TPW Commission
Work Session, August 20, 2025
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
August 20, 2025
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I’d like to take roll call.
I’m Chairman Paul Foster.
Present.
Vice-Chairman Oliver Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN OLIVER BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Leslie Doggett?
COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT? Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Anna Galo?
COMMISSIONER ANNA GALO? Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner John McCall?
COMMISSIONER JOHN A. McCALL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Bobby Patton?
COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Blake Rowling?
Not present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Dick Scott?
COMMISSIONER DICK SCOTT: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And Commissioner Tim Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
This meeting is called to order on August 20, 2025, at 9:13 a.m.
Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the Office of the Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551 Government Code referred to as The Open Meetings Act. I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Commissioners, as a reminder, please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak.
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 Recreational Plan.
We’ll do an Internal Affairs update.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I think you want to introduce… I think the page before….
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, did I skip a page? Pardon me. I skipped an entire page.
I would like– and this is most appropriate– I would like to recognize our new Commissioner, John McCall.
Commissioner McCall, would you like to tell us a little bit about yourself?
COMMISSIONER JOHN A. McCALL: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I’m from Crockett, Texas. I’m a deep east Texas boy. I like to tell everybody I was born in Crockett, former Mayor of Crockett. I’m more Crockett than Davey. He just stopped on the way to the Alamo.
[ LAUGHTER ]
I’m coming off the U of H Board of Regents. I was the… my last three years I was Secretary Chair, Treasurer, Vice-Chair and Chair, and came straight on to here.
I graduated from University of Houston. I got my Doctor of Optometry there and then went on and became a… and do some glaucoma surgery now. That’s primarily, you know, what I do.
I patented the number one lens in the world that we use for glaucoma surgery. I thought it was common sense, but I guess nobody thought about it before me.
I’m Senior Vice President of Vision Source, which is one of the largest doctor networks in the world and have a scope and a rifle business because I use my knowledge of optics and did that.
But beyond all of that, I grew up on the Trinity River. So, we start talking about Trinity River, now I’ve been all over that. So, I’m glad to be here.
I’m a big hunter. I’ve hunted all over the world. Probably 40 worldwide safaris. And I’m just glad to be here and bring any knowledge that I’ve got to the Commission, and sure proud to be here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, thank you.
And welcome. And we all look forward to working very closely with you.
Yep.
Before we proceed, I’d like to announce that Work Session Item No. 5: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session– Senate Bill 1245– Relating to the Take of Aoudad Sheep by Using a Helicopter– Recommendation… the Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes has been withdrawn from today’s agenda, and we’ll address it at a later date.
The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous Work Session held May 21, 2025. These have already been distributed.
Is there a motion for approval?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Perfect.
Thank you.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF AYES ]
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries.
Work Session Item No. 1.
Back to where I was a minute ago.
Update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Progress in Implementing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan.
Dr. Yoskowitz?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, welcome…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: …to the Chairmanship.
It’s great to have you there.
Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
I would like to provide you an update germane to the land and water-related plans and functions inside the department. As is customary, I will start off with an Internal Affairs update.
On May 30, Major Mike Durand and Assistant Commander Jarret Barker and Captain Joel Parker attended the 67th Game Warden and State Park Police Cadet graduation ceremony.
Society.
On June 11, Assistant Commander Barker participated in the yearly agency-wide emergency management tabletop exercise that simulated a large‑scale natural disaster response.
And then on June 25, Major Durand, Captain Parker and Captain Cody Hatfield participated in a one-day advanced law enforcement rapid response training, or alert, update at the Llano County sheriff’s office.
The one-day update was part of the alerts solo officer response course designed to provide the solo officer with the knowledge, physical skills and mindset on how to isolate, distract or neutralize an armed threat like an active shooter.
The Office of Internal Affairs has updated their footprint on the TPWD web page. The update included the current information on the Office of Internal Affairs process and the complaint and resolution process, and how to file a complaint in both English and Spanish. That includes a new version of the official complaint form.
Next, I want to spend some time discussing the department’s flood response update. And I’ll open this up, introduce some of the work that the department had participated in, and then I’ll ask Rodney Franklin, our State Parks Division Director, and Colonel Ron VanderRoest to come up and share the response from each of their respective divisions.
The department takes the preparation for response to emergencies with a high level of professionalism, whether it be on our 750,000 acres of wildlife management areas that we steward at the 89 state parks that almost have ten million visitors a year, or the 10,000 square miles of surface water that we patrol.
Our emergency preparation includes our own facilities and properties, but as important is the expertise and assets that we bring to respond to disasters across the state, such as the July 4 flooding events.
I was informed by our Colonel on July 3 that the State Operations Center had been activated in anticipation of heavy rainfall across the Hill country. And that game warden personnel and assets had been prepositioned for response. And state parks were activating their emergency management plans at the same time.
In the early hours of July 4, myself and the Colonel were in communication about our search and rescue response. And at the same time, state parks were already moving people out of harm’s way, anticipating the flooding waters that would be coming down river.
C.O.O. Craig Bonds and I were in regular contact with our teams, trying to be helpful, but also providing the space that they needed to do their work.
In the early afternoon of July 4, I joined our Colonel and Game Wardens and state park police as a response was starting to hit full stride in Kerrville. But the game wardens had been there active since the very early morning hours, and more were arriving every minute.
The team had established a needed command presence, getting assets on the water and in the air for search and rescue operations.
Craig and I joined the team again in Kerrville on July 7, at the Unified Emergency Operations Center, and we also assessed the impact to several of our state parks over the next couple of days.
The efficiency and effectiveness of our response was supported by so many others within the department, but importantly, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation’s S. Reed Morian Gear-Up for Game Wardens, where they drop-shipped much‑needed equipment, including 200 waterproof boots, 250 pairs of work gloves, 240 safety glasses, gear packs, hydration bladders and propeller blades that were getting damaged as search and rescue inflatables were working the water.
But the Foundation did more than that. They stood ready to help our TPWD family members that were impacted by the flood through their disaster relief grants. And help was needed.
As one of our game wardens was responding for search and rescue support, his house had been flooded. The Foundation stepped in with lightning speed, granting meaningful financial assistance and making a tough situation much more bearable.
I’m very proud of the response of our game wardens, state park police and state park staff, as I know you are. They did an incredible job under unbelievable conditions.
Next, I’ll invite Rodney Franklin up to share State Parks’ response in a little bit more detail. And then Ron VanderRoest will follow after him.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you
Rodney?
RODNEY FRANKLIN: Good morning.
And congratulations, Chairman Foster.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
MR. FRANKLIN: Welcome, Commissioner McCall. Fellow Commissioners, for the record, my name is Rodney Franklin. I’m the State Parks Director. And I’ll be walking through the response for the state parks’ team in the wake of the devastating flooding that happened in the Hill country.
As Director Yoskowitz laid out, massive effort by a lot of people. And our state parks team enacted their emergency protocols. And fortunately for us– I know there’s a lot of damage in that area– but fortunately for us we were able to move people out of harm’s way, resulting in no injuries or visitor property damage at all. So, that was… we were fortunate in that way.
But I just commend our staff for being proactive about getting our visitors out of harm’s way on a very busy holiday weekend. So, we’ll walk through how that transpired throughout the event.
The picture you see there on the right is Guadalupe River State Park on July 4. So, that picture is from the impacts of the flooding. But our efforts really started prior to that, the day before.
We have a State Park’s Emergency Management Specialist that really keeps… His job is to keep an eye on dangerous situations and was keeping an eye on the weather. He was plugged into the State Operations Center, and getting information and real-time reports not only from the weather service, but reports from the SOC.
But the important part of that was communicating all that information to our park superintendents, our lead rangers and staff on the ground, and also our regional team state park leadership, and also TPWD leadership.
So, that communication was the first part of our superintendents and staff on the ground enacting their emergency protocols.
So, they activated those emergency protocols and kept in constant contact with the Emergency Management Specialists, and started to think about moving equipment, staging equipment, as well as notifying campers that were at the various… we had 22 parks in total that were impacted by the rain event.
Some of the tools and resources that we use for that is mobile weather apps. Of course, there’s a list there that I will let you read.
I’ve already mentioned the SOC Awareness Reports that come from the state of Texas, the National Weather Service as well. But I want to talk a little bit about the importance of the data we get from the various river gauges. That’s a part of our emergency management plan.
That data really informs what is happening at our state parks, and when it will happen, with regard to low‑lying areas, and how the river will impact some of our campsites and day use areas that are close to the rivers.
And then on-site observation. There’s a lot of history with flooding at our various parks, so our superintendents and park staff are aware of that as well.
So, they’re gauging things as it’s happening in real time. But the most important part is relaying all that information to visitors that we have in state parks.
So, we had to move people out of the low‑lying areas and get them to high ground, and in some cases evacuate parks because some of the low-water crossings really cut off access and exits to state parks. So, we evacuated folks ahead of that using the data that we had.
So… and then also our visitors, of course, who were monitoring weather with their personal cell phones as well. So, a lot of communications happening.
The picture you see there is Pedernales Falls, a state park. And the river was as high as I’d ever seen it even a few days later when Craig Bonds and Dr. Yoskowitz and I viewed that area.
So, as I mentioned, there were 22 state parks in total that were impacted. Some of the stats you will see.
124 campsites evacuated or relocated, 329 people. We had to cancel some events, of course. One of our busiest holiday times is the Fourth of July.
And another thing I want to talk about– because it played into the response– canceling those overnight reservations prior to people coming to that area was big for us. So, we activated our central… our central reservation system to contact visitors. They contacted 237 overnight visitors. Our customer service center contacted 658 day use visitors.
And there was a little bit of an impact to our revenue, of course, with those refunds that we did. But I do want to point out that overall for the year visitation and revenue is still up because it’s been a good… a good year compared to last year.
We’ve got about two more weeks to go, so we’ll see how that goes. But the impact to the Hill country, obviously, was an impact. But it didn’t severely impact our overall visitation and revenue.
A couple of things to note. We had some parks that were obviously impacted more than others and had some extended closures. Like Inks Lake, San Angelo and Colorado Bend had… really was one of the most impacted. We’ll see some damage from some roads.
That bottom picture there is a low water crossing at Inks Lake, so it took a while to get some of that debris cleaned up. And Guadalupe River at the top there.
And throughout this time, we were in constant communication with the State Operations Center. And we got a chance to see some of that with Craig and Dr. Yoskowitz, some of the damage. And we’ll see a few pictures of that a little bit later.
This is some of that effort. As we recovered, some of the reasons that some parks were closed a little bit longer…You can see there Colorado Bend had some road damage. You know, ultimately, we were able to cone that area off and still have access to the park.
But a lot of debris cleanup. And most of the debris was natural in nature. It was big logs, big trees that had come down the river that we had to clean up. We had trees in the tops of trees that we had to… could present an unsafe situation as well. So, it took us a while to get things cleaned up from that perspective.
But I was just talking to our infrastructure team. Not a lot of major facility damage. It was mainly debris. We had to replace some signs.
We were able because of our proactive work move a lot of our facilities out of the floodplain areas. So, we lost a few picnic tables, but we didn’t lose them all because we were able to move a lot of those.
So, we still have some road repair that we’ll work with TxDOT to do. We have some erosion on some trails that we will continue to do. We’ll replace some signs and continue our trail restoration. But, all in all, we were able to open up parks by July 26.
The picture you see there, some of the cleanup effort happening at Inks Lake. Cleaning up the boat ramp. Guadalupe River. You can see how some of the trees just got… it was just a torrent of water and a rush of water that came through that area. And you see some of the damage to the roadway there.
Just a little bit of our effort for the state park police team, mainly focused on making sure our visitors were safe in state parks.
You will hear a little bit more about the massive effort that took place in that area, the game wardens leading that effort.
Our teams were embedded in some of the dive teams that were responding. Some of the search and rescue did some drone operations to support the larger effort. But a lot of focus on helping the local authorities in and around state parks, but also making sure our visitors and staff were safe inside state parks. So, helping facilitate a safe evacuation and relocation effort was a lot of the focus.
Helping us close roads, because that was a big part, too. We had to monitor those low‑lying areas. We didn’t want people going into those areas where water was rushing across the road, and they were going to try to do that. So, our park police officers were instrumental in closing that off to keep people safe and keep people out of unsafe areas.
And then just continuing to monitor visitor activity to make sure not only our staff was safe, but the visitors were safe.
And then lastly, I wanted to touch on some of what is being discussed statewide. It’s a big effort to talk about some of the things we can look at to do better. And some of the… some of the things that state parks… and we’ve been talking with IT and our TPWD leadership about some things that were really critical for us. And the biggest thing was communication.
There will be a lot of talk in the legislature about communication and just having cell phone capability. So, we’re working with IT to boost cell phone signals where we can. A lot of our parks are remote, and so our technology to connect to Wi-Fi can be limited. But we’re going to take advantage of satellite communications to help with that in some of our remote areas.
We’ve started that process already. But it just underscores the importance of continuing to expand that effort for satellite communication.
Because we use communication to call Microsoft teams to have our emergency alerts teams all communicating at the same time. And that really requires Wi-Fi to do that. So, we’re looking at that.
There’s a lot of conversation about audible alarm systems that the counties and the state may implement. And if that happens, we’ll certainly take advantage of that to help as an early warning system in addition to what we’re already doing.
And the same is true of our… the river gauges. The river data is really critical for us. The river authorities like LCRA and GBRA are responsible for those. And we’ll see if they have the ability to add more river gauges to give us more data. But if they do, certainly we’ll take advantage of that. Because that was critical in telling us how long we have to move people when a river gauge was at a certain point upriver from us.
So, our teams use that a lot and use communications with local authorities as well.
And then other things. Just signage to help with evacuation. We’re looking at increasing the amount of signage. So, instead of leading people out and directing traffic, we might be able to use signage to help let people know where they need to go.
And then lastly, just portable PA systems. We have those embedded in our vehicles, mainly with our law enforcement. But we may expand that so that rangers can go through campgrounds making announcements to let people know where they can go or what’s on the way.
So, we’ll use a combination of all those things to make… hopefully we won’t have to do this again. But if we do, we’ll be even better prepared.
So, with that, I will turn things over to Colonel VanderRoest, unless there are any questions for me. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Rodney.
I would just… before we go on, just want to offer my comments and express how proud I am as Chairman, and the entire Commission, of the response that you guys stood up. I know it was quite an effort. There was a lot of emotional toll and physical toll as well.
And it’s very impressive what you guys were able to accomplish. And just the willingness that you all demonstrated to jump in and do whatever was necessary is very much appreciated and acknowledged by all of us. So, thank you.
MR. FRANKLIN: I appreciate those words, Chairman. I really do. Because not just for me, but for the people actually on the ground doing exactly what you said. It’s one thing for me to help support from afar, but those boots on the ground are really critical. And I know they appreciate your words, too, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you. And then the other quick comment is– and it seems like we say this every meeting– but I just can’t express how thankful we are for the Foundation, and how no matter what our department is doing they’re always there. So, I want to make sure we acknowledge that as well. So, thank you.
MR. FRANKLIN: I completely agree.
Any other questions?
Ah, okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Chairman Bell?
MR. FRANKLIN: All right.
Thank you.
RON VANDERROEST: Chairman, congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
MR. VANDERROEST: Commissioners, welcome. For the record, my name is Ron VanderRoest, and I’m the Director of the Law Enforcement Division. Thank you for the opportunity to spend a few minutes summarizing what our law enforcement team was able to do during the July 4 floods.
To that end, I’d like to talk about the role that game wardens play in the state’s framework of disaster. You know, specifically, obviously, the flooding event is the first thing in what’s on our mind. But to remind everybody that game wardens respond to every single natural disaster that occurs in the state– hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, all of those things are purview to what we do for the state of Texas. We sit and have a permanent seat on the Texas Division of Emergency Management’s Council, which advises the government at the activation of the SOC as to state’s resources and responses that can occur at that time. To that end, game wardens serve on the frontline to that response.
The uniqueness that we have as Texas game wardens is the fact that we have a law enforcement capacity combined with the ability to perform really critical technical search and rescue operations.
And the third piece of that pivot that we have is the ability to respond very, very quickly, and quicker than any other agency or any other program that is in the state of Texas.
And so, oftentimes, you’ll hear both the Governor, Chief Nim Kidd and Emergency Management referred to Texas game wardens as the Swiss Army knife of the state. And so, they’ve utilized us in that capacity. And I’ll illustrate how the July 4 floods we did exactly that.
First, I’d like to show you… this a real quick video clip. I know everybody has seen lots of video of Kerrville and what occurred. This is a video that is from our helicopter on July 4.
This area is just south of Camp Mystic, which I know everybody in here is probably familiar with. And our goal is to show just… not just the devastation, but look at the water line and the debris line in some of these trees to really express the magnitude of this type of a flood.
As you can see looking at the debris line, an unbelievable amount of water came down the Guadalupe River at that time.
So, as a reminder, just over 550 game wardens stationed in 254 counties across the state all trained in both law enforcement and all hazard responses. Particularly during our flooding events, the assets and equipment that responded to this– we’re talking 4x4 patrol vehicles, UTVs, ATVs, a vast boat fleet of both the shallow draft boats, swift water boats, air boats, were all deployed during this process.
In addition, both of our helicopters– they’re hoist capable– responded in the early morning hours to this event.
Our K9 units were both served in both tracking purposes as well as in the recovery efforts that were there. Thousands of unmanned aerial hours were put in both as mapping and as search and recovery processes. And, again, our dive team and tactical teams were involved in the process as well.
So, just to kind of summarize on the July 4 events. One of the unique pieces that I explained earlier was the fact that, you know, we’re a quick response force for the state of Texas.
To that end, as the SOC became activated on July 3, we took a pre-deployment posture and moved swift water assets to where we believed could quickly respond in case of a disaster.
In this particular deployment, it worked and paid off as far as where… both in Kerrville and across the other affected counties that were there.
So we had our swift water teams pre-deployed. And usually that means we try to find the spot that we can deploy within 30 to 45 minutes, and get in the water and start making rescues and saving people. So, that included both the Guadalupe, Concho and San Gabriel River Basins that existed there.
And so, as those teams early in the morning became pre-deployed, we learned of the flooding that actually started to begin early morning hours of July 4. Those teams swiftly became into action, began actively rescuing.
We also launched our aviation team. Both helicopters began hoisting in some very, very technical‑type hoist situations that were second to none that I’ve never seen before in my 25 years.
So, within hours, we had over 169 game wardens responding to Kerrville, with over 200 pieces of equipment actively engaged in search and rescue.
And so, as those teams worked across the flooding events all across those river basins, in total for the Hill country response, we had over 375 Texas game wardens mobilized and active involved in search and rescue operations; 475 pieces of equipment that were utilized.
And these numbers here don’t really necessarily reflect the…I guess, the magnitude of what happened. But those 33 lifesaving water rescues were… would have resulted in fatalities if we hadn’t had been there, there’s no doubt about it, that occurred.
The 434 evacuations that were attempted, the mass majority of those came from Camp Mystic. And that… and I’m sure many of you have seen the videos of the game wardens that strategized to work their way in there in some pretty extreme conditions. And so, we continued throughout the rest of the week– and still as of this day– working with the communities to fill voids and continue to help them recover.
To that end, Texas game wardens stand ready to protect Texas as well as its resources. I’m happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And again, kind of same comments offered to Rodney. We just couldn’t be more proud of all that you guys have done. And it just makes us realize just how well prepared and well trained your whole team is. And much appreciated.
MR. VANDERROEST: Yes, Sir.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any comments from the Commission?
Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell you how heartfelt it is for me to know the game wardens are out there helping like you did. One of my best friends lost his granddaughter at Camp Mystic.
And it’s terrible when we ever lose a child’s life, but what really touches you when you watch that child be born and… and the response that you have out there, you know, and now what the legislature is doing to hopefully, you know, address this so won’t ever happen again.
But I just want you to know how much… I don’t think the state of Texas… It’s been a long‑time since we followed the catastrophic event minute by minute like we have followed this one. And you guys were right at the helm of it, and we appreciate it.
MR. VANDERROEST: Thank you, Sir.
Yeah, 25-plus years of working pretty much every emergency natural disaster that occurred in the state– heroic efforts by the team. Very, very proud of them.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
MR. VANDERROEST: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Dr. Yoskowitz?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, thank you once again, Rodney and Ron, for sharing that. I… Ron alluded to this a little bit, but I’m going to brag a little bit more.
It’s… Chief Nim Kidd with TDEM just doesn’t think of our game wardens as a Swiss Army knife. The first call that he makes is to our game wardens to jump in, because he knows they can get there and get the job done. So, once again, really appreciate the work that the team has done.
And I will say that you all should know that both the law enforcement game wardens, as well as State Parks, have gone through their after‑action review and reports to see how improvements can be made. And they’ll be sharing that with me in the coming weeks.
And you heard a little bit about that today. Okay, just the last item on my update is Legislative Water Hearing update.
TPWD staff from Wildlife and Coastal Fisheries Water Resources Unit were invited to provide testimony at a House natural resources committee hearing on July 15, 2025, regarding the impact of a high capacity and large volume groundwater production in the Neches and Trinity Valley’s groundwater conservation district.
Testimony centered around TPWD’s partnership with the Tarrant Regional Water District, on the Wetland Water Reuse Project, on the Richland Creek WMA that provides over 105,000‑acre feet of water annually to the Tarrant Regional Water District’s 2.5 million customers, and on the differences between groundwater and surface water.
RedTown Ranch LLC and Pine Bliss LLC each submitted an application to the Neches Trinity’s Valley’s Groundwater Conservation District on April 17, 2025, to drill groundwater wells in Anderson and Henderson counties. Respectively, the wells from both counties could produce up to 15 billion gallons of water per year, with an additional unknown amount from proposed wells in Houston County. Houston County is not within the Groundwater Conservation District.
The Groundwater Conservation District held a public meeting in Jacksonville, Texas, on June 19, 2025, to take public comment and review the applications submitted by RedTown Ranch LLC and Pine Bliss LLC.
It’s at this point the applicants have filed a request to send the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. And Texas Parks and Wildlife, in providing best practices in terms of how to produce water in a responsible manner, provides science expertise and is standing by and willing to help in that process.
So, with that Chairman, I’m happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yes, Sir. I can probably add a little bit of color to this. I’m in Houston County, that you just mentioned, which we’re currently looking at a water district to do this. But this is… this is drilling these wells into the… using the 1904 rule of capture.
I testified at this hearing on that… that David was talking about. And the… it’s the Carrizo and Wilcox Aquifer. And to take 15 billions of gallons a year out of that is going to have some long‑term damage to that aquifer.
I know a lot about it because my ranch is adjacent to the RedTown LLC ranch. And we share a fence line together. So, the…there’s going to be a lot of collateral damage to properties around there; wells that won’t work anymore.
But more than that, I think that we have some spring water that is very prolific. And spring water is controlled by groundwater districts just like groundwater is.
However, the real prolific ones– and we have one out there west of Grapeland, it’s almost legendary, the Hay Springs. That forms the stream, lakes, rivers that comes out of the ground.
To come out of the ground at that rate, you’ve got to have a fissure going down into the Carrizo Aquifer and subsequent pressure pushing that spring water out. So, this is going to… which does bring this under the purview of Parks and Wildlife and what this is going to do to the wildlife when some of these springs stop flowing.
So, I just want to.. It is a very hotly contested issue in east Texas, and I think Parks and Wildlife needs to continue looking at this from the… from the purview of spring water, wildlife, and what it will do to the surface water resulting from that.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Vice-Chairman Bell. Just, David, one thing maybe we can look at. You know, all these issues are going to be important, but we also have to look at, I guess, the statutorily. What’s our jurisdiction? Sometimes, I mean, no matter what, we always offer advice and opinion.
But there are… where it falls in terms of agency jurisdiction or non-jurisdiction, as we go forward to take a look so that… so that if it’s in our lane, we can be all over it. If it’s not in our lane, we have to follow the rules and find whatever it is that, you know, we might need to do to have a positive impact for all the parties involved.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Sure. Let me bring up James Murphy, General Council, to kind of give just a quick overview.
JAMES MURPHY: Yeah, thank you, Vice-Chairman.
For the record, James Murphy, General Council with the department. You’re correct. There are some limits to our authority, especially around groundwater resources. We don’t have a direct regulatory role over groundwater or artesian springs, or other springs. But, certainly, we are a science agency and we have information that we can offer on that, you know, as we did at the hearing on the 15th of July.
So one thing that I’ll mention is, of course, the presence of, you know, listed species, threatened and endangered species. So, we have a role to play in the habitat conservation plan. For example, for the Karst salamanders in the Edwards Aquifer.
But in a situation like this we’re really born of a science role. And so, we do have authority under the Parks and Wildlife code, Chapter 12, to write comment letters to permitting authorities like a Groundwater Conservation District.
And so, that might be one thing that we could look at in the future is, you know, a comment letter describing some of our scientific concerns. But we don’t have that direct regulatory role, as you point out. So, happy to answer any additional questions on that.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Any other comments or questions?
I… we’ve had some discussions about it previous to this, and I had kind of wanted to be sure that we were staying in our lane, which James always makes sure that we do.
[ LAUGHTER ]
And… but it is.. it’s important not just to our parks and wildlife areas, and all that, but to the state and to landowners and to just general kind of welfare wildlife and everything else. So, it is an important issue, and we need to make sure we stay close to it. So, thank you.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I’d like to add one other thing, Chairman.
Maybe as just a play on words, in terms… maybe for now we can call this “brackish water.” And… because obviously there’s not clear jurisdiction on this… how far we can go into it, but there’s some exploratory things that can be done to see, you know, what makes the most sense. So, also that we’re adhering the best practices and trying to make sure no one gets abused in the process, I guess is the biggest thing.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Vice-Chairman.
We’re definitely keeping an eye on this project, and as well as the permitting authority there, the Groundwater District. And we’ll continue to update as appropriate.
All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, thank you.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: And then the last thing I would like to announce is that our November 5 and 6 Commission will be held in El Paso. We tried to get this going last year. We had that November meeting in Corpus Christi, and we’re happy to announce that it will be in El Paso.
Thank you to Chairman Foster for helping us with a number of the logistics. We’ll be there at the convention center’s plaza.
Great opportunity. I’ve talked with the team.
We don’t… nobody remembers any time that the Commission has been out to El Paso, at least in recent history, so this is a great opportunity to share the story of the work that the department does and Commission does with our El Pasoans.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And we’re very proud to have you there, and look forward to it. I will say this isn’t because I’m Chairman…
[ LAUGHTER ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: No, it’s not. It was on the books before.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: This was already in the works well ahead of that, so…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And I’m proud to have you come that way.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yes.
We look forward to it. And that concludes my presentation, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Any other comments or questions before we move on?
Okay, Work Session Item No. 2: Financial Overview.
Reggie Pegues.
I guess I’m supposed to read all this stuff beforehand.
Briefing on Legislative Appropriations Request for Fiscal Year ’26, ’27.
Fiscal Year 2026 Operating and Capital Budget and Approval and Other Items.
I don’t know that I need to go through all these, so I’ll just turn over to Reggie.
So, thank you.
REGGIE PEGUES: I’ll take care of it for you.
[ LAUGHTER ]
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations. Vice-Chairman, Commissioners. Welcome Commissioner McCall. For the record, my name is Reggie Pegues, Chief Financial Officer. And this morning I’ll be presenting the financial overview covering the following topics.
A crosswalk from a Legislative Appropriation Request, or LAR, which was submitted last September, and I covered in the November Commission meeting to the final approved conference committee members, also known as The General Appropriations Act, for the ’26, ’27 biennium.
Also, I’ll be covering the following items that will be presented as action items tomorrow: FY26 operating and capital budget, budget and investment policies; a state park list for performance measures; and deposit options for 15 percent of boat revenues.
This first slide is a crosswalk beginning with the agency’s LAR baseline request of $1 billion at the very top. And the following adjustments were made during the legislative session. At first there was a $43.5 million reduction by the legislative budget board for items they considered one time in nature.
Subsequent to that we have a following adjustments:
$5 million to address employee compensation. $2 million for access and conservation of fisheries and wildlife resources. This is for angler access, hatchery repair and flounder production. Also, an additional three FTEs were added. $70 million to expand and modernize the game warden presence, including the 50-hour work week, aircraft operations and patrol vehicles.
Next, we have $20.8 million in additional sporting goods sales tax based on an update at biennium revenue estimate by the comptroller. $37.8 million in direct grants, including $10 million for Robb Elementary Memorial, and $7 million for the Battleship Texas.
And we also have 106 FTEs for our state park’s division. Including Article IX provisions, this brings our biennium appropriation to $1.1 billion and 3,269.9 FTEs. This is a $96 million increase, or 9.5 percent increase, of the prior biennium.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But before you move on, can I just ask a quick question. We go through these numbers and sometimes they’re not… it’s not all that obvious where all of them come from. But where it shows the LBB adjustments to base, the $43.5 million reduction…
MR. PEGUES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …what is that process? How does that… how do we get that number?
MR. PEGUES: So, the way that process works, we submit our LAR in September, and it goes to the Legislative Budget Board and their staff.
And in recent years – this is something relatively new– they’ll go in and they’ll try and… they’ll try and establish our base for ’26, ’27, and they’ll go in and they’ll audit items that they deem one term in nature that shouldn’t reoccur in the next biennium.
And so, they’ll pull those items off. Typically, things like one-time construction. Some of those directed grants, they’ll take those off the total with the intent of the FY26, ’27 base being just enough to operate the agency going forward.
And then we have the opportunity, via our exception items, to add some of those items back in. And so, of that $43.5, some of those items were subsequently added back in, either in the base bill or in the subsequent appropriations that I’ll cover later.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, so it reduces the base, but we didn’t necessarily lose the money. And some of them are added back as one-time items, as opposed to…
MR. PEGUES: Yeah, for example, our transportation. They pulled that out of the base, but we have the opportunity to ask for that same capital transportation item again.
In this instance it was cut… it was funded in the House Bill 500 Supplemental Bill. So, we do have the opportunity to ask for those items again.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, thanks.
MR. PEGUES: This next slide is a breakup by method of finance of fiscal year.
You’ll see 2026, $576 million, which when we go into operating budget for ’26, I’ll cover in greater detail.
And $537 million in 2027.
2026 is slightly higher because of those one‑time grants that I mentioned for the memorial, Battleship Texas.
Those are typically front loaded in the first year of the biennium.
In terms of method of finance, 57 percent of the agency is funded by general revenue.
30.5 percent is funded from our GR dedicated, which is our… includes our state park accounts, 64, and our game and fish water safety account, Fund 9.
Next we have federal funds of 11.6 percent.
Those will be adjusted as we move through the year, as we receive what we consider our final apportionments.
And other funds.
These are things like appropriated receipts, donations, which someone mentioned earlier, interagency contracts.
And it gives us our total for the biennium.
This next slide is the House Bill 500 supplemental bill that I referenced.
The House… the supplemental bill, or additional appropriations for the current fiscal year, FY25, based on remaining balances.
And so, for the department we got $99.4 million in supplemental funding for FY25.
That includes $62 million in directed grants.
And these are kind of one-time grants directed to specific entities.
$21 million for much needed critical HQ repairs.
And $9 million for vehicle purchases.
This was a slight restoration of a portion of the $42.3 that they cut earlier.
And since it’s so late in the fiscal year, our supplemental funding is for FY25.
But we typically expend those funds in FY26 and ’27.
So, at our future Commission meeting you’ll see an adjustment to bring those remaining funds into the ’26, ’27 budget.
Next, we’re going to focus on the FY26 operating and capital budget, which will be presented as an Action Item tomorrow.
This first slide is a crosswalk from the General Appropriations Act, or GAA, to the operating budget of FY26.
Starting with Article VI, which is the appropriated article that includes TPWD, we have a base appropriation of $573.5 million.
Next, we have $2.5 million in Article IX in general provisions for directed local grants, and $83.4 million for payroll‑related costs such as retirement, insurance and social security. This gives us the total proposed original budget of $659.8 million.
And since our budget is somewhat dynamic we will… the budget will be adjusted throughout the fiscal year based on certain adjustments. I’d like to just point out some of these adjustments in advance so when they occur you’re familiar with them. These adjustments are typically then to update estimates contained in our original budget or any additional funding.
These adjustments include:
Any unexpended construction funds from the prior biennium, any additional federal funds. Again, our federal funds are estimated. We’ll get our final apportionment somewhere in February. And we will adjust usually upwards to address those additional funds.
Fringe Adjustments. Based on payroll, our fringe amounts for retirement insurance are adjusted periodically through the fiscal year. Six percent salary increase for licensed attorneys. We’re still calculating them out. Once that amount is known, we’ll increase our budget to fund that.
Additional sporting good sales tax. The comptroller does an estimate periodically. And based on what we have budgeted for sporting goods sales tax, and what the estimate is, we’ll typically… we can adjust our budget. Usually it’s upwards to appropriate the additional funding.
And Article IX Provisions. These are things like donations reimbursement, interagency contracts. We’re lucky to have a flood of donations to the agency, and so we’ll typically budget those in as they are approved by the Commission.
This next slide is a breakup by method of finance as contained in your Exhibit A. Going around the chart we start with general revenue, including sporting goods sales tax at $384 million, the large blue block.
Going around we have Account 9, which is the game, fish and water safety account, at 23 percent, which consists primarily of hunting, fishing licenses, and boat-related revenues.
Next, we have Account 64, which is the state park’s account, at 7 percent, consisting of park revenues and entrance fees.
Next, we have federal funds, at 11 percent, which will be adjusted during the fiscal year for the apportionments that I mentioned. And the 1 percent for the appropriate receipts that are interagency contracts, and also license plate funds that we distribute.
Next, we’ll drill further into the budget. This is a view of our budget by object of expense, contained in your Exhibit B.
We have salaries at $269.4 million. This makes up the largest category, at 40.8 percent. Operating is next, at 19.8 percent. We have grants making up 10 percent of the budget, with the majority, $59 million, being in local parks for pass-through grants. And capital of $110 million, which I’ll cover in greater detail in a later slide.
These next two slides are a breakout of the division budget, your Exhibit B, by dollar amounts and full‑time equivalents, or FTEs.
You’ll see that law enforcement in state parks represent the largest categories in both dollar amount and FTEs. And I will go in greater detail for the department-wide budget in a later slide.
Here is our first set of divisions… remaining divisions with a total budget of $659.8, and our new FTE cap of 3,269.9.
This next slide is a breakout of our department-wide budget. This is a special budget. It’s a place holder, or clearinghouse division, for items that don’t typically lend themselves specifically to a division, or are agency-wide in nature.
First, we have estimated federal apportionment for wildlife restoration and sport fish restoration. Again, this will be impacted by our final apportionments.
Salary increase holding to be allocated to the actual divisions as we move throughout the fiscal year. Payments to our licensed agents. These are department stores, sporting goods stores where you can purchase a license.
Strategic reserve. These are for special initiatives or emergencies that occur throughout the fiscal year.
And finally, pass‑through plates. These are revenue for speciality plates that we pass through to nonprofits.
This next slide is a breakout of the capital budget as appropriated. We have land acquisition of $15.1 million, construction and major repairs of $43 million, state parks minor repairs at $15.3 million, information technology, including PC replacement, of $14.1 million, transportation items of $16.2 million– these are for vessels, boats and UTVs– and capital equipment of $5.5 million for our mowers, radios and trailers, and $700,000 for cybersecurity.
Next up is review of the budget and investment policy resolutions, your Exhibit C and D. Neither of these items have changed in several years, but require additional… but do require annual review.
First up is the budget policy, or your Exhibit C. Key points of this policy:
The Commission authorizes the Executive Director to execute the budget. Budget changes over $250,000, other than federal and bonds, require Chairman, Vice-Chairman or designee approval.
Donations over $500 must be accepted by the Chairman, Vice-Chair or designee, and acknowledged at each scheduled Commission meeting. And these funds are authorized for any use permitted by statute or rule.
Next up…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I have one quick question.
MR.PEGUES: Yes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: A lot of times we’ll get a note from Council on a project that’s, like, exceeds a certain dollar value? I don’t necessarily see exactly how that’s addressed here. I guess that’s part of… you know what I’m talking about, James?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Vice-Chariman. Thank you for the question. James Murphy, for the record.
Yes, this is a contracting‑related provision related to contracts of $5 million or more. We do notify the Commission related to any risks that are assessed related to the solicitation of those contracts. And so, I think as far as the budget and investment policies, I don’t believe that that would be reflected in these documents. Certainly, under our contracting requirements we do provide those notices to you.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I know we do it. I just didn’t know where it was reflected. Since I didn’t see it here, I didn’t know if it… if it doesn’t need to be reflected here that’s perfectly fine.
MR. MURPHY: Yeah, it’s a great question, Vice-Chairman. I don’t think it needs to be reflected in this document. But it’s certainly built into our contracting manual and our procedures.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Sir.
MR. PEGUES: Moving on with the investment policy, your Exhibit D. Again, no changes in key points of this policy.
The Public Funds Investment Act, or PFIA, requires an investment policy and annual review for state agencies investing outside of the state treasury. These requirements do not apply for funds inside the state treasury as invested by the comptroller.
And currently, all TPWD funds are presently deposited in the state treasury.
In the event that changes, the Executive Director will appoint an investment officer with the following exception:
The Centennial Parks Conservation Fund is required by statute to be invested through the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company. However, these funds are also in the state treasury. And interest to date, through July, is $75.7 million.
Next up for review is the listing of state parks going to the ’26, ’27 biennium, your Exhibit E.
TPWD currently has 90 parks, and any adjustments to this list will be incorporated into next biennium’s list.
Next are deposit options for 15 percent of boat‑related fees. House Bill 448, the 85th Legislature, modified language making the transfer of up to 15 percent of boat-related fees from Fund 9, Game Fish and Water Safety, into the state parks’ account “optional” instead of “mandatory” for cashload purposes.
Presently, Fund 64 projected cash balances through FY26 are sufficient, and we will not be asking for a transfer.
As of last night, we had one comment in complete agreement with the budget.
Staff request this item to be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action. This concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments by any of the Commissioners? All right.
With no further questions I’ll place this item on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Thank you very much.
Next, Work Session Item No. 3: Fiscal Year 2025 Internal Audit of Name and Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Internal Audit Plan.
Ms. Brandy Meeks.
BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks. I’m the Chief Auditor.
This morning, I would like to update you on our current internal audit plan, as well as recent external audits and assessments. I’d also like to explain our risk assessment methodology and present to you our proposed fiscal year ’26 internal audit plan.
So, this and the next slide shows the status of our current audit plan. And please make note of the statuses in yellow font to the right. Those are projects for which we made progress since the last time we met.
We have completed two of those projects. We completed the audit of the State Park Fiscal Control Specialist program, as well as the audit of the Inland Fisheries and Coastal Fisheries Key Performance measure audit.
We also are in the reporting phase for the CPA Post Payment P-card Follow-up Review and Controls audit. And you will be seeing that final report before the end of this fiscal year.
And then we are also, and currently, in the field work phase for our last two projects. The audit of the Friends Groups and the audit of Selected Field Transaction, Processes and Controls. And those two projects will need to roll over into next fiscal year to be finished up.
As far as advisories are concerned, we have completed the IT Cybersecurity Assessment Questionnaire Advisory, as well as the Law Enforcement Physical Security Advisory. In fact, you should have received that final advisory memo this morning, at 7:30.
And then, we’ve also completed our Annual Risk Assessment and our proposed Fiscal Year ’26 Annual Audit Plan.
As far as the external audits and assessments, still ongoing is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 2025 Expenditure Verification Program for the non-federal Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund, or the Dagger Island Project. And we’ve had no other external audits and assessments start or finish since last, we met.
And now I’d like to talk about… discuss next year’s proposed internal audit plan. Texas Government Code 2102, also known as the Texas Internal Auditing Act, requires that the audit plan be developed using a risk‑based approach by working with management to identify risks to the agency’s functions, activities and processes.
After risk identification, we’re to evaluate each risk’s probability of occurrence and the impact that it would have to the agency’s financial, managerial, compliance and IT systems and processes, should that risk occur.
And lastly, we are to rank each risk according to its probability of occurrence and impact.
So, this slide shows how our risk assessment methodology meets the requirements of the Internal Auditing Act. First, we consider division level risk factors such as: recent internal and external audits; time since the last audit; recent turnover within the division, especially with management positions; the division’s budget; the division’s contract dollars; any outstanding, unremediated audit items; and the results of key performance measure results. And then these factors given together give us a division-level risk factor.
Next, we identify each individual agency risk by interviewing all division directors, as well as other selected managers. We also brainstorm as a team using our agency knowledge in past audits. During our interviews with management, we not only discuss risks within each of their own divisions, but any other threats or concerns they may have outside of their division as well.
We also identified any issues or concerns they might be experiencing with their IT systems.
So, for all risks identified during this process we discussed and scored the probability of occurrence and the impacts that these risks would have to our financial, managerial, compliance, reputation and IT systems should they occur.
We input this information into a risk matrix to ensure consistent evaluation among all identified risks.
And lastly, using the division‑level risk score with the impact scores we’re able to rank and identify what we believe to be the top risk to the agency.
So, from the results of this process we identified possible audit and advisory projects to address those top‑ranked risks.
We also analyzed the resources needed to perform the projects, and presented the risk assessment and possible audit projects to our Executive Director and our Chief Operating Officer for discussion.
Our proposed fiscal year ’26 Internal Audit Plan is the results of those discussions.
We presented this plan, along with the risk ranking, which also included the high‑risks not addressed by the plan, to the audit subcommittee for input, review and comment .
And at this time I would like to present our proposed fiscal year ‘26 internal audit plan to the Commission.
So, this and the next slide show our proposed plan.
As you can see, we will be finishing up our audit of our Friends Group, as well as audit of fuel charges. And then we are proposing eight new assurance engagements next year. We’d like to audit… do fiscal control audits of three of our selected state parks. We’d like to audit our law enforcement and communications key performance measures.
We’d also like to audit our surplus process. And we’d also like to audit selected pass‑through grants, as well as perform an audit of our centennial fund process and controls, as well as audit our minor repair and our job order contracting programs.
We are proposing two cybersecurity projects. We’d like to perform a data governance and records retention audit, as well as perform an IT asset management shadow IT advisory.
Ongoing with advisories, we’d like to continue with our boat titling, and registration system rewrite. We’re on the steering committee for that.
And then we’d also like to perform an ethics disclosures and non-governmental organization fee schedule advisory.
As far as administrative projects, we’ll, of course, do our annual report. We’d also like to continue to do the Chapter 59 review of law enforcement seizures and forfeitures.
We’ll be following up on all audit items, both internal and external, due throughout the year, and present to you two reports, biennial reports. And then, we are also, going to need to prepare for our quality assurance review, which we do in the first quarter of fiscal year ’27.
So, we’ll need to do a self‑assessment this next fiscal year. And, of course, we’ll do our annual risk assessment, prepare our annual plan for fiscal year ’27, and then also budget some hours for any special projects, investigations or liaison activities.
We have received two comments as of last night. Both are in full agreement. And so, with that I would like to ask that this item be placed on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and action.
And I am happy to take any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Comments or questions?
Vice-Chairman?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
Quick question. You know, a couple of years ago we had that outside assessment done on our auditing, and how we wanted to do oversight. I just wanted to get some quick feedback from you on the audit committee formation, interaction. Are we… Do you think we’re meeting those goals and objectives that were set forth by us having to take on that extra activity?
MS. MEEKS: So as far as our audit subcommittee is concerned, I think we’re missing still one member.
So, we’re down to three members– yourself, Commissioner Galo and Commissioner Scott.
So… and it’s a four‑member audit subcommittee. But as far as, like, communicating with you, I would just say our new standards do require that I keep you guys abreast.
So, if there’s more communication that you feel like you need from me, or a different type of communication– I know I email you guys a lot. But if there’s a different way you would prefer that I communicate with you, I’m happy to do that.
We can meet when you all are in town, or anything else. But I do feel like we’re in the spirit of the new standards. And we are in compliance with our last peer review, and hopefully we will be in our next peer review which will be audited against the new standards.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And that’s why I was asking. I just wanted to get your take on… my impression is that we are in compliance…
MS. MEEKS: Yep.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …with the peer review comments and ask. And so, I just wanted to see if you had any slightly different take, or anything. So, we’re good.
MS. MEEKS: Yes, Sir, I believe we’re good. Yeah. I’ll let you know, too, if I… once we do our self‑assessment if I feel like we’re not meeting any particular element.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Other comments or questions?
Thank you, Brandy.
MS. MEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: If there are no further questions I’ll place this item on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Next, Work Session Item No. 4: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session– Senate Bill 1247– Relating to Consolidating Certain Nonresident Hunting Licenses– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Mr. Chris Cerny, please make your presentation.
CHRIS CERNY: Yes, Sir.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. And I do believe I win the award for longest title today, so I appreciate that.
[ LAUGHTER ]
All right, well, for the record, my name is Chris Cerny, Business Analyst for the Wildlife Division.
And today, I will review proposed changes to implement legislation that was adopted during the 89th regular session relating to consolidating certain nonresident hunting licenses. And I will request permission to place this item for tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and action.
Senate Bill 1247 consolidated five nonresident hunting licenses options into two.
There we go. To achieve the consolidation the bill eliminated three hunting license options, including the nonresident banded bird hunting license, the nonresident spring turkey hunting license, and the nonresident special hunting license.
Two nonresident hunting license options were retained, including the nonresident general hunting license and the nonresident five‑day hunting license. Senate Bill 1247 also renamed the nonresident general hunting license, which was previously titled the “general” nonresident hunting license, and it removed the term “special” from the name of the nonresident five‑day hunting license.
As set by statute, the nonresident general hunting license option is valid from the date of purchase through the end of the license year. And it is required to hunt any animal that requires a tag, including deer, bighorn sheep, alligators, et cetera.
The nonresident five‑day hunting license is valid for five consecutive days set by the license buyer, and is valid to pursue all species that do not require tags, such as dove, quail, waterfowl and exotics.
As a result of the legislation, staff propose appropriate changes to Chapter 53 of the Texas Administrative Code to align the list of nonresident license types named in Senate Bill… with those named in Senate Bill 1247.
Accordingly, this proposal removes a reference to the three licenses eliminated in statute, and renames both the nonresident general hunting license and the nonresident five‑day hunting license.
As you consider this proposal please note that the nonresident hunting licenses are created by statute, and the Commission’s authority related to these licenses pertains only to setting the fee. This proposal is simply aligning the list of nonresident hunting license options set forth in our fee schedule with the license types that are created by statute.
In addition to aligning the nonresident hunting license options with statute, two other minor changes are being included while this section of code is open for modification.
First, an unnecessary reference to digital license language is being removed to comport rule language with recently adopted regulation changes that created digital license options for all recreational hunting and fishing license types.
And finally, the proposal includes a non-substantive change to correct a grammatical error by appropriately hyphenating the phrase “active-duty” where it appears.
As of this morning we’ve received 11 comments on the proposal. Ten folks agree completely. We do have one person who has indicated disagreement with the specific item. The comment left was not germane to the proposal itself.
That concludes my presentation, and with that I request this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.
Thank you for your time, and I’m happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Scott?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Just remind me real quick. So, under this scenario, what are our two charges going to be for those two licenses?
MR. CERNY: Yes, Sir. So, the two licenses that remain, the nonresident general hunting license costs $315.
That license comes with five white-tail deer tags, two mule deer tags, four… and four turkey tags, one of those being in the eastern zone only, and then three tags that can be used in any turkey zone.
I’m sorry, one tag for eastern zone only, and then three other tags for other zones.
The nonresident five-day license option is $48.
And that’s the one that allows you to hunt anything that doesn’t require a tag.
We’re very competitive with our neighboring states.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Other comments or questions?
If there are no further questions, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Thank you.
MR. CERNY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I have a question, real quick. How many of these nonresident licenses do we typically issue in a year?
MR. CERNY: Great question. I will have to ask our license team for those numbers and get back to you.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Okay.
MR. CERNY: I apologize, I don’t have that number offhand.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Just curious.
MR. CERNY: Thank you. We’ll get you that information.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Work Session Item No. 5: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session– Senate Bill 1245.
As I mentioned earlier, this item has been withdrawn and will be addressed at a later meeting.
Work Session Item No. 6: Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish and Aquatic Plants– Special Provisions for Dotted Duckweed– Request Permission to Published Proposed Changes in the “Texas Register.”
Mr. Michael Tennant, please make your presentation.
MICHAEL TENNANT: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Michael Tennant, and I’m the Regulations and Policy Manager in the Inland Fisheries Division.
Today I’ll be presenting proposed changes to the rules governing harmful or potentially harmful aquatic plants. The proposed rules would authorize and create special provisions for commercial cultivation of dotted duckweed in specifically permitted facilities.
On March 14, 2025, the department received a petition for rulemaking requesting a revision of existing regulations to allow the cultivation of dotted duckweed to produce a protein food supplement.
Currently designated as a harmful exotic aquatic plant under Texas Parks and Wildlife Department rules, dotted duckweed may not be possessed for commercial purposes.
The petitioner believes that within their secure, enclosed facility, and under a regulated commercial aquaculture permit, dotted duckweed can be safely grown without posing a risk to the environment. Staff concurred with that assessment and recommended proceeding to rulemaking.
Exotic species aquaculture facility permits subject all facilities to key basic facility requirements to include escape and biosecurity prevention measures such as: location at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain; screening on pond drains; and access limitations.
In addition, inspections by department staff are required prior to initial permit issuance for assessment of any facility modifications and at least once per five-year period. The department may increase the frequency of inspections to verify compliance with escape and biosecurity prevention measures.
In addition, all facilities must prepare and submit an emergency plan with a permit application as a precaution.
Dotted duckweed is a very small floating aquatic plant native to Australia and southeast Asia that is not currently problematic in Texas, but has become invasive elsewhere.
Like other floating invasive plants, such as giant salvinia. This species has a high growth and propagation rate, forms dense surface mats outcompeting native aquatic plants species with potential to cause harm to fish and other aquatic life, as well as infrastructure particularly in clogging smaller water intakes.
Climate match analysis indicates this species has potential to survive and become established in public waters throughout much, but not all, of Texas should it escape culture.
And it is deemed likely to have potential to become particularly problematic in smaller water bodies.
Dotted duckweed has potential to be easily spread through numerous pathways, including, given its small size, through transport by waterfowl that might enter aquaculture facilities.
There are native species of duckweed, and they can be cultured to produce a protein food supplement. But the higher growth rates and production potential of dotted duckweed makes it attractive for commercial culture.
After comprehensive analysis in a facility site visit, the department determined that biosecurity and escape prevention measures could feasibly ensure that dotted duckweed could be cultured safely in parts of the state where spread and survival would be difficult. And given appropriate minimum facility requirements and biosecurity measures the probability of spread and survival would be acceptably low.
Due to the small size of the plant and its seeds there is a potential for waterfowl to transport this small plant to public waters and other escape risks. Consequently, the rules as proposed would impose species‑specific requirements to acknowledge those risks.
The proposed rules would, therefore, allow issuance of commercial aquaculture facility permits for dotted duckweed and establish special provisions to ensure aquaculture biosecurity.
The department has determined that enclosure of dotted duckweed culture ponds, as well as all harvesting equipment and transport, or transfer, equipment within greenhouses or other structures, is necessary to prevent escape or access by waterfowl, and that facility access must be strictly controlled.
Additionally, given the small size of both the plants and seeds, and high potential for plants to escape even into evaporation basins accessible by waterfowl, the department has determined that it is necessary to ensure that all plants in a culture pond are killed by application of herbicides or other lawful chemicals prior to the draining of water from ponds where dotted duckweed is cultured.
Further, the proposed rules would require drainwater to be routed though a macerator pump or similar department-approved device that reduces plant material to particles of the size no greater than 100 micrometers, at which point dotted duckweed is nonviable.
Similarly, the rules would require all material remaining from processing activities to be macerated as well, and the discharge or drainage of water into any ditch, storm drain, stream or other conduit or pathway that drains into, or could drain into, public water would be prohibited.
Additionally, the proposed rules for the purposes of clarity and emphasis stipulate that permitted facilities must comply with applicable regulations of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality with respect to water discharge.
Lastly, as potential for disbursal of a small floating plant via floodwaters is immense, special provisions would stipulate that facilities may not be located within coastal or coastal adjacent areas and south of State Highway 21 and east of I-35.
This area is already designated as an exclusion zone for other species of aquatic organisms cultured under department permits because of the abundant and interconnected surface water in the eastern half of the state presents significant risk for escapement as a result of flooding associated with hurricanes and tropical storms.
Staff notes that the measures imposed by the proposed rules are already present, or planned, at the petitioner’s facility, and are considered to be adequate to ensure biosecurity and protect Texas’ public waters.
Staff seeks permission to publish the proposed amendments with changes as necessary in the “Texas Register” for public comment. That concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Scott?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Just a quick question.
Is this item something that staff proposed, or did somebody else bring this to us and ask for us to address it and to make these changes? I’m just curious why we’re doing it.
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. A company called Plantable Foods submitted a petition for rulemaking. And so staff… we went through the process of the petition, responded to the petitioner. And during that time staff went out and took a look at the facility and deemed that under… under biosecurity measures and the state provisions under a permit that this could feasibly be done without impacting public waters.
So yes, it was… it was presented to us by a private company. And they are currently in operation, but they’re using native duck… we have native… multiple native duckweed species. They’re doing this process with native duckweed species.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So, if we grant this tomorrow… or well– obviously, this is the first for the “Texas Register” — then it’s got to be read, what, twice?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. So this… you would authorize, it would go to 30‑day public comment period. If you approve that, then we would come back in November and seek adoption.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: That’s when you would ask for us to approve or not approve?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. I just wanted to understand who was doing what. Thank you.
MR. TENNANT: You’re welcome.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Vice-Chairman Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. In exact… explain a little further to me exactly why this… I’m trying to understand all the agencies that might be involved in an approval process here.
And also because we have the… you said the native species of duckweed. It seems like there’s some… some risk if this gets… if this gets out that it’s fairly prolific in what it does for growth. So, how are we doing the cost/benefit analysis?
MR. TENNANT: So, we’re the agency responsible for permitting this activity. I did mention in the presentation that if there’s any discharge of water from a facility that brings in TCEQ regulations.
But we’re the authority of permitting this activity.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And what’s the… I know we’re asking about comment. But if this doesn’t pass, what does that mean? What does it…
MR. TENNANT: It wouldn’t allow propagation of dotted duckweed in commercial aquaculture facilities.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And is it a… is this some kind of a cutting trend? Is this… is this new technology? Is this… I mean, what… and you may not have the answer to that right now. Is this something that’s considered, you know, all the rage?
MR. TENNANT: Yeah, I can’t speak to all the company’s technology. But what I do know they’re currently using native dotted… native duckweed species. But our understanding is dotted duckweed’s more prolific.
So, that can raise it more rapidly, or propagate it more rapidly. And then they’re using this product to produce a food protein product that goes into other food products.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Uh, yes. Does this dotted duckweed exist in Texas now, or any other state?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, it’s more… more has become potentially problematic in the southeastern United States. We have… USGS has some documentation on… on its observations in Texas. Currently, there’s been 16 observations mainly in east Texas, the southeast Texas. The first documented observation was in 1981; last in 2019.
But I will point out some of the… a few of those observations have been successfully identified by a person with experience. Some of those are from citizen science reports, iNaturalists with unconfirmed identification. So…
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: So, there has been some sightings in Texas?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. Earliest as of 1981. And that was… that one was confirmed by a university professor.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Okay. All right. And it exists in other states also?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, and also… more into the southeastern United States.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yes, you said that was identified here in Texas. Was it eradicated from that spot?
MR. TENNANT: Well, from a department standpoint we have never documented any problematic infestations of dotted duckweed or…
So, they could have been just an isolated observations. We’ve never documented any large infestations of dotted duckweed in any of our surveys.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay. Well, I read quite a bit of this as I was, you know, studying for this meeting right here. And it’s pretty obvious why they would want to use it on a commercial basis because it grows much faster and they can cultivate that, and makes their job a whole lot easier.
When I read about this and the devastation it can cause the Texas waterways if it gets out, it reminds…And I read, you know, there’s exceptionally minimal, although not zero, risk of escape– because, as we know, there is no zero there– the risk benefit doesn’t seem to be there for me.
The… what comes… as I was reading this what came to mind was the Wuhan lab in China. That was very… that wasn’t supposed to get out either, but it did. And I saw your picture there of the enclosed area right there, and them cultivating it. And we’re having changes of weather all the times, high winds, storms, maybe not a hurricane, but it won’t be out of storm’s path.
I could see something taking the top off of that before they get it back up, some birds coming in there, getting it on their feet and spreading this around.
And then it also calls for the permit for the possession, culture, cell and transport of dotted duckweed. Then, if you’re transporting it, then you’ve got the chance for an accident into a creek. I just don’t see the risk benefit there at all for the state of Texas.
I mean, I see it for the company. I don’t blame them. If I was doing that, I’d apply for this, too. It would make my job a whole lot easier, and I could make a little bit more profit. But if this were get out it would devastate our waterways.
MR. TENNANT: I can speak to the transport some. So, in the presentation I acknowledge…
So, in their processing the plant material would be reduced to an unvi… you know, a nonviable state when they’re producing their plant protein product.
The only transport that would occur if this was approved and the petitioner… we inspected their facility and allowed a permit, that the only… the only transport that would occur of dotted duckweed would be from their research facility in California.
And it would be transported in a sealed 55‑gallon drum and a box trailer to the facility as a one-time transport to get it established in their greenhouses.
So, there would be no transport of the viable dotted duckweed plant.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: So the research facility now is in California?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER McCALL It’s not in Texas?
MR. TENNANT: Correct.
They do have a facility in El Dorado, Texas, that is currently propagating native duckweed species.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, it sounds to me like we’re… there are some pretty significant risks around this, and that we’re… we’re concerned about it, we’re maybe scared of it. It seems like maybe the Commission needs to understand it a little bit better before we move it forward.
I feel like… I don’t feel like I personally have enough knowledge about it, or concern about it. You know, the thought that comes to my mind is why would we do this? If there’s… you know, what’s the upside for the state and for the department in moving this forward? How would you respond to that?
MR. TENNANT: Well, I’ll just respond to that, you know… in with the petitioner for rulemaking staff went out and visited the facility– and that was our senior scientist for aquatic invasive species and our permits coordinator– and both with their assessment of the initial visit they feel that, based under all the biosecurity and escapement procedures within the permit framework that we would deliver, that the risks are acceptedly low.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And the provision that… the, I guess, culture fields, or whatever, have to be one foot above the 100-year floodplain? Is the implication there…
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. That’s a minimum facility requirement.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Is the implication there that if there is a 100-year flood and this stuff gets washed out and down, or whatever, that it’s just going to be all over everywhere? Because one foot doesn’t sound like a lot.
MR. TENNANT: Sure. Also within the inspection I think location of facility will be taken into account as well. As noted, we’re not allowing under what we’re proposing right now in the rules to go out for public comment. That would be a geographic area that you couldn’t have a permit.
But also in that inspection process, location of the facility and location of it specifically adjacent to public waterways would also be taken into account by staff of, you know, of being able to issue a permit as well.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Thank you. Commissioner Galo.
You say it wouldn’t be near public water supplies, but what about underground tributaries or streams? Would that be taken into account because…
MR. TENNANT: Yes, that would all be taken into account in the initial inspection, you know, whether or not we would approve or not approve…
COMMISSIONER GALO: So, they would have to be a certain distance from these subterranean tributaries that lead into the river, for example?
MR. TENNANT: …distance in the rule, but that would be taken in account.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay, well, maybe it should be in the rule?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: So, Chairman, if I can offer something up. There’s a path… a couple paths here we can take. We can move forward and put this out for comment.
Or what I’m picking up is it sounds like maybe the team could do a little bit more work, come back to the Commission with a little bit more information, maybe some more tighter sideboards around this, and present that at a future Commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, Vice-Chairman Bell had already leaned over to me and kind of made that suggestion, and…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: I’m glad we’re aligning our thinking, Vice-Chairman.
[ LAUGHTER ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think that’s appropriate. We have a lot of confidence in the staff, and certainly rely on you guys to guide us. But this feels like one that’s got some risks that we need to make sure we understand before we… before we move forward.
So, I would suggest that we maybe table it to another meeting.
MR. MURPHY: Yep.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I would just like to put a little… for you to put a little collar around.
Really what is the risk that we’re thinking about?
We want to help everybody, the farmers really, that if this is meaningful to them and can meaningfully help their situation, we want to… we want to do everything we can for them. But I’m not sure I really even understand the risk, okay?
So, a couple questions. Have… In the past, have the duckweed… has it been… infiltrated a stream and gotten out of hand, and so we had to eradicate it? What’s the process of doing that?
All right, so you see some contamination where we don’t want it and we’ve got to eradicate it, so we go do that.
What’s that process? And have we had to go through that before?
And then if we don’t, then what net, net, net really is the danger of having the weed out there since it’s… It seems like it’s supposed to be a big problem. I’m not sure I understand what that problem is.
MR. TENNANT: Sure, back to the observation… it has been observed in Texas. It’s never become problematic. Not to say that it couldn’t become problematic.
Major risks would likely with duckweed would be in small… really small water bodies.
To answer your question about… this is the first time we’ve had a company request this. And to my knowledge, the plantable foods propagating native duckweed species is the only company in the state that’s doing so at this time.
We don’t… we haven’t had any other interest from any other companies.
Staff do feel where that facility is located that the risks are acceptably low based on all the things that we… that have previously been discussed for that specific facility.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So, what do you do to eradicate it if you elect to do so?
MR. TENNANT: Well, there’s chemical means, you know, for other plant species. There’s chemical means to rid water bodies of plants. And there’s biological and mechanical methods of removal as well for…
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: But we hadn’t seen a need to do that?
MR. TENNANT: But we haven’t had any removal efforts. It’s never been established at problematic levels. And it’s just been observed in the state.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’m typically on the farmer’s side on issues like this unless we can really visibly tangibly feel the risk, right?
And so I know that since it’s not indigenous that, you know, everybody’s antenna goes up, right? But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s going to be really problematic for us.But it might, right?
So I think… I think… I just sort of reiterate what Chairman said. If we can have a clear understanding of the risk profile so we that can kind of consume that, digest it, and see if that’s really, really an issue for us to get excited about. All right?
MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And this is Commissioner Bell. Just one other question. I know… I think we said this particular plant type was indigenous to Australia? Was that…
MR. TENNANT: Australia and southeast Asia. Yes, Sir.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And so, maybe… and through… I know we’ve got some international connections through our game wardens, through our scientists. Maybe we can find out some information to any any issues that they may have had there with…
If it’s gotten… if it’s gotten to a point where… out of control from their perspective, whatever… whatever that might mean. But we can just get a little more background so that everybody can have a comfort level if they want to advance this.
So, I think that the initial work done is… I think all of the stuff that you have guys is very respectable, very good, I think very well intentioned. Just… I think we’ve got a little sense of discomfort, so we may want to pause.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, one…
COMMISSIONER McCALL: One final comment.
Like right now, the way I understand it, there is no means of commercial cultivation of this. And we would create an amendment to 5714 which would provide for the issuance of commercial aquafacility for the possession and all this going forward.
I did read this. It reminds me a lot of the medical research that I’ve been forced to read over the years. And if this gets out, it’s not… we’re not going to get it back. It’s going to get out of control.
I’m just telling you it is.
And once… it also creates a slippery slope. You know, once you create this pathway for cultivating this, and it is profitable, we’ll have more come in, And then it’s a little harder to stop it once you’ve created a pathway. So, I just want to… those are my concerns. Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you. And it… I guess another question– you don’t have to answer today, but as we review this at future meetings– is has this become a problem anywhere?
In other words, we seem to be really scared of it. And we said we’re not going to do it south of 121 or east of 35, which is like a third of the state if I’m thinking about that correctly.
I’m not sure.
But… So, I have a question about why? Why the geography? And you said it is common in some other southeastern states, which is kind of more like the geography of that part of Texas.
So, I’m just curious what their history has been. Has it ever been a problem? Why are we not doing it in that part of the state? So, I think we have a lot more to learn about it.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, Chairman, I think we can come back with a fuller picture, a risk profile, questions on how other states have dealt with it.
Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Thank you, Michael.
MR. TENNANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right. We will defer to another time.
Work Session Item Nos. 7‑16 will be heard in 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 for the purpose of deliberation of real estate matters under Section 551.072 of The Open Meetings Act, seeking legal advice under Section 551.071 of The Open Meetings Act, including advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation, and deliberating the evaluation of personnel under Section 551.074 of The Open Meetings Act.
We will now recess Executive Session at whatever time it is.
10:53 a.m.
Thank you.
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Let’s see.
We will now reconvene the Work Session.
The time… I don’t have a pen anymore.
The time is, it looks like 2:07 p.m.
Before we begin, I will take roll call again.
I’m Chairman Paul Foster.
Vice-Chairman Oliver Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Leslie Doggett?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Anna Galo?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner John McCall?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Bobby Patton?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Dick Scott?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Tim Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right. We are now returning from the Executive Session where we will discuss the Work Session Real Estate Items Nos. 7‑14, Litigation Item Number 15, and personnel matters under Item No. 16.
If there are no further questions, I will place Item Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 16 on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for the public comment and action.
Regarding Item Nos. 9 and 13, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process. Items 14 and 15 require no further action at this time.
Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its Work Session business, and I declare us adjourned at 2:09 p.m.
2:08, I guess.
Is that right. And James, did you double check on those Item numbers?
Because we tabled one or two, and I want to be sure that…
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Sir. I’ll confirm on it again. I believe they’re correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. MURPHY: And I’ll give them one more look.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right. Okay, and now we’ll move into the annual Public Hearing Session.