yeah, two-miles circle…it’s a two-mile circle regardless where you have it will have different impacts on different numbers of landowners based on whether that breeding facility is in east Texas versus west Texas, or something like that, just more fragmented landscape. But generally speaking a little bit less than 10,000 acres within that two‑mile loop.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Less than 10,000 acres?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILDEBRAND: Okay. Vice Chair Bell, would you like — do you have any comments? I know you’re late but…
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: As far as roll call… Here.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Alright. Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Just quickly, my greatest concern is – just in talking with all the state… Thank you, Chairman. Mic’s on. Vice Chairman Bell.
My greatest concern with our proposal is just the amount of land potentially that we’re impacting. It’s really the land impact. There’s the business aspect of this.
You know we’re not trying to interfere with commerce. There’s a health and safety aspect. So we’re trying to balance the interest of several stakeholders here.
There are some federal guidelines out there as well that are ‑‑— not that we have to line up with the feds per se ‑— there are federal guidelines that seem to be… I’ll say less restrictive in some cases than what we’re imposing. And I’d like to just get a clarification on as far as our testing has gone, my understanding the last set of statistics I reviewed was that between the free-range deer that we have tested and the penned deer or the breeder deer that we have tested, we’ve got about a 1% positive rate. So, it’s kind of like when I was Chairman of the board of the prison system. People used to… There are about 3% of the people of the state was involved with either being incarcerated, parole, probation, or what not.
People would ask you’re spending all that money on 3% of the people. No, we’re spending all that money so 97% of the people feel safe. But here, I don’t know that this analogy applies, especially if we do something that adversely impacts land values, land use and business. So, I would just like to make sure whatever we do with that zone, we are taking a fair measure in balance of that so people don’t consider us as an unruly group of bureaucrats who don’t understand. Does that make sense?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Yeah. A couple of comments on that. You know our prevalence does remain very low in captivity and in free-ranging deer. I think that’s a testament to the work that all of us are doing to manage the disease on the landscape.
And also, a point of clarification as it relates to rulemaking opportunities that are available, if we chose ‑‑… if the commission chose not to implement zones around positive breeding facilities, as the Chairman mentioned earlier, that doesn’t change anything about the management of that breeding facility.
All we’re talking about is the management and that responsibilities that adjacent landowners to the positive breeding facilities have not to the breeding facility itself.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: I can appreciate that. I thought I understood that for the… why do I want to get my federal alphabet soup mixed up? The FD ‑‑…
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: USDA?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: USDA. There we go. When they are looking at pens, if pens more than 10 feet apart, they don’t…if you find a positive in this pen but the other pen is more than 10 feet away, they won’t say a person has to restrict the pen over 10 feet away.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: There’s some discussion I think in the rules I’m not intimately familiar with about co-mingling of and that separation of deer.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: My understanding was that if they’re separately fenced and there’s a 10-foot barrier between them, then USDA was saying this pen has an issue, the pen next to it doesn’t.
I’m striving for overall consistency.
I’m not saying who is right and who is wrong, just so that everyone can be on the same page.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Yes, Sir, I hear you. No disrespect, we’re not talking about what’s occurring in the breeding facility here. We’re talking about what’s occurring outside the breeding facility.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: John, hypothetically, if all breeding facilities were double fenced, what would be the reason for having a surveillance zone outside the fence, outside that second fence?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Well, I think that gets into the conversation about environmental contamination and mechanisms that move that environmental contamination, whether that be a crow, whether that be water, insects, you pick.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Well, surveillance of the entire state at that point…
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: The primary transmission method is deer-to-deer contact.
That’s how we believe ‑‑
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: We think that’s the vast majority of CWD transmission is not by crows, not by armadillos, but we don’t fully know and understand. Look, we’re not going to resolve this today and people have some strong feelings. I’m going to say we place the item on the Thursday commission meeting and move forward with their surveillance zones. But do the work and come back with a science‑based comprehensive solution to where we’re at. I think that’s where we’re at. So, anyway, thank you very much.
Alright. Work Session Item Number 8 – Cultivated Oyster Mariculture Program Rule Revision – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register. Dr. Campbell, please make your presentation.
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record I’m Dr. Lindsay Glass Campbell. I’m the program coordinator for the Cultivated Oyster Mariculture Program within the Coastal Fisheries Division.
Today, I’m going to present proposed revisions to the Oyster Mariculture subchapter with a recommendation to publish. For those of you who may not be as familiar with Cultivated Oyster Mariculture Program, or COM, as we commonly abbreviate it, and I’ll be using that acronym throughout this presentation.
In May of 2019, the 86th Legislature enacted House Bill 1300 which created Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 75 and delegated to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission the regulation of oyster mariculture. In turn, the department in August of 2020 enacted the first and current rulesver oyster mariculture.
We issued our first COM permit in July of 2021. Since then, our current status is we have 11 grow‑out sites also called farms. These are the locations where oysters are grown to market size and harvested for our consumption.
In addition to those 11, we have 9 of the sites — grow-out sites in conditional status. This is where TPWD has approved the sites, gaining their other agency authorizations before they can begin the activities.
We have two nurseries and two hatcheries; these are where oysters are spawned and grown in early life. Since harvest began in 2022, over 1.3 million cultivated oysters have been harvested from our grow‑out sites. And these oysters are sold individually as opposed in sacks, and currently our farmers are getting an average price of $0.67 per oyster.
So, when this brand‑new program was enacted, the department recognized as the program grew and the industry grew and developed that likely there would be the need to come back, re‑evaluate and reconsider these regulations.
So, the proposed provisions today are based on streamlining and creating efficiencies and feedback that we’ve had from Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists, our game wardens, the COM industry members and with guidance from our State Health Services and the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, abbreviated, NSSP.
These are the FDA‑approved guidelines that govern sanitation and oyster health and safety.
To give you kind of a roadmap of where we’re going on these, the main topics of revisions and main topics I’m going to cover today are the ability of where farmers can tumble and sort oysters, allowance for permit transfers, the sunset provision governing oyster genetic integrity, a proposed size limit change, and then a group of clarifications.
These are regulations already in place, just need to tweak the words a little bit.
And finally, repeals. Now these repeals are mainly based on our proposed changes.
So, tumbling and sorting is a common mariculture practice that uses a mechanical means to sort oysters by size. In addition, this sorting helps clean the oysters and encourages a uniform shell shape and size.
So, what you see on the screen is one of these machines that they conduct tumbling and sorting with. It’s a long tube and those are various size holes in the tube.
That tube rotates, and as the oysters go tumbling down the tube, they will fall through the holes based on their size and are collected in bins underneath the machine.
While many of our farmers perform this activity on their boats at their site on the water, with our Texas environment, winds, waves, sometimes it isn’t feasible and dangerous to conduct these on the boat, on the water. So, our farmers approached us to ask for a mechanism and allowance to temporarily take these oysters to shore to conduct this husbandry practice.
The department considered this and thought that it was prudent to allow this provided that the oysters be returned to their site prior to harvest. Our current regulations are silent on tumbling and sorting, where they should go. So, our proposed amendment would codify a mechanism to allow the farmers to temporarily relocate the oysters to tumble and sort and then bring back to their site.
We proposed to allow for permit transfers. Current regulations do not allow for permit transfers. However, with feedback from our community in considering that this peit is a ten‑year-long permit and the activities from the permit result in commercial business transactions, it is valid to consider that over this time and with these business dealings that ownership may change for the business itself.
We believe that it’s prudent and also less disruptive to the sites and locations to allow that transfer to occur. Applicants would apply to transfer, submit an application fee of $200, which is, again, same as a normal application fee. But all permit regulations, provisions and conditions and terms would stay the same.
So, our regulations specify that oyster seed, baby oysters that are used for mariculture be from Texas brood stock produced in Texas hatcheries. However, there’s a so‑called sunset provision that was put in place that allows the use of a non-Texas tetraploid parent and out of state hatcheries until 2027. This was allowed for the intention of letting the business expand, establish and then revert back to the Texas only rule. However, the development of this Texas tetraploid line, which is being conducted by researchers outside of the agency and researchers in the industry, speaking with them, are uncertain if that line will be completely developed, stabilized and distributed by that 2027 date.
Also, while we have two hatchery groups in the State of Texas, only one of those is at a commercial scale production. So, we propose to extend the sunset date to 2033 to allow more time for this infrastructure establishment within Texas.
Proposed to change the harvest size limit from 2.5" to 2". When the original 2.5" was put in place, it was considered — took into consideration the predominant market size, the request for size of oysters, and also making sure that we would have an ability to differentiate these COM oysters from our wild oysters with this different sizing.
Now that the program has been implemented, our staff have seen the oysters and really in consultation with our staff, and especially our game wardens becoming more familiar, we realize that we can distinguish these even at a smaller size, so we propose to reduce that size limit to 2-inches. This would give farmers more flexibility and open up a market to them for a variety of sizes. In addition, we propose to add a 5% cargo allowance for undersized oysters, and this is similar to what the wild harvest has.
Now, we’re onto our clarification section. First, we propose to change the name of the COM nursery only permit to a COM nursery‑hatchery permit and expand the text around this to include hatchery activities such as spawning brood stock. As many hatcheries also function as nurseries, streamlining these into one permit just kind of creates more efficiencies and not having to worry about double permitting.
Next, we propose to refine our text on the rules around oyster seed that are grown and prohibited in restricted waters to mirror the language of the NSSP. And again, that NSSP is the federally‑approved guidelines governing oysters health and safety.
So just mirroring that language more closely reduces confusion when people are looking between the two documents and our regulations. We also want to specify within our code the need for resubmergence for oysters that are out of the water for any reason be that tumbling and sorting, desiccating, transferring between bags of oysters, or oysters out of the water for any reason beyond the time to temperature controls established by the State Department of Health Services that those oysters must be resubmerged for 14 days prior to harvest.
So, this would allow if they were out and they could have built up any sort of toxin that 14 days allows them to purge.
This just reiterates important safety mechanisms and safety guidelines that are within the NSSP and our State Department of Health and Services. On the topic of clarification, I just want to make sure you know that our current farmers know these NSSP rules and do comply, so it’s not like they aren’t complying with this. This is just kind of getting things in one place, helping reduce, sort of moving around between the different documents.
We want to allow for a phone number to be used or an address on these gear ID tags. Next, we propose revised texts on regulations that are already in place but just add clarity. And those processes are how one goes about getting a subpermittee added to your permit and obtaining an oyster transport authorization.
So, this authorization is documentation needed when oysters that aren’t tagged for harvest are being moved around within the state creating that paper trail. We would also propose to make our public meetings more efficient, our COM public meetings more efficient, to affect the notification via our TPWD website and add the option for a virtual meeting.
We’re in the homestretch. Our final clarification is to formalize and create a COM harvest authorization. So, this annual authorization more clearly meets the NSSP guidelines that harvest authorizations shall not be valid for more than a year period in time. This authorization has a yearly date range on that. Now, we already have internal processes that are compliant with the NSSP. We want to do this to ensure there are no misunderstandings. If somebody came across and their permit has this ten‑year date, and they get confused because the permit is harvest, so just make sure… ‑‑ double make sure there aren’t any misunderstandings about this. This authorization would be issued annually to our COM grow‑out. Holders, it won’t require any more requirements for them or any more fees, something I would issue every year so they would just have that for that year period of time and get the new one the next year.
Finally, I’ll cover the repeals. There are three sections that we propose for repeal. First, Oyster Seed Hatchery. With changes in creating the nursery hatchery permit, this section is no longer needed. The rule within this subchapter on agency decision to refuse or renew a permit, this isn’t going away. We’re just going to propose to add it, add COM to chapter 56, which is the agency’s universal guidelines for these activities. COM would be added to that, so we’d all be uniform.
Finally, we propose the repeal prohibited acts, not to get rid of any of those prohibited acts, but in reevaluating the text, the wording is redundant to items within the general provisions. There are two non-redundant items within the section that would be moved up to our general provisions. So, rest assured everything that was prohibited would still be prohibited.
So, with that summary of our proposed revisions, the staff seeks permission to publish the proposed amendments to the Texas Register for public comment.
This concludes my presentation, and I’d be happy to take any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Dr. Campbell. Any questions for…?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. I just have one. If it’s fairly easy for law enforcement to differentiate between farm‑raised oysters and natural oysters, what’s the rationale for having a size restriction at all? Why not just let the market dictate what size oysters areesirable?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: So while we will have within our regulations that oyster seed that comes from restricted or prohibited waters, now, some nurseries and hatcheries may not be in those, within the regulations, if they come from there, they must be in these grow‑out locations that are approved waters for a minimum of 120 days if it’s prohibited waters, or 60 days if it’s restricted waters, and our farmers do have to keep records for that. It’s something I check during annual inspection. The 2" many felt more comfortable leaving that in because really from the 1" to the 2" would kind of cover that growth in that time period. I do say our farmers, they have records. You go out and they’ll tell you that cage is this lot.
They have to keep records of last time they were desiccated or tumbled or any time out of the water. Some feel this is just double insurance for that.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Great. Just making sure we’re not having a rule just for the sake of having a rule.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Rowling.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: You may have said this, but how many permits are outstanding?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: In the conditional phase?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: How many outstanding permits are there for cultivated oyster? How many people are participating in the program?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Oh, participating? There are 11 grow‑out sites, two nurseries, two hatcheries, and then the nine that are in the conditional phase.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Do we have like a vetting process for how those permits are issued?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Yes, there is an application process. Also, usually while they are not required, we highly encourage them to have consults with me and the local ecosystem where we go through a map. Sites are self-nominated, but they have to fit certain parameters away from oyster reefs, seagrass, rookeries, and then there’s some regulations regarding with GLO away from oil and gas structures. So, we look at that.
They have to do a natural resource survey of the location to ensure that none of those things are there. Then they go through, and they get their GLO surface lease, TCEQ, and they go through the Army Corps of Engineers review.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I’m asking this for the transfer. I assume we would run any bit their transferring the permit to through all the same vetting process.
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Yes, with the transfer that it’s not quite as simple. I would need to check, you know, the person being transferred, are they eligible to get a transfer? Are there other agency authorizations? Have those all been transferred? And, just verifying operations plans and everything would be the same.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions? I’ve got one.
So, it looks on your slide three, 1.3 million oysters have been harvested since 2022, $0.67, about a million dollars’ worth of oysters. Any idea the amount of oysters harvested naturally over the same period of time?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Oh, from the wild oyster harvest?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes.
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: I do not have those numbersThese farms cover a lot less area. Really that first 2022, there were only two farms harvesting. 2023, there were mainly three farms harvesting until the very end of the year.
This year, numbers are coming up. But I don’t have those wild harvest numbers.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: It would be interesting to get those numbers, harvested versus produced naturally on a percentage basis. And what do you think the likelihood is that ultimately someday through this mariculture program that you could actually produce all the oysters needed for the industry?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: You know, some states, especially in the northeast where they have had population crashes or lower natural populations only have cultivated oysters. I think in Texas I see our mariculture as a sister product. So, these are that niche market, that half shell market, so they wouldn’t necessarily completely get away from our wild, it just supplements that, takes a little pressure off the wild harvest. We have permits coming up where a group of former wild harvest fishermen are getting in, and they are going to get into this so they can have what some can see as a more stable, consistent, not based upon weather and things like that. So, I think they really go hand in hand. Hopefully we will continue to be able to have our wild harvest. Those can just alter those pressures and dynamics to help out our natural reefs.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And are we doing anything to try to incent the mariculture industry in this, or are we reactive to it?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: So, we don’t currently have any funding to incentivize them, but there are other agencies that have applied such as Texas Sea Grant, they are helping out with that group of wild oyster harvesters to convert over, but we don’t currently have in place programs within our department for that. I try to help out as much as I can. I send them guides. I send them recommendations.
I can’t advise on business practices, but let them know about the industry, go out and talk. Our farmers themselves are really great about getting out there, getting the information known. Our partner, Sea Grant and Harte Research Institute, they have the new oyster research and recovery center, they are doing trainings.
They have now a free online training module they can do. So many of the grants to help supplement the startup costs, those are things that are not something like a state agency necessarily can apply for. It comes from outside the agencies.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Seems like something we should do more of. You think out of these 11 sites, you think they are actually profitable, they make money?
I assume they do.
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Yeah, I think so. I haven’t gotten into their financials, but I mean they are getting their oysters out there. On average, our monthly harvest performed for 2024 was 72,000 oysters. So, you know, they are getting out there. One, there is some paying back of your startup cost, buying your gear and things like that, but it’s not like people are getting out fast. So, I think definitely this is profitable. It may be like any business, take a few years to kind of pay your margins back, but it’s well on the way to do that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Okay, thanks. Yes, sir.
[ SPEAKING OFF MIC ]
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Just a quick internet search, I’m not sure if it’s accurate. It says that there’s 9 million pounds of oysters harvested in 2020 along the Gulf Coast. Did you say a million pounds oa million oysters?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: A million oysters. So, with our wild harvest, how those are recorded are by sacks and then it uses the value of 100‑pound sack to get like that pounds. Our mariculture oysters since these are sold individually, I have the numbers of like how many they report harvest and how many individuals are harvested. I don’t have that conversion to how many pounds that is. We are working with a grant to do that meat weight conversion to weight of the oyster, weight of the meat, can get those percentages.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Have got to be many oysters for a pound, I would think. We have a long way to go before we’re harvesting or growing our oyster needs, right? But you said there’s some states that do?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Yeah. I mean there are some states that really they‑‑… we’ve been lucky. We’ve had a very thriving wild oyster population for many years. But there are some states especially on the East Coast and probably heard about some areas of Florida that just had population crashes, and they were forced to go to just mariculture oysters while those reefs recovered.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Just because I don’t know, is the taste and texture any different than a wild oyster from a harvested?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: I believe so. I’ve tasted ours. If you’re in Austin, there’s a couple of places around here in Austin where you can get them. The ORCC on their website, they actually have a map of restaurants. Because with these they are grown in the upper portion of the water column and the phytoplankton are different there. So many people say they are sweeter.
The way they are grown creates a deeper cup shape, they can be plumper. They take on a different taste based on what they are filtering. So, there’s even a whole tasting wheel that people designed out there, if you’re tasting to kind of look at. They’ll say, “It’s very green, it’s very salty.”
They have all kinds of different plays almost like a wine.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: You don’t hear any negative connotations for farm raised at all?
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: I don’t regarding taste, no.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Interesting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thanks for the questions. If there’s no further, I’ll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register. Thank you, Dr. Campbell.
DR. LINDSAY GLASS CAMPBELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Work Session Item Number Nine, Statewide Oyster Fishery Proclamation Temporary Closure of Oyster Restoration Areas in Galveston Bay, Request permission to publish proposed changes in the Texas Register. Ms. Lindsey Savage.
MS. LINDSEY SAVAGE: All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Lindsey Savage.
I’m the restoration artificial reef team lead in the Coastal Fisheries Division.
Today, I’ll be presenting a recommendation to publish an amendment in the Texas Register to temporarily close two oyster restoration sites until November 2026.
Parks and Wildlife Code Section 76 grants the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission the authority to close an area thais being receded or restocked for oysters.
Multiple reefs across the coast are being planted with cultch material to restore degraded and lost substrates.
A two‑year closure gives oyster larvae that recruit to the fresh cultch an opportunity to grow to harvestable size and repopulate the reef. Successful restoration projects are dependent on larval recruitment and growth within the first two years.
Our post restoration monitoring data show that reefs that were closed for two years are still healthier than natural reference sites up to nine years later. Here is a picture of oyster growth on our recently restored and recently reopened sites on Grass Island Bay, and Aransas grass island on Aransas Bay.
As you can see, the oyster growth creates the habitat itself. The two‑ year closure allows the structure to develop uninterrupted by drudging activity and allows two cohorts of oysters to recruit to the site and grow to maturity.
In July 2024, six acres of oyster reef were restored on Desperation Reef in partnership with oyster dealers as required by HB 51 passed in the 8{5}th legislature in 2017.
We plan on using the remaining 8 acres on the Desperation Reef area for additional restoration activities associated with these HB 51 placements in the coming months. This closure would encompass the full 14 acres.
In 2022 and 2023, mitigation efforts consisting of oyster restoration on seven oyster mitigation pads was conducted by the Port of Houston and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Dollar Reef as a result of adverse impacts to oyster reefs resulting from Houston ship channel expansion improvement civil works project. This closure would encompass 529 acres in total.
This map shows a location and acreage of the proposed temporary closures outlined in red, it is in the Galveston Bay system. The northern sites is Desperation Reef with 14 acres and the southern site shown here is Dollar Reef with 529 acres. This is close‑up view of the proposed US Army Corps of Engineers Dollar Reef mitigation closure area; it’s shown outlined in white. Note the seven mitigation pads range in size from 13 to 20 acres each.
The hashed area on the left represents the Texas Department of State Health Services restricted waters, and the one and a half pads shown in red within these waters are not included in the proposed closure, as they are already closed to oyster harvest.
The full restoration area is being recommended for closure, as opposed to individual pads, to avoid potential confusion that could result from multiple closings and proximity.
The area encompassing the three oyster pads to the west was previously closed to harvest in November 2022, and the proposed closure would expand this closure area to include four pads to the east and extend the closure period until November 2026. This would allow all restored areas to open to harvest simultaneously.
The amendment we propose is to temporarily close two restoration areas in Galveston Bay then be reopened to harvest in November 2026.
We request to publish this amendment in the Texas Register for public comment.
This concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time, and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. Savage. Any questions of the commission? If not, I’ll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register. Thank you very ch.
MS. LINDSEY SAVAGE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Work session item 10 through 16 will be heard in executive session.
At this time, I’d like to announce that pursuant to the requirements chapter 551 Government Code referred to as the Open Meetings Act, an executive session will be held at this time for the purpose of deliberation of real estate matters under section 551.072 of the Open Meetings Act and seeking legal advice under section 551.071 of the Open Meetings Act including advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation.
We’ll now recess for the executive session at 11:02 a.m. Thank you.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
CHAIRMAN JEFFERY D. HILDEBRAND: Ok, welcome back. We will now reconvene the Work Session on August 21, 2024, at 2:05 p.m. Before we begin, I’ll take roll.
I, Chairman Hildebrand, am present. Vice Chair Bell?
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Abell?
COMMISSONER ABELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Foster?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Rowling?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Scott?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you.
We are now returning from the Executive Session, where we discussed the Work Session Real Estate Item Numbers 10 through 14, Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects Item Number 15, and Litigation Item Number 16.
If there are no further questions, I will place Item Numbers 10, 11 and 13 on the Thursday Commission Meeting Agenda for public comment and action. Regarding Item Numbers 12 and 15, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process. Regarding Item Numbers 14 and 16, no further action is needed at this time.
All right and with that, we are going to go into… you know what, we did not… Dr. Yoskowitz, you needed to read into the record that we were back in session. I believe. Isn’t that correct?
>> DR. YOSKOWITZ: Well, as we open up the annual public hearing I’ll read the public notice.
[WORK SESSION CONCLUDED AT 2:07 P.M. SEE SEPARATE ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT.]