TPW Commission
Work Session, March 26, 2025
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
March 26, 2025
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
CHAIRMAN JEFFERY D. HILDEBRAND: Okay.
Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I will take roll.
I, Chairman Jeffery D. Hildebrand, am present.
Vice-Chair Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN OLIVER BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Abell?
COMMISSIONER JAMES ABELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Doggett?
COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Foster?
COMMISSIONER PAUL FOSTER: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Patton?
COMMISSIONER ROBERT PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Rowling?
COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Present.
Thank you.
The meeting is called to order March 26, 2025, at 9:25 a.m.
Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: A public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the office of The Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551 Government Code referred to as the Open Meetings Act.
I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioners, as a reminder please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak.
The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous Work Session held January 22, 2025, which have already been distributed.
Is there a motion for approval?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say, “aye.”
[ “AYE” SAID IN UNISON ]
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.
We’ve got Internal Affairs Update, Staff Recognition, Legislative Update, Land and Water Resource Conservation and Recreation Plan Update.
Dr. Yoskowitz, please make your presentation.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Good morning, Chairman.
Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
I would like to provide you an update germaine to the land and water related plan and functions inside the Department.
As is customary, I will start off with an Internal Affairs Update.
In an effort to ensure that Internal Affairs team is maintaining the highest levels of professionalism and that best practices are implemented, investigators continue to attend various training and conferences throughout the fiscal year.
Some recent trainings include: on January 14 Internal Affairs Captain Joel Parker participated in a first responder CRP and first aid training hosted by the Comal County’s Sheriff’s Office.
On February 25, the Internal Affairs team participated in a weapons armorers course hosted by Staccato Arms. On March 7, Internal Affairs provided training to the Game Warden and State Park Police cadets.
Additionally, all Internal Affairs investigators participated in the recent Use of Force Update provided by TPWD Law Enforcement Division.
Law Enforcement Division is pleased to announce the selection of Kevin Winters as our new Assistant Commander of Wildlife Enforcement.
Kevin has had an incredible and diverse career with the Department, and his wealth of experience has been beneficial in making the transition into his new role as Assistant Commander of Wildlife Enforcement seamless.
Early in Kevin’s career he served as a game warden in two vastly different areas of Texas, from deep south Texas and then the Houston Metro Area.
He was also a member of the K9 team, which shows his dedication to both expanding his expertise and tackling the toughest challenges in conservation law enforcement.
The last few years, Kevin has served as our Lieutenant of Wildlife Enforcement, where he has proven to be a great asset to his fellow game wardens and to our partner divisions.
Please welcome me in congratulating Commander… Assistant Commander Kevin Winters on his promotion.
[ APPLAUSE ]
The dedication of 200 acre-feet of water to the Texas Water Trust for Environmental Flows in Big Cypress Bayou is a significant step forward for conservation and wildlife protection in the region. The Water Trust is one of Texas’s primary tools to advance restoration and protection of water for the environment.
It was established in 1997 to hold water rights for instream flows and freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries as part of the Water Bank administered by the Texas Water Development Board.
The trust currently holds two rights on The Rio Grande, which was deposited in 2003, and one right on The San Marcos River, which was deposited in 2006.
This current collaboration between TPWD’s Water Resources Team, Legal Division and Inland Fisheries staff, in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and a private landowner, making an impact for fish, wildlife, and recreation.
This is the first deposit in the Water Trust in nearly two decades, and will support habitats important to the reintroduced Paddlefish and protecting iconic areas like Caddo Lake.
The diverse wetlands and Cypress forest at Caddo Lake support outdoor recreation opportunities at ten downstream paddling trails, Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area, and Caddo Lake State Park which had over 83,000 visitors in 2024.
With a goal of facilitating more voluntary flow agreements across the state and advancing the Land and Water Plan Action 2.3 the Department’s continued efforts in conservation and aquatic system protection are very exciting, indeed.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, in partnership with The Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation, has undertaken a substantial renovation of The Edwin L. Cox Jr. Texas Freshwater Fishery Center in Athens. Planning for the project began as far back as 2019, and the facility was closed to visitors for renovation efforts in late August of 2023.
And this also addresses Land and Water Action Item 10.2.
The renovation includes extensive infrastructure repairs and enhancements, installation of large new aquariums, refurbishment of outdoor open air exhibit aquariums, expansion and updates to indoor visitor center exhibits, including The Texas Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame, renovation of the Fishes of Texas Dive Theater, and its 26,000 gallon dive tank, improvements to the three recreational fishing ponds, their habitats and new fishing piers, and updating educational content and programming.
The renewal of this nearly 30-year-old facility is being made possible primarily through philanthropic donations from Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation, Friends of Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center and existing Department budgets, as well as the dedicated efforts of Inland Fishery staff.
A rededication ceremony is scheduled for Thursday, May 29th, at 10:00 a.m.
All the Commissioners are invited. We can get with you and your calendars to see if that’ll work and your interests. And the facility will reopen to the public on Thursday, June 5th.
Beginning on the third Friday in February, and extending for ten consecutive days, the Crab Fishery closes. And since the first volunteer event, 2002, nearly 5,000 volunteers have removed over 45,000 lost or derelict traps from Texas bays.
With the continued support of many other organizations in the form of volunteers, financial support, and in-kind donations, more than 40 different marine species have been freed from derelict traps and over 740,000 blue crabs saved from ghost fishing. This year, our partners with The Galveston Bay Foundation, Christmas Bay Foundation, and San Antonio Bay Partnership organized a number of volunteer events along the coast.
In total, 220 volunteers were able to remove almost 1,300 traps coast wide. Hundreds of blue and stone crabs were released from abandoned traps, along with multiple species of fish. Of note, a live Diamondback terrapin was found in an abandoned trap in Galveston Bay.
The terrapin was taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center and was later successfully released.
This program has been a success for many years, and I want to thank all the volunteers that make a difference.
Final topic I’d like to discuss today is the 89th Texas Legislature and the status of our Legislative Appropriations Request and Priority Bills.
This slide reflects our Legislative Appropriations Request, or LAR, base submission for fiscal year 2026-’27 compared to the amounts approved in the House and Senate versions of the bill as introduced.
The Department’s LAR included a biennial base funding request of $1.017 billion and 3,160 full-time equivalent positions. The House and Senate introduced versions of the Appropriation Bill that were identical and reflected a net reduction of $42.5 million to the Department’s base request. Due to the following: a one-time reduction of $43.5 million tied to one-time items included in the base limits which were repurposed by the Department’s primarily for state park operations and capital construction; and the addition of a $1 million general revenue for directed local park grant.
House and Senate versions of the bill also incorporated many of the Department’s request for rider, but several issues remain outstanding. As such, the department has requested rider revisions as follows– and there’s two that I want to identify for you in particular.
The first is Rider 40, which is reporting on the Centennial Park’s Conservation Fund. We are asking for clear guidance on the data and information to be submitted when seeking Legislative Budget Board’s approval of Centennial Funds for acquisition and buildout. This would help ensure clear expectations and formalize the content of requests for approval.
And also, a new request is the Unexpended Balance Authority for Land Acquisition Appropriations.
Due to the complicated nature of major land transactions which will inevitably span across biennia, Unexpended Balance Authority would provide flexibility to manage the Land Acquisition Portfolio and mitigate risks without jeopardizing negotiations, improving the Department’s ability to acquire strategic tracts of land at the best value for the state.
This slide and the next reflect House Appropriations Committee and Senate Finance Committee decisions on the Department’s exceptional items as of March 24. These items and amounts are still subject to change as they are finalized in each chamber, and as part of Conference Committee deliberations that will take place later on. All amounts are shown in millions.
I would like to draw your attention to Items 3 and 4, Capital Transportation and Headquarters Capital Repair.
These two items, with a star next to the zero-dollar amounts, are being considered in the Supplemental Bill, which I’ll talk about in a moment.
Also Item 8, Game Warden State Park Police Officer’s Modernization, is currently being considered for funding of a 50-hour work week, but no additional funds for equipment and additional game wardens at this time.
All the exceptional items have been fully adopted or will be going to Conference Committee.
So, there’s more to come in the next couple of weeks.
Supplemental Bill, House Bill 500, which amends spending in the current biennium includes the following items related of interest to the department. Section 5.05 Game, Fish and Water Safety Account: $41.4 million of general revenue to be deposited by the comptroller to Fund 9. This appears to be an effort to help Fund 9 balances, which you have heard about over the last couple of Commission meetings.
Our Fund 9 is what supports our Fisheries and Wildlife and Law Enforcement Divisions.
And projections are by the ‘28, ‘29 biennium that that will be going negative. So, this is an effort to prop that up, to give us time to figure out a sustainable path forward for those... for that fund.
Section 7.21 Park Acquisition.
This authorizes the department to carry forward unexpended land acquisition appropriations provided in the last Supplemental Bill, SB 30. This is the $125 to be used for… $125 million to be used for land acquisition.
We plan to expend all those funds by the end of this fiscal year, but that was placed in the Supplemental Bill in case there was a small balance that had to be rolled over to the next biennium.
And then Motor Vehicle Purchases.
This is approximately $9.1 million for purchases of non-law enforcement vehicles. And this will also… looks to be taken up in the Supplemental Bill. As we also mentioned earlier, we also expect the headquarter repairs to be part of the Supplemental, although that’s not formally in there at this point.
Moving on to Bills of Interest.
So, the legislation… legislation currently filed includes several Bills of Interest for the department that we’re closely watching.
Here are some of those on this slide and on the next. There’s a couple that I want to draw your attention to. The first is the grocery bill. Some of you have seen this the last two legislative sessions. It hasn’t quite made it to the end, but it’s important for the department where 75 percent of our team are in the field. This would allow our staff members to purchase groceries at their local supermarket ahead of multi-day trips into the field.
I also wanted to draw your attention to the top of this table, which is the Placement of Cultivated or Farmed Oysters on Natural Reefs, Commercial Leases and Restoration Projects. So farmed oysters… cultivated oysters would be used for all those possibilities, and that currently doesn’t exist in our code. This would make that happen.
And there are some other Bills of Interests that, well, let’s say we are following and would have an impact on the department. We have lumped these into three major categories. The first is Fee Waivers. These are bills requesting waiver of various fees, whether it be to state parks or hunting and fishing licenses.
The other major category is revoking Commission rulemaking authority. Number of bills there.
And then the final one is.. restricts the ability of our game wardens to protect fish and wildlife.
I will note that House Bill 4938, the bill that was meant to abolish the department, has been pulled down by that House member at this point.
And with that, Chairman, I will take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any questions by the Commissioners?
We are certainly glad to see the one bill pulled down.
That bodes well for the department, so that’s great.
A couple of comments.
And so no other comments for Dr. Yoskowitz? COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Yeah, I have one, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING:
As it pertains to The Centennial Fund– just for clarification– as it was written, are we supposed to go for approval and now we are seeking clarification on what they want to see on those approvals?
That’s…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: That’s correct, Commissioner.
Yes.
We have to go to the Legislative Budget Board any time that we want to pull monies from the fund to purchase land or to build out those state parks. We are asking for clarification on what information data, LBB, do you need from us to make that process go smoothly.
So, we are making sure we are collecting that data ahead of having to go to the LBB.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: So as process goes, we will approve it here as a group and then…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And it’s a fairly perfunctory approval, right?
I mean, you’ve got to get the information correct for them. But have they ever… I mean, they have never been in conflict with what we want to do.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, we haven’t tested the waters yet on that.
But we don’t expect them to be putting up road blocks for us to move forward on purchases of land and building out the state parks.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Good.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: But we do want that clarity.
And that’s what that rider helps to do.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, that is a great segway into what I’m going to talk about next.
And it’s all about parks and The Centennial Fund and how we become a bit more effective in what we do here at the Commission.
So, as the Chairman I’m very proud that we are acquiring new parks for Texans to hunt, fish, hike, camp and enjoy the outdoors. I think it is a great credit to the governor, the legislature and the department that expanding public lands for the benefit of Texans is a priority. But I want to challenge this Commission and the department to hold ourselves accountable for the follow-through.
Nobody probably knows this, certainly on the Board here, the last new park that Texas Parks Wild opened was in 2008, 17 years ago. It was the Resaca de la Palma Park in Cameron County, Texas.
Clearly, we’ve got to open parks quicker than every 17 or 18 years to keep up with the pace of population in the state.
Acquiring new prospective parks and opening new parks is a tedious task and we need to get it right for the people we serve. Even with federal permitting and other logistics there is no reason why we cannot commit to having newly acquired parks open within four years of closing on the property– four years of closing on the property.
I also believe that as we work towards full opening there is benefit to the department and to park visitors if we gradually open parks as the needed improvements are made. I would like to see this Board adopt a formalized process for phased opening of new parks and for the department to report on the progress towards these timelines. The public should know when parks are opening, and for what activities.
The department should have clear objectives. Furthermore, it should all be done in a clear and transparent manner.
David, I want you to come back in May with a formal written policy for us to adopt that does the following: First, that within 12 months of closing on a new acquisition, whether Centennial Parks or Non-Centennial Parks, these parks be open for public hunts, guided tours, and scouting events.
Really important.
Second, within 18 months of closing, parks will be open for day use access. This requires that hiring and housing of personnel be completed. Trail construction, parking construction, and restrooms would also need to be completed within 18 months.
Third, within 48 months of closing, four years, a newly acquired park should be fully opened.
This would provide ample time for the construction of roads, utilities, communications, infrastructure, and vertical construction.
Further, as part of these phased openings I want staff to come back once a year to deliver updates to the Commission to track the progress as to whether we are meeting, exceeding or falling behind our adopted policy.
Lastly, I want every park placed on our website indicating what phase they are in and when they will move to the next phase. This way, for example, a scout troop can see that a piece of property is in Phase One, and even though the park is not technically open they can plan their next scouting event there prior to it being formally opened.
I’m proud of the aggressive efforts we have made to acquire new parks, but that’s only halfway towards our goal. I’d like to see a similar sense of urgency that we’ve implemented on the acquisition of parks in the process of opening the parks.
David, please bring these items back in May for adoption.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: I will, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Thank you very much.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.
Any comments by the Commission?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Mr. Chairman I would just say that the tools that we have been given with The Sporting Goods Sales Tax, The Centennial Park Conservation Fund, this Commission’s commitment, those are achievable. So, thank you for bringing those forward. We’ll come back in May with that policy.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And look, in no way am I being critical that the last park was opened 17 years ago. We just… I mean, simply put, we didn’t have the money to acquire the parks to open parks.
And so… but now we do. And so, it’s our responsibility that we get out… and the general public is allowed to use these parks and not put them on a shelf and ten years later we treat them like a snow globe and nobody gets to touch them.
I mean, that’s what they are for, is so people can get out and enjoy the outdoors.
So, I’m really excited about this. I know the Governor is super excited about it, so let’s get this done. I know it’s a challenge for the department, but we are going to push ourselves.
And, you know, in this brave new world of DOGE and all things efficiencies in State and Federal government this is just part and parcel of that. So thanks, David, for complying and working and being entrepreneurial in this process.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Thank you.
Okay.
Work Session Item No. 3: Internal Audit Update.
Ms. Brandy Meeks, please make your presentation.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Item No. 2.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Sorry, I apologize.
Reggie, I don’t want to shortchange you.
[ LAUGHTER ]
Work Session No. 2: Financial Overview.
Mr. Reggie Pegues, please make your presentation.
REGGIE PEGUES: Thought I got lucky there for a second.
[ LAUGHTER ]
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Reggie Pegues, Chief Financial Officer.
And this morning I will be presenting the Financial Overview covering the following topics:
FY25 Revenue Summaries Through February for Hunting, Fishing, License Revenue; State Parks Revenue and Visitation; Boat Motor Related Revenues; and finally, FY25 Budget Adjustments through February.
First up is License Revenue with a five-year comparison from license year ‘21 through license year ‘25. Over this five-year period revenues are steady with only a 1.6 percent change from record year ‘21 to ‘25 to finish at $83.7 million through February. This is a also a 2.3 percent increase over license year ‘24, which I’ll cover in greater detail on the next slide.
Next is the two-year comparison by license type. As mentioned in the previous slide, there was an overall increase in total license revenue of 2.3 percent, or $1.9 million. The largest increase was $1.4 million in the Resident Fish category. Of this amount, $640,000 is due to an increase in sale for the resident year from purchase All Water Package.
Moving on to State Parks.
First up is a five-year comparison of park revenues. This comparison shows a 4.5 percent drop after the record year of fiscal year ‘22, amount of $31.2 million, but still very strong and holding steady in the $29 to $30 million range for last three years to finish at $29.2 million through February.
Next is the two-year comparison by fee type. There was a small increase in entrance fees of 1.7 percent offset by small decreases in other categories to finish at $29.2 million overall, which is pretty consistent with FY24, with a total variance of 0.4 percent, or less than half a percent.
Moving on to Visitation.
Total visits at 3.8 million are up 2 percent, and paid visits at 2.3 million are up 1.3%, which tracks with the 1.7 percent increase in entrance fees noted above.
Moving on to Boat Revenue.
We’ll begin with a five-year comparison.
Since record year FY21 revenues of $8.8 million, there has been us levelling off through FY24 but still historically strong. So far, FY25 revenues are trending upwards, to finish at $7.1 million.
And just for your reference, pre-pandemic revenues were $6.6 million at FY19 through February. So even with the drop we’re still historically strong with the boat revenues.
This next slide is a two-year comparison by revenue type. Total revenues of $7.1 million are up by 3.5 percent, or $240,000, with a 5 percent increase in registrations.
Next, I’ll be covering the Summary of Budget Adjustments.
Next is a summary of budget adjustments, since the January Commission meeting which covered activity through December. This is a recap of the more detailed information provided to each of you in the monthly reports that we provide.
Starting at the top of the page, with the December ending budget of $1.03 billion, we’ve had the following adjustments.
First is the appropriated receipts of $3.4 million, including $1 million related to Operation Loanstar reimbursements.
Next is Capital Budget Unexpended Balances, or UB, of $2.5 million consisting of construction at $1.5 million, minor repair at $460,000, and transportation at $400,000.
Next, we have federal funds at $36 million. This represents the largest amount of adjustments, and includes a local park grant of $10 million and wildlife related grants of $15 million.
Next is $3 million for fringe adjustments. These are recurring adjustments to process payments for our benefits for retirement insurance social security.
And finally, Operational and Noncapital UB of $4.1 million. This represents operating funding carried forward from the prior year, fiscal year ‘24 into ‘25. These adjustments total $49.8 million for an adjusted budget of $1.08 billion.
This concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Any questions by the Commission?
If not, thank you.
All right, Work Session Item No. 3: Internal Audit Update.
Ms. Brandy Meeks, please make your presentation.
Thank you, Reggie.
Very much.
BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks, I’m the Internal Audit Director.
This morning, I would like to update you on last year’s and this year’s internal audit plans, as well as recent external audits and assessments.
So, this and the next slide show the status of last year’s Internal Audit Plan.
And please make note of the statuses in yellow font to the right.
Those depict projects for which we’ve made progress since the last time we met.
We have now completed our Cloud Computing Cyber Security Audit as well as the audit of the CO-OP Recreation Grants.
We’ve also completed all of our state park fiscal control audits, so I’m happy to inform you that last year’s plan is now complete.
This and the next slide show the status of our current audit plan. We are currently in the fieldwork phase for the audit of the State Park Fiscal Control Specialist Program. We just started planning in the audit of the Procurement Card Processes and Controls.
And we’re finishing up planning in the audit of the Inland Fisheries and Coastal Fisheries Key Performance Measures. We are also in the reporting phase for the audit of the I.T. Help Desk.
We’ve also attended a steering committee meeting for the BRITS Rewrite. We are finishing up our follow-up on all audit items due during the first two quarters of this year.
We are also… I am also participating in a peer review of the Department of Information Resources.
And we’re also, been working diligently to make updates to our processes and procedures for the revised standards. And I just want to thank the Audit Subcommittee for meeting with me after the Work Session today to go over some of those changes.
As far as external audits and assessments are concerned, the FEMA… FEMA finished their grant monitoring desk review and then immediately started into a new review: The Grant Programs Directorate Desk Review of the Port Security Grant Program.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation also just recently started a 2025 Expenditure Verification Program for the non-federal Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund, specifically the Dagger Island project.
And this completes my presentation. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you, Ms. Meeks.
Any questions?
All right.
If not, Work Session Item No. 4: Rule Review– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes and Completion of Rule Review, Chapter 57 Fisheries, Chapter 58, Oysters, Shrimp and Finfish. Mr. James Murphy.
JAMES MURPHY: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
I’m James Murphy, General Counsel to the department and the Commission.
And I’m here today to present on the last iteration of rule review for this four-year cycle.
It’s the adoption of proposed changes to Chapters 57 and 58, and ultimately completion of rule review.
So, every four years we are required, along with other state agencies, to review all of our rules to determine whether the reason for initially adopting that rule continues to exist. Following the review we must readopt the rules, adopt them with changes, or repeal them. We review our rules in three groups. And we are here on the third and final group.
That includes Chapters 56, 57, 58 and 65. We do not have changes to two of those chapters. And so, today I’m here to present on changes to Chapters 57 and 58. The first is in Section 57.156. This is just a literature reference that is in error to mirror a Fisheries Society publication. We have removed that reference entirely.
The next change is to section 57.252. This is just a restatement of the statutory requirement that a permit is required for introduction of fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants into public waters. Sometimes it is helpful to include statutory language and the rules just for organizational purposes. It does help the public understand what their obligations are to have everything in one place. And that’s the case here.
Section 57.253 is the next change. This is just removal of a reference to a TDA, or Department of Agriculture aquaculture license back in 2021. That license was removed by legislation, so this is just a leftover reference.
The next change is to section 58.21. This is the deletion of some oyster closures. You may recall those two-year restoration closures. We put those in our rule. We have an opportunity here to delete some closures that expired back in November. Those have reopened.
The next is to, section 58.164.
Just some corrections of typos.
And so now that we are complete, staff recommends that the Commission do two things.
The first is readopt, all remaining unchanged rules in Title 31 Texas Administrative Code Part 2, which applies to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
The second is to authorize staff to publish a notice of adopted rule review in the “Texas Register.”
So, we have received 18 total comments, all in agreement with the changes.
So, I request that this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.
And I’m available for any questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Any questions of Mr. Murphy?
If not, I’ll place the item on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Work Session Item No. 5: Digital Licensing and Tagging Requirements– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Mr. Chris Cerny, please make your presentation.
CHRIS CERNY: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
And thank you for your time today. For the record, my name is Chris Cerny, Business Analyst for the Wildlife Division.
Today I will review proposed changes to regulations intended to provide fully digital licenses and tag options for all recreational hunting, fishing, and combination license types starting with the next license year. And we’ll request permission to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and action.
To provide context for this request I would like to start with a brief review of the Digital License and Tagging Program. Fully digital licenses, including digital tags, were authorized by House Bill 3081 during the 2021 Legislation Session, and became available to customers for the 2022 and ‘23 license year.
During that pilot year, only Resident Super Combo, Senior Super Combo and Lifetime Combo license tags were offered with the fully digital option and were made available through online purchase.
More than 80,000 digital licenses were sold in that first season, which accounted for about 14 percent of the total sales volume for those respective license types.
The number of licenses sold in that pilot year did exceed our estimates by more than 50 percent, which gave strong indication to the popularity of this option early on.
Due to the popularity of the digital option in the pilot year, along with input received from customers, staff sought and received Commission approval to expand the available digital offerings to include the Youth Hunting License, Lifetime Hunting and Fishing License Tags, and Exempt Angler Tags for the following ‘23 and ‘24 license year.
Growth and sales for the existing Combo license types and strong sales for new offerings led to more than 123,000 digital licenses sold, which equates to approximately 17 percent of the total sales volumes for those respective license types for that year.
For the 2024 and ‘25 license year, that’s currently underway, the available digital offerings were updated to accommodate the addition of the new spotted seatrout Tag. Additionally, the mobile app was used… the mobile app that we used for digital tagging was completely rebranded in time for the start of this season. It is now known as the Texas Hunt and Fish Mobile App. Along with the rebranding significant enhancements were delivered to the mobile platform to improve the user experience.
With this license year only partially complete, more than 148,000 digital licenses have been sold, accounting for approximately 21 percent of total sales volume, and more than 60 percent of online sales volume for those respective license types.
The strong growth and sales of digital licenses over the past several years indicates that the digital program is popular with customers and supports the goal of expanding the digital option to additional license types.
Shifting gears, I would like to provide a quick review of how the digital license and tagging process works in practice to provide clarity on what this proposed rule package requires of hunters and anglers.
If a hunter or an angler who possesses a digital license is checked by a game warden in the field that individual must be able to furnish proof of license as shown on your screen, using their mobile device.
Game wardens have partner apps to support field checks of digital licenses and tags, but ultimately it is the license holder who is responsible for furnishing proof of license in the field.
Once a harvested animal that requires tagging is taken into possession, a digital license holder must immediately execute a digital tag through the Texas Hunt and Fish mobile application.
The screenshot on the right of your screen shows the tag selection process, which then launches the user into a harvest report and tag execution workflow.
The mobile app allows for execution of the digital tag with or without data service– so it works whether you have data service or not, online or offline, and which is shown there on your screen.
In either scenario instructions are provided to the license holder on what steps to take upon execution of the digital tag. If you’re offline at the time of tagging, the license holder must finalize the report once data service is available again.
In addition to the execution of the digital tag, via the Texas Hunt and Fish app, deer, and turkey must have a handwritten document attached to the carcass that includes appropriate detail, as shown in those photos on your screen.
Fish are not required to have any documentation attached. Digital tag execution does satisfy mandatory reporting requirements where those are applicable.
Moving forward, these existing standards for how to execute a digital tag will remain the same.
I want to clarify this because amendments to sections of the Texas Administrative Code that deal with tagging requirements are included in this rule package. However, the proposed changes simply ensure consistent application of these existing standards to the expanded list of digital license offerings.
It’s important to note that nothing in this rule package changes what digital license holders are required to do to satisfy license display and tagging requirements.
Just a bit more on digital tag execution.
Like license sales, digital tag usage has increased year over year, as you can see in the table on your screen. More than 45,000 digital tags have been executed so far during this current license year alone, more than double what we saw during the pilot year. And we’re just now entering into spring turkey season, so that number will continue to go up.
Not surprisingly, white-tailed deer harvest accounts for the vast majority of tag usage across all years, followed by turkey and oversized Red Drum. Considering the volume of usage, I am happy to report that our app support team has been contacted by fewer than 150 individuals to help with the tagging process so far this season, which is suggestive that the mobile app is intuitive, stable and enables customers to readily understand the process.
The careful rollout of the digital license and tagging program over the course of three seasons has paid off by providing the agency time to improve and mature our technology, to make sure customers have access to intuitive and user friendly systems. That intuitive design for customers also supports enforcement in the field, and as a result our game wardens have provided positive feedbacks on encounters with digital license holders and digitally tagged harvests.
Given the continued growth and popularity of digital offerings and the stability of the systems that support the process, staff seek adoption of proposed amendments that would provide digital options for all recreational hunting, fishing and combination license types beginning with next license year, which is the 2025 and ‘26 season.
Importantly, the proposed changes will provide digital options for nonresident customer who have not yet been able to take advantage of digital offerings. They are currently only available to resident license holders.
All told, 56 recreational hunting, fishing and combination licenses, along with relevant endorsements, tags and permit offerings, would be made available to customers with the fully digital options if these amendments are adopted.
As a final point of clarification, while my presentation has focused on the digital tagging process as a whole, my presentation is only seeking adoption of changes proposed to Chapter 53 of Texas Administrative Code concerning license issuance procedures. Relevant changes to the other sections of Texas Administrative Code that specify how harvested game birds, game animals and game fish must be digitally tagged in which licensed items can be used for those options are included in the statewide hunting and fishing proclamations listing there on your screen.
These changes will be referenced again by my colleagues later today when they present on other proposed amendments to those same sections of the regulations for statewide adoption, for statewide proclamation adoption. The digital license and tagging rules function across these three chapters of Texas Administrative Code is a cohesive package that establishes which licenses and tags are available digitally, and how those products must be applied in the field.
As stated earlier, the digital tag rule amendments presented by myself and my colleagues today do not change anything regarding how digital tagging or license displays accomplished. They simply expand the list of licensed offerings that have a fully digital option and align the relevant sections of code that outline those tagging requirements.
As of yesterday, at 5:00 p.m., 69 people have provided public feedback on this proposal, with 45 percent in agreement and 55 percent disagreeing either completely or on specific items.
The comments received in disagreement can generally be grouped into four primary areas of concern outlined there on your screen. The majority of concern expressed in those comments is that license holders do not want digital licenses to completely replace paper licenses.
And I do want to ensure the Commission and the public that we have no intention of getting rid of paper license options. This package simply adds a digital option for all of those same licenses.
Other commenters expressed concerns about requirements for paper versus digital licenses.
Those comments included general confusion from both customers and some license agents about digital versus paper license processes. There was also disagreement with the need for a physical document to be added to deer and turkey harvest after completing the digital tag.
Several commenters mentioned general concerns with the use of electronic devices in the field, items such as no cell service, dead batteries, broken phones, et cetera. And a few others stated that the app itself needs improvement.
Finally, a few comments brought up other concerns with government overreach in tracking through phone data.
That concludes my presentation, and staff requests that this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.
Thank you for your time and consideration. And I’m happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you.
Any Questions?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
I haven’t used this, but I was looking at the slide where, I guess, you fill out the digital tag.
Is there a box or a dropdown that requires that you enter the county?
MR. CERNY: Yes, yes.
You are required to select the county.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Where would that be, like, on the slide you have up.
Like if you shot a white-tailed deer…
MR. CERNY: Right.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: …you click on “tag.”
When do you… when, where, how do you enter that?
MR. CERNY: It’s after you select the tag information.
So, you indicate first the species by selecting the tag, and then it launches you into that harvest report workflow. I don’t remember if it’s the next screen– if it’s not the next screen it’s one of the next two or three– where you’ll select that county and that… for white-tailed deer, for example, then prompts for things like antler restriction questions, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
All right.
Additionally, as I was listening to your presentation, I am curious if there’s been any discussion or thought about… and if I have it right, isn’t it a Wildlife Resource Document? That’s what you need if you are taking your processed meat…
MR. CERNY: Well…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: …if you put it in the cooler or…
MR. CERNY: The Wildlife Resource Document allows you to transfer possession of that harvested animal to somebody else who is not the tagholder. So, you can basically send meat with somebody else from your harvest.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Right.
And is that ever contemplated being digital?
MR. CERNY: We’ve talked about it.
It needs more investigation at this time.
It’s certainly something that has come up.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay,
Thought I had one other.
All right, That’s all.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner….
Vice-Chairman Bell.
Question.
Just in regard to the confusions there might have been between the paper and the digital.
MR. CERNY: Yes, Sir.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: What notion, or how do you think we can help clarify that for folks that this is… that digital is an option, not a replacement?
How do we clarify that for them?
MR. CERNY: Good question, Sir.
I do believe that it involves more presence online, so we need to work on our online presence about what digital options… how they work.
I mean, some of the confusion is simply in, you know, “What do I do when I have a digital tag?”
So, some of the license agents who don’t sell digital options– you have to buy your digital license online– what we’ve heard is that they’re being asked to explain to customers, “Well, how do I use this digital license option?”
And they don’t have that information. They vend the physical tag.
So, one of the things we’re discussing is providing a one-pager, an information sheet, in the packets that are sent out to license agents this year. I have discussed that with our license system manager. And we’ll provide information to help them provide at least some basic guidance and provide additional contact info to folks who have a digital license.
As far as clarifying concerns with paper versus digital, I think the fact that folks will be able to continue to go and purchase their licenses where they want will allay those concerns very quickly.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Any other questions?
I know it’s not in our purview, but federal, once again, federal stamps, you can show them digitally now?
MR. CERNY: Correct, the federal duck stamp has been authorized at the federal level to be shown completely digitally. As a matter of fact, you don’t even get your physical duck stamp until the end of the hunting season. I just got mine in the mail about two weeks ago. So, you are allowed to show that on your phone now.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That’s great.
And then the last thing– I don’t believe we have the option, but maybe down the road we can– is, to Commissioner Patton’s point, is a GPS style of input where you essentially just point and click and it gives you… the app gives you where you are located. And then I’m sure we can use that information for all kinds of great research ideas down the road.
But is there any thought around that?
MR. CERNY: I guess I’d like to seek a bit of clarification. For example, we do provide within the Texas Hunt and Fish app a CWD location map.
You know, it’s still based currently on the previous zones, but you can tap on the screen where you are or where you may be going to hunt to determine how close you are to a zone, et cetera.
So, we do have some features along those lines. If the question is more towards “I’m standing here, what are my regulations?” That’s a great idea.
We would need to explore how to incorporate that into our Outdoor Annual app.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, and, you know, as well, when you fill out your tag right there in your deer stand, and you point and click and you know immediately where the deer was killed and…
MR. CERNY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: …and all that.
MR. CERNY: And we… that is how the app works right now. We don’t actually take a lat/long, a specific GPS position for deer harvest. We actually want to protect customer anonymity. And really what we need is knowing at the deer management unit level where that animal was harvested in combination with the county.
But there are reports… turkey, for example, we get the specific location of that harvest during that tag execution workflow.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, I guess we need to be wary of not being too invasive of people’s personal rights…
MR. CERNY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: …obviously.
So, understand.
Okay, great… great… great new addition.
Thank you very much.
MR. CERNY: Thank you, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I have one more question.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: So, everything you’ve talked about is on the Texas Hunt and Fish app.
I guess it used to be on the Outdoor Annual app? Tell me the difference between the two. Because you go on the Outdoor Annual app you can connect all your licenses…
MR. CERNY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: …and click on it as if you are in the right spot, but you can’t actually do anything.
And should we…
Anyway, tell me the difference between the two, and should we be turning off features on the Outdoor Annual app so people don’t go down the rabbit trail there and think they are in the right spot and then can’t tag anything.
MR. CERNY: Yeah, good question.
So, the Outdoor Annual app provides primarily the listing of regulations, statewide regulations for hunting and fishing– bag limits, size limits, et cetera. It does provide a feature that allows customers to connect their license. But to your point, you cannot execute a digital tag within the Outdoor Annual. So, if you have a fully digital license you do need to download that Texas Hunt and Fish app.
And that’s one of the pieces of communication that we’re working to roll out and make sure folks are aware of.
[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION OFF MIC ]
MR. CERNY: It’s a good question.
Yeah.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: …if you sit there and get your license connected.
MR. CERNY: I think one of the things we could work on within the Outdoor Annual– that’s not my app to manage, so I’ll need to defer to that manager on this. But perhaps information even presented in there that, you know, if you have a digital license ensure that you have also installed the Texas Hunt and Fish app where your digital tags are located.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I think that would be helpful.
MR. CERNY: Will do.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I would second that.
I sometimes go to one app and it’s..
MR. CERNY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: ...you know, so you are always questioning which is what.
And so, down the road if you could integrate the two into one would certainly be much simpler.
MR. CERNY: Understood.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I don’t know the technical elements of it, but we should look into that.
MR. CERNY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Simple is good.
MR. CERNY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, thank you.
If there’s no further questions, I’ll place this item on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Thank you, Mr. Cerny.
MR. CERNY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Work Session Item No. 6: 2025-2026 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Mr. Brian Bartram please make your presentation.
MR. BRIAN BARTRAM: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, my name is Brian Bartram with Coastal Fisheries. And I’ll be presenting the Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation for your consideration today.
There are no proposals for inland fisheries regulations, so we’ll move forward with the proposals for coastal fisheries.
As you saw in November and January, staff were proposing to change the commercial minimal length limit in Texas state waters for greater amberjack from 34 inches total length to 40 inches total length.
Currently, the minimal length in federal waters is 36 inches fork length.
40 inches total length is roughly the equivalent of 36 inches fork length.
We have chosen to maintain the use of total length for consistency of fish measurement across all species. And just to define the difference between those two measurements: total length is measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail, whereas fork length is measured from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail, as you can see there on the graphic.
So, the purpose of this change is to match the size regulations on federal waters as this permit’s ease of enforcement, and should also promote compliance amongst participants in the commercial fishery.
Link limits that closely match between state and federal waters should also reduce confusion.
For the next couple of slides I just want to emphasize that these tags are already in place.
The proposed changes are strictly an administrative transfer. Amendments to related… related to digital tagging requirements for oversized Red Drum and spotted seatrout are included in the statewide fishing proclamation.
And these amendments work in conjunction with the proposed changes presented earlier in Work Session Agenda Item No. 5 related to Digital License and Tagging Requirements, and simply clarify the requirements when digitally tagging harvested game fish.
Following the 2024 Commission meeting, the one in March, in which a tag system for oversized spotted seatrout was approved, the rule was adopted as a temporary interim provision in The Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 57.985 as a standalone section to avoid conflict with other proposed rulemaking.
The proposed item will move the rule to Chapter 57.981 concerning bag possession and length limits where it properly belongs in The Administrative Code.
Similarly, this proposed item will move the language concerning the Digital Exempt Angler Tag, another digital product, and will align it with other recreational and hunting… recreational hunting and fishing license options– so licenses, stamp endorsements, tags and selected permits, also available as digital products.
So, these proposals have been made available for public comment and feedback through our website. And the majority of that feedback has been in support of the proposals with another significant percentage simply taking a neutral stance. As of the creation of this slide, there were only 19 commenters that have submitted feedback with the highest percentage of disagreement of any proposal, sitting at 18 percent.
Of those… I wanted to mention that both The Coastal Resources Advisory Committee and The Coastal Conservation Association have voiced their support of these proposals.
Of those that disagree with the proposals, reasons include: keeping the commercial minimum size for greater amberjack at 36 inches total length; wishing for tags to remain physical; one suggestion that greater amberjacks should only be open to recreational harvest; another that federal regulations should be adjusted to match ours; and finally, the changes to the spotted seatrout tag should take place in license year ‘26, which will be the case if the proposals are adopted.
So, today staff are recommending that this item be placed on the agenda for Thursday to be considered for adoption.
Thank you for your time.
And I would like to welcome any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you.
Any questions?
What kind of fish is that?
MR. BARTRAM: Greater amberjack. CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Greater amberjack.
MR. BARTRAM: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: What’s the fork length on it?
MR. BARTRAM: [ LAUGHS ]
That’s looking like a keeper to me.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, are we keeping fork length or going to total length?
MR. BARTRAM: We’re keeping total length.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: We are keeping total length.
MR. BARTRAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And federal statute is…
MR. BARTRAM: For fork length.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: …for total fork length?
MR. BARTRAM: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.
So, is that going to create confusion?
MR. BARTRAM: So, the Feds have… they’ve been using fork length for quite some time.
One of the reasons we… The state uses total length for all of our species is… a couple of examples I can think of are triple tail and alligator gar. We have regulations on those species. They do not actually have a fork. They just have a rounded tail.
So, for our waters, our fisheries, total length makes sense.
It’s very simple.
It’s simply the maximum length of the fish.
So, I don’t believe it will create confusion.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understand.
Okay.
Great.
All right, If there’s no further questions I‘ll place the item on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: I just have one…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: I am just curious, on the fish that have a fork are you allowed to manipulate the tail, like to squeeze it down for that total length, or is it just as the fish sits?
MR. BARTRAM: I believe it’s as the fish sits.
And when you manipulate the tail the fork length doesn’t change very much.
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Just curious if that was a source of confusion at all for people.
MR. BARTRAM: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I’m sure it is.
[ LAUGHTER ]
Okay, all right, thank you.
MR. BARTRAM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Work Session Item No. 8…
Nope, sorry, No. 7: 2025-2026 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation– Recommend Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Mr. Shaun Oldenburger and Mr. Shawn Gray, please make your presentations.
SHAUN OLDENBURGER: All right, good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Shaun Oldenburger.
I’m the Small Game Program Director.
Today we are presenting proposed changes to the ’25 — ‘26 Statewide Hunting and Migratory and Game Bird Proclamations.
After my presentation my colleague Shawn Gray will request permission at the conclusion of his presentation to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and potential action by the Commission.
Here’s a list of proposed changes for the Migratory Game Bird Proclamation for the next hunting season.
We will go into these in greater detail with following slides. I did want the Commission to know that all these were supported unanimously by the Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee.
We’ll first move on to northern pintail bag limits.
At the Commission’s recall all migratory game bird hunting seasons must be within United States Fish and Wildlife Service federal frameworks as published in the federal “Register.”
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is allowed to be more restrictive, but we are never allowed to be more liberal in federal frameworks on migratory game bird hunting seasons.
So, starting with the northern pintail bag limit.
A 13-year-old harvest strategy for northern pintails was recently modernized and updated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. And all four flyaway councils did adopt a new harvest strategy this last fall.
And that does allow a three bird daily bag limit within that harvest strategy if the population status allows it. Based on this last year’s breeding population survey information we are allowed to have a three bird daily bag limit in all duck zones in Texas for the ’25 — ‘26 season. So, staff are proposing to follow federal frameworks with that three birds in the daily bag limit.
We received 272 public comments with regard to this potential change – 241, or 89 percent, were in support as of this morning at 8:00 A.M., 8 percent in disagreement, and 4 percent disagreed specifically.
The reasons for disagreement include: reduced days/bag limits instead; increased daily bag limits of two instead of three; the harvest strategy is flawed, populations can’t support it; and will increase hunting pressure on the Gulf Coast specifically was mentioned in public comment.
We’ll move on to the next proposal.
Another harvest strategy that comes into play this next hunting season is the one that determines the length… if and… the length of the early teal season.
As you can see here on this graph, this is the population survey for Blue-winged teal. The survey results for this last year breeding population estimate was 4.55 million, which falls below the 4.7 million bird threshold for a 16 day early teal season, as indicated in the red bar here on this figure. When the population threshold falls below that, it requires moving from a 16- to a 9-day season.
Thus, for federal frameworks we will be restricted to a nine day early teal season for ‘25-‘26 hunting season.
With regard to this, we did have 225 responses as of this morning– 56 percent agreed completely, whereas 38 percent disagreed completely, and then we had 5 percent that disagreed specifically.
Obviously, when we looked at public comment the reasons for disagreement: reduced daily bag limit instead; move the dates back a week earlier in September; teal leave before the season starts; this reduces hunting opportunity; and disagree with the methodology as far as the harvest strategy. Once again, just a reminder, this is a federal framework and we are required to follow it by federal law.
Moving into The High Plains Mallard Management Unit.
The following proposals I am going to mention are a result of the federal framework changes related to early teal season. Since that’s going from a 16- day to a 9-day season that does allow us a little more hunting opportunity in other places.
Currently, underneath The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, we are only allowed 107 days of exposure for each migratory game bird species. So, for instance in The High Plains Mallard Management Unit we are allowed a little bit more hunting opportunity with regards to the north and south duck zones underneath federal frameworks.
And so, when you add that 16-day season we quickly get over that 107 days. So, reducing from a 16- to 9-day season allows us to extend the regular season by 7 days. And so, staff are proposing to add this to the early part of the season to allow for early migrants like Blue-winged teal and northern pintails.
With regards to public comment on this proposed change, as of this morning we had 240 comments–
221 agreed, or 92 percent, 15 disagreed, and 4 disagreed specifically. Basis for disagreement was mostly reduced days instead, or were not germane to the proposal.
Moving on forward to the next proposed change with rail and gallinule seasons.
Traditionally, with our early teal season we did have rail and gallinule seasons open at the same time, especially to take advantage of those opportunities especially on the Gulf Coast, where you see a lot of rails and gallinules while you may be teal hunting. We are taking those seven days away because of obviously the reduction in teal season and adding those to the back of rail and gallinule season. So, it will end at the end of December rather than around the Christmas time it normally does.
So, with regards to this change, public comment as of this morning we had 128 comments–
84 percent were in agreement, 15 percent disagreed completely, and 1 percent disagreed specifically.
Reasons for disagreement were not stated or germane to the proposal.
Moving on to falconry seasons, very similar to that 107 days maximum as well. These are exposure days on species. So with a reduction of teal season we are allowed a few extra days with regards to some other migratory game bird hunting seasons for the ’25 — ‘26 hunting season.
So, when we look at public comment with these proposed changes, we received 123 comments as of this morning– 112, or 91 percent, were in agreement specifically, 11 percent disagree completely.
And the reason for disagreement was not germane to the proposal.
For special, White-winged dove area, staff are proposing to reduce this season from six to five days.
Unfortunately, calendar progression creates some really confusion on two of the seven years in the calendars. And this, unfortunately, is one of those.
Traditionally, we’ve had Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday with these six days. The only other day that’s really available that makes sense would be Labor Day and the 1st. But… When we discussed it in staff in reality that most… about half of our hunters travel to the south zone, and so really a lot of those folks do allow multiple days of hunting opportunity in the south zone. So, staff are recommending a reduction from six to five days just to increase hunting quality and opportunity for the most part of all hunters in the south zone during the special season.
Since public comment also affords that we open seasons as early as possible, you’ll notice in the gray there on that calendar would be the 14th, is when regular season opens. That’s the earliest we can do by federal frameworks.
Moving on to public comment with regards to this one.
As of this morning we received 246 responses – 142, or 58 percent, agree completely, 40 percent disagreed completely, and 2 percent disagreed specifically. Reasons for disagreement were: reducing hunting opportunity by taking away that extra day; change to September 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13 instead; and would rather have a Saturday, Sunday than a Friday, Saturday.
So just a little background on that one.
Moving on to calendar progression for all migratory game bird hunting seasons. Staff proposals are for a calendar progression, or nearly similar hunting seasons as the previous year.
So, when we look at the public comment with regards to this change, we did receive 205 public comments as of this morning, and 92 percent were in agreement completely, 7 percent disagreed completely, and 1 percent disagreed specifically.
And with regards to all proposals within Migratory Game Bird Proclamation withstanding the changes that we have mentioned, as of this morning we received 256 responses, with 231 in agreement, or 90percent.
Basis for disagreement with the proposed migratory and game bird hunting seasons include:
on geese, season should run later in February; light goose season should start later; add The Conservation Order back; and ducks, is why is teal season shorter?; and then extend duck season to February, which is not allowed underneath federal frameworks. Other issues were not germane to the proposal.
Before I move on to the Statewide Hunting Proclamation Proposed Changes, are there questions related to the proposed migratory game bird hunting seasons for the ‘25 -’26 season?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions?
I would ask you go back to your calendar on White-wing…
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: …for a moment.
So, once again, why… so regular dove season opens on the 14th? MR. OLDENBURGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And in regular dove season the bag limit on White-wing is…
MR. OLDENBURGER: 15.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: 15, so…
MR. OLDENBURGER: It is also 15 during the special White-wing dove days. During that season we have a reduction in mourning dove daily bag limit because that is special season for White-wing doves, not a mourning dove hunting season.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Isn’t it zero during White-wing?
MR. OLDENBURGER: No, it is two.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Two mourning doves, 13 White-wing.
MR. OLDENBURGER: You can have a combination.
So, you can have a total of 15 doves.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Right.
MR. OLDENBURGER: You can have 13 White-wings and two mourning doves and you’d still be legal.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it, okay.
And it’s the inverse… starting on 14th, mourning doves…
MR. OLDENBURGER: Any combination of 15.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any combination of 15.
So, you are really not limiting hunting days for White-winged hunters.
I mean, they can still hunt on the 14th.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yes, they can… we have 90 days that we are allowed for exposure for doves. And so, yes, the season length for doves remains the same at 90 days. Just it is where we put the special days is just that changes a little bit with our staff proposal.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.
That all makes sense.
All right.
MR. OLDENBURGER: All right.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, thank you.
MR. OLDENBURGER: All right.
We will move on to proposed changes to the Statewide Hunting Proclamation.
We will review these.
Just a little background on this.
The Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee did unanimously support our proposed changes with the exemption, and we will get to that here fairly soon related to the quail season discussion that did come up in January.
First Statewide Hunting Proclamation proposed changes is to open Lubbock County to turkey season for ’25 — ’26 hunting season. And so, we would add this to north zone regulations, have a fall and spring season and a four-bird annual bag limit.
When we look at Lubbock County, based on our biologists that do occupancy surveys with regards to where wild turkey distribution is in the state, we see here at Lubbock County is circled here in red. The eastern part of that county does hold a wild turkey population, those are Rio Grandes.
And so, when this was brought forth to us from the public we do see no reason to not allow hunting season in Lubbock County for wild turkeys.
When we look at public comment for this, as of this morning we received 237 responses – 225, or 95 percent, agree completely, 7 percent disagree completely, and 2 percent disagree specifically.
The reasons for disagreement were also that populations were not high enough in Lubbock County or not germane to the proposal.
Moving on to Statewide Hunting Proclamation Proposed Change for Wild Turkeys in Hill County.
Basically, in previous years the Commission adopted changes to turkey seasons and counties along I-35.
And oversight by staff came to light pertaining to the fact that I-35 splits in Hill County near Hillsboro, making the dividing line unclear, which was published in regulation. As such, the proposed changes clarify that the seasons will differ between I-35 to I-35 East, as shown here on the map. So, basically, the unshaded area will be the east zone regulations and then we’ll have north there on the shaded area with those regulations. Just a clarification.
When we look at public comment, as of this morning we received 211 comments, 97 percent agreed completely, 2 percent disagree completely, and 1 percent disagreed specifically.
Moving on… continuing on with what Mr. Chris Cerny did discuss in the Work Item No. 5, Digital Tagging, Amendments to Clarify Digital Tagging Requirement for Wild Turkey, white-tailed deer, and mule deer. As he mentioned, those changes do have to occur in Chapter 63, which is The Statewide Hunting Proclamation, which is open. So, we are proposing to make those amendments. And these amendments work in conjunction with the proposed changes earlier with regards to digital licensing and tagging requirements, and simplified… simply clarify the requirements on digitally tagging harvested game animals or game birds.
When we look at public commenting on this, as of this morning we received 286 comments.
With regards to that, 82percent basically agreed, 15 percent disagreed, and 3 percent disagreed specifically.
Once again, as what Mr. Chris Cerny stated earlier with regards to Work Item No. 5, most people thought we were going completely digitally on this and not going to have a paper option. So, the reality is both options are going to be moving forward for our constituents. And he discussed the other disagreements that we had, which were very similar, with his public comment.
All right, moving on to the final proposal before we turn it over to Mr. Shawn Gray.
With Statewide Hunting Proclamation, this came up in January with this Commission.
The proposal was to extend quail hunting season to the last day in February, with the beginning date on Saturday closest to October 28. So, basically, no change to the beginning of the season is what was put forth by staff for public comment.
As directed by this Commission the staff did convene the Upland Game Bird Technical and Advisory Committees to review this proposal. The Technical Committee supported the current season structure, which they believe maximizes weekend hunting– opening the Saturday closest to October 28 and closing the last Sunday in February– but agrees there would be no biological impact to moving the closing of the season to the end of February.
The Advisory Committee unanimously supported a different structure which would be opening November 1 and running out to the last day in February– similar to the proposal that was put in front of us by the Commission.
So, that would change the opening and closing date structure, but it also maintains a 100-day hunting season.
With regard to these, or the current season, I guess staff are looking forward to input from the Commission as far as what to move forward for adoption tomorrow. Biologically we can’t tell the difference between any of them. Because trying to figure out a few days there and there, it makes really no difference at the end of the day for quail when we look at population status across the state.
If you actually even look at moving it to the end of February, on average it only adds a little more than three days per hunting season. So that we biologically can’t tell the difference either. Plus, based on previous harvest surveys, when looking at that, most people in the state are closing down hunting seasons on quail by the mid-February. So, once again, no biological impact to any of the potential options that we’d be moving forward by the Commission.
When we look at quail… when we look at public comment with regards as to what was put forward by staff, we did receive 373 comments as of this morning. And 91 percent agreed completely with… basically, with the end season date moving to the end of February.
When we look at… my apologies… When we look at basis for disagreement: longer season would hurt the population; wait a few years to make this change; and opening day should begin November 1, as was supported by the Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee as well.
So, with that I’m happy to take in input and questions from the Commission before I turn it over to Mr. Shawn Gray to talk about changes in mule deer hunting regulations.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any questions for Mr. Oldenburger?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.
Shaun, just real quick.
I was just looking at the calendar to see what the actual difference in days was.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So, by the way it would end under current rule it would be that last Sunday in February?
MR. OLDENBURGER: So, current rule as of this hunting season was that last Sunday in February.
Correct.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: That would be the 20… So, this coming year… this coming season that would be the 22nd of February.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yes, if that’s what it is.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Because and then the 28th of February is actually a Saturday.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah.
And then in some years it’s going to be the same, right, because it all depends on calendar progression, so...
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And is there any… is it more convenient?
I mean, it seems like the calendar for this particular cycle…
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …the calendar plays in favor of the hunter if it was extended to the end of the month.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Well, I would say simplification is fairly subjective, depending on who you are.
And so, the reality is, if it’s consistent from year to year that could be very simple for other folks. Other folks like the last Sunday.
So, it all depends where you sit on the landscape and how your hunting occurs.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?
That’s a really good statement: simplification is in the eyes of the beholder, right?
[ LAUGHTER ]
So…
But I do like very much a November 1 through end of February. That is simple, in my mind, for sure.
And I think most quail hunters probably would agree with that.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Okay.
If that is the direction from the Commission we’ll bring that forward for adoption tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right.
Mr. Gray.
MR. SHAWN GRAY: Good job, Man..
MR. OLDENBURGER: Scared me. Hey.
Sneaking up.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name’s Shawn Gray, and I’m the Mule Deer and Pronghorn Program Leader.
And like the other Shaun mentioned, we’ll be seeking adoption of these proposed regulation changes tomorrow.
This map illustrates our current mule deer seasons in the state. The yellow and blue colored counties have a 16-day general season that starts the Saturday before Thanksgiving with a special archery season. The blue colored counties in the Panhandle are where we have implemented a mule deer antler restriction.
In the Trans-Pecos, those green-colored counties, we have a 17-day general season starting the Friday after Thanksgiving with the special archery season. The light green colored county in the Trans-Pecos is Terrell County, and is where we have been experimenting with the mule deer antler restriction since 2022. The current statewide special archery season starts the Saturday closest to September 30, and runs for 35 consecutive days. All general seasons in this special archery season in all but three counties in the Trans-Pecos are buck only.
Staff have received several requests over the last few years to increase the length of the special archery season, and to consolidate the Managed Lands Deer Program, or MLDP, archery only and all weapon seasons for mule deer.
The current special archery season is, again, 35 days. And staff proposed to extend the Panhandle archery season from 35 to 56 consecutive days, and the Trans-Pecos season from 35 to 62 days.
These archery season extensions would end the day before each region’s general season starts. Because the Trans-Pecos general season starts six days after the Panhandle, the Trans-Pecos archery season extension would be six days longer than the Panhandle.
Staff believe these proposed archery season changes will not have any negative biological impacts to mule deer populations, and will provide additional hunter opportunity.
The present mule deer MLDP seasons are an archery season that starts the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days, and any lawful means season that starts the first Saturday in November and runs through the last Sunday in January.
Another proposed regulation change is to consolidate both mule deer MLDP seasons to allow for any lawful means from the Saturday closest to September 30, to the last Sunday in January. Staff believe these proposed mule deer MLDP changes will not have any negative biological impacts to mule deer populations as well.
Staff received 384 responses as of 8:00 A.M. this morning, with 89 percent of respondents who agree completely and 11 percent who disagree in whole or in part with the mule deer archery season extension proposal.
In addition, staff have obtained positive feedback from an opinion survey conducted last fall, and support from the mule deer Advisory Committee and the Texas Wildlife Association’s Big Game Committee.
Reasons for disagreement with this proposal included: the mule deer population can’t support extending the mule deer archery season; some prefer a later archery season; and other reasons that were not germane to this proposal.
Staff received 334 responses as of 8:00 A.M. this morning, with 83 percent of respondents who agree completely, and 17 percent who disagree in whole or in part with consolidating the mule deer MLDP season’s proposal.
Similar to the mule deer archery season extension staff obtained positive feedback from an opinion survey conducted last fall, and support from the mule deer Advisory Committee and the Texas Wildlife Association’s Big Game Committee.
Reasons for disagreement with this proposal included: mule deer density is too low to support this proposal; home ranges of mule deer exceed the property boundary of the MLDP participants, and it’s therefore unfair to the neighbors not participating in the MLDP program; and other reasons that were not germane to this proposal.
As such, staff requests replacing this item on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and
Commission action. And I’d be happy to take any questions that you might have at this time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, any questions of Mr. Gray? COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
I guess I’m trying to figure out what the net effect of the consolidation proposal would be.
Is it that there’s… there would be increased days under the “any lawful means” take? MR. GRAY: That’s correct.
It wouldn’t actually be increased hunting days, but it’s just Any Weapons days.
It would be very… it would be exactly like the white-tailed deer MLDP.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: How many increased days would it… Presumably it would be at the beginning of the year, so is it 14 days, or something like that?
MR. GRAY: So again, it’s really no increase in hunting opportunity. It’s just the weapons.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Right.
No, I get that.
But for the archery, how many days is that…
MR. GRAY: Um…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: …for mule deer? MR. GRAY: I’d have to go back.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I mean, roughly two weeks, or is it three… MR. GRAY: No, it’s longer than that
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
MR. GRAY: Probably a couple months.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And previously under MLDP for mule deer you would not have been able to shoot a mule deer during that time. And I’m kind of curious about the date because with their also transitioning from velvet to hard antler…
MR. GRAY: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: …during this time also.
MR. GRAY: Right.
Right.
So, as of right now, the Any Weapons season starts the first Saturday in November…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, all right.
MR. GRAY: …and it runs through the last weekend…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, when is that?
MR. GRAY: So, September 30 to the first Saturday in November, that would be your extension for, let’s say, gun use.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: For gun use at MLDP.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: It’s all of October.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, it’s all of October.
And do you… do you subscribe to the theory that a mule deer in velvet is a little easier take than…
MR. GRAY: No, Sir.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, you think they’re the same?
MR. GRAY: Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
MR. GRAY: And in the MLDP program we set the bag limits anyway.
Biologically it’s really… it doesn’t matter when those deer are harvested.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: In terms of… and my question is kind of a fair chase question.
MR. GRAY: Oh, yeah, I don’t see that at all, whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: You don’t?
MR. GRAY: No, Sir. COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, I’m going to be a little more specific.
Now, I don’t know if I agree or disagree with you. It just seems that mule deer in velvet aren’t… they don’t… they don’t move as quickly. They seem, in my opinion, to be more stationary. They are just not as cagey as they seem to be a little bit later.
But that’s my position, but it’s not your position.
Is that fair to say? MR. GRAY: That is fair to say, Sir.
[ LAUGHTER ]
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, all right.
That’s fine.
MR. GRAY: Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, any other questions?
If not, I’ll place the item on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Work Session Item No. 8, Cultivated Oyster Mariculture Program Fee Revisions– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the “Texas Register.”
Dr. Lindsay Glass Campbell, please make your presentation.
DR. LINDSAY CAMPBELL: Good morning Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, I’m Dr. Lindsay Glass Campbell in The Coastal Fisheries Division, and I am presenting on Cultivated Oyster Mariculture Program fee revisions.
And simply, the proposed amendments would be to reduce annual fees for cultivated oyster mariculture permits. I will abbreviate that as COM throughout this presentation.
This was based on stakeholder input by our COM industry belief in encouraging small business growth by reducing financial barriers to entry, review of other states’ fees, and review of our own data relative to COM fees since the start of the program.
And just to kind of give you a quick update on how many permits and permit status on this map. You can see the final permits are in green, conditional permits are in yellow. And we have permits from East Galveston Bay all the way down to our Lower Laguna.
There are 13 permitted growout sites, so that’s where they’re harvested, that total 101 acres.
In addition to that, 38 conditional status growout sites where they are seeking their other agency authorizations before they can begin their activity that total 121 acres. And we have 7 permitted nursery hatchery sites totaling 51 acres.
So, the proposal is compared to current four growout sites public water is $450/acre per year and private land $170 per acre, per year. We propose to reduce that to public water of $150 per acre, per year and private land at $57 per acre, per year. And to clarify here, we don’t have any growout sites that currently have… are adjacent to private land because those need to be on approved, or conditionally approved waters. We just have that on there in case there… in the future there would be a case that approved or conditionally approved waters would be right next to private land.
For nursery hatchery sites, currently, the fee is $170 per acre, per year, plus a penny per square foot surcharge per year, and private land $170 acre, per year. We propose– whichever is greater– either $150 annually or the combined total of their public water and private land fees, which would be the same as growout. That $150 minimum is because many of our fees of the nursery hatcheries are very small in footprint, much less smaller than an acre. So, that $150 is to help recoup some of the costs to the agency to conduct inspections on those.
And with our nursery hatcheries there is a combination of that public water/private land because a lot of them have buildings and structures on land where they pump in water from our base.
With that, staff seeks permission to publish the proposed amendments to the “Texas Register” for public comments.
And I’m happy to take any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions for Dr. Glass?
Or Dr. Campbell, sorry.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
In general, what’s your perception of public support for the mariculture activities?
DR. CAMPBELL: I think it is…. one, a lot of people don’t know about it, and a lot of interest.
And those who do know about it has been supportive of that, especially in certain communities where we have several mariculture sites. I’m thinking Copano Aransas area. That local community down there has really rallied around them. And they are proud to say… serve these in their restaurants. And also, the restaurants are proud to say “locally grown” and really haven’t… speaking to the farmers haven’t had a lot of negative user conflicts or interactions on some… even fishermen or guides like to fish around the areas because it’s structure, so it’s a fish aggregator. So, I think there’s good public support.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And what about for the stocking, like larvae stocking for growth to farm the type of larval, or the type of oysters?
And my terminology is off. I’m still learning all of this. Because there’s a lot of terminology there.
But I know there was a conversation about Texas bays, conversation about Gulf-based.
Comments, perceptions you have on that?
DR. CAMPBELL: Um, there…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Is this a different part of the conversation?
Am I ahead of myself here?
DR. CAMPBELL: Potentially.
The… that is in a different chapter, but we can talk about that right now
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: We’ll wait.
We’ll wait. We’ll wait.
DR. CAMPBELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yeah, I think we are going to get maybe a further description of it in a moment, so…
DR. CAMPBELL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Well, I’ll hold comments.
So, any other comments for Dr. Campbell?
All right. If not, Commission approves to publish these proposed changes on the fee to a reduction in the “Texas Register” to bring back adoption… back for adoption in May.
Now to continue in that line of questioning.
Vice-Chair, the department, and I received a letter from the Texas Oyster Mariculture Association regarding relaxing our current requirement for Texas Parentage in the triploids which are allowed in the state. Specifically, they requested that the department allow oyster farmers to source triploid seed from Gulf diploid brood stock. Can you briefly explain the letter?
DR. CAMPBELL: Yes. So, they’re requesting right now we have under that provision to have Texas parentage and go toward that. They are requesting to be able to have access for more source of seed. Hatcheries and nurseries that grow them, all of the other Gulf states allow triploids that are sourced from Gulf lineage.
So, they are asking for us to allow that so that they have more opportunity and ability to buy the triploid seed for the stocking of their farms.
To note, with more recent studies on genetics, are what we call our Northern Texas region, it is genetically the same as the Northern Gulf region from roughly San Antonio Bay all the way over to the Panhandle of Florida.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it.
Okay.
And so, this is going to be a significant help to the farmers just given the lack of seed stock available.
And currently the only facility that produces the seed stock is PMAR?
DR. CAMPBELL: Within Texas.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Within Texas.
DR. CAMPBELL: And they produce diploids.
Now, our farmers have gotten triploids from hatcheries and nurseries in Mississippi and Alabama.
The issue there is those hatcheries… there are fewer Texas farmers than compared to all the other states that allow just Gulf sourced brood stock, so they are on a kind of a lower priority for those businesses. They are going to produce these other ones. There are not as many that are willing to produce the Texas ones, specific Texas ones. So, it would just expand their opportunities.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And are the triploids hardier, more durable, better eating than the diploids?
Is there any distinction in their sustainability of them?
DR. CAMPBELL: I think as a consumer you may not even… you wouldn’t necessarily know if this was a diploid or a triploid. What it is those triploids since they are most… 99 percent are sterile, they are not putting energy and growth towards their gonads so they grow faster in size and, you know, width and everything because they can put it just straight towards growth and not developing gonads.
Then they also do not go through that period when they are spawning where you get oysters that, you know, have all those gametes, or just after they have spawned where they are kind of spent and need to put weight back on. So that is kind of the advantage there– faster growth, year-round harvest quality.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, if I’m a farmer I’ve got the choice between a triploid and diploid, I’d take triploids?
DR. CAMPBELL: Yes, that would be a business decision. Some still do some diploids. Depending on your hatchery, you know, there is a cost associated with getting those tetraploids. But, in general, over longer periods of time it seems that diploids can get to a larger size, which some farmers… there’s a market for that much larger cultivated oyster versus a smaller… not smaller… a… general kind of that half shell, two and a half inch size.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, understood.
All right, well, if I think that there’s no objections I would, ask that we publish this change in the “Texas Register” for public comment and consideration of adoption in our May meeting, as well, with the appropriate sideboards that would allow for triploid seed oysters to be brought in from other Gulf states.
And we talk about potential sunsetting of it, if there’s enough seed stock available in the state at some point in time. So, I would ask that we go out for public comment and consideration.
In addition, Dr. Yoskowitz, it’s been a while since we have had an overview briefing on the oyster industry. Since there have been several changes the Commission has considered in recent months, could we also get a briefing to catch us up on any other activities in the current state of the overall oyster fishery and resource?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, Chairman, we will bring that briefing for May…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: …as well.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, David.
And I think, look, there is a real opportunity here to increase the efficiency in which we are helping oyster farms become established and protect and enhance our natural reef systems.
I would like the Coastal Fisheries Team, in addition, to work with the GLO to establish the application period for the Certificates of Locations leases, and please host public workshops along the coast to prep stakeholders for restoration COLs.
Restoration COLs are a great opportunity to have a significant conservation impact, and we need to do everything we can to make this a successful program.
Two, we want to work with the oyster farmers, the Texas Department of Agriculture, USDA and others to bring crop insurance options to the industry. And third, our state process for permitting oyster farming is effective. I would like the department to solidify those relationships and responsibilities with an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding, between TPWD, TCEQ, GLO and The Department of State Health Services.
A critical piece of the long-term health and recovery of the state’s natural reefs, which belong to everyone, is reducing harvesting pressure. The commercial license buyback effort from willing sellers is key to achieving this. There are currently 546 licenses. Reducing those in a significant manner will help make great strides to our conservation goals.
Dr. Yoskowitz, please go full steam ahead and direct your staff on the buying back of 150 licenses, so we can build on success for future rounds of buyback.
Any comments on all of that?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: So just to make sure I have it clear, we have it coming back in May with two action items. One on the fee reduction and the other on the triploid seed importation from other Gulf states.
Right, so we have…
[ INAUDIBLE COMMENT OFF CAMERA ]
Yes, so that’s going up for publication.
And then the other ones will be an update on the status of the fisheries, as well as moving on those items for MOU’s coordination with other agencies, et cetera.
And then heading north full steam ahead on the buyback that is currently underway.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You bet, you bet.
And coordinating with the GLO. That’s going to be a significant element in all of this as well.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: That’s right.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And I think what I’m generally saying is we really want to take a comprehensive look. And it’s a four-pillar process, I think, in order to get to the restoration of oyster reefs in the Gulf Coast, and to still allow the mariculture and oyster industry to thrive.
But I think it’s going to take multiple parts: from buybacks, to farming, to CLOs– or COLs– to working with the various agencies. And so, I really, David, am hopeful that the department will drive that change over the next six months. And, clearly, let’s come back with some actions in May.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Will do.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great, all right.
Thank you very much.
DR. CAMPBELL: And I can give an update for the crop insurance. I have been speaking with the USDA, and in talks with them on how that would work. And working with them to… when that would be able to roll out. It has to take at least four years of records from the farmers, so we’re about a year away from that. But we have been speaking with them and making sure we know what we need to tell our farmers; records they can keep and helping them in tailoring their crop insurance program for our state.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And so, we think…I mean, crop insurance is a viable option that will… that ultimately, we can provide, or will be provided?
DR. CAMPBELL: Yes, through the USDA, yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And that’s significant for the farmers, isn’t it?
DR. CAMPBELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Because I suspect… on a percentage basis, how often are they kind of wiped out by, you know, various natural events?
DR. CAMPBELL: Well, this past summer we had three… four locations that were within the direct impact zone of Beryl. So, they were applying and working on getting ELAP, emergency ELAP coverage for those. And then others that were affected by… less affected, but also affected by those storms. So, I’m hesitant to say, you know, a percentage of time. It all… has to do with what…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Natural disasters, right?
DR. CAMPBELL: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Which are unpredictable.
And then finally, Dr. Campbell, what we’ve outlined here today, kind of a multitude of different initiatives.
Do you think this is a constructive step in the right way to help the oyster system, the reefs in… on the Gulf Coast and get us to a better place?
DR. CAMPBELL: I think the department is always pursuing multiple avenues to help with our ecosystem health, which includes reefs, and also trying to be able to sustain and protect those businesses and commercial fisherman that rely on those reefs for their living. So, I think all of these, you know, these multiple initiatives that we’ve outlined and that we continue to work on definitely are there to help our reefs and our ecosystems.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay.
Last question.
So, if you were king for a day, is there anything else that you would do to push the initiative forward?
DR. CAMPBELL: That’s a difficult question, you know.
I think there is many things we could do.
Speaking just from the lens of the COM programming, you know, being able getting that working relationship better– or not better– with the federal. That’s kind of a lag in the permitting, but that’s not something we have much control over.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Certainly, on the federal side.
But from the state side, anything else we should be doing from the state side?
DR. CAMPBELL: I think these are all great initiatives to push forward and further streamline what we’ve already established.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Wonderful.
All right.
Thanks, Dr. Campbell.
And let’s push ahead.
All right.
Work Session Item No. 11: Disposition Of Land– Williamson County– Approximately 56 acres at Twin Lakes Park– Request Permission To Begin The Public Notice and Input Process.
Mr. Stan David?
STAN DAVID: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Stan David with the Land Conservation Program.
This Commission item is about a disposition of land in Williamson County.
Approximately 56 acres at what we call Twin Lakes Park.
Red star shows Williamson County.
There’s a zoom‑in on Williamson County and kind of the location of the Twin Lakes Park.
The Twin Lakes Park is located in Cedar Park and has been jointly operated by Williamson County and the YMCA for 30 years. Twin Lakes Park offers pavilions, a swimming pool/water playscape, multi-purpose sports fields, an archery range, a beach/swimming area, a sand volleyball courts, a ropes course, and an outdoor education area.
In 1994, the Texas Department of Transportation, which we call TxDOT, transferred ownership to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department via a Transfer of Jurisdiction Agreement. This agreement was to allow Williamson County the ability to operate 50 acres of what is now Twin Lakes Park.
In 2012, TxDOT transferred an additional six acres to TPWD, which was added to the park.
TPWD now seeks to transfer full ownership of the property to Williamson County, the full 56 acres.
Transferring the property to the county will reduce operational oversight responsibilities on TPWD while not diminishing the property or reducing the quality of services provided by Williamson County.
As a condition of the transfer, Williamson County will be required to continue to operate the property as a public park.
Here is a zoomed‑in area of the park.
You can see the surface structures on that area outlined in red there.
The request… staff requests permission to begin the public notice and input process.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you guys might have.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Thank you.
Any questions for Mr. David?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
Can you clarify, are any fees involved in this transfer, or anything like that?
MR. DAVID: Not that we’re planning on.
We are at the very beginning stages.
But this is just a transfer, or a quitclaim deed.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So, it’s just going to be… because they’ve largely been operating that for this time, and we’ve just kind of been, I guess…
MR. DAVID: The landlord.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …the landlord, if you will.
And so, there’s no practical implication on us, or change in use.
And there’s been no cost to us.
MR. DAVID: Right.
It’s all operated by Williamson County.
We’re just going to let them own the property.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?
I’m certainly not opposed to it.
But what’s the purpose?
Why does Williamson County want the land ownership?
Is there any benefit to them?
MR. DAVID: Rodney, would you like to…
Thank you, Sir.
RODNEY FRANKLIN: For the record, Rodney Franklin, State Parks Director.
The Williamson County Park Director, Russell Fishbeck, former employee here, reached out to the department just to remove another layer of oversight. They have been operating the park, and we’ve been a silent partner, if you will. But, we do have to approve certain things that come up every now and then.
As long as they are operating as a park, we are okay with this transfer.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
And we’re going to require them to operate, in a part, in perpetuity?
MR. FRANKLIN: In perpetuity.
Yes, Sir.
That’s going to be part of the terms of the transfer.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
Okay.
Wonderful.
Let’s… certainly, let’s make it as easy and quick and cost effective as we can for them.
MR. FRANKLIN: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, great.
Thanks.
If there are no further questions, I’ll authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.
All right.
Work Session Item Nos. 9, 10, 12‑15 will be heard Executive Session.
At this time, I would like to announce that Pursuant to the Requirements of Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as the Open Meetings Act, an Executive Session will be held at this time for the purpose of Deliberation of Real Estate Matters under section 551.072 of the Open Meetings Act and Seeking Legal Advice under Section 551.071 of the Open Meetings Act, including Advice Regarding Pending or Contemplated Litigation.
We will now recess for the Executive Session at 11:10 A.M.
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]
[ BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Are we all here?
We ready?
Okay, good.
[ INAUDIBLE VOICES OFF CAMERA }
All right.
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]
We will now reconvene the Work Session on March 26, 2025, at 12:42 p.m.
Before we begin, I will take roll.
Hildebrand, present.
Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Abell?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Doggett?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Foster?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Patton?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Rowling?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.
We are now returning from the Executive Session where we discussed the Work Session Real Estate Item Nos. 9, 10, 12‑14, and Litigation Item No. 15. If there are no further questions, I’ll place Item Nos. 9 and 10 on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Regarding Item Nos. 12‑15, no further action is needed at this time.
Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its Work Session business.
And I declared us adjourned at 12:49 p.m.
Thank you.
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]