November 6-7, 2024, Commission Meeting Agenda

Work Session

Commission Agenda Items

August 21-22, 2024, Transcripts

Work Session
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
9:00 a.m.

Jeffery D. Hildebrand, Commission Chair
David Yoskowitz, Ph.D., Executive Director

Solomon P. Ortiz International Center
400 Harbor Drive
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Nueces Room

Agenda

Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Commission Work Session held August 21, 2024

Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Commission Annual Public Hearing held August 21, 2024

Land and Water Plan

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 – David Yoskowitz, Ph.D.
- Internal Affairs Update
- Staff Recognition
- Fiscal Year 2024 Stocking Report
- Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan Update
- Rule Review Process Preview
  - Chapter 56 – Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit
  - Chapter 57 – Fisheries
  - Chapter 58 – Oysters, Shrimp, and Finfish
  - Chapter 65 – Wildlife
- Pinning of the Law Enforcement Colonel

Financial

Financial Overview – Reggie Pegues
Internal Audit Update – Brandy Meeks
Job Order Contracting – Delegate Authority for Approval of Contracts Over $500,000 – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Rule – Andrea Lofye (Action Item No. 1)
Rule Review – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes to Chapter 51 – Laura Carr (Action Item No. 2)
Rule Review – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register – Laura Carr
- Chapter 53 – Finance
- Chapter 69 – Resource Protection

Natural Resources

Cultivated Oyster Mariculture Program Rule Revisions – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes – Dr. Lindsay Glass (Action Item No. 3)
Statewide Oyster Fishery Proclamation – Temporary Closure of Oyster Restoration Areas in Galveston Bay – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes – Lindsey Savage (Action Item No. 4)
Oyster Certificate of Location Rules – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register – Zach Olsen
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Detection and Response Rules – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register – Alan Cain
Permits to Possess or Sell Nongame Fish Taken from Public Fresh Water – Changes to List of Affected Species and Other Changes – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register – Michael Tennant
2025-2026 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation Preview – Brian Bartram
2025-2026 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview – Kevin Kraai, Shawn Gray
BRIEFING – 2024 Survey of Employee Engagement – Matt Kennedy

Land Conservation

Acquisition of Land – Bexar County and Medina County – Approximately 823 Acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area – Zach Spector (Work Session and Executive Session) (Action Item No. 5)
Acquisition of Land – Llano County – Approximately 3,073 Acres at Enchanted Rock State Natural Area – Zach Spector (Work Session and Executive Session) (Action Item No. 6)
Acquisition of Land – Uvalde County – Approximately 1,721 Acres in Uvalde County – Zach Spector (Work Session and Executive Session) (Action Item No. 7)
Acquisition of Land – Burnet County – Approximately 2,020 Acres Near Colorado Bend State Park – Andrea Lofye (Work Session and Executive Session) (Action Item No. 8)
Acquisition of Land – Marion County – Approximately 32.5 Acres at the Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area – Andrea Lofye (Work Session and Executive Session) (Action Item No. 9)

Executive Session

Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects – Zach Spector (Executive Session Only)
Litigation Update – James Murphy (Executive Session Only)
Personnel Matters – Performance Evaluation of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Executive Director – Chairman Jeffery D. Hildebrand, Jada Louhela (Executive Session Only)

Agenda Items

Work Session Agenda Item 1

Presenter: David Yoskowitz, Ph.D.

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

I. Executive Summary:

Executive Director David Yoskowitz, Ph.D. will briefly update the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) on the status of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) efforts to implement the Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (plan).

II. Discussion:

In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature directed that TPWD develop a Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (Texas Parks and Wildlife Code section 11.104). In 2002, the Commission adopted the first plan. A revised plan was adopted by the Commission in January 2005. In November 2009, the Commission approved a new plan, effective January 1, 2010, that included broad input from stakeholders and the general public. Minor revisions continue to be made to the plan. Every five years, TPWD is statutorily required to evaluate its progress toward achieving the plan’s goal and objectives. In November 2023, the Commission approved the 2024 Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan goals, objectives, strategies, and actions, which are available on TPWD’s website. Dr. Yoskowitz will update the Commission on TPWD’s recent progress in achieving the plan’s goals, objectives, and deliverables.

The plan consists of the following four goals:

Practice, Encourage, and Enable Science-Based Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources
Increase Access to and Participation in the Outdoors
Educate, Inform, and Engage Texas Citizens in Support of Conservation and Recreation
Employ Efficient, Sustainable, and Sound Business Practices

Work Session Agenda Item 2

Presenter: Reggie Pegues

Financial Overview

I. Executive Summary:

Staff will present a financial overview of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).

II. Discussion:

Staff will update the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on state park, boat registration and titling, and license fee revenues collected by TPWD for year-to-date Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. Staff will provide an update on the FY 2026-27 Legislative Appropriations Request.

Work Session Agenda Item 3

Presenter: Brandy Meeks

Internal Audit Update

I. Executive Summary:

Staff will update the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) on Internal Audit activities and projects that have taken place since the last Commission Meeting.

II. Discussion:

Staff will present an update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Fiscal Years (FY) 2024 and FY 2025 Internal Audit Plans. Staff will also provide an update on external audits and assessments.

Work Session Agenda Item 6

Presenter: Laura Carr

Rule Review – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

Staff seeks permission to publish proposed rule amendments in the Texas Register resulting from the second stage of the quadrennial review of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) regulations, as required by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act. The proposed rulemaking affects Title 31, Chapters 53 (Finance) and 69 (Resource Protection) of the Texas Administrative Code.

II. Discussion

Under Texas Government Code section 2001.039, a state agency is required to review each rule under its jurisdiction at least once every four years. The review must include an assessment of whether the reasons for initially adopting a rule continue to exist. Notice of the proposed review must be published in the Texas Register for public comment. Following the review, rules must be re-adopted, adopted with changes, or repealed based upon the review.

The TPWD rule review process is broken into three groups of chapters within the Texas Administrative Code that contain TPWD’s regulations. The process for each chapter group occurs over three Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) meetings. In the first meeting, staff notifies the Commission of its intent to begin the rule review process for a specific group of chapters. In the second meeting, staff seeks permission to publish any proposed rule changes or repeals resulting from the rule review in the Texas Register for public comment. In the third meeting, the staff seeks adoption of proposed rule changes and adoption of the completed rule review (i.e., re-adoption of the remaining unchanged rules).

TPWD published notice of its intent to review Chapters 53 (Finance), 59 (Parks), and 69 (Resource Protection) in the September 6, 2024, issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 7060). As a result of the rule review, staff determined that minor changes to Chapters 53 and 69 were necessary.

Attachments – 2

Exhibit A – Legislative Rules Review – Chapter 53 – Finance
Exhibit B – Legislative Rules Review – Chapter 69 – Resource Protection

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit A

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW

CHAPTER 53. FINANCE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to §53.10, concerning Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees.

The proposed amendment would implement a conforming change to terminology with respect to references to pronghorn antelope. In 2022, the department amended 31 TAC §65.3, concerning Definitions, to define “pronghorn” as “pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana).” Although Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 63, designates the “pronghorn antelope” as a game species, the animal is not in fact a true antelope. Additionally, it is less cumbersome to simply refer to the animal as a pronghorn. Therefore, the definition was changed and the department is addressing the term throughout the agency’s rules as the opportunity arises.

The proposed amendment is a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires each state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rule.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be consistent terminology throughout agency rules.

There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rule as proposed.

(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and microbusinesses and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s direct adverse economic impacts to determine if any further analysis is required. The department considers “direct economic impact “to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department has determined that the proposed rule does not affect small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. Therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

(C) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rule as proposed will not impact local economies.

(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rule.

(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rule.

(F) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS). The rule as proposed, if adopted, will:

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

(2) not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs;

(3) not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding;

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) not limit, expand, or repeal an existing regulation;

(7) neither increase nor decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and

(8) not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments concerning the proposed game bird rule may be submitted to Robert Macdonald (512) 389-4775, email: robert.macdonald@tpwd.texas.gov. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at http://www.tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendment is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §81.403, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a permit for the hunting of wildlife or for any other use in wildlife management areas.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 81.

§53.10. Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees.

(a) (No change.)

(b) Special and regular permits. The following permit fee amounts apply only to persons 17 years of age and older:

(1) special permits.

(A) standard period for deer, exotic mammal, pronghorn [antelope], javelina, turkey, coyote, alligator — $80;

(B) – (C) (No change.)

(2) (No change.)

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit B

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW

CHAPTER 69. RESOURCE PROTECTION

SUBCHAPTER A — ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND PROTECTED NATIVE PLANTS

SUBCHAPTER J — SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND ZOOLOGICAL PERMITS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to 31 TAC §69.4 and §69.8, concerning Endangered, Threatened, and Protected Native Plants, and §69.304 and §69.305, concerning Scientific, Educational, and Zoological Permits. The proposed amendments would make corrections to internal citations and update scientific names and organizational titles. The proposed amendments are nonsubstantive.

The proposed amendment t §69.4, concerning Renewal, corrects an erroneous internal citation.

The proposed amendment to §69.8, concerning Endangered and Threatened Plants, would update the scientific names for two species of plants. From time to time the consensus of the scientific community with respect to taxonomic differentiation changes, necessitating updates to department rules to reflect that fact.

The proposed amendments to §69.304, concerning Qualifications, and §69.305, concerning Facility Standards, would update the name of an accrediting organization and would implement a conforming change to terminology with respect to references to pronghorn antelope. In 2022, the department amended 31 TAC §65.3, concerning Definitions, to define “pronghorn” as “pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana).” Although Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 63, designates the “pronghorn antelope” as a game species, the animal is not in fact a true antelope. Additionally, it is less cumbersome to simply refer to the animal as a pronghorn. Therefore, the definition was changed and the department is addressing the term throughout the agency’s rules as the opportunity arises.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be accurate rule language.

There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rules, as the proposed amendments are nonsubstantive.

(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and microbusinesses and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s direct adverse economic impacts to determine if any further analysis is required. The department considers “direct economic impact“ to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department has determined that the proposed rules would result in no direct economic effect on any small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural community, as the proposed amendments are nonsubstantive; therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

(C) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.

(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.

(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

(F) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS). The rules as proposed, if adopted, will neither create nor eliminate a government program; not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs; not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding; not affect the amount of an existing fee; not create, expand, or repeal an existing regulation; not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Robert Macdonald (512) 389-4775, e-mail: robert.macdonald@tpwd.texas.gov. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at http://www.tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §88.006, which requires the department to adopt regulations to administer the provisions of this chapter, including regulations to provide for procedures for identifying endangered, threatened, or protected plants.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 88.

6. Rule Text.

§69.4. Renewal. The department may require information in addition to that required by paragraphs (1)-(3)[(4)] of this section. Scientific plant permits may be renewed, provided:

(1) — (3) (No change.)

§69.8. Endangered and Threatened Plants.

(a) The following plants are endangered:

Figure: 31 TAC §69.8(a)

large‐fruited sand verbena (Abronia macrocarpa)

South Texas ambrosia (Ambrosia cheiranthifolia)

star cactus (Astrophytum asterias)

Texas ayenia (Ayenia limitaris)

Texas poppy‐mallow (Callirhoe scabriuscula)

Terlingua Creek cat’s‐eye (Oreocarya[Cryptantha] crassipes)

black lace cactus (Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii)

Davis’ green pitaya (Echinocereus davisii)

Nellie’s cory cactus (Escobaria minima)

Sneed pincushion cactus (Escobaria sneedii var. sneedii)

Guadalupe fescue (Festuca ligulata)

slender rush‐pea (Hoffmannseggia tenella)

Texas prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana)

Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana)

Walker’s manioc (Manihot walkerae)

Texas trailing phlox (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis)

white bladderpod (Physaria pallida)

Zapata bladderpod (Physaria thamnophila)

Little Aguja pondweed (Potamogeton clystocarpus)

Tobusch fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii)

Navasota ladies’‐tresses (Spiranthes parksii)

Texas snowbells (Styrax platanifolius ssp. texanus)

ashy dogweed (Thymophylla tephroleuca)

Texas wild‐rice (Zizania texana)

(b) The following plants are threatened:

Figure: 31 TAC §69.8(b)

Leoncita false‐foxglove (Agalinis calycina)

bunched cory cactus (Coryphantha ramillosa ssp. ramillosa)

dune umbrella‐sedge (Cyperus onerosus)

Chisos Mountains hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus chisosensis var. chisosensis)

Lloyd’s Mariposa[mariposa] cactus (Sclerocactus[Echinomastus] mariposensis)

small‐headed pipewort (Eriocaulon koernickianum)

brush‐pea (Genistidium dumosum)

earth fruit (Geocarpon minimum)

Pecos sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus)

Neches River rose‐mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)

rock quillwort (Isoetes lithophila)

gypsum scalebroom (Lepidospartum burgessii)

Livermore sweet‐cicely (Osmorhiza bipatriata)

Hinckley’s oak (Quercus hinckleyi)

Houston daisy (Rayjacksonia aurea)

(c) Scientific reclassification or change in nomenclature of taxa at any level in the taxonomic hierarchy will not, in and of itself, affect the status of a species as endangered, threatened or protected.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the authority of the agency to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.022, which requires the commission to adopt rules to govern the collecting, holding, possession, propagation, release, display, or transport of protected wildlife for scientific research, educational display, zoological collection, or rehabilitation.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife, Chapter 43.

§69.304. Qualifications.

(a) Zoological collection permits shall be issued only to agents of entities that are either:

(1) accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums[American Zoo and Aquarium Association] (AZA); or

(2) (No change.)

(b) — (d) (No change.)

§69.305. Facility Standards.

(a) All live birds or animals possessed under an educational display permit, or under a zoological collection permit in a facility that is not accredited by the AZA[American Zoo and Aquarium Association] shall be kept in enclosures meeting or exceeding the standards set forth in this section.

(b) The minimum cage sizes for mammals and reptiles shall be as follows. An enclosure for mammals shall add 30% of the minimum cage requirement for each additional mammal contained in the enclosure. For each:

(1) pronghorn [antelope] — 2,500 square feet x 8 feet in height;

(2) — (11) (No change.)

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 9

Presenter: Zach Olsen

Oyster Certificate of Location Rules – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

Staff seeks permission to publish amendments to the rules governing the Statewide Oyster Fishery Proclamation in the Texas Register for public comment, based on changes to Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 76.

II. Discussion

Responsibility for the establishment and management of the Oyster Certificate of Location (CoL) Program is delegated to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapters 61 (Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act) and 76 (Oysters). The Texas Legislature made several changes to chapter 76 during the 88th Legislative Session, including requiring the Commission to adopt rules to establish a program to issue CoLs for the restoration of natural oyster beds. The proposed amendments to the Statewide Oyster Fishery Proclamation establish this program, allow for siting of CoLs on degraded oyster beds, remove the need to consider depuration of oysters from restricted waters during the CoL renewal process, and could create the opportunity for an expansion of the CoL Program. In addition, the proposed amendments will enable the administration of CoLs for restoration, and modernize the processes associated with the program.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Oyster Certificate of Location Rules

Work Session Agenda Item 9
Exhibit A

OYSTER CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION RULES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction,

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes to amend §58.11 and §58.30, concerning the Certificate of Location (CoL) program. The amendments are necessary given recent changes to Parks and Wildlife Code (PWC), Chapter 76, Subchapter A and to modernize the administration of the program.

During the 88th Legislative Session, PWC Chapter 76 Subchapter A, Public and Private Oyster Beds were modified to establish a rule expanding the Oyster Certificate of Location program to include CoLs for the restoration of natural oyster beds. The provision creates broad Commission authority to establish fees, application requirements, Location terms, renewal procedures, total area in each bay system to be occupied, siting and marking requirement, and any other requirements necessary to administer the program. Changes were also made to the definition of a “natural oyster bed” and specifications that would allow for siting on what the department determines to be a degraded oyster bed. Further, section 76.018, Location Rental Term; Renewal; Auction, was modified to remove the requirement for renewal of a CoLs to be based on the need for depuration of polluted oysters.

The proposed amendments are changes that mirror these changes to PWC and allow for other necessary changes to the CoL program needed for administration of these new authorities or modernization of the program in general.

The proposed amendments to §58.11 concerning Definitions would alter paragraph (3) definition of Certificate of Location to add planting of cultch to reflect modern use of CoLs for both harvest and restoration purposes. It would also add paragraph (7) definition of cultch since this term was added to the previous definition. Finally, it would alter paragraph (14) definition of natural oyster bed to match recent changes to PWC, §76.001.

The proposed amendment to §58.30 concerning Certificates of Location alters subparagraph (a) (1) (A) to update siting requirements for the inclusion of degraded reef to reflect changes to PWC, §76.003. It also removes subparagraph (a) (1) (B) because this specific siting requirement is no longer needed with change to §58.30 (1) (A) reflecting change to PWC, §76.003 which now explicitly requires the consideration of the “amount of time the area has been exhausted”.

The proposed amendment also alters sub paragraph (a) (2) specifying that the 15 year term limit referenced here is specific to CoLs for purposes of harvest. Given the addition of PWC, §76.022 which allows for CoLs for restoration purposes, these two activities need to be distinguished. To add to that distinction (a) (3) and (5) are added to this section where (a) (3) is added to specify the term limit for CoLs for restoration purposes and proposes a 15 year term and (a) (5) is added specifying that no oyster harvest will be permitted from CoLs for restoration purposes. The proposed amendment adds sub paragraph (a) (6) and sub paragraph (a) (7) which creates a framework for “authorized” activities on a CoL other than harvest which may occur on CoLs. Examples of these types of activities include the removal of siltation from cultch materials and checking quality of oysters and cultch on CoLs after extreme weather events. The proposed amendment retitles paragraph 58.30 Certificate of Location, (b) heading to reflect that this section covers the application process for CoLs for both harvest and restoration purposes. The proposed amendment alters sub paragraph (b) (1) by removing the clause which references “if applications for Certificates of Location are being accepted...” as this clause is no longer necessary with the proposed addition of (b) (2) which specifies that the department may designate times and dates when applications will be accepted.

While adding the language referenced before, the proposal also deleted the previous language in (b) (2) since the authority for specific marking requirements is governed by the United States Coast Guard.

The proposed amendment alters sub paragraph (b) (3) which specifies the need for applicants to consult with authorized department staff prior to submitting an application regarding the specific factors that are listed. This ensures a more efficient application process. It then adds sub paragraph (b) (3) (I) and (b) (3) (J) which reflects the recent changes to PWC, §76.003 regarding the inclusion of degraded reef for siting and the specific considerations for this degraded reef designation.

The proposed amendment alters sub paragraph (b) (4) (B) to mirror verbiage in PWC, §76.006, regarding who may submit an application. It then alters sub paragraph (b) (4) (C) to reflect modern use of Global Positioning Systems and mapping software which are readily available to describe sites and also removes sub paragraph (b) (4) (D) and moves this language to §58.30 (d) (1) to better reflect the application process. The proposed amendment adds sub paragraph (b) (4) (D) where proposed language reflects the need to differentiate CoLs for harvest or restoration purposes in the application. It also adds sub paragraph (b) (4) (E) which stipulates the requirement of a cultch placement plan. This would give TPWD insight as to the future use of the site which is necessary for making siting decisions and assuring appropriate use.

The proposed amendment would alter subsection (c) (1) to reflect the statute changes and to update the language associated with the need for a public hearing, at what point in the process the hearing should be held, the platform for the hearing (in-person or virtual), and when public notice of the hearing should be published. Additionally, the following subparagraphs would be altered to clarify (A) the purpose of the public hearing and (B) the information to be provided and outlet used to publicize the hearing. Subparagraph (D) would be repealed as they would be a duplication of the information provided in the revised subsection. Subparagraph (E) would be repealed as the Department no longer produces investigation reports for CoL public hearings.

The proposed amendments to subsection (c) (2) redefines the role of the Department in the public hearing process and (c) (4) changes the period of time for the applicant to be notified of approval/denial of their application from 10 to 14 days to mirroring the Cultivated Oyster Mariculture application notification process.

The proposed amendment also repeals subsection (c) (5) as the Coastal Coordination Council no longer exists and therefore will not be a part of the application approval processes.

The proposed amendment would retitle current subsection (d) to more accurately describe the responsibilities outlined within.

The proposed amendment would revise paragraphs (1) and (2) of current subsection (d) to outline the documentation and verification needed prior to final approval of the CoL application including: mapping in relation to state land tract boundaries, corner coordinates of the location, permits and authorizations acquired from of other state and federal agencies, and inspection and verification of the location by the Department.

The proposed alterations to paragraph (3) of subsection (d) would clearly establish that no placement of cultch or other material is authorized until the boundaries of the CoL are marked in accordance with United States Coast Guard regulations and the boundaries should remain marked for as long as the CoL is held by the Locator. The language in subparagraph (C) is modified from “if” to “when” to reflect the mandatory nature of the boundary markers.

The proposed amendment would repeal subsection (d) paragraph (4) as applications no longer need to be registered with the county clerk. The proposed amendment would replace the current paragraph (4) with provisions for Department review and approval of any amendments to CoL placement plans.

The proposed amendment would add a new paragraph (5) and associated subparagraphs (A-D) defining placement plan benchmarks required for CoLs for restoration purposes in accordance with PWC §76.022. It also provides the Department the flexibility to waive, defer, or amend the benchmarks under extenuating circumstances. Subparagraphs (A-D) define the specific benchmarks in percentages of the plan and the time to reach each benchmark.

The proposed amendments to subsection (d) paragraph (6) concerning Rental Fee, delineate between the CoLs for harvest and for restoration. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) have language added that highlights that they apply to CoLs for harvest. The proposed amendment adds a new subparagraph (E) specifying that there will be no annual rental fees for restoration CoLs. The “no fee” proposal recognizes the ecosystem benefits provided by the restoration CoLs in water filtration, wave attenuation, and as habitat for many aquatic organisms and the non-commercial aspects of those Locations. The proposed alterations to subparagraphs (d) (7) (A) and (B) specify that the renewal process at the end of a Location term applies to the CoLs for harvest. PWC §76.022 allows the Department to make separate rules for CoLs for restoration. The proposed repeal of clause (i) in subparagraph (A) is necessitated by the repeal of the statue under PWC §76.018 making renewal of a CoL based on the need for the depuration of polluted oysters. The proposed addition of clause (ii) allows the Department to account for other considerations prescribed in PWC §76.022 when determining whether a CoL for harvest should be renewed. The proposed amendment to current paragraphs (C) and (D) would relocate both to new paragraph (8), Alteration of Boundaries, where there will be a procedure for boundary modification. The proposed alteration of paragraph (C) will include the addition of language clarifying the CoLs for restoration will be renewed upon the request of the Locator per PWC §76.022.

The proposed addition of new paragraph (8), Alteration of Boundaries, describing the process for modification of CoL boundaries. The proposed paragraph expands on the original subparagraphs relocated from paragraph (7) associated with alteration of boundaries. This provides clarity and the opportunity for additional rules for modifying the boundaries of a CoL based on Department experience with previous alterations.

The proposed addition of paragraph (8) subparagraph (A) establishes that all boundary changes shall be approved by the Department prior to any alteration. Boundary changes occur for a variety of reasons, and any change must abide by the rules established for the application of a CoL and the size of the CoL must be maintained. The proposed amendment includes the relocation of subparagraphs (7) (C) and (D) to (8) and are modified to provide clarity and modernization of the language and process by adding that the Locator would be responsible for (iii) a survey of the new boundaries and that it must be submitted to the Department prior to approval of the boundary modifications. This process follows the initial application survey procedures. Once approved by the Department, the new survey will serve as a record of the boundary changes.

The proposed amendment relocates current paragraph (7), Auction Procedures, to paragraph (9). This includes clarification within subparagraph (A) that auction procedures only apply to CoLs for harvest.

The proposed addition of subparagraph (d) (9) (B) establishes that auction procedures do not apply to CoLs for restoration and if a CoL is not renewed, it will automatically revert to the public domain. This authority is granted to the Department per PWC §76.022.

The proposed amendment relocates current paragraph (8) to (10) and removes the reference to PWC §76.019. This change is made so the rule associated with the transfer or sale of a CoL will apply to both CoLs for harvest and restoration.

The proposed alterations to subparagraphs (d) (10) (A – C) add the words “certificate of” for clarification. The proposed alteration to subparagraph (D) adds the word “completed” to ensure that a completed transfer form is submitted to Department at the time of the transfer.

2. Fiscal Note.

Dakus Geeslin, Deputy Director, Coastal Fisheries Division, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be minimal additional fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rule as proposed. While the department currently administers a CoL program in Galveston Bay, the rule as proposed would allow for the use of CoLs for restoration purposes. This may result in increased use of the CoL program overall and in bay systems where this program does not currently exist. Such increased use of this program would result in additional administrative duties for staff including reviewing applications, siting, and managing of activities associated with CoLs.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

Mr. Geeslin also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be the enhancement of oyster populations and the ecological benefits provided by oysters in public waters including habitat provision, water filtration, erosion protection, and establishing a continual supply of oyster larvae to colonize oyster habitat within the bay system.

(B) Under provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s "direct adverse economic impacts" to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic impact" to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services. The department has determined that since the proposed rule changes are aimed at allowing for the use of the existing CoL program for restoration purposes and since the siting requirements for these CoLs are such that they would only occur on areas that have been degraded to the extent that they no longer support commercial exploitation, the development of CoLs on these areas will not result in direct adverse economic impacts to any small business, microbusiness, or rural community. Therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis describes in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rule as proposed.

(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rule.

(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rule.

(F) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS). The rule as proposed, if adopted, will:

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

(2) not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs;

(3) not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding;

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) will expand an existing regulation (by allowing for the use of CoLs for restoration purposes and modernizing the requirement of the CoL program in general);

(7) neither increase nor decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and

(8) not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

(G) The department has determined that the proposed rules are in compliance with Government Code §505.11 (Actions and Rule Amendments Subject to the Coastal Management Program).

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Michaela Cowan, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-8575; email: cfish@tpwd.texas.gov, or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendment is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.001, §76.003, §76.018, and §76.022 which authorizes the commission to issue and administrate CoLs for certain oyster beds and to expand the existing CoL program for restoration purposes.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 76.

6. Rule Text.

§58.11. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in the subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Approved area — A molluscan shellfish growing area determined to be acceptable for harvesting of molluscan shellfish for direct marketing according to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

(2) Barrel of oysters — As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.001, a barrel of oysters is three boxes of oysters in the shell or two gallons of shucked oysters without shells. The dimensions of a box are ten inches by 20 inches by 13 1/2 inches. In filling a box for measurement the oysters may not be piled more than 2 1/2 inches above the height of the box at the center.

(3) Certificate of Location — A department-issued certificate authorizing a person or domestic corporation to plant cultch and/or oysters in a specifically delineated area of the public water of the state for the purpose of establishing a private oyster bed.

(4) Conditionally approved area — The classification of a shellfish growing area determined by the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) to meet approved area criteria for a predictable period. The period is conditional upon established performance standards specified in a management plan. A conditionally approved area is a restricted area when the area does not meet the approved growing area criteria.

(5) Commission — The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Commission.

(6) Culling — The process of separating undersized oysters from oysters that are lawful to possess.

(7) Cultch –Substrate of appropriate size and composition for larval oyster attachments, such as shell, rock, or other non-toxic TPWD approved material.

(8)[(7)] Department — The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

(9)[(8)] Director — The executive director of the department.

(10)[(9)] Harvester/Shell Recovery Tag — An identifying marker that must be affixed to the outside of each sack of oysters at the time of harvest, in the location of harvest, containing information required by the TDSHS under the NSSP, and remain affixed during transportation of the oysters to a dealer.

(11)[(10)] Location — The acreage of public water for which a certificate of location has been issued.

(12)[(11)] Location term — The 15-year term of a certificate of location.

(13)[(12)] Locator — A person or domestic corporation to whom or which a certificate of location has been issued.

(14)[(13] Natural oyster bed (reef) — As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.001 — An area with a substrate that is predominantly composed of oyster shell or live oysters.[§76.051, a natural oyster bed is an area where at least five barrels of oysters are found within 2,500 square feet of any position on a reef or bed.]

(15)[(14)] Open season — A period during which it is lawful to take oysters.

(16)[(15)] Oyster — That species of molluscan shellfish identified as the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica and its subspecies. No other species of molluscan shellfish are included within this proclamation.

(17)[(16)] Possess — The act of having in possession or control, keeping, detaining, restraining, or holding as owner, or as an agent, bailee, or custodian of another.

(18)[(17)] Prohibited area — The classification of a shellfish growing area determined by the TDSHS to be unacceptable for the transplanting, gathering for depuration, or harvesting of shellfish. The only shellfish removal permitted from a prohibited area is for the purpose of depletion, as defined in the Control of Harvesting Section of Part 1 of the NSSP.

(19)[(18)] Public oyster bed (reef) — As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.002, all natural oyster beds (reefs) are public. All oyster beds not designated as private are public.

(20)[(19] Restricted area — The classification of a shellfish growing area determined by the TDSHS to be unacceptable for harvesting of shellfish for direct marketing, but which is acceptable for transplanting or gathering for depuration. A restricted area may be closed for transplanting or gathering for depuration when the TDSHS determines that the area does not meet the restricted area criteria established in the NSSP.

(21)[(20)] Sack of oysters — A volume of oysters, including dead oyster shell that weighs no more than 110 pounds including the sack.

(22)[(21)] Under location — An area subject to a certificate of location.

§58.30. Certificate of Location.

(a) General Rules.

(1) No certificate of location will be issued for:

(A) a natural oyster bed unless the department has determined that it is degraded pursuant to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.003(b)[as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.001];

(B) [an area that has been fished as a public reef within eight years of an application of a certificate of location as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.003;]

[(C)] a bay shore area within 100 yards of the shore as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.004;

(C)[(D)] an area subject to an exclusive riparian right as provided under Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.004 and §76.005;

(D)[(E)] an area already under location; or

(E)[(F)] an area within 1,000 feet of a location not owned or controlled by the applicant unless the applicant secures written permission.

(2) The term of a certificate of location for purposes of harvest is 15 years, as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.018.

(3) The term of a certificate of location for purposes of restoration is 15 years, as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.022.

(4)[(3)] In accordance with the Oyster Fishery Management Plan the Department may accept applications for certificates of location.

(5) No harvest of oysters is permitted from certificates of location that are designated for restoration purposes by the department as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.022.

(6) Except as provided under §58.40 of this title (relating to Oyster Transplant Permits) or §58.50 of this title (relating to Oyster Harvest Permits), the movement of oysters is prohibited unless authorized by the department in writing.

(7) A Locator may conduct non-harvest activities after extreme weather events on locations otherwise closed by DSHS, provided the Locator has received prior authorization of the activity from the department in writing. The Locator must possess the authorization on their person while engaging in this activity.

(b) Application For Certificate of Location (Harvest or Restoration).

(1) Applications[If applications for certificates of location are being accepted by the department, they] for certificates of location shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable application fee of $200.

(2) The department may designate specific times and dates during which applications will be accepted.

[(2) The applicant shall mark the proposed location site or sites with temporary poles and/or buoys in such a manner that the outline of the site or sites can be clearly determined.]

(3) Prior to the submission of an application, the applicant shall consult with an authorized employee(s) of the department to enable the department to determine necessary survey requirements and evaluate the prospective location with respect to:

(A) natural oyster reefs;

(B) shoreline;

(C) areas restricted or prohibited by the TSDHS;

(D) spoil disposal areas;

(E) other areas subject to a certificate of location;

(F) riparian rights;

(G) presence of exposed shell; and

(H) presence of live oysters;

(I) sediment overburden; and

(J) other habitats.

(4)[(3)] Each application shall contain:

(A) applicant’s name and address;

(B) affirmation that applicant is a United States citizen or a domestic corporation;

(C) a description of the acreage for which[to be authorized by the] certificate of location is sought, including:

(i) a map[plat] showing approximate size and location in relation to state land tracts; and

(ii) the corner coordinates of the proposed site; and

[(D) signed letters each from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, General Land Office, and TDSHS indicating approval for the proposed location site.]

(D) Each application must specify the purpose of the certificate of location (for harvest or restoration purposes).

(E) a cultch placement plan for the site, including reasonable estimates of:

(i) the nature or composition of materials to be used;

(ii) the quantity of materials to be used; and

(iii) the time of placement or deployment.

(F) The department shall approve or disapprove an application based on the totality of factors involved, including the suitability of the location with respect to the purpose and size of the area.

[(4) An authorized employee(s) of the department shall inspect the proposed location site or sites to determine its location with respect to:

[(A) natural oyster reefs;]

[(B) shoreline;]

[(C) areas restricted or prohibited by the TSDHS;]

[(D) spoil disposal areas;]

[(E) other areas subject to a certificate of location;]

[(F) riparian rights;]

[(G) presence of exposed shell; and]

[(H) presence of live oysters.]

(1) If the department determines that[After having determined] the proposed location site meets all siting[ location and exposed shell] requirements of this subchapter and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 76, the department shall:

(A) hold a public hearing to evaluate public opposition or grievance with respect to the proposed location and provide opportunity for public comment[determine if the site has been publicly fished within eight years of the application for a certificate of location;

(B) publish a notification of the date, time, and purpose of the public hearing on the department website and any other outlet deemed necessary[at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county closest to the proposed location];

(D) make information about the proposed certificate of location available to the public [information about the proposed application for a certificate of location ten days prior to the date of]at the hearing. [; and]

[(E) present the investigation report at the public hearing.]

(2) The department will consider all public comment relevant to matters under the jurisdiction of the department.[Persons objecting to the proposed certificate of location must submit a sworn affidavit or testify under oath at the public hearing stating reasons for the objection].

(3) The department shall review findings of the public hearing and submit recommendations to the Coastal Fisheries Division Director for approval.

(4) The applicant will be notified within 14 ten days after the hearing of either approval or denial of the application for a certificate of location.

[(5) The application approved by the department will be forwarded to the Coastal Coordination Council for final approval.]

(d) Responsibilities of Approved Locator.[Approved Procedures for Applicant.]

(1) A final application will not be approved until:

(A) the applicant has provided the department with:

(i) a map of the location showing the relation of the location with respect to state land tract boundaries;

(ii) the latitude and longitude coordinates of the location; and

(ii) evidence to satisfy the department that all permits and authorizations required by other state and federal agencies have been secured; and

(2) the department has inspected the location and verified the latitude and longitude coordinates required under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

[(1) Applicant shall be responsible for having a final survey of the approved location conducted by a registered surveyor who will furnish the department with survey notes and a plat showing;]

[(A) the location in relation to state land tract boundaries; and]

[(B) latitude and longitude coordinates for all location corner markers.]

(3)[(2)]Prior to any placement of cultch or other materials, the Locator shall [The applicant shall ]mark the boundaries of the location with buoys or other permanent markers in accordance with United States Coast Guard regulations[at the time of the final survey] and maintain buoys or other permanent markers for the duration of the period of validity [until termination] of the certificate [of location]. Supplemental markers may be required along the boundaries if one corner marker is not clearly visible from another corner marker.

(A) All marker buoys or other permanent markers must be:

(i) at least six inches in diameter;

(ii) at least three feet out of the water at mean high tide;

(iii) of a shape and color that is visible for at least 1/2 mile under normal weather conditions;

(iv) marked with the certificate of location number (Buoys or other permanent markers common to two or more locations must be marked with all numbers of the certificate of location);

(v) marked with at least two-inch high letters in plain Arabic block letters in a location where it will not be obscured by water or marine growth; and

(vi) marked with all required U.S. Coast Guard markings.

(B) Buoys must be anchored by:

(i) A screw anchor with a minimum one-inch galvanized sucker rod and 12-inch head inserted ten feet into the bottom; or

(ii) two anchors per buoy and each anchor having a minimum weight of 300 pounds.

(C) When[If]replacement of buoys or other permanent markers is necessary, original latitude and longitude coordinates of the final survey must be used to relocate markers.

[(4) The department shall return approved application for appropriate registration by applicant with the county clerk in the county of location.]

(4) A Locator shall submit proposed amendments to a placement plan to the department for review. The department must approve amendments to a placement prior to any activities under a prospective amendment.

(5) In the event that unforeseeable developments or extenuating circumstances make the attainment of the benchmarks in this paragraph impractical or impossible, the department may, on a case-by-case basis, waive, defer, or amend a benchmark. The holder of a certificate of location for restoration shall submit documentation of the following:

(A) placement initiated with in the first 24 months;

(B) 50% of the plan completed within five years;

(C) 60% of the plan completed within 10 years; and

(D) 80% of the plan completed by renewal.

(6)[(5)] Rental Fee.

(A) The holder of a certificate of location for harvest shall pay to the department ($20) per acre of location per year. The fee established by this subparagraph shall be recalculated at three-year intervals beginning on the effective date of this section and proportionally adjusted to any change in the Consumer Price Index, the department’s cost-recovery needs, or both.

(B) Rental fees for certificates of location for harvest are due annually by March 1 as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.017.

(C) The holder of a certificate of location shall pay the department a late penalty fee equal to 10 percent of the amount due for any rental, transfer, sale, or renewal fee that is not paid when due as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.017.

(D) Failure to pay any rental, transfer, sale, renewal, or late penalty fee within 90 days of the due date terminates the (certification of location) as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.017.

(E) There is no rental fee for certificates of location for restoration.

(7)[(6)] Renewal of Certificate of Location.

(A) As prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.018, at the end of the term of a certificate of [a] location for harvest [term] the department shall determine the need for continuation of the certificate of location based on:

(i) [the need for depuration of oysters from non-approved areas; and]

[(ii) other] considerations as specified in §58.12 of this title (relating to Oyster Fishery Management Plan); and

(ii) any other consideration prescribed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.018.

(B) If the certificate of location for harvest is to be renewed under the conditions of the department as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.018, the holder of the certificate of location shall be offered the first right of refusal for renewal as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.018.

(C) Certificates of location for restoration will be renewed at the request of the Locator.

[(C) If there is any alteration to the boundaries of a location, the holder of a certificate of location shall be responsible for having the location resurveyed by a registered surveyor who will provide the department with survey notes and a plat of the location showing:]

[(i) the location in relation to state land tract boundaries; and]

[(ii) latitude and longitude coordinates for all corner markers.]

[(D) The survey will be conducted and provided to the department within one year of renewal of the certificate of location;]

(8) Alteration of Boundaries

(A) All changes must be approved and authorized by the department prior to any alteration of boundaries of a certificate of location.

(B) If there is any alteration to the boundaries of a location, the Locator shall be responsible for having the location resurveyed by a registered surveyor who will provide the department with survey notes and a map of the location showing:

(i) the location in relation to state land tract boundaries; and

(ii) latitude and longitude coordinates for all corner markers.

(C) The department will not approve any alteration of the boundaries of a certificate of location until the survey required by this paragraph has been conducted and provided to the department.

(9)[(7)]Auction Procedures.

(A) A certificate of location for harvest may be auctioned by the [The] department if it[may auction a location that] is not renewed as prescribed by this subchapter and Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.018.

(B) Auction procedures do not apply to certificates of location for restoration; if certificates of location for restoration are not renewed, the location automatically reverts to the public domain.

(C)[(B)]The department may determine a minimum acceptable bid based on:

(i) bid offers from previous auctions;

(ii) established open market prices; and

(iii) other relevant factors.

(D)[(C)] The department may refuse all bids below the minimum acceptable bid.

(E)[(D)] The department must follow prescribed bid guidelines for state agencies.

(10)[(8)]Transfers or Sale[ as prescribed in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.019].

(A) A transfer or sale of a certificate of location does not change location terms.

(B) A payment of $200 will be due upon transfer or sale of a certificate of location.

(D) A completed transfer form prescribed by the department is[will be]required at time of transfer.

Work Session Agenda Item 10

Presenter: Alan Cain

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Detection and Response Rules – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

Staff seeks permission to publish proposed changes to rules governing chronic wasting disease (CWD) response and deer breeder permits in the Texas Register for public comment. The proposed changes would eliminate the current zone-based system of CWD response and establish new and modified standards to support the management and mitigation of CWD in free-range and captive populations.

II. Discussion

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) began establishing zones in response to confirmed detections of CWD in 2012. Since then, the department has established nine Containment Zones (CZ) and 26 Surveillance Zones (SZ).

TPWD recognizes that live animal movements from areas proximate to CWD detections are a risk for spreading CWD beyond that area and that regulations are necessary to mitigate those risks. At the urging of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission), staff has developed a regulatory proposal that would replace the current system of management zones with science-based mitigation standards predicated on distance from CWD detections in free-ranging populations. The proposal would also simplify out-of-state carcass movement restriction.

Because CWD continues to be detected in deer breeding facilities, the proposal would also amend deer breeder rules, to include provisions addressing pen standards within facilities, retention of visible identification on breeder deer sent to release sites, and enhanced disease mitigation standards for CWD-positive breeding facilities. TPWD believes that the proposed amendments are necessary to implement practical disease management strategies and reduce the probability of spreading CWD.

Apart from regulatory proposals, staff will also apprise the Commission of continuing department efforts to keep the public, especially landowners and hunters, informed about the nature of CWD, best practices to combat the spread of CWD, and the locations where CWD has been confirmed or suspected.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Disease Detection and Response Rules

Work Session Agenda Item 10
Exhibit A

DISEASE DETECTION AND RESPONSE RULES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of 31 TAC §§65.81-61.85, amendments to §§65.80, 65.88, 65.90, 65.95, 65.99, 65.602-65.605, and 65.610; and new §65.81, concerning Disease Detection and Response. The proposed repeals, amendments, and new rule would eliminate the current zone-based disease response strategy for chronic wasting disease (CWD) detections in free-range and captive deer populations, implement a new risk-mitigation strategy based on confirmed cases of CWD in free-range populations of native and exotic species, and implement additional testing and fencing requirements for deer breeding facilities. The intent of the proposed rules is to reduce the probability of CWD being spread from locations and facilities where it does or might exist.

CWD is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder that affects cervid species such as white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, red deer, sika, and others (susceptible species). CWD is classified as a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy), a family of diseases that includes scrapie (found in sheep) and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, found in cattle and commonly known as “Mad Cow Disease”), and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans. CWD is transmitted both directly (through deer-to-deer contact) and indirectly (through environmental contamination).

The department and the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) have been engaged in combatting CWD in Texas since 2002, including in response to repeated detections within deer breeding facilities. Since 2002, more than 142,000 “not detected” post-mortem CWD test results have been obtained from free-ranging (i.e., not breeder) deer in Texas, and deer breeders have submitted approximately 76,000 “not detected” post-mortem test results in addition to 112,000 ante-mortem test results as well.

Much remains unknown about CWD. The peculiarities of its transmission (how it is passed from animal to animal), infection rate (the frequency of occurrence through time or other comparative standard), incubation period (the time from exposure to clinical manifestation), and potential for transmission to other species are still being investigated and not thoroughly understood. There is currently no scientific evidence to indicate that CWD is transmissible to humans; however, both the CDC and the World Health Organization strongly recommend avoiding consumption of meat from CWD-infected deer. What is known is that CWD is invariably fatal to cervids. Moreover, a high prevalence of the disease correlates with deer population decline in at least one free-ranging population in the United States, and there is evidence that hunters tend to avoid areas of high CWD prevalence. Additionally, the apparent persistence of CWD in contaminated environments represents a significant obstacle to eradication of CWD from either captive or free-ranging cervid populations. The potential implications of CWD for Texas and its multi-billion dollar ranching, hunting, real estate, tourism, and wildlife management-related economies could be significant, unless it is contained and managed.

The department has engaged in frequent rulemaking over the years to address both the general threat posed by CWD and the repeated detection of CWD in deer breeding facilities. In 2005, the department adopted rules (30 TexReg 3595) that closed the Texas border to the entry of out-of-state captive white-tailed and mule deer and increased regulatory requirements regarding disease monitoring and record keeping. In 2012, based on recommendations from the department’s CWD Task Force (an ad hoc group of deer management professionals, landowners, veterinarians, scientists, and deer breeders), the department adopted rules (37 TexReg 10231) to implement a CWD containment strategy in response to the detection of CWD in free-ranging mule deer located in the Hueco Mountains, the first detection of CWD in Texas. In 2015, the department discovered CWD in a deer breeding facility in Medina County and adopted emergency rules (40 TexReg 5566) to respond immediately to the threat, followed by rules (41 TexReg 815) intended to function through the 2015-2016 hunting season. Working closely with TAHC and with the assistance of the Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution of the University of Texas School of Law, the department intensively utilized input from stakeholders and interested parties to develop and adopt comprehensive CWD management rules in 2016 (41 TexReg 5726). Since 2002, the department has made a continuous, concerted effort to involve the regulated community and stakeholders in the process of developing appropriate CWD response, management, and containment strategies, including input from the Breeder User Group (an ad hoc group of deer breeders), the CWD Task Force, the Private Lands Advisory Committee (an advisory group of private landowners from various ecological regions of the state), and the White-tailed Deer and Mule Deer Advisory Committees (advisory groups of landowners, hunters, wildlife managers, and other stakeholders), resulting in a series of rulemakings necessitated by or in response to the continued detections of CWD in both free-range and captive populations.

Until now, the department’s strategy for containing CWD on the landscape was to respond to CWD detections in both captive and free-ranging populations by designating CWD management zones by rule. Within those zones, the movement of live deer under department-issued permits was restricted, testing of all hunter-harvested deer was required, and special provisions governing the processing and movement of deer carcasses were placed in effect. Those rules are contained in Division 1 of Chapter 65, Subchapter B. One unforeseen consequence of that approach is that the constant stream of CWD discoveries in breeding facilities has resulted in continuous rulemaking because each time CWD is discovered, the commission must promulgate a zone by rule in response. Staff has been directed by the commission to replace the current zone-based system with some other method of mitigating the risk of the spread of CWD that does not involve the necessity of rulemaking every time CWD is discovered in a breeding facility or the free-range.

The rules contained in Division 2 of Chapter 65, Subchapter B, govern the department’s disease management protocols with respect to the detection of CWD within deer breeding facilities. Those rules can generally be described as functioning together to implement testing standards necessary to provide statistically representative sampling within deer breeding facilities for purposes of minimally effective surveillance for CWD. One of the most effective approaches to managing infectious diseases and arresting the spread of a disease is to segregate populations of unknown disease risk (suspicious individuals and suspicious populations) from unexposed populations. As a matter of epidemiological probability, when animals from a population at higher risk of harboring an infectious disease are introduced to a population of animals at a lower risk of harboring an infectious disease, the confidence that the receiving population will remain disease-free is reduced.

Department records indicate that within the last five years, 28 deer breeding facilities where CWD has been confirmed transferred a total of 8,079 deer to 235 additional deer breeding facilities and 460 release sites located in a total of 139 counties in Texas.

The current comprehensive rules address disease response with respect to directly (facilities where CWD has been detected) and indirectly connected facilities (facilities that receive deer that were in the same facility with a CWD-positive deer prior to being transferred to another facility), implementing requirements for disease testing and movement of breeder deer to and from indirectly connected facilities, and requiring ante-mortem testing of all age-eligible deer prior to transfer to another breeding facility or release site. Those rules are predicated on a “tracing” model that is a universally accepted epidemiological methodology for disease tracking and control. The department, TAHC, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) utilize a five-year “trace window” to develop information to characterize the particulars concerning the potential spread of CWD. The five-year window is important because (based on the literature and the USDA cervid disease program standards) it encompasses the time period from possible exposure to CWD, through the incubation period, to the time at which the disease can be transmitted to another animal or the environment.

The current comprehensive rules also address disease transmission risk associated with the movement of deer carcasses by implementing statewide disposal requirements. These disposal requirements ensure that unused carcass parts are either left at the site of harvest, disposed of in a landfill, or buried under at least three feet of earth. Proper carcass disposal mitigates risk associated with environmental contamination and potential spread of infected carcass parts by scavengers, providing an effective management strategy.

The proposed rules are necessary to protect the state’s white-tailed and mule deer populations, as well as the long-term viability of associated hunting, wildlife management, and deer breeding industries. To minimize the severity of biological and economic impacts resulting from CWD, the proposed rules implement more rigorous protocols within deer breeding facilities located in a specified proximity to a free-range CWD detection than was previously required in CWD Containment Zones. The proposed rules would provide a pathway for any deer breeders within a specified proximity to a free-range CWD detection (with the exception of CWD-positive facilities) to continue to move and release breeder deer. The proposed rules continue the existing extensive cooperation between the department and TAHC and the continued involvement of various stakeholder groups and interested parties.

The proposed repeals would eliminate rules that establish CWD management zones and prescribe conditions for live animal movement under department-issued permits within those zones, special provisions for breeding facilities within zones, powers of the executive director, and check station requirements, none of which will be necessary if the proposed amendments and new section are adopted.

The proposed amendment to §65.80, concerning Definitions, would remove the current definitions, which are either unnecessary or redundant, and allow the definitions of §65.90, concerning Definitions, to be applicable to the entirety of the subchapter.

Proposed new §65.81, concerning Risk Mitigation Provisions, would implement a new approach for isolating, reducing, and if possible, preventing the spread of CWD from locations where it is confirmed to exist, without the need for rulemaking each time a detection occurs, and without utilizing check stations or mandatory testing of hunter-harvested deer. The new approach is based on additional safeguards with respect to the movement of live deer under department-issued permits in proximity to locations where CWD is detected in free-range deer.

Proposed new subsection (a) would provide for the applicability of the proposed new rule to movement of live deer under department-issued permits within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range white-tailed deer or susceptible species or within 25 miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range mule deer (hereinafter, “proximity to a free-range positive,” “proximity values”), provide for resolution of conflict with other regulatory provisions, and allow for the cessation of the rule’s applicability when the department has determined, using the best available science, that CWD is not likely present in such areas. The proposed new subsection is necessary to clearly articulate when and where the provisions of the new rule apply, and under what conditions the applicability of the rules cease. The five-mile and 25-mile values were selected because they represent the average natural dispersal ranges for free-range buck white-tailed and mule deer, respectively. The five-mile proximity factor is also applied to susceptible species as a general index of movement and takes into consideration that such animals are not indigenous.

Proposed new subsection (b) would specifically address the movement of live deer under a deer breeder’s permit. Proposed new subsection (b)(1) would specify that the department will notify the holder of a deer breeder’s permit in the event that the permittee’s facility has become subject to the applicability of the rule, which is necessary to establish the point in time at which the department will calculate compliance the various time-based provisions of the rules.

Proposed new subsection (b)(2) would provide that a deer breeder in proximity to a free-range positive could, provided the facility is already authorized by the department to transfer deer, continue to transfer deer, but only to other breeders or release sites that are also within the same proximity to the free-range positive. The department’s primary concern is to prevent the spread of CWD from where it is known to exist by limiting the movement of live deer via department-issued permits from such areas to new areas beyond the natural dispersal range of deer.

Proposed new subsection (b)(3) and (4) would provide for the conditions under which the department would allow the transfer of breeder deer from a breeding facility to locations beyond the proximity distances. The department has determined that if a breeding facility in proximity to a free-range positive is surrounded by a double fence, all eligible-age deer within the facility are ante-mortem tested (with results of “not detected”), and one year has passed following the whole-herd test, the risk of spreading CWD is probably low. A double fence is believed to be an effective (but not absolute) barrier to CWD transmission because it prevents physical contact between free-range animals (native deer and susceptible species) and breeder deer. In order to gain some assurance that CWD has not been passed from free-range animals to deer within a facility, a whole-herd ante-mortem test functions as an efficacious screening tool in conjunction with current rules requiring individual breeder deer to be ante-mortem tested prior to transfer; thus, the combination of physical barrier, whole-herd testing, sufficient time, and individual testing prior to transfer is believed to present an acceptable assurance that the likelihood of CWD being present (yet undetected) is low, especially when combined with mandatory retention of visible identification, which will greatly assist in the recovery and testing of exposed animals should CWD be detected in the originating facility.

Proposed new subsection (b)(5) would acknowledge the epidemiological value to breeding facilities prospectively affected by the new rules of surveillance efficacy achieved during the effectiveness of the rules being proposed for repeal. Under those rules, all hunter-harvested deer in CWD management zones were subject to mandatory or voluntary CWD testing. In order to accommodate the situations in which a breeding facility was prohibited under the CWD management zone rules from transferring deer to any location authorized to receive breeder deer, the proposed new rules would allow such facilities to transfer deer to any location in the state authorized to receive deer, provided the facility meets the new fencing requirements in the proposed amendment to §65.905, concerning Facility Requirements and Care of Deer, and is otherwise authorized to transfer deer (i.e., not a breeding facility where CWD has been confirmed or a breeding facility epidemiologically linked to a breeding facility where CWD has been confirmed or otherwise not in compliance with rules regarding movement qualification).

Proposed new subsection (b)(6) would prohibit the recapture of deer that escape from a deer breeding facility located in proximity to a free-range positive except as authorized by the department or in a herd plan. A deer that escapes from a facility in proximity to a free-range positive could become exposed to CWD; therefore, the return of an escaped deer to a deer breeding facility could introduce CWD to that facility, which is undesirable. Therefore, the proposed new provision would prohibit return of escaped breeder deer to breeding facilities in proximity to a free-range positive while making exceptions for situations in which the department believes recapture is necessary and the risk is low or non-existent, or it is otherwise allowed under a herd plan.

Proposed new subsection (c) would prohibit the issuance of a Deer Management Permit (DMP) at a property in proximity to a free-range positive or to a property that is a release site epidemiologically linked to a breeding facility where CWD has been confirmed. A DMP authorizes the capture and temporary captivity of free-range deer for natural breeding purposes (which may include exposure to breeder deer) within a high-fence property, after which the deer must be released to the wild. The department reasons that CWD prevalence in the population of deer on that property could be exacerbated because deer are concentrated in a DMP pen.

The proposed amendment to §65.88, concerning Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions, would standardize carcass movement restrictions to eliminate separate requirements for susceptible species harvested outside of Texas and clarify existing rules governing disposal of carcasses. The proposed amendment would eliminate current subsection (a), modify current subsection (b) to accommodate applicability to susceptible species harvested outside of Texas, and allow for deboning carcasses (c) at a location other than the property of harvest. The proposed amendment also would clarify that persons opting to inter unused carcass parts are expected to immediately cover those parts as provided in the current rule, that rendering is not an acceptable method of disposal, and that in the time period, if any, between the processing of a carcass and eventual disposal, the unused carcass parts must be protected from being scattered, consumed, or removed. The proposed amendment is intended to remove ambiguity regarding the timeliness of compliance with the current rule. Similar changes are made to subsection (d). The proposed amendment would eliminate current subsections (e) and (f) because they would no longer be necessary if other elements of this proposed rulemaking are adopted.

The proposed amendment to §65.90, concerning Definitions, would add definitions for “free-range deer,” “location of detection,” “positive facility,” “susceptible species,” and “whole-herd test.” All white-tailed and mule deer in this state are the property of the people of this state; however, various provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code authorize the temporary or (conditionally) permanent possession of white-tailed and mule deer under certain permits. The provisions of this subchapter distinguish between deer held in captivity under a deer breeding permit from all other deer and it is helpful to have a useful term to refer to all deer other than deer held in captivity; therefore, the proposed amendment would define “free-range deer” as “a deer that is not a breeder deer.” Similarly, the provisions of the subchapter are frequently conditioned on the confirmed presence or assumed absence of CWD in various scenarios; therefore, “positive breeding facility” would be defined as “a deer breeding acility where CWD has been confirmed to exist.” The proposed amendment would define “susceptible species” as “any species or part of a species that is susceptible to CWD,” which is necessary because white-tailed and mule deer can contract CWD from certain species of exotic livestock and non-native wildlife; thus, the proposed rules must account for the discovery of CWD in animals in general, not just in native wildlife.

Proposed new §65.81, concerning CWD Risk Mitigation Provisions, would condition the applicability of that section to breeding facilities based on the distance any given deer breeding facility is from a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range white-tailed, mule deer, or other susceptible species. The department intends for that standard to be as close as possible to the actual distance between the deer breeding facility and the exact spot where the deer was killed, but acknowledges that this will not always be possible; therefore, the proposed amendment would define “location of detection” as “the exact location, to the extent that it can be determined, at which a deer confirmed to be positive for CWD died.”

Finally, proposed new §65.81 also provides for the testing of the entirety of a captive population in some circumstances. For ease of reference, the proposed amendment would define “whole-herd test” as “the administration of an ante-mortem CWD test to the entirety of test-eligible deer in the inventory of a breeding facility.”

The proposed amendment to §65.95, concerning Movement of Breeder Deer, would require the owner of a prospective release site for breeder deer to provide independent verification that the entirety of the release site is surrounded by a fence meeting the requirements of current subsection (c)(3). There have been instances in which unscrupulous persons have been untruthful with respect to the fence requirements or the actual location of a release site. Although it is a violation of current rule and Parks and Wildlife Code to fail to have and maintain a lawful fence, the sheer number of release sites makes it impossible for the department to verify that every release site is in compliance with the rules; therefore, because the department firmly believes it is imperative that released breeder deer be to some reasonable extent segregated from other free-range populations because of the threat of CWD, it is prudent to require an independent confirmation that the required fencing exists as a condition of authorizing such releases.

The proposed amendment also would prohibit the release of breeder deer that are not permanently marked in accordance with the requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561, which stipulates that not later than March 31 of the year following the year in which a breeder deer is born, the breeder deer must be identified by placing a tag in one ear. Section 43.3561 also requires deer breeders to immediately replace an identification tag that has been dislodged, damaged, or removed by means other than human agency and allows the removal of a tag only for the purpose of immediately replacing the tag with a tag that meets the requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561. Faithfulness to the statute, especially in light of the proposed amendments, will increase the ability of the department and landowners to quickly identify and remove specific deer from release sites for testing in the event a release site becomes epidemiologically linked to a deer breeding facility where CWD has been confirmed.

The proposed amendment to §65.99, concerning Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities, would eliminate references to provisions in Division 1 of this subchapter that would no longer be necessary if other proposed provisions of this rulemaking are adopted.

The proposed amendment also would add new subsection (f) to provide an additional aven to MQ status for breeding facilities that have been designated NMQ because they have been indirectly epidemiologically linked to a positive facility. The proposed amendment is an exception to the five-year trace window and is based on the premise that if all trace deer (deer received from a facility that has become epidemiologically connected to a positive facility) are either found and post-mortem tested (with test results of “not detected”), or all trace deer that for whatever reason cannot be located for testing (due to release or mortality) were received no earlier than 36 months prior to the positive detection that triggered the trace status and were ante-mortem tested within 60 months prior to the detection in the positive facility or any time after the detection occurred in the positive facility, and the facility is in compliance with all applicable provisions of this subchapter (including additional fencing requirements), the risk of CWD having been transmitted to the trace facility can then be considered to be low.

Finally, the proposed amendment would alter current subsection (h) to implement additional measures to facilitate and expedite the department’s epidemiological investigations in the event that CWD is confirmed in a breeding facility. The proposed amendment would require a permittee, within 14 days upon notification of a suspect detection, to conduct and provide to the department a pen-by-pen inventory (to include the pen where the positive deer was at the time of the detection), immediately cease the internal movement of deer between pens in the facility unless otherwise authorized by the department, euthanize all trace deer within seven days (unless authorized by the department or in a herd plan), and either enter into a herd plan or agree to depopulate the facility. The prompt isolation of deer, cessation of deer movement, removal of trace deer, and initiation of mitigation actions greatly aids department efforts to contain and slow the spread of CWD.

The proposed amendment to §65.602, concerning Permit Requirement and Permit Privileges; General Provisions, would add a reference to Subchapter B of the chapter to subsection (a)(4) and eliminate time-based provisions in subsections (d) and (e). The proposed amendment to subsection (a) is necessary because another element of this rulemaking would affect attempts to recapture escaped breeder deer and the two provisions should be harmonized to prevent confusion. The proposed alterations to subsections (c) and (d) are necessary because those provisions are no longer applicable or necessary.

The proposed amendment to §65.603, concerning Application and Permit Issuance, would require applicants for a new deer breeder’s permit to provide evidence that required fencing exists and has been inspected as stipulated by §65.605, concerning Facility Standards and Care of Deer, and alter fencing requirements for new deer breeding facilities.

The proposed amendment to §65.604, concerning Disease Monitoring, would alter the reference to Subchapter B of Chapter 65 to remove a reference to Division 2, which is no longer necessary in light of proposed amendments contained in this rulemaking.

The proposed amendment to §65.605, concerning Holding Facility Standards and Care of Deer, would retitle the section, implement additional fencing requirements, prescribe internal infrastructure requirements, and prohibit the sharing of any space within a breeding facility with any animals other than the breeder deer permitted to be in the facility.

Elsewhere in this rulemaking the department proposes rules to prescribe standards to mitigate the risk of the spread of CWD from locations where it has been confirmed in free-range populations of susceptible species. One component of those risk-mitigation measures is the requirement of affected deer breeding facilities to erect additional fencing as necessary to ensure that deer within the facility (with one exception for temporary movement win a facility) are at all times behind at least two fences capable of retaining deer. The department believes it is prudent to require all new deer breeding facilities to comply with those fencing standards moving forward, which will provide additional protections with respect to disease transmission and the additional benefit of reducing the responses required to maintain movement status in the event that CWD is confirmed in proximity to the facility.

The proposed amendment also stipulates that in the interstitial spaces between the perimeter fence of the facility and the fencing of the pens within the facility, no supplemental food or water is permitted and no animals (including breeder deer) are allowed to be present, except what is necessary to facilitate movement of breeder deer between pens within the facility. As noted earlier in this preamble, CWD can be transmitted environmentally (contaminated soil, vegetation, feed, excreta) as well as through direct animal-to-animal contact. The department considers that it is therefore important for the spaces between internal fencing (e.g. facility pens) and the perimeter fence to function as a buffer to prevent direct animal contact. The proposed amendment contains an exception for the temporary use of such spaces as needed to move or drive deer between fenced components within the facility, provided they are not allowed to linger or to have unsupervised access to such spaces.

The proposed amendment also would prohibit the use of any infrastructure within the perimeter fence of a deer breeding facility by any animals other than the breeder deer within the facility (i.e., no livestock or breeder deer that are not in the inventory of the facility). The department has become aware that in some cases breeder deer from more than one permitted facility have been allowed shared access to handling barns and working pens, which should not be allowed because it presents an unacceptable risk of CWD being transmitted between breeding facilities via environmental or direct contact.

Finally, the proposed amendment would require all deer breeding facilities on a single property to be separated by at least 10 feet. In this way, there is no shared fencing that would allow direct animal-to-animal contact.

The proposed amendment to §65.610, concerning Transfer of Deer, would acknowledge the offense of violating Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561, for reasons explained earlier in this rulemaking with respect to the proposed amendment to §65.95.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no negative fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rules, as the rules will be administered and enforced using existing personnel as part of their current duties under existing budgets. There may be positive fiscal implications to the department if the costs of CWD testing on hunter-harvested deer drop significantly as a consequence of the elimination of mandatory testing in CWD management zones required under previous rules; however, because that value cannot be predicted, it cannot be quantified.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be the minimally acceptable probability that CWD will not be spread from locations and facilities where it might exist, which is necessary to assure the public of continued enjoyment of the resource and the continued beneficial economic impacts of hunting in Texas. Additionally, the protection of free-ranging deer herds will have the simultaneous collateral benefit of protecting captive herds and maintaining the economic viability of deer breeding operations.

(B) There will be an adverse economic impact on persons rred to comply with the rules as proposed. Those impacts are the same as the adverse economic impacts to small and microbusinesses and rural communities, which are addressed later in this preamble.

(C) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s "direct adverse economic impacts" to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic impact" to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department has determined that the proposed rules will result in increased costs to deer breeders in the form of additional required testing, additional facility requirements, and potential loss of sales. Therefore, the department has prepared an economic impact statement and regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.357(a), authorizes a person to whom a breeder permit has been issued to “engage in the business of breeding breeder deer in the immediate locality for which the permit was issued” and to “sell, transfer to another person, or hold in captivity live breeder deer for the purpose of propagation.” As a result, deer breeders are authorized to engage in business activities; namely, the purchase and sale of breeder deer. The same is not true of other permits issued by the department, which authorize only the temporary detention and release of deer and do not authorize the purchase or sale of deer.

Government Code, §2006.001(1), defines a small or micro-business as a legal entity “formed for the purpose of making a profit” and “independently owned and operated.” A micro-business is a business with 20 or fewer employees. A small business is defined as a business with fewer than 100 employees, or less than $6 million in annual gross receipts.

Department data indicate that there are 650 permitted deer breeders in Texas as of the preparation of this analysis. Although the department does not require deer breeders to file or report financial information with the department, the department believes that most if not all deer breeders qualify as a small or micro-business. Since the rules as proposed would impact the ability of a deer breeder to engage in certain activities undertaken to generate a profit, the proposed rules could have an adverse impact on deer breeders.

The variety of business models utilized by deer breeders makes meaningful estimates of potential adverse economic impacts difficult. As noted, the department does not require deer breeders to report the buying or selling prices of deer; however, publicly available and anecdotal information indicates that sale prices, especially for buck deer, may be significant, ranging from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars.

It should also be noted that some aspects of this analysis are based on marketplace behavior that cannot be accurately predicted. In addition, to the extent that any marketplace analysis can be conducted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately separate and distinguish marketplace behavior that is the result of the rules from marketplace behavior that is the result of the discovery of CWD. For reasons unrelated to the proposed rules, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that breeders and release site owners will be reluctant to purchase a breeder deer from a facility with a close relationship or a perceived relationship to a facility near or at which CWD has been detected. As noted earlier in thialysis, the department, for a variety of reasons, views the proposed rules as the minimally acceptable standard necessary to have a meaningful chance at preventing CWD from being spread from locations where it is known to exist; beyond that standard, confidence regarding the health of deer in any given deer breeding facility is a matter of trust between buyer and seller.

The department notes that at the current time there would be two permitted deer breeders who could be adversely impacted if the proposed rules were in effect today, based on department data. All potential adverse economic impacts to permitted deer breeders as a result of the proposed rules would be dependent on the discovery of CWD in free-range populations within the specified proximities to deer breeding facilities; therefore, if CWD is not detected within the specified proximities, the rules would have no effect on any permitted deer breeder except as noted.

One of the two deer breeders who would be immediately affected by the proposed rules releases deer only to an adjacent release site that is also within five miles of a free-range detection. If that deer breeder desired to transfer deer beyond the five-mile distance from the nearby positive location, that breeder would be required to meet the fencing and testing requirements of the proposed rules.

The other deer breeder who would be immediately affected by the proposed rules already meets the requirements of the proposed rules and would be permitted to transfer deer to any facility in the state authorized to accept deer.

There will be no adverse economic impacts for deer breeders whose facilities are located within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in free-range white-tailed deer or susceptible species, or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range mule deer, are designated MQ, and who transfer deer only to release sites and breeding facilities that are within the specified proximity to the free-range positive.

The proposed rules, if CWD is confirmed within the proximal distances to any deer breeder, would require affected permittees who desire to transfer breeder deer anywhere in the state to construct additional fencing to ensure that breeder deer are behind two fences at all times. Because the physical layout and internal design of breeding facilities varies greatly, it is difficult to account for all the possibilities; thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the department estimates the maximum cost of compliance with fencing requirements to be approximately $88,000, which was derived by multiplying the current highest estimated cost per linear mile for fencing meeting the requirements of the rules ($55,000, in mountainous or rugged terrain, variable by region) multiplied by the perimeter footage of a square-shaped 103-acre facility (the largest deer breeding facility in the state, according to department records, is 103 acres and the department for the purposes of this analysis used an equilateral model to calculate the linear length of the perimeter, which could vary by facility), which is approximately 1.6 miles The average size of a deer breeding facility property is 14 acres and the median size is nine acres. Based again on an equilateral model, the maximum estimated cost to fence a 14-acre facility would be $32,538, and the maximum estimated cost for a nine-acre facility would be $26,089. Department records indicate that at the current time, there are two breeding facilities that would have to erect additional fencing in order to be able to transfer deer to any deer breeder or release site in the state if the rules as proposed are adopted. Similarly, the proposed rules would require all new deer breeding facilities to be surrounded by a perimeter fence and this analysis would also apply to those facilities.

The proposed rules also would require the owners of prospective release sites to have a qualified person perform a fence inspection and attest to the site’s compliance wit rules. The department estimates that this cost would be a minimum of $1,000 and possibly greater, depending on the size of the release site, location, terrain, and other factors contributing to the amount of time necessary to conduct the inspection.

The proposed rules would require affected permittees who desire to transfer breeder deer anywhere in the state to conduct additional ante-mortem testing. The adverse economic impact of the proposed rules would consist of testing costs for a whole-herd ante-mortem test. Department records indicate that of the two facilities that would be immediately affected if the rules are adopted, only one would have to conduct testing in order to transfer anywhere in the state and that breeder’s inventory as of this analysis is 65 deer. Therefore, the estimated adverse economic impact on that permittee would be approximately $114,800 (assuming an average cost of $350 per deer subjected to testing, as described below). The department cannot of course predict how many additional deer breeders could be affected in the event of additional confirmations of CWD in free-range deer or susceptible species; however, department records indicate that the largest current inventory in any deer breeding facility authorized to transfer deer is 639 deer; thus, the adverse impact to that permittee (if CWD was confirmed within the specified proximity) would be approximately $223,650. The department notes, for purposes of scaling, that eight percent of the breeding facilities in the state contain 200 or more deer, 17 percent contain between 100 and 199 deer, 24% contain between 50 and 100 deer, 34 percent contain between 10 and 49 deer, and 17 percent contain fewer than 10 deer, and that 168 of the facilities are not authorized to transfer deer under rules currently in effect and unrelated to the rules as proposed. Of the 650 permitted deer breeders in Texas, 482 are currently designated MQ and 168 are designated NMQ under existing rules.

Additionally, affected permittees would not be able to transfer deer for a period of one year following the administration of the whole-herd test; therefore, affected permittees would experience prospective sales losses associated with that one-year period. As noted, permittees are not required to file or report financials to the department; thus, the loss of sales to any given permittee is unknown but could be many thousands of dollars. In any case, there are no permittees at the current time who would be affected.

The proposed rules would require permittees at trace-in breeding facilities and positive facilities to euthanize and test trace deer. The adverse economic impact to affected breeders would consist of the cost of euthanizing a deer ($0 — $500), the cost of a post-mortem test ($70 per deer), and the possible loss of sales value (variable and unquantifiable). In the overwhelming majority of cases, this would involve fewer than five deer.

The proposed rules would require permittees who decline to accept a herd plan for a positive facility to depopulate the facility. The cost of a depopulation event is highly variable because of the number of factors, but in general consists of the cost of euthanizing the deer in the facility, post-mortem testing of those deer, and disposal. Based on department-conducted depopulation events the department estimates that depopulation costs would be between $500 and $700 per animal. Based on department records, that would result in a cost of $447,300 at the facility with the largest number of deer at the current time. The department notes that permittees would only be required to conduct depopulation activities if they refuse to enter into a department herd plan; thus, depopulation is not mandatory. If the department depopulates a deer breeding facility pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.953, the department is required to waive the associated costs pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.955, if the department determines the permit holder did not cause the introduction of into the facility or delay the detection of CWD at the facility through the violation of statutory or regulatory requirements related to deer breeding.

Under the Veterinary Practice Act, the samples necessary for ante-mortem testing can only be obtained by a licensed veterinarian. Because veterinary practice models vary significantly (flat rates, graduated rates, included travel costs, herd call rates, sedation costs, etc.) in addition to pricing structures determined by the presence or absence of economic competition in different parts of the state, the cost of ante-mortem testing is difficult to quantify; however, based on anecdotal information and an informal survey of knowledgeable veterinarians, the department estimates the cost of tonsillar or rectal biopsies at approximately $70-200 to as much as $350 per head. It is important to note that ante-mortem procedures for CWD testing are relatively new, but the number of veterinarians with the training and expertise to perform them reliably is increasing; nevertheless, the fee structure for such procedures can best be described as unpredictably fluid.

The cost of a CWD test administered by the Texas A&M Veterinary Medicine Diagnostic Lab (TVMDL) on a sample collected and submitted by a deer breeder is a minimum of $25, to which is added a $7 accession fee (which may cover multiple samples submitted at the same time). If a whole head is submitted to TVDML there is an additional $20 sample collection fee, plus a $20 disposal fee. Thus, the fee for submitting an obex or obex/medial retropharyngeal lymph node pair for ELISA (enzyme linked immunoassay) testing would be $30, plus any veterinary cost (which the department cannot quantify), and the fee for submitting an entire head for testing would be $70.

There could be an economic impact from the loss of the deer and any revenue that might have been realized from the sale of the deer to another breeder or to a release site for liberation. As noted previously, the department does not require that breeders report financial data. The economic impact on a deer breeder would depend on whether the deer breeder euthanizes deer to achieve testing requirements, and the number and type of deer euthanized. As noted above, the lost revenue from the euthanized deer could range from a few hundred dollars or less per deer to thousands of dollars per deer.

The proposed rules would prohibit the recapture of escaped breeder deer from facilities within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range white-tailed deer or susceptible species or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range mule deer. The possible adverse economic impacts would consist of the loss to the deer breeder of the sales value of the escaped deer, which could range from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars.

Several alternatives were considered to achieve the goals of the proposed new rules while reducing potential adverse impacts on small and micro-businesses and persons required to comply.

One alternative was to do nothing and maintain status quo. This alternative was rejected because the commission has directed the elimination of the current rules that establish CWD management zones and prescribe requirements for conduct within those zones.

One alternative considered was to repeal the existing CWD management zone rules and not replace them. This alternative was rejected because the presence of CWD in breeding facilities and free-ranging populations presents an actual, direct threat to free-ranging and captive cervid populations and the economies that depend upon them and the department has a statutory duty to protect and conserve the wildlife resources of the state.

Another alternative considered was to impose less stringent testing requirements. This alternative was rejected because the testing requirements in the proposed rules are the minimum level at which the department could have any confidence that CWD is not being spread from locatwhere it is known to exist as a result of live animal movement. Less stringent testing requirements also could result in the spread of CWD to additional breeding facilities, which would then be designated NMQ and prohibited from transferring deer, which would, in turn, result in the total loss of sales opportunity. The department also believes that some sort of mitigation standard is necessary to provide some level of assurance to the hunting public, private landowners, and the regulated community that wildlife resources available for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations are in a healthy condition.

Another alternative considered was to implement an absolute prohibition on the movement of live deer within the state for any purpose. While this alternative would significantly reduce the potential spread of CWD, it would also deprive deer breeders of the ability to engage in the business of buying and selling breeder deer. Therefore, this alternative was rejected because the department determined that it placed an avoidable burden on the regulated community.

The department has determined that there will be no effect on rural communities, since the economic contribution of an individual deer breeder is not a significant driver of economic activities at either the macro or micro level.

(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.

(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

(F) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS). The rule as proposed, if adopted, will:

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

(2) not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs;

(3) not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding;

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) create a new regulation (by creating provisions for risk mitigation in proximity to known CWD confirmations; and implementing additional testing requirements in positive facilities and facilities indirectly connected to facilities where CWD has been confirmed);

(6) not expand or limit an existing regulation limit;

(7) repeal regulations (by eliminating rules establish CWD management zones);

(8) neither increase nor decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and

(9) not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Alan Cain, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (830) 480-4038-; email: alan.cain@tpwd.texas.gov or via the department website at https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/meetings

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments and new section are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals, Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, and sale of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter; Subchapter R, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, typed length of time that white-tailed deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure; Subchapter R-1, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that mule deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure (although the department has not yet established a DMP program for mule deer authorized by Subchapter R-1); and §61.021, which provides that no person may possess a game animal at any time or in any place except as permitted under a proclamation of the commission.

The proposed amendments and new section affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters E, L, R, and R-1.

6. Rule Text.

§65.80. Definitions. The words and terms used in this division shall have the meanings assigned by §65.90 of this title (relating to Definitions), [~~The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings,~~] unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All other words in this subchapter shall have the meanings assigned by Parks and Wildlife Code.

[(1) Containment Zone (CZ) — A department-defined geographic area in this state within which CWD has been detected or the department has determined, using the best available science and data, CWD detection is probable.]

[(2) Herd Plan — A set of requirements for disease testing and management developed by the department and TAHC for a specific facility.]

[(3) Surveillance Zone (SZ) — A department-defined geographic area in this state within which the department has determined, using the best available science and data, that the presence of CWD could reasonably be expected.]

[(4) Susceptible species — Any species or part of a species of wildlife resource that is susceptible to CWD.]

§65.81. CWD Risk Mitigation Provisions.

(a) General.

(1) Except as provided in this section and §65.87 of this title (relating to Exception), no person shall conduct, authorize, or cause any activity involving the movement of a susceptible species under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, E, L, R, or R-1 within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range white-tailed deer or susceptible species, or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range mule deer. Such prohibited activity includes but is not limited to transportation, introduction, removal, authorizing or allowing the transportation, introduction, or removal of, or causing the transportation, introduction, or removal of a live susceptible species.

(2) In the event of a con between this section and any other provision of this subchapter, this section prevails.

(3) Once implemented, the provisions of this division continue in effect at any given location until the department has determined, using the best available science, that CWD is not likely present within the applicable distance of a free-range positive.

(b) Breeder Deer.

(1) The provisions of this subsection apply to a breeding facility any part of which is within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range white-tailed deer or susceptible species, or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a free-range mule deer. The department will notify a permittee immediately upon determining that the permittee’s facility is subject to the provisions of this subsection.

(2) A breeding facility described by paragraph (1) of this subsection may, provided the facility is designated MQ:

(A) receive deer from any breeding facility in this state authorized to transfer deer; and

(B) transfer deer only to release sites or breeding facilities authorized to receive deer the entirety of which are completely within five linear miles of the location where CWD has been confirmed in white-tailed deer or susceptible species, or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been confirmed in a mule deer.

(3) A breeding facility described by paragraph (1) of this subsection is prohibited from transferring deer except as provided under paragraph (2) of this subsection unless:

(A) the applicable facility and fencing requirements of §65.605 of this title (relating to Facility Standards and Care of Deer) have been in place for at least one year prior to being notified by the department as required by paragraph (1) of this subsection;

(B) a whole-herd ante-mortem test of all test-eligible deer in the facility is conducted with test results of “not detected” for every deer, except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph; and

(C) at least one year has elapsed following the completion of the whole-herd ante-mortem test required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, after which deer may be transferred to and from the facility as provided in this subchapter.

(D) The department will not accept inconclusive ante-mortem test results (including, but not limited to "insufficient follicles") for more than 10 percent of the total number of deer tested under the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.

(4) A breeding facility that as of the effective date of this subsection was subject to the restrictions provided by §65.81(2) of this title (relating to Containment Zones: Restrictions) in effect at that time may transfer deer to any breeding facility or release site authorized to receive deer if;

(A) the facility is in compliance with the facility and fencing requirements of §65.605 of this title; and

(B) the facility is designated MQ.

(5) If the department receives an application for a deer breeder permit for a new facility that is to be located within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range white-tailed deer or susceptible species, or within 25 miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range mule deer, the department will issue the permit (if the applicant is qualified) but will not authorize the possession of susceptible species within the facility unless the department determines, using the best available science, that CWD is not likely to be present in that area.

(6) Deer that escape from a breeding facility any part of which is within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range white-tailed deer or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range mule deer may not be recaptured and/or returned to a breeding facility except as expressly authorized in writing by the department or in a herd plan.

(c) Deer Management Permit (DMP). The department will not authorize DMP activities on any property that is:

(1) wholly located within five linear miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range white-tailed deer or within 25 linear miles of a location where CWD has been detected in a free-range mule deer; or

(2) a release site epidemiologically linked to a positive breeding facility.

65.88. Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions.

[(a) Except as provided in this section, no person may transport into this state or possess any part of a susceptible species from a state, Canadian province, or other place outside of Texas where CWD has been detected in free-ranging or captive herds except for:]

[(1) meat that has been cut up and packaged (boned or filleted);]

[(2) a carcass that has been reduced to quarters with no brain or spinal tissue present;]

[(3) a cleaned hide (skull and soft tissue must not be attached or present);]

[(4) a whole skull (or skull plate) with antlers attached, provided the skull plate has been completely cleaned of all internal soft tissue;]

[(5) finished taxidermy products;]

[(6) cleaned teeth; or]

[(7) tissue prepared and packaged for delivery to and use by a diagnostic or research laboratory.]

(a)[(b)] In addition to the provisions of §65.10 of this title (Possession of Wildlife Resources) and except as may be otherwise prohibited by this subchapter, a department herd plan, or a quarantine or hold order issued by TAHC, a white-tailed deer or mule deer or part of a white-tailed or mule deer killed in this state or a susceptible species or part of a susceptible species harvested outside of Texas may be transported from the location where the animal was killed as provided in this section. The[to a final destination. Following final processing at a final destination, the] parts of the animal not retained for cooking, storage or taxidermy purposes shall be disposed of as quickly as practicable by one of the following methods[only as follows]:

(1) by transport, directly or indirectly, to a landfill permitted by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality to receive such wastes;

(2) interment, to be accomplished by the placement of the carcass parts at a depth of no less than three feet below the natural surface of the ground, followed immediately by the placement of earthen material in such as fashion as to completely cover the carcass parts with at least three vertical feet of earthen material[and covered with at least three feet of earthen material]; or

(3) return[returned] to the property where the animal was harvested for disposal.

(b) The rendering of carcass parts is not a lawful method of disposal.

(c) The carcass of a white-tailed or mule deer may be deboned at any location[,] prior to transportation to a final destination, [at the location where the animal was taken,] provided:

(1) the meat from each deboned carcass is placed in a separate package, bag, or container;

(2) proof-of-sex and any required tag is retained and accompanies each package, bag, or container of meat; and

(3) the remainder of the carcass is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. Carcasses and carcass parts not disposed of immediately shall be protected from being scattered, consumed, or removed until disposal occurs[remains at the location where the animal was harvested, except that a head may be transported to a taxidermist as provided in subsection (f) of this section].

(4) For purposes of this subsection, "deboning" means the detachment and removal of all musculature described by Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.001(8), from the bone. Muscles must remain intact (except for physical damage occurring as a result of take) and may not be processed further (i.e, ground, chopped, sliced, etc.).

(5) Proof-of-sex and any required tag must accompany the meat from the time of harvest until the meat reaches a final destination.

(6) It is an offense for any person to possess:

(A) meat from a carcass possessed under this subsection that has been processed further than whole muscles;

(B) meat from more than one carcass in a single package, bag, or container.

(d) It is an offense for any person to dispose of those parts of an animal that the possessor does not retain for cooking, storage, or taxidermy purposes except as follows:

(1) by transport, directly or indirectly, to a landfill permitted by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality to receive such wastes; or

(2) interment, to be accomplished by the placement of the carcass parts atepth of no less than three feet below the natural surface of the ground, followed immediately by the placement of earthen material in such as fashion as to completely cover the carcass parts with at least three vertical feet of earthen material[and covered with at least three feet of earthen material]; or

(3) return[returned] to the property where the animal was harvested.

[(e) If a person takes a susceptible species in a CZ or SZ within which the department has not designated a mandatory check station, the person shall transport the head of the susceptible species to the nearest check station established by the department for the CZ or SZ in which the susceptible species was taken, provided such transport occurs immediately upon leaving the CZ or SZ where the animal was taken and occurs via the most direct route available.]

[(f) The skinned or unskinned head of a susceptible species from a CZ or SZ, other state, Canadian province, or other place outside of Texas may be transported to a taxidermist for taxidermy purposes, provided all brain material, soft tissue, spinal column and any unused portions of the head are disposed of prior to being transported to Texas, or disposed of in a landfill in Texas permitted by TCEQ to receive such wastes.]

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, and sale of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter; Subchapter R, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that white-tailed deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure; Subchapter R-1, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that mule deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure (although the department has not yet established a DMP program for mule deer authorized by Subchapter R-1); and §61.021, which provides that no person may possess a game animal at any time or in any place except as permitted under a proclamation of the commission.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters E, L, R, and R-1.

§65.90. Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings, except in cases where the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Accredited testing laboratory — A laboratory approved by the United States Department of Agriculture to test white-tailed deer or mule deer for CWD.

(2) Ante-mortem testash; A CWD test performed on a live deer.

(3) Breeder deer — A white-tailed deer or mule deer possessed under a permit issued by the department pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, and Subchapter T of this chapter.

(4) Confirmed — A CWD test result of "positive" received from the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory or the National Veterinary Service Laboratories of the United States Department of Agriculture.

(5) CWD — Chronic wasting disease.

(6) CWD-positive – An animal that has received a “detected" CWD test result confirmed by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory.

(7)[(6)] CWD-positive facility (positive facility) — Any facility in or on which CWD has been confirmed.

(8)[(7)] Deer breeder — A person who holds a deer breeder’s permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, and Subchapter T of this chapter.

(9)[(8)] Deer breeding facility (breeding facility) — A facility authorized to hold breeder deer under a permit issued by the department pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, and Subchapter T of this chapter (Deer Breeder’s Permit).

(10)[(9)] Department (department) — Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

(11)[(10)] Deer Management Permit (DMP) — A permit issued under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Subchapter R or R-1 and Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to Deer Management Permit (DMP)) that authorizes the temporary detention of deer for the purpose of propagation.

(12)[(11)] Exposed deer — A deer that meets any of the following criteria:

(A) the deer is or has been in a breeding facility where a CWD-positive deer has been kept following the date the facility was first exposed to CWD (if known);

(B) the deer is or has been in a breeding facility within the five-year period preceding the death date of any CWD-positive deer that was in the facility (or the date of a positive ante-mortem test result); or

(C) the deer is or has been in a breeding facility on or after the date that the facility received a deer under the circumstances described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph.

(13)[(12)] Exposure — The period of time that has elapsed following the introduction of an exposed deer to a breeding facility.

(14)[(13)] Facility — Any location required to be registered in TWIMS under a deer breeder’s permit, Triple T permit, TTP permit, or DMP, including release sites and/or trap sites.

(15) Free-range deer—A deer that is not a breeder deer.

(16)[(14)] Herd Plan — A set of requirements for disease testing and management developed by the department and TAHC for a specific facility.

(17)[(15)] Hunter-harvested deer — A deer required to be tagged under the provisions of Subchapter A of this chapter (relating to Statewide Hunting Proclamation).

(18)[(16)] Hunting year — That period of time between September 1 and August 31 of any year when it is lawful to hunt deer under the provisions of Subchapter A of this chapter (relating to Statewide Hunting Proclamation).

(19)[(17)] Inconclusive — A test result that is neither "positive" nor "not detected" on the basis of clinical deficiency.

(20)[(18)] "Insufficient follicles" — A test result indicating that a tonsil or rectal biopsy sample contained an insufficient number of lymphoid follicles to produce a valid test result.

(21)[(19)] Landowner (owner) — Any person who has an ownership interest in a tract of land and includes landowner’s authorized agent.

(22)[(20)] Landowner’s authorized agent (agent) — A person designated by a landowner to act on the landowner’s behalf.

(23)[(21)] Last known exposure — The last date a deer in a trace-out or trace-in breeding facility was exposed to a trace deer prior to the death or transfer of that trace deer.

(24)[(22)] Liberated deer — A free-ranging deer that bears evidence of having been a breeder deer,[liberated] including, but not limited to, a tattoo (including partial or illegible tattooing), or evidence of having been eartagged at any time (holes, rips, notches, etc. in the ear tissue), electronic identification devices, or any other signs that the deer was at any time a breeder deer.

(25) Location of detection—The exact location, to the extent that it can be determined, at which a deer or susceptible species confirmed to be positive for CWD died.

(26)[(23)] Movement Qualified (MQ) — A designation made by the department pursuant to this division that allows a deer breeder to lawfully transfer breeder deer.

(27)[(24)] Not Movement Qualified (NMQ) — A designation made by the department pursuant to this division that prohibits the transfer of deer by a deer breeder.

(28) Positive breeding facility—A deer breeding facility where CWD has been confirmed to exist.

(29)[(25)] Post-mortem test — A CWD test performed on a dead deer.

(30)[(26)] Properly executed — A form or report required by this division on which all required information has been entered.

(31)[(27)] Reconciled herd — The breeder deer held in a breeding facility for which every birth, mortality, and transfer of breeder deer has been accurately reported as required by this division.

(32)[(28)] Release — The act of liberating a deer from captivity. For the purposes of this division the terms "release" and "liberate" are synonymous.

(33)[(29)] Release site — A specific tract of land to which deer are released, including the release of deer under the provisions of this chapter or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters E, L, R, or R-1.

(34)[(30)] Reporting year — For a deer breeder’s permit, the period of time from April 1 of one calendar year through March 31 of the next calendar year.

&nbsbsp; (35)[(31)] RFID tag — A button-type ear tag conforming to the 840 standards of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Identification Number system.

(36)[(32)] Submit — When used in the context of test results, provided to the department, either directly from a deer breeder or via an accredited testing laboratory.

(37) Susceptible species — Any species or part of a species that is susceptible to CWD.

(38)[(33)] Suspect — An initial CWD test result of "detected" that has not been confirmed.

(39)[(34)] TAHC — Texas Animal Health Commission.

(40)[(35)] Test-eligible —

(A) Until the effective date of these rule amendments, a deer at least 16 months of age; and

(B) Beginning with the effective date of this rule, a deer at least 12 months of age.

(41)[(36)] Test, Test Result(s), or Test Requirement — A CWD test, CWD test result, or CWD test requirement as provided in this division.

(42)[(37)] Trace deer — A deer that the department has determined had been in a CWD-positive deer breeding facility on or after the date the facility was first exposed to CWD, if known; otherwise, within the previous five years from the reported mortality date of the CWD-positive deer, or the date of the ante-mortem test result.

(43)[(38)] Trace-in breeding facility — A breeding facility that meets either of the following criteria:

(A) the facility has transferred a deer directly to a CWD-positive facility within the five-year period preceding the reported mortality date of a CWD-positive deer in the facility (or the date of the positive ante-mortem test result); or

(B) the facility has possessed a deer that was transferred indirectly (i.e., by way of an intermediary breeding facility or facilities) to a CWD-positive facility within the five-year period preceding the reported mortality date of a CWD-positive deer in the facility, or the date of the positive ante-mortem test result.

(44)[(39)] Trace-out breeding facility — A breeding facility that has received an exposed deer that was in a CWD-positive deer breeding facility.

(45)[(40)] Trap Site — A specific tract of land approved by the department for the trapping of deer under this chapter and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters E, L, R, and R-1.

(46)[(41)] Triple T permit — A permit to trap, transport, and transplant white-tailed or mule deer (Triple T permit) issued under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, and Subchapter C of this chapter (relating to Permits for Trapping, Transporting, and Transplanting Game Animals and Game Birds).

(47)[(42)] Trap, Transport and Process (TTP) permit — A permit issued under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, and Subchapter C of this chapter (relating to Permits for Trapping, Transporting, and Transplanting Game Animals and Game Birds), to trap, transport, and process surplus white-tailed deer (TTP permit).

(48)[(43)] TWIMS — The department’s Texas Wildlife Information Management Services (TWIMS) online application.

(49) Whole-herd test—The administration of an ante-mortem test to the entirety of test-eligible deer in the inventory of a breeding facility.

§65.95. Movement of Breeder Deer.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(4) The department will not authorize the liberation of breeder deer at a release site registered in TWIMS following the effective date of this subsection unless the owner of the release site submits to the department a letter of endorsement by a person authorized by the department to conduct fence inspections under the provisions of 65.602 of this title (relating to Application and Permit Issuance) stating that the person has personally conducted an on-site inspection at facility identified in the application and affirming that the release site is surrounded by a perimeter fence meeting the requirements of paragraph (3) of this subsection. This paragraph does not apply to release sites that have received deer prior to the effective date of this paragraph.

(5)[(4)] No person may intentionally cause or allow any live deer to leave or escape from a release site onto which breeder deer have been liberated.

(6)[(5)] The owner of a release site where deer from a facility subject to the provisions of §65.99 of this title (relating to Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD) or deer from a CWD-positive facility have been released shall maintain a harvest log at the release site that complies with §65.93 of this title (relating to Harvest Log).

(7)[(6)] No person may transfer a breeder deer to a release facility or cause or allow a breeder deer to be transferred to a release facility unless:

(A) an ante-mortem test on rectal or tonsil tissue collected from the deer within the eight months immediately preceding the release has been returned with test results of "not detected"; and

(B) the deer is at least six months of age at the time the test sample required by this paragraph is collected; and

(C) the deer bears identification prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561 and any applicable herd plan.

(D) A breeder deer that has been released is no longer a breeder deer; however, it is an offense for any person to remove the identification tag required by this section from such deer except as a consequence of reducing the deer to possession following lawful take under a hunting license.

(E)[(C)] An ante-mortem test result of "not detected" submitted to satisfy the requirements of §65.92(d) of this title may be utilized a second time to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph, provided the test sample was collected as provided in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. or

(F)[(D)] A facility from which deer are transferred in violation of this paragraph becomes automatically NMQ and any further transfers are prohibited until the permittee and the owner of the release site have complied with the testing requirements of the department, based on an epidemiological assessment as specified in writing.

(d) – (e) (No change.)

§65.99. Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities.

(a) Effectiveness.

[(1)] To the extent that any provision of this section conflicts with any provision of this division, the provisions of this section prevail.

[(2) The provisions of Division 1 of this subchapter apply to any facility designated by the department as a Category A or Category B trace-out breeding facility, or trace-in breeding facility subject to the provisions of this section.]

(b) – (d) (No change.)

(e) Category B trace-out breeding facility.

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(3) In lieu of the testing requirements prescribed by paragraph (2)(A) and (2)(E) of this subsection, a permittee may request the development of a custom testing plan as provided in subsection (h) of this section; provided, however, the permittee must comply with paragraph (2)(B) — (D) of this subsection[section].

(4) (No change.)

(5) The department in consultation with TAHC may decline to authorize a custom testing plan under subsection (i)[(h)] of this section if an epidemiological assessment determines that a custom testing plan is inappropriate.

(6) (No change.)

(f) The department may restore MQ status to a breeding facility that has been designated NMQ as a result of being designated a Category B trace-out facility under the provisions of subsection (e) of this section, provided:

(1) all trace deer available fosting are tested in accordance with subsection (e) of this section; and

(2) trace deer unavailable for testing as required under paragraph (1) of this subsection;

(A) were received by the trace facility not less than 36 months prior to the date of detection in the positive breeding facility; and

(B) have been the subject of an ante-mortem “not detected” test result within 60 months prior to the date of detection in the positive breeding facility and through the time period the trace deer is no longer available for testing; and

(3) the facility has been fenced in compliance with the requirements of §65.605 of this title (relating to Facility Standards and Care of Deer) prior to the date of last known exposure; and

(4) beginning 36 months prior to the designation as a trace facility, the facility was in continuous compliance with all requirements of:

(A) Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L;

(B) this subchapter;

(C) Subchapter T of this chapter; and

(D) any applicable herd plan.

(g)[(f)] Trace-in breeding facility. Immediately upon notification by the department of trace-in facility status, a facility is automatically NMQ.

(1) A permittee shall, upon notification by the department of trace-in facility status:

(A) euthanize all trace deer within seven days, unless authorized by the department or in a herd plan.

(B)[(A)] inspect the facility daily for mortalities;

(C)[(B)] immediately report all test-eligible mortalities that occur within the facility; and

(D)[(C)] immediately collect test samples from all test-eligible mortalities that occur within the facility and submit the samples for post-mortem testing within one business day of collection.

(2) – (6) (No change.)

(i)[(g)] Custom Testing Plan. Within seven days of being notified by the department that a breeding facility has been designated a Category A, Category B, or trace-in facility, a permittee may, in lieu of meeting the applicable testing requirements of subsections (d) — (f) of this section, request the development of a cu testing plan by the department in consultation with TAHC based upon an epidemiological assessment conducted by the department and TAHC. A custom testing plan under this subsection is not valid unless it has been approved by the department and TAHC.

(1) – (5) (No change.)

(h) Positive Facility.

(1) Upon notification by the department that CWD is suspected in a deer in a facility, the facility is automatically NMQ and the permittee shall:

(A) within 14 days, conduct and submit to the department a pen-by-pen inventory of all deer within the breeding facility, including the location of the pen in which the suspected positive deer was kept at the time the suspect CWD detection occurred;

(B) immediately cease all internal movement of animals between pens within the facility, unless such movement is expressly authorized in writing by the department;

(C)[(1)] euthanize the positive deer within seven days of confirmation of the positive test result, if the detection was a result of antemortem testing;

(D) euthanize all trace deer within seven days of confirmation of the positive test result, unless authorized by the department or in a herd plan;

(E)[(2)] submit post-mortem test samples from breeder deer euthanized under this subsection within one business day of euthanasia, to include both ears and the identification tag required under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L; and

(F)[(3)] inspect the facility daily for mortalities; and

(i)[(A)] immediately report each mortality to the department;

(ii)[(B)] immediately collect test samples from all test-eligible mortalities that occur within the facility; and

(iii)[(C)] submit samples collected under this subsection for post-mortem testing within one business day of the discovery of the mortality.

(2) Unless otherwise provided in writing by the department, a permittee must enter into a herd plan within six months of being designated a positive facility or agree to conduct a depopulation of the breeder deer within the facility.

(3) Fencing meeting the requirements of §65.605 of this title (relating to Facility Standards and Care of Deer) shall be installed around a positive facility no later than the completion of the herd plan and removal of a quarantine unless the owner of the facility conducts a complete depopulation of the breeder deer within the facility within six months of being designated a positive facility.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or eliminate the tagging, carcass, final destination, or final processing requirements or provisions of §§42.001, 42.018, 42.0185, 42.019, or 42.020, or other similar requirements or provisions in Chapter 42; Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, and sale of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter; Subchapter R, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that white-tailed deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure; Subchapter R-1, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that mule deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure (although the department has not yet established a DMP program for mule deer authorized by Subchapter R-1); and §61.021, which provides that no person may possess a game animal at any time or in any place except as permitted under a proclamation of the commission.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 42 and 43.

§65.602. Permit Requirement and Permit Privileges; General Provisions.

(a) (No change.)

(b) In accordance with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.357, a person who possesses a valid deer breeder’s permit may:

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(4) except as provided by this subchapter or Subchapter B of this chapter, recapture lawfully possessed breeder deer that have been marked in accordance with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561 that have escaped from a permitted facility.

(d) A deer breeding facility shall contain either white-tailedr or mule deer, as authorized by the permit. [The provisions of this subsection take effect April 1, 2021].

(e) Except for deer that are not required to be identified and reported to the department under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, no deer, livestock, exotic livestock, or similar animals may be present in, confined in, or have access to a deer breeding facility other than the deer listed on the reconciled herd inventory for the facility reported to the department; however, infrastructure such as chutes and pens within a permanent structure identified on a facility diagram required under this subchapter may be used to temporarily retain and handle animals other than white-tailed or mule deer held under provisions of a deer breeder permit, provided the animals are members of species that are not CWD-susceptible species. [The provisions of this subsection take effect April 1, 2021.]

§65.603. Application and Permit Issuance.

(a) An applicant for an initial deer breeder’s permit shall submit the following to the department:

(1) (No change.)

(2) a letter of endorsement by a person authorized by the department to conduct facility and fence inspections stating that the person has personally conducted an on-site inspection at the facility identified in the application and affirming that the facility identified in the application:

(A) is constructed as depicted on the diagram submitted with the application;(B) is surrounded by a perimeter fence meeting the requirements of §65.605 of this title (relating to Facility Standards and Care of Deer);

(C)[(B)] contains infrastructure appropriate for the humane treatment of deer, including for the provision of adequate food, a continuous supply of water, and ample cover or shelter;

(D)[(C)] is adequate for the lawful conduct of activities governed by this subchapter;

(E)[(D)] has been secured in such a fashion to prevent ingress to and egress from the facility by any deer, livestock, exotic livestock, or similar animals; and

(F)[(E)] no deer, livestock, exotic livestock, or similar animals are present or confined within the facility;

(3) – (5) (No change.)

(b) For the purposes of this subchapter, an authorized facility/fence[facility] inspector is a person not employed by the department or the permittee in any other capacity who:

(1) – (4) (No change.)

§65.604. Disease Monitoring. The provisions of Subchapter B[, Division 2], of this chapter apply to the possession and movement of deer pursuant to a permit issued under this subchapter.

§65.605. [Holding] Facility Standards and Care of Deer.

(a) The entire perimeter [fence] of a permitted deer breeding facility [containing breeder deer], including medical facilities, shall be a fence of no less than seven feet in height, which[and] shall be constructed of department-approved woven wire, field fence, chain link or welded wire that will retain breeder deer. The fence required by this subsection shall at no point be within:

(1) five feet of a pen or other structure containing breeder deer; or

(2) ten feet of the exterior fence of another deer breeding facility.

(b) A permittee shall submit to the department a letter of confirmation by a person authorized by the department to conduct facility inspections under the provisions of §65.603 of this title (relating to Application and Permit Issuance), that the perimeter fence required by subsection (a) of this section exists and is compliant with the requirements of this section.

(c) A deer breeding facility consists of the entirety of the area within the fence required by subsection (a) of this section.

(d) Within the perimeter fence required by subsection (a) of this section, breeder deer shall at all times be kept completely contained within internal fencing meeting the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, except as provided by subsection (e)(2) of this section.

(e) Within the space or area between the fence required by subsection (a) of this section and the fencing required by subsection (c) of this section:

(1) no supplemental food or water is permitted; and

(2) no animals of any kind shall have free-choice access to or be present, except what is necessary for the limited, transient period of time necessary to drive or move breeder deer in an immediate fashion between pens or structures within the facility. If breeder deer are moved within a facility under the provisions of this subsection, a person must be present and actively engaged in urging or driving the breeder deer in a direct and prompt fashion to the destination pen. It is an offense for breeder deer to be present in the space or area between the two fences of the double fence required by this section if a person is not present and actively engaged in keeping the breeder deer in constant motion from the source pen to the destination pen.

(f) No edifice, structure, building, working facility, barn, or similar infrastructure within a deer breeding facility may be occupied or used at any time by animals other than the breeder deer reflected on the herd inventory for the facility.

(g) All deer breeding facilities located on a single property shall be separated by at least ten feet.

(h) An indoor facility is acceptable if it meets the standards described in this section and provides permanent access to an outdoor environment that is sufficient for keeping the breeder deer in captivity.

(i)[(b)] A permittee shall ensure that deer havcess to adequate food, a continuous supply of water, and ample cover or shelter.

(j)[(c)] Immediately upon discovering the escape of breeder deer from a facility, a permittee shall notify the department. The notification shall include a detailed description of the permittee’s intended actions to recapture the escaped deer, including the methods that will be employed to recapture the deer and the dates and times that recapture will be attempted. The permit holder shall notify the department daily of the efforts to capture the escaped deer until the escaped deer are captured. If after ten days the permittee is unable to capture escaped breeder deer that have been reported in accordance with this subsection, the deer may not be recaptured or held in a deer breeding facility unless specifically authorized in writing by the department for purposes of disease management.

(k)[(d)] If a permit holder is unable to recapture escaped breeder deer reported as provided under subsection (i)[(c)] of this section and the breeding facility is designated as NMQ at the time of or subsequent to the time of escape under the provisions of Subchapter B, Division 2, of this chapter, the property on which the deer breeding facility is located and any tract of land contiguous to the property under common ownership shall be subject to a department disease-testing plan requiring mandatory CWD testing and reporting.

§65.610. Transfer of Deer.

(a) – (c) (No change.)

(d) The department will not authorize the transfer of breeder deer to a prospective release site if the department has determined that the transfer will detrimentally affect existing populations or systems.

(e) Release.

(1) – (4) (No change.)

(5) It is an offense for any person to:

(A) release, cause, or participate in the release of a breeder deer that does not bear the identification prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561 and any applicable herd plan; or

(B) remove the identification tag required by this section from such deer except as a consequence of reducing the deer to possession following lawful take under a hunting license.

(f) – (g) (No change.)

The repeals are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or eliminate the tagging, carcass, final destination, or final processing requirements or provisions of §§42.001, 42.018, 42.0185, 42.019, or 42.020, or other similar requirements or provisions in Chapter 42; Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, and sale of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter; Subchapter R, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that white-tailed deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure; Subchapter R-1, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit, including the number, type, and length of time that mule deer may be temporarily detained in an enclosure (although the department has not yet established a DMP program for mule deer authorized by Subchapter R-1); and §61.021, which provides that no person may possess a game animal at any time or in any place except as permd under a proclamation of the commission.

The proposed repeals affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 42 and 43.

§65.81. Containment Zones; Restrictions.

§65.82. Surveillance Zones; Restrictions.

§65.83. Special Provisions.

§65.84. Powers and Duties of the Executive Director.

§65.85. Check Stations.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 11

Presenter: Michael Tennant

Permits to Possess or Sell Nongame Fish Taken from Public Fresh Water – Changes to List of Affected Species and Other Changes – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

Staff seeks permission to publish proposed amendments to rules governing permits to possess or sell nongame fish taken from public fresh waters in the Texas Register for public comment. The proposed amendments would add selected exotic species of fish to the list of species for which Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) may issue permits authorizing take from public waters for commercial purposes, remove several species from that list, and make certain nonsubstantive changes.

II. Discussion

Under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 61, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) is authorized to regulate the take and possession of aquatic animal life from public fresh waters. Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 66 delegates to the Commission the authority to designate nonindigenous (exotic) species of fish as harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic species and regulate their importation, possession, and sale. Under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 67, TPWD is delegated the authority to manage all indigenous species of fish not designated by rule as game fish (i.e., nongame fish) if necessary to properly manage the species.

The proposed amendments include adding invasive silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and suckermouth armored catfishes (Hypostomus spp. and Pterigoplichthys spp.) to the species applicability list, which would permit commercial harvest, and removing freshwater drum, minnows, and Rio Grande cichlid, which would disallow commercial harvest. The proposed amendments would also make nonsubstantive, housekeeping-type changes as necessary to standardize terminology and clarity. The proposed amendments are intended to promote removal of harmful invasive fish species and to protect ecologically significant and recreationally important native fishes.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Permits to Sell Fish Taken From Public Fresh Waters

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit A

PERMITS TO SELL FISH TAKEN FROM PUBLIC FRESH WATERS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to 31 TAC §§57.377-379, 57.381, 57.382, and 57.384, concerning Applicability: Nongame Fishes. The proposed amendments would add selected exotic species of fish to the list of species for which the department may issue permits authorizing take from public waters for commercial purposes, remove several species from that list, and make clarifying and housekeeping-type changes to improve accuracy and readability.

The proposed amendment to §57.377, concerning Definitions, would add language to clarify that the rules include and are applicable to exotic species in addition to indigenous species. Under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, the commission is authorized to regulate the take and possession of aquatic animal life from public fresh water. Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 66, delegates to the commission the authority to designate nonindigenous (exotic) species of fish as harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic species and regulate their importation, possession, and sale. Under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67, the department is delegated the authority to manage all indigenous species of fish not designated by rule as game fish (i.e., nongame fish) if necessary to properly manage the species. The proposed amendment is intended to eliminate possible confusion, and is made throughout this rulemaking.

The proposed amendment to §57.378, concerning Applicability: Nongame Fishes, would retitle the section to be generic with respect to the effect of the subchapter, add silver carp and suckermouth armored catfish to the list of species for which a permit may be issued for commercial take, remove freshwater drum, Rio Grande cichlid, and minnows from the list, and add a clarifying statement that no permit under Chapter 57, Subchapter A (Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants) is required for an activity authorized under a permit issued under Subchapter E. The proposed amendment also replaces the current graphic list of affected species with a list that conforms to the conventional rule format.

Silver carp are native to eastern Asia and were introduced to private fish farms and wastewater treatment facilities in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s as a biological control agent to reduce algae growth and improve water-quality conditions in ponds. By 1980, they had escaped into the Mississippi River system during high-water flooding events and subsequently spread rapidly throughout the Mississippi River drainage. They have become established and potentially problematic in more than ten states, where they compete with native species and pose hazards to boaters because they can weigh up to 60 pounds and are capable of leaping out of the water when startled such as by boat noise, sometimes striking boaters. Silver carp are now well-documented in the Red River and all its Texas tributaries below Lake Texoma but are not yet highly abundant. There are U.S. and international markets for wild-caught silver carp and regional efforts underway to incentivize harvest and the proposed amendment would allow their commercial sale. The proposed amendment is intended to encourage removal of this species from Texas fresh waters with the additional benefit of commercial incentive.

Suckermouth armored catfish are native to Central and South America and were imported to the U.S. via the aquarium trade to control algae. Aquarists have been known to dump the contents of fish tanks for various reasons, which is believed to have resulted in the introduction of this species to Texas waters where high abundance has been documented in some locations. This species competes with indigenous fishes, inadvertently consumes the eggs of other fishes through its feeding behavior, and may cause serious disruptions in food webs and native ecosystems. They are especially problematic in spring-influenced river systems such as those found in the Edwards Plateau of Texas but are also widespread in the Houston and South Texas regions. Additionally, their burrowing behavior causes destabilization and erosion in riverbanks, earthen retention structures, and under concrete retention structures, with resulting potential for economic damage. There has been commercial interest in this species from pet food producers. The proposed amendment is intended to encourage removal of this species from Texas fresh waters with the additional benefit of a commercial incentive.

Freshwater drum are indigenous to Texas and are recreationally and ecologically important. The species serves as a reproductive host for numerous species of native freshwater mussels, many of which are threatened, endangered, or recognized as species in need of conservation intervention. The department has determined that continued commercial harvest of freshwater drum is inconsistent with conservation and recovery goals for imperiled freshwater mussels; therefore, the proposed amendment would remove the species from the list of species for which a permit under the subchapter could be issued.

Similarly, the proposed amendment would remove minnows from the list of species for which a permit under the subchapter is authorized. The department has determined that 64 percent of the minnow genera currently authorized for commercial harvest in Texas include species that are threatened, endangered, or species of greatest conservation need—37 imperiled species in total. Because of their small size and similarity of appearance, the department believes it is prudent to prohibit all commercial harvest in order to ensure the ability of all minnow species to perpetuate themselves, as well as to forestall or prevent additional state or federal listings as threatened or endangered species.

Finally, the proposed amendment would remove the Rio Grande cichlid from the list of species authorized for commercial harvest. The Rio Grande cichlid is native to Texas and is the only indigenous cichlid native to the U.S. Known to be a vigorous fighter, it has become increasingly popular as a sport fish, particularly among fly fishers. Commercial take has become almost non-existent and the department believes that removing it from the list aligns with recreational fisheries management goals, especially for Central Texas creeks and rivers where sport fishing guides offer trips targeting the species.

The proposed amendment to §57.384, concerning Refusal to Issue, would eliminate current paragraph (4), which is no longer necessary. In 2022, the department promulgated Chapter 56 to comply with recommendations of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission to establish a uniform process to govern department decisions to refuse issuance or renewal of non-recreational licenses and permits for which such processes are not prescribed by statute. The Sunset Commission also recommended a similar process for agency decisions to suspend or revoke such licenses and permits. The permit established by this subchapter is subject to the provisions of Chapter 56; thus, paragraph (4) is no longer necessary. The proposed amendment would retitle the section accordingly to reflect the content of the section.

The proposed amendments to §57.379, concerning Prohibited Acts, §57.381, concerning Permit Specifications and Requirements, and §57.382, concerning Harvest and Sales Reports, would make conforming changes as discussed earlier to reflect the applicability of the rules to all species of fish taken from public waters for commercial purposes.

2. Fiscal Note.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be the discharge of the agency’s statutory duty to manage and conserve aquatic resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

There could be adverse economic effects on persons required to comply with the rule, primarily associated with the removal of minnows, freshwater drum, and
Rio Grande cichlid from the list of species that may be taken commercially. Those economic effects are addressed elsewhere in this preamble in the discussion of potential impacts to small businesses and microbusinesses. The department notes that there also could be positive economic effects as a result of the rules, as the proposed amendments, if adopted, would make two additional species of fish available for commercial harvest under a permit.

(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and microbusinesses and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s direct adverse economic impacts to determine if any further analysis is required. The department considers “direct economic impact“ to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department has determined that proposed rules could result in direct economic effects on small businesses and microbusinesses.

Between 2014 and 2023, ten permittees authorized to commercially harvest freshwater drum reported total commercial sales of $5,911. The permittee reporting the highest sales over the ten-year period reported total sales of $1,800. For the purposes of this analysis, the department estimates that the worst-case scenario for any permittee would be a sales loss of approximately $180 dollars per year or less.

Department records indicate only two permittees reported commercial harvest of Rio Grande cichlid between 2014 and 2023, with a total sales value of $423. No commercial harvest has been reported since 2020. For the purposes of this analysis, the department estimates that if the rules as proposed are adopted, the worst-case scenario for any permittee would be a sales loss of less than $50 per year.

Department records indicate that eight persons are permitted to commercially harvest minnows; however, there are no reported sales since 2017 and less than $100 in sales reported between 2014 and 2017. For the purposes of this analysis, the department estimates that if the rules as proposed are adopted, the worst-case scenario for any permittee would be a sales loss of less than $50 per year.

The department considered several alternatives to the rules as proposed.

The first alternative considered was to maintain status quo. This alternative was rejected because the removal of freshwater drum, minnows, and Rio Grande cichlid is intended to achieve conservation and management objectives that would otherwise be frustrated.

A second alternative considered was to establish seasons and bag limits for the commercial take of the freshwater drum, minnows, and Rio Grande cichlid. This alternative was rejected because the benefits of such an approach would not be cost-effective in light of having to tailor seasons and bag limits for a variety of locations that might or might not be targeted for commercial exploitation, especially in light of the very low commercial activity levels reported.

The department has determined that the rules will not result in economic effects on rural communities, as the rules do not directly regulate any rural community.

(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.

(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

(F) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS). The rules as proposed, if adopted, will:

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

(2) not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs;

(3) not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding;

(4) not affect the amount of an existing fee;

(5) not create, expand, or repeal an existing regulation, but will modify an existing regulation by removing three categories of fish from the list of species that may be commercially harvested under a department permit and adding two species of fish to that list;

(6) not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and

(7) not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Michael Tennant, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-8754; email: Michael.Tennant@tpwd.texas.gov or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which authorizes the commission to regulate take and possession of aquatic animal life and the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to take or possess aquatic animal life (including public fresh water); Chapter 66, Subchapter A, which authorizes the department to make rules governing the importation, possession, and sale of exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish; and Chapter 67, which authorizes the commission to establish any limitation of the take, possession, propagation, transportation importation, exportation, sale, and offering for sale of nongame wish necessary to manage those species,

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 61, 66, and 67.

6. Rule Text.

§57.377. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Affected species—For purposes of this subchapter, all nongame fish and exotic fish listed in §57.378 of this title (relating to Applicability; Affected Species.

(2)[(1)] Department — The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department or any authorized employee thereof.

(3) Exotic fish—As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code §66.007.

(4)[(2]Game fish — As defined in §57.971(15)(A) of this title (relating to Definitions).

(5)[(3)] Nongame fish — For the purposes of this subchapter, all[All] indigenous or native species not defined as game fish, except endangered and threatened fish, which are defined and regulated under Chapter 65, Subchapter G of this title (relating to Threatened and Endangered Nongame Species).

(6)[(4)] Public freshwater — All of the state rivers, streams, creeks, bayous, reservoirs, lakes, and portions of those freshwaters not defined as coastal waters in §57.971 of this title (relating to Definitions), where public access is available without discrimination.

(7)[(5)] Shad — Gizzard and threadfin shad (Dorosoma spp.).

§57.378. Applicability: Affected Species[Nongame Fishes].

(a) Nongame Species. A permit to sell the following species of [nongame] fish taken from public fresh water may be issued if the department determines that it[the sale] is necessary to properly manage the species.

[Figure: 31 TAC §57.378]

(1) Gars (Lepisosteus spp. and Atractosteus

spp.);

(2) Bowfin (Amia calva);

(3) Shads (Dorosoma spp.);

(4) Common carp (Cyprinus carpio);

(5) Suckers (buffalo) (Ictiobus spp);

(6) River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio);

(7) Bullhead catfishes (Ameiurus spp.);

(8) Silversides (Menidia beryllina and Membras

Martinica);

(9) Mullet (Mugil spp.);

(b) Exotic fish. A permit to sell the following species of fish taken from public fresh water may be issued if the department determines that it will encourage the removal of undesirable species.

(1) Goldfish (Carassius auratus);

(2) Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon Idella);

(3) Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis);

(4) Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.);

(5) Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix); and

(6) Suckermouth armored catfishes (Hypostomus spp. and Pterigoplichthys spp.).

(c) Hybrids among species listed in subsection (a) of this section may be sold under a permit issued under this subchapter authorizing the take of at least one of the species.

(d) No permit under Chapter 57, Subchapter A, of this chapter is required for an activity authorized under a permit issued under this subchapter; however, all controlled exotic species taken under this subchapter shall be subject to the provisions of §57.113(e) of this title (relating to General Provisions and Exceptions).

§57.379 Prohibited Acts. Except as provided by this subchapter it is unlawful for any person to:

(1) sell or offer for sale a [nongame] fish of the species listed in §57.378 of this title (relating to Applicability: Affected Species[Nongame Fishes]) taken from the public fresh water of the state, unless the person:

(A) – (B) (No change.)

(2) (No change.)

(3) to retain or possess any species of[game fish or nongame] fish not listed in a valid permit while engaged in activities authorized by the permit;

(4) to fail to immediately return to the water any species of fish not listed in the permit caught while engaged in activities authorized by the permit; or

(5) (No change.)

§57.381. Permit Specifications and Requirements.

(a) A permit issued under this subchapter shall specify:

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(3) the [nongame] fish species for which take and/or sale is allowed; and

(4) the types and number of devices that are lawful for use in permitted activities[which may be used to take nongame fish].

(b) – (h) (No change.)

§57.382. Harvest and Sales Reports. Annual harvest and sales reports must be submitted by the permittee to the department on forms provided by the department.

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(3) Permittee must maintain sales receipts for all [nongame] fish sold for a period of one year from date of sale, and these receipts must be available for examination by authorized employees of the department.

57.384. Special Conditions[Refusal to Issue]. The department may refuse to authorize any prospective activity on any water body or impose restrictions on permitted species, water bodies, devices, or live transfer if the department determines that the prospective take:

(1) [the prospective take of nongame fish] is detrimental to the target species, species listed as endangered or threatened, or any other aquatic species;

(2) [the prospective take of nongame fish] is likely to increase the risk of transfer or spread of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish or shellfish;

(3) [the prospective take of nongame fish] cannot be accomplished in a manner consistent with the management goals and objectives of the department[;]

[(4) the applicant or assistant(s) seeking renewal is not in compliance with provisions of this subchapter].

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 12

Presenter: Brian Bartram

2025-2026 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation Preview

Executive Summary:

Staff seeks to apprise the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) of potential changes to commercial fishing regulations for the 2025-2026 season.

Discussion:

Responsibility for establishing seasons, bag limits, and means and methods for taking freshwater and saltwater fisheries resources is delegated to the Commission under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapters 61 (Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act), 66 (Fish and Aquatic Plants), 67 (Nongame Species), 76 (Oysters), 77 (Shrimp), and 78 (Mussels, Clams, and Crabs). The potential changes are based upon statutory requirements and Commission policy, including scientific investigation and required findings of fact where applicable. The potential changes are intended to increase recreational opportunity, decrease regulatory complexity where possible, promote enforcement, and provide for the sound biological management of the fisheries resources of the state.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Potential Changes to Fisheries Regulations 2025-2026

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit A

Potential Changes to Fisheries Regulations 2025-2026

Coastal Fisheries

Greater Amberjack – Match federal minimum size limit for the commercial fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Modification of the minimum size from 34” total length to 40” total length for the commercial fishery in state waters. This would match the current federal water commercial minimum size of 36” fork length. Texas has maintained the total length approach to provide consistency in fish measurement approaches. No change is proposed for commercial bag limit in state waters. This change is proposed primarily for ease of enforcement as state water commercial landings of greater amberjack are minimal.

Work Session Agenda Item 13

Presenter: Kevin Kraai, Shawn Gray

2025-2026 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview

Executive Summary:

Staff will brief the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) on potential changes to hunting regulations for the 2025-2026 season.

Discussion:

Responsibility for establishing seasons, bag limits, and means and methods for taking game animals and game birds is delegated to the Commission under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 61 (Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act). The potential changes are based upon statutory requirements and Commission policy, including scientific investigation and required findings of fact where applicable. The potential changes are intended to increase recreational opportunity, decrease regulatory complexity where possible, promote enforcement, and provide for the sound biological management of the wildlife resources of the state.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Potential Changes to Hunting Regulations 2025-2026

Work Session Agenda Item 13
Exhibit A

Potential Changes to Hunting Regulations 2025-2026

Game Bird Regulations

Early teal season to be reduced to 9 total days statewide as required by federal frameworks, due to a drop in abundance of blue-winged teal per the harvest strategy.
Northern pintail bag limit increase to 3 per day during the regular season duck hunting season in all zones.
Open Lubbock County to wild turkey hunting.

Big Game Regulations

Expand archery season for mule deer from the Saturday closest to September 30 to the day prior to general mule deer season.
Modify Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP) rules to allow the harvest of mule deer with a firearm from the Saturday closest to September 30 through the last Sunday in January.

Work Session Agenda Item 14

Presenter: Matt Kennedy

BRIEFING – 2024 Survey of Employee Engagement

Executive Summary:

Every two years, government agencies within the State of Texas participate in the Survey of Employee Engagement (SEE). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) staff will present the results of the 2024 SEE and the plan to address key findings.

Discussion:

The SEE is an organizational tool that is used to optimize the employee experience and strategic planning. Through the SEE, the agency gains perspective into staff morale, communication effectiveness, perceptions of strategic direction, growth opportunities, and the value of various initiatives. TPWD saw many areas of significant improvement in the 2024 results.

Work Session Agenda Item 20

Presenter: Zach Spector

Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects

I. Executive Summary:

Staff will update the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on the acquisition of real property from willing sellers for Texas state parks using the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund and other funding sources.

Work Session Agenda Item 21

Presenter: James Murphy

Litigation Update

I. Executive Summary:

Attorneys for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will update and advise the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission regarding pending or anticipated litigation.

Work Session Agenda Item 22

Presenter: Chairman Jeffery D. Hildebrand, Jada Louhela

Personnel Matters – Performance Evaluation of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Executive Director

I. Executive Summary:

Annual Performance Evaluation of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Executive Director.

Work Session

Commission Agenda Items

August 21-22, 2024, Transcripts

Work Session Wednesday, November 6, 2024 9:00 a.m.

Agenda

Land and Water Plan

Financial

Natural Resources

Land Conservation

Executive Session

Agenda Items

Work Session Agenda Item 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

I. Executive Summary:

II. Discussion:

Work Session Agenda Item 2

Financial Overview

I. Executive Summary:

II. Discussion:

Work Session Agenda Item 3

Internal Audit Update

I. Executive Summary:

II. Discussion:

Work Session Agenda Item 6

Rule Review – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

II. Discussion

Attachments – 2

Work Session Agenda Item 6Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 6Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 9

Oyster Certificate of Location Rules – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

II. Discussion

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 9Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 10

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Detection and Response Rules – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

II. Discussion

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 10Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11

Permits to Possess or Sell Nongame Fish Taken from Public Fresh Water – Changes to List of Affected Species and Other Changes – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary

II. Discussion

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 12

2025-2026 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation Preview

Executive Summary:

Discussion:

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 12Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 13

2025-2026 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview

Executive Summary:

Discussion:

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 13Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 14

BRIEFING – 2024 Survey of Employee Engagement

Executive Summary:

Discussion:

Work Session Agenda Item 20

Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects

I. Executive Summary:

Work Session Agenda Item 21

Litigation Update

I. Executive Summary:

Work Session Agenda Item 22

Personnel Matters – Performance Evaluation of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Executive Director

I. Executive Summary:

Work Session
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
9:00 a.m.

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 9
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 10
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 13
Exhibit A