TPW Commission Meeting Transcript
January 22, 2026

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

JANUARY 22, 2026

COMMISSION HEARING ROOM

4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744

COMMISSION MEETING

 

CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: Good morning, everyone.

Before we begin, I’d like to take roll.

I’m Chairman Paul Foster, and I am present.

Vice-Chairman Bell?

VICE-CHAIRMAN OLIVER BELL: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Doggett?

COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Galo?

COMMISSIONER ANNA GALO: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?

COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Scott?

COMMISSIONER DICK SCOTT: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?

COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

This meeting is called to order on January 22, 2026, at 9:13 a.m.

Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Public notice of this meeting containing all items of the proposed agendas has been filed in the Office of The Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as the Open Meetings Act.

I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

First is the Approval of the Minutes from the Commission meeting held November 6, 2025, which have been distributed.

Do I hear a motion for approval?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

And a second?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Blake, thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

All right, that passes.

And then next is the Acknowledgment of the List of Donations, which has been distributed.

And I’d like a motion for approval.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

And a second?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That passes.

Next is Consideration of Contracts, which have been distributed.

Motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Second?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That passes.

Now for Retirements and Service Award Presentations.

Dr. Yoskowitz will make the presentations.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Great.

Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.

We have a full slate today of individuals that we are going to be honoring for their service to Texas Parks and Wildlife and to Texas.

And great to have the families here supporting our staff.

The first one we’d like to give honor to is an individual who has been an exemplary representative to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Game Wardens since his graduation from the 56th Game Warden Academy class in 2011.

Today we are honoring the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Officer of the Year, Game Warden Randy Watts.

Randy’s service-minded approach, team-first attitude, and dedication to the mission of conservation enforcement, particularly through his public outreach efforts, led to his selection among nominees from 15 member states of SEAFWA, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Along with being a leader in his region and district in the traditionally more recognized enforcement duties of a Game Warden, Randy goes the extra mile to serve the public and his colleagues by serving as a member of the Texas Game Warden Search and Rescue Team, and a certified instructor in Firearms, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, Advanced Law Enforcement, Rapid Response Training, and Search and Rescue, as mentioned before.

Among Randy’s most passionate pursuits is introducing our young Texans to the outdoors, and the responsible enjoyment of the abundant natural resources of our great state.

These efforts include conducting annual hunter ed classes, mentoring new waterfowl hunters, or participating in the organization of the annual Trinity County Kid Fish Derby, just to name a few.

These all play an important role in forwarding the mission of the department, and in making Randy, like many of his fellow Texas Game Wardens, a much loved and respected pillar of his community, and a model of the ideals recognized by SEAFWA to be worthy of their most prestigious award for conservation law enforcement.

Congratulations Randy.

[ applause ]

Step back.

SONJA SOMMERFELD: Right there.

Okay, one more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: And I will add one thing.

We were at the meeting where Randy was getting this award at SEAFWA. And he had no idea.

And so, when they announced his name, the look on his face said it all.

So, once again, congratulations, Randy.

Next, we’d like to recognize Annette Sudyka, who began her career with Texas Parks and Wildlife on August 20, 1990, when she was hired as the Administrative Technician for the Heart of the Hills Research Station, now known as Heart of the Hills Fisheries Science Center.

One of her many given tasks, along with purchasing, was to start digitizing the Heart of the Hills Library’s card catalog. Yes, card catalogs, we remember those, right?

Early on, she purchased, also, many products so scientists could be scientists experimenting. She continues to support Heart of the Hills staff with purchasing, and also fulfilling technical literature research requests within the agency.

She has endured surviving four directors of the Heart of the Hills.

With 35 years of service, Annette Sudyka.

[ applause ]

ANNETTE SUDYKA: Thank you.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Congratulations.

MS. SOMMERFELD: Over here.

One more.

[ applause ]

Next, we’d like to recognize Jim Ranft, who began his career at Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 1990.

After graduating from the Texas Game Warden Training Center in Austin, he was assigned to Region 3, St. Augustine County, in Deep East Texas.  He quickly began working on illegal commercial netting cases, including one that went to federal court.

And then in September of 1999, he was promoted to Captain Game Warden within the same region. During this period, the department focused on combating illegal deer hunting with dogs, leading to large-scale enforcement efforts such as Operation Broadhead I and II, which required extended multi-county deployments.

He had a brief return to military service with the Texas Army National Guard, and then in January 2006, he was assigned to Austin headquarters, where he helped establish division-wide fleet and property systems.

While at the Waco Law Enforcement Office, he and his district were among the first responders to the West Fertilizer Explosion, one of the largest contingency responses in history.

In September of 2014, he was promoted to Major Game Warden, and assigned to Region 3 in Lufkin. And then in September of 2017, he moved to Temple Regional Office. Throughout his career, Major Ranft has been recognized for his leadership and service.

He has received three Director Citation Awards for his military service as well.

With 35 years of service, Major Jim Ranft.

[ applause ]

MAJOR JIM RANFT: Thank you.

MS. SOMMERFELD: One, two, three, four.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Next, we’d like to recognize Arnie Montemayor, who began his career with the department in 1996 as the agency’s first Historically Underutilized Business Coordinator, working closely with leadership and legislative staff to establish the HUB program.

Later, as part of the Purchasing and Contracting team, he developed the agency’s first procurement card auditing program, which evolved into the robust system that it is today.

When the department began creating the first automated financial system, Arnie designed and delivered statewide training and procurement processes. He transitioned into the Information Technology Division as a full-time IT trainer, eventually managing the IT Training team. And then several years later, Arnie accepted the role of Manager of IT Customer Service, a position he still holds today.

With 30 years of service, Arnie Montemayor.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: One more.

Thank you.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Kevin Mote was hired as an Endangered Resources Biologist with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in the Panhandle in 1995.

He learned early that biologists should “never say never.’”

Upon receiving a call from a cotton farmer near Littlefield in 1996, who claimed to have seen lesser prairie chickens in one of his cotton fields, Kevin agreed to spend the day with him looking for the prairie chickens and discussing habitat needs of the bird.

After spending most of the day detailing why he did not have lesser prairie chicken habitat, and probably was observing hen pheasants in his field, they crawled into a turn row around sundown to witness three prairie chickens flush and fly off into the sunset.

Not long after that, the landowner was the recipient of the first Landowner Incentive Program grant to restore the native prairie for the chickens.

In 1998, he was transferred to the Wildlife District 3, and served as a Wildlife Diversity Biologist until his promotion to District Leader in 2002.

And in December of 2021, he accepted the current position he’s in as Director of the Private Lands and Public Hunting Program.

With 30 years of service, Kevin Mote.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Right here.

Perfect, one more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thomas “Doyle” Brown began his career with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in July of 2000.

Upon graduating from the Game Warden Academy in 2001, he was assigned to the work in Franklin County, where he still is serving those constituents.

In 2006, he became the Texas Commission Law Enforcement Instructor, and is known as a permanent fixture in his district. He’s also certified as a Firearms Instructor, standardized Field Sobriety Test Instructor, Field Training Officer, and Physical Readiness Test Coordinator.

In 2019, he was awarded a Life Saving Award for rescuing and beginning CPR on two distressed swimmers on Lake Cypress Springs.

With 25 years of service, Doyle Brown.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Right here.

Perfect.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Captain Shawn Hervey began…

You’re going to hear, there’s a pattern here today, I’m just going to warn you…[ laughs ]

…there’s a number of game wardens from the same class.

So, Captain Shawn Hervey began his career with the department in July of 2000, and graduated from the 47th class from the Texas Game Warden Academy in January of 2001.

First stationed in Rusk County until 2002, he then transferred to Bowie County, where he served until June of 2018 as a Field Warden. Captain Hervey was then promoted to Captain of the district he served in, a position he still holds today.

He has received the TPWD Community Outreach Award for his work with youth hunters, and has also received a Life Saving Award and the Director’s Meritorious Service Award.

Captain Hervey has served the people of Northeast Texas for 25 years, and continues to serve them today.

For 25 years of service, Captain Shawn Hervey.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: All right, you all in that class, I want some stories about Ron.

[ laughs ]

David Murray began his career with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on July 1, 2000, as well.

Upon graduating from the Texas Game Warden Academy in Austin, his first station was McMullen County, where he proudly served for seven years.

In 2007, David was promoted to Captain Game Warden, and moved to Laredo, Texas, where he helped open a newly created district office.

During his tenure as District Supervisor, he and his team of Game Wardens coordinated and conducted countless border operations on Falcon Lake along with their everyday duties.

In 2012, he attended the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy training session in Quantico, Virginia.

And in late 2012, David was promoted to Major Game Warden for Region II. As a regional director, he oversees operations in 24 counties.

With 25 years of service, Major David Murray.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: All right.

Right here.

Perfect.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Venu Nerametla began his career journey in Texas Parks and Wildlife in July of 2000.

And over the past 25 years, he has served in multiple key roles, including System Analyst, Project Manager, and currently as the Technical Services Manager.

Venu’s contributions include the design and delivery of critical systems such as the Fish Hatchery Data Systems, Boat Titling and Registration Applications, and modern Microsoft 365 solutions– which we cannot live without– along with a memorable project which deployed Microsoft Teams right before the pandemic hit.

We recognize him for his outstanding commitment, technical excellence, and lasting impact on the technology here at the department.

With 25 years of service, Venu Nerametla.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Right here.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Kathleen Stuman began her career with Texas Parks and Wildlife in July of 2000, as part of that 47th Texas Game Warden Academy class. After graduating, she was assigned to patrol Jim Hogg and Duval counties.

Kathleen requested a transfer to Comal County in 2002, where she patrolled the Guadalupe River and Canyon Lake for several years.

In 2007, Kathleen then transferred to Bexar County, where she now calls home. Kathleen continues to assist in patrolling Canyon Lake as well. Kathleen has received numerous awards, two of which are Life Saving Director’s Citations.

With 25 years of service, Kathleen Stuman.

[ applause ]

You want to accept the award on her behalf?

[ laughs ]

We’ll give that to Kathleen.

Thank you, Kathleen, for your service.

Next up….

This is a tough one.

Yeah, I know it’s a tough one.

Colonel Ron VanderRoest graduated from that 47th Texas Game Warden Academy, as well, in 2000, and has served in various law enforcement roles during his 25 years here at the agency.

He was first stationed in Denton County, and he has held multiple leadership roles within Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, including Captain in College Station and Major in Lubbock.

He also served as adjunct faculty at Texas Tech ”wreck’em,” instructing students in conservation law and leadership.

He is also a graduate of the National Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

During this time in the field, Colonel VanderRoest was instrumental in developing the Field Training Officer Program and the Captain Mentor Training Program.

In 2019, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, and then began his current role as Colonel in October of 2024.

With 25 years of service, Colonel Ron VanderRoest.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Jay Whiteside began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in October of 2000, as a Private Lands Biologist. In 2004, he was promoted to his current position as Technical Guidance Biologist.

He’s particularly proud of his work in the Blackland Prairie ecological region, where he has helped landowners restore and enhance native grassland habitat through programs such as the Pastures for Upland Birds Program, the Grassland Restoration Incentive Program, the United States Department of Agricultural Programs, as well as the Western Navarro Bobwhite Recovery Initiative Habitat Enhancement Program.

With 25 years of service, Jay Whiteside.

[ applause ]

Congratulations, Jay.

Stand up here.

MS. SOMMERFELD: Right here.

Show the plaque a little.

There you go, perfect.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Larry “Todd” McClanahan has known since he was 12 years old that he wanted to work for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Todd began his career with the department November 13, 2000, as the Park Interpreter and Park Police Officer at Bastrop and Buescher State Parks.

In 2004, he was promoted to Assistant Complex Superintendent; and in 2007, to the Complex Superintendent as a role he held until 2012. In 2012, Todd was promoted to the Central Texas Regional Director, where he has supported 19 state parks in that area; natural areas and historic sites as well.

In January of 2023, Todd became the first Texas State Parks Chief of Programs. And in this role, he proudly supports multiple programs that help millions of visitors make memories in our Texas State Parks. And of note, nine months after he joined us at headquarters, we won the gold medal for Texas… Best Texas State Park system in the country, and there was rapid improvement in the Wi-Fi connectivity at our state parks.

[ laughter ]

Great job, Todd.

Todd wholeheartedly believes in the Texas Parks and Wildlife mission, and strives to live it daily by experiencing the great Texas outdoors.

With 25 years of service, Todd McClanahan.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Right here.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chris Davis began his career at Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in July 2000, with that 47th Game Warden Cadet class. And after graduating, Chris’ first field assignment was in Polk County where he served until 2003 when he transferred then to Burnet County.

In 2007, he was promoted to Sergeant Special Investigator, where he worked a variety of cases in both an overt and covert capacity.

In 2010, Chris was promoted to Captain in Internal Affairs, where he served until 2014. And then in 2019, he served as Major of Special Operations. Since 2019, Chris has served in his current role at headquarters as Chief Responsible for Special Operations, the Game Warden Training Center, and Headquarters Staff.

He received the Shikar Safari Game Warden of the Year Award in 2009. He graduated from the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy class in Quantico, Virginia, and received the department’s Leadership Award in 2016.

With 25 years of service, Chief Chris Davis.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Right here.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: David Holdermann began his career at the department with the Wildlife Division in July 2002, serving in Region I as the Non-game Wildlife Biologist in Alpine. He also served as Texas Parks and Wildlife Department representative to various interstate non-game technical committees, including then ongoing state and federal discussions to recover the Mexican wolf in southwestern United States.

David briefly left the department in 2009, but returned in July of 2012 as the Non-game Wildlife biologist in East Texas, where he had led efforts to understand how, and when, black bears may recolonize that region. He’s the author of a book manuscript The Forgotten Quail, Montezuma Quail in Texas, that merges his interest in wildlife and history.

The book will be published soon by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department… Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation and the Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press.

With 20 years of service, David Holderman.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Look right here.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chase Fountain began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in October of 2005. Chase is TPWD’s Chief Photographer, and behind the imagery that defines the agency’s public face.

We all know Chase’s photography, and his excellent ability of putting people in the right position for the right effect in the perfect shot.

Over the past 20 years, Chase’s work has appeared across TPWD publication platforms and initiatives, as well as Texas Highways, Texas Monthly, Southern Living, National Geographic Traveler, The New York Times, and more. He also contributes to the award winning Texas Parks and Wildlife television show.

Chase’s work has earned numerous local, state, and national honors. And in 2017, he received a Lone Star Emmy and induction into the Muy Grande Hall of Fame in 2024.

His dedication and visual storytelling has shaped how Texans and the world see our natural wonders.

With 20 years of service, Chase Fountain.

[ applause ]

Congratulations.

Back up.

[ laughter ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: All right, there.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Next, we’d like to recognize Carmen Iniguez, who began her career with the department in 2005 at the Indian Lodge in Fort Davis. And while at Indian Lodge, she assisted in keeping the historic facilities clean and ensuring customer satisfaction.

In 2018, Carmen transferred to the Davis Mountain State Park as a Maintenance Specialist to work outdoors, where she is still today.

Carmen has learned many new skills which added to her capabilities, such as fixing water leaks, routine maintenance of all vehicles, lawn equipment, and carpentry. Carmen has been certified in tree trimming, fire maintenance, and is currently the backup Utility Plant Operator and Safety Officer.

Her determination has proven her passion for learning and helping others.

With 20 years of service, Carmen Iniguez.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Perfect.

Right this way.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Next, we’d like to recognize Rosemary Iniguez, who began her career with the department at Indian Lodge restaurant in 2005, where she became Head Cook. She created many recipes for holiday menus, especially for Thanksgiving, which many families enjoyed.

Not only did she cook many meals for guests, but she assisted in the ordering, organizing, and training of new staff.

In 2009, she transferred to Balmorhea State Park as a Maintenance Specialist to be closer to home, as her son and daughter were very active in many school activities.

Rosemary gained many skills and knowledge in the maintenance field. But her cooking skills are always on full display during the monthly staff meeting potlucks, where she frequently treats them to her famous chocolate cake.

Throughout the years of experience, she has strategically created a to-do list when completing the annual pool maintenance and cleaning for San Solomon Springs Swimming Pool– critically important.

Her thought process is that this list has enabled her team to work through this process together and complete this cleaning in a timely and efficient manner.

Rosemary is a key player in the maintenance team, and is a very valuable asset to our park operations at Balmorhea State Park.

With 20 years of service, Rosemary Iniguez.

[ applause ]

MS. SOMMERFELD: Okay.

One more.

[ applause ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Congratulations again to each of you.

It’s always a pleasure to be able to acknowledge and recognize the incredible amount of work that you people have put in, and the dedication you have. So, thank you. And congrats one more time.

At this time, I’ll inform you that you’re all welcome to stay throughout the day. We’d love to have you. But if you want to leave, this is a good time to do it as we kind of transition into a different part of the meeting.

PAUSE IN MEETING

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Time to settle down.

Action Item No. 1: Local Park Grants Funding– Request Approval of Proposed Funding Recommendations for Urban Outdoor Recreation Grants, Non-urban Outdoor Recreation Grants and Small Community Recreation Grants.

Mr. Dan Reece is going to present.

Thank you.

DAN REECE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Dan Reece, and I’m the Manager of the Local Park Grants Program within the Recreation Grants Branch, State Parks Division. And I’m here this morning to present funding recommendations for 42 new local park grants.

Funding from a portion of the state sales tax on sporting goods combines with federal offshore oil and gas royalties to provide matching grants to eligible local units of government for the acquisition, renovation and new development of public parkland.

Our program has just over $21 million in total available grant funding for the current grant cycle.

This number includes just over $13 million in the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, $3 million in the Texas Large County and Municipality Recreation and Parks Account, and in the Texas Recreation and Parks Account, just over $5 million. Staff also anticipates, that we may receive additional funding that could be applied to local park grants later this fiscal year.

We offer our three outdoor programs for the current grant cycle. Eligibility for these programs is dependent upon project scope and population, applicant population.

The Urban Outdoor Program is for all populations… is for all communities with a population of 500,000 or more. The Non-Urban Outdoor Recreation Program is for communities that fall below 500,000 in population. And for all jurisdictions with a population under 20,000, we offer the Small Community Program.

As of August 1, of 2025, we received 100 eligible applications requesting just over $47 million in matching fund assistance.

The map shown here illustrates the distribution of all received applications.

Exhibits A through C rank the projects in descending order.

As part of staff’s effort to modernize our workflows, our team successfully implemented new custom applications and data automation to help streamline our grant reviews, which enabled more efficient scoring based on the Commission approved scoring criteria.

The map shown here illustrates the geographic distribution of all recommended applications.

If approved, these 42 new grants will be added to a current portfolio of just over 200 active local park grants.

The distribution of these grants is shown on the exhibit here.

We have two recommendations before you this morning.

Motion 1: Funding for projects listed in Exhibits A through C is approved in the amount of $21,206,996.

Motion 2: Funding for projects listed in Exhibits A through C is approved in the amount of additional funding that could be made available in the current fiscal year.

This concludes my presentation, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yep.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.

I have one question on, I guess, the Laredo Lomas del Sur Regional Park.

That is with the City of Laredo and not with Webb County, correct?

Okay.

MR. REECE: Right, City of Laredo.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, why the two motions, I’m a little confused on that.

MR. REECE: On occasion, we do have additional funding that’s made available throughout the year that we may not be anticipating now.

And so, with Motion 2, we’re asking to go a little further down the list to award additional grants if that happens.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Perfect.

Okay, other comments or questions?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.

Just one.

You know, Mr. Reece, we’ve got to see you… I’ve been here for a while, we get to see you for several years.  I just don’t know that it’s fair that you get to have this fun job…

[ laughter ]

…where you kind of get to be the good guy all the time.

I don’t know that I’ve actually had the opportunity to hear anybody fuss at you since I’ve been here.

MR. REECE: It happens rarely.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: But I just wanted to make sure that was duly noted for everyone that you have a fun function that you get to do.

MR. REECE: I agree with that.

Thank you.

[ laughter ]

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, we have several speakers who have signed up to speak on this topic before we take action by the Commission.  So, thank you, Mr. Reece.

First speaker, and I’ll let you know that you’ll be limited to three minutes. I have little lights that will help guide you.

Our first speaker is Joel McElhaney.

JOEL McELHANEY: Good morning, Commissioner… Chair, and members of the Commission.

I’m Joel McElhaney, Assistant Director of the City of Fort Worth Park and Recreation Department.

And I’ll be quick.

But first I wanted to just mention, acknowledge the team.

Not only do they have a fun job, but the director, Dana Lagarde, of this grants program, Dan Reece, the Program Manager, Matt Mears has managed several of the projects up in the City of Fort Worth. And they just are a very knowledgeable and responsive team.

They take time to answer our questions as we go through administration of these grants. Sometimes they get a little tricky. So, I just want to let you know that you have a top-notch team running this program.

Second, I want to talk about the impact of this grant program on the City of Fort Worth. In preparing for this morning, I updated a spreadsheet that I do. And I’m just looking at grants back to 2010.

And I see grant awards all over the City of Fort Worth that have made a major impact on the recreational opportunities for the citizens of Fort Worth and visitors to Fort Worth.

These grants have funded development of athletic fields, trailheads and trail connections, playgrounds, and even a boardwalk and trail expansion at our Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge. So, it’s had a big impact, and we greatly appreciate the state’s partnership in development of recreation facilities.

Now, specifically to the grant that’s out for your consideration today as part of this agenda item.

Oak Grove Park is a 65-acre park in Southeast Fort Worth. We currently do not have a community park in that area.  With this grant funding, we’re going to be able to build athletic fields, a playground, shelter, paved trails and nature trails throughout this 65-acre property.

So, we greatly appreciate your partnership in the past, and I recommend approval for this item.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Next, we have Lyn Kinton.

LYN KENTON: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.

First of all, I’d like to thank you all for your service to the state of Texas.

We appreciate all that you do.

My name is Lyn Kinton, and I am the Administrator with the San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department.

San Antonio District 4 City Councilman Edward Mungia and our Parks Director Homer Garcia were unable to make it today, so I’m here on their behalf to provide support for Item 1 approval.

The City of San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department system plan is founded on four basic principles. The City of San Antonio Recreation Department is responsive to our community.

We also are restorative to our community’s health.

Because of Parks and Recreation, our community is more resilient. And we are resourceful in how we deliver our programs and services.

And this is one of those examples of how we are resourceful.

It’s partnerships like this, and opportunities like this, that help us expand what we can do for our community.

To provide a brief background on this project, in May of 2022, the voters of San Antonio overwhelmingly approved a bond proposition with more than 90 projects. One of those projects was an all-inclusive, adaptive-use bike track at Pearsall Park, which is in the southwest side of San Antonio.

This project is an eight-lane, quarter-mile paved bike track with a timed racing designed to accommodate a wide ridership.

The track includes gravity-driven slopes, paved surfacing with ADA-accessible start gates, and riding challenges such as jumps, rollers, and banked curves.

The universal design will invite BMX riders, mountain bikers, recumbent bikes, and be compatible with all-wheel, non-motorized use. So, we’re really thrilled about this project.

Programs like the TPW local park grants help supplement the funds that we have to enhance these types of projects for our community.

The San Antonio community is excited about the all-inclusive, adaptive-use bike track at Pearsall Park. And the Department is really appreciative of the consideration that you gave to all of these projects for these grants.

On behalf of the City of San Antonio, the District 4 City Councilman, Edward Mungia, the City of San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department, and the City of San Antonio, we thank you for your recommendation of Pearsall Park for this local park grant in 2026.

I also want to echo really quickly Joel’s comments from this team. We work with Dana and Dan. We have Crystal Locke on our team.  They are extremely professional, very responsive, and just great professionals to work with. So, I wanted to echo those remarks.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you. Next, we have David Garza.

DAVID GARZA: Good morning, Commission, Chairman.

Dr. Yoskowitz, how are you?

Thank you so much for the opportunity to just briefly thank you all for the Urban… or Non-Urban Outdoor park grants.

Cameron County is happy to be one of the recipients that is being recommended for funding.

We look forward to enhancing a park that you’ve already invested with us twice. This park is in a colonia, an area that is non-incorporated, that has about 3,000 people living in it. And most importantly for us, it abuts the lower Laguna Madre.

You’ve helped us in the past with our South Texas Ecotourism Center. By the way, this last year we were shy of 300 people to hit the 40,000 number mark on visitors coming into that facility.  Again, I invite you to have a meeting down there one of these days, you know. But it’s turned out to be fantastic in which we highlighted six ecosystems in the valley.

We purposely eliminated highlighting the Lower Laguna Madre, which is one of six hypersaline lagoons in the world.  The Lower Laguna Madre in the state of Texas, in our area, is home to about 80 percent of all the seagrasses along the coastline.

Your investment today with this grant is going to help us create an educational environment, create a nature habitat, create access to the Lower Laguna Madre for both paddling, kayaking, and wade fishing.

So those are ancillary things that are coming up in regards to some other investments that we’re making.

But these improvements and a shared commitment to enhancing our environmental stewardship in the area, and also enhancing healthier lifestyles, education, and more importantly, inclusive recreation– because everything is totally inclusive and handicapped accessible for all our visitors– can only happen with your help. I want to thank you again.

I apologize to your staff because we have a member of our group that probably calls them five times a day when we’re going through this process, and they’re very patient in dealing with him.

You know, Dan, you know Mr. Vega well.  He knows everybody here. But we have tried to be great stewards with what you have shared with us that comes to you. So, thank you again.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Thank you.

Next, Ramiro Trevino.

RAMIRO TREVINO: Good morning, Commissioner.

Good morning.

My name is Ramiro Trevino.  I’m the City Councilman for the City of Pearsall, alongside with the Assistant City Manager for the City of Pearsall.

We are extremely excited to be before you guys this morning; since ‘93, since the City of Pearsall has received funding from the Parks and Wildlife.

So, I’m going to take this information back and hopefully we get this funding approved to you guys. But again, on behalf of the City of Pearsall, the Mayor of City of Pearsall, Mayor Ben Briscoe, and the City staff, we again thank you.

But this is going to be an exciting opportunity for the City of Pearsall. We are a small city located between San Antonio and Laredo, about 45 minutes south of San Antonio, which is one of the rural communities where the trouble of bringing these resources is tough within our area.

So again, it’s something that the City Council has been working on, and we’re glad that we have a master plan that’s moving forward for this Trevino Sports Complex.

We have huge plans moving forward, and we look forward to working with the Commission and Parks and Wildlife for future to come.

Again, it’s recommending funding represents more than the infrastructure improvements. It’s an investment for our health, the well-being and the quality of life of our residents, particularly for the youth.

We’ve done a lot of partnerships, Unified Unity with the county, and the school districts as well. And I know that I’m leading one of the biggest projects within the scope of this particular park, which is a multi-purpose facility we want to look at, which is partnering up with educational facilities as well. Grand Canyon University is one of them that wants to partner up to bring those resources to a community that we don’t have.

So again, we want to thank you on behalf of the City of Pearsall, and recommend that this funding gets approved so we can move forward in bigger and better things for our residents.

Thank you once again.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Next, Tori Hitzfeld.

Hitzfeld, I think.

TORI HITZFIELD: Hitzfeld.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.

MS. HITZFELD: Good morning.

My name is Tori Hitzfeld.  I’m with the City of Kemp.

So, this is our first time that we’ve applied for a Texas Parks and Wildlife Grant. We’re a really small community just east of Dallas. We’re really excited to be recommended for this project. It’s going to really greatly improve our community and the activities that we’re able to offer in our park. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

David Dimaline.

Is that close?

DAVID DIMALINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

I’m David Dimaline with the City of Leon Valley.  I’m the Public Works Director.  And I just wanted to thank you for this opportunity to talk briefly about our project, which is the Leon Valley Four Stokes Pool.

And this pool was constructed in 1968.  So, as you can imagine, it’s in need of a lot of renovations. And we’re also going to really focus on bringing it into ADA compliance. So, we can’t thank you enough for your consideration for this project. It’s going to really assist us with building a state-of-the-art facility.  And we’re just very thankful for your time today. Have a great day.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

And Kitley Wasicek.

KITLEY WASICEK: Good morning, Director and Commission.

Thank you very much for letting us be here.

My name is Kitley Wasicek.

I am the County Treasurer for Live Oak County.

And we are here today to please ask for recommending for funding for the Longhorn Park. The Longhorn Park will be in Live Oak County. It’s located in George West, Texas.

We’re a community of about 2,500 people. The county has about 12,000 people.  We are located 110 miles south of San Antonio, and about 70 miles north of Corpus Christi. So very isolated in what we can offer to our citizens.

We are requesting this funding to establish a park along the banks of the Nueces River. It’s a 14-acre park. It will be all-inclusive and adaptable. We are asking for this money for a playscape. These are very cost prohibitive to small communities.

We also have a basketball court, a pavilion, bird blind, anything that we can do to include nature in our community.

And we, let’s see, it’ll have a 36-inch wide concrete path, as well as additional gravel trails for bird watching.

We love our nature and being out in the country.

So, we have a fishing pier available that’s ADA-compliant, and a boat ramp. And this park is halfway… the halfway takeout point for the Nueces Paddling Trail, which is a Texas Parks and Wildlife-approved kayak trail.

So, we’re looking forward to having to provide this for our community.

And thank you very much for your consideration.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MS. WASICEK: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Appreciate it.

And to my knowledge, Dee, no more on this topic, is that correct?

DEE HALLIBURTON: Yes, Sir.

There’s another page.

[ laughter ]

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, except for the rest of this.

Okay.

[ laughter ]

Just kidding.

All right.

Jason Mundo, please.

Not trying to cut you out, so sorry about that.

JASON MUNDO: [ laughs ]

No problem.

Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Jason Mundo with Mundo and Associates, representing the McLennan County Trading House Lake Project.

Our county judge, Scott Felton, asked that I present his remarks. Judge Felton would like to thank Texas Parks and Wildlife for recommending our local park grant application for funding. This investment will have a meaningful and lasting impact on Trading House Lake Park, one of McLennan County’s most valued outdoor spaces.

The improvements made possible by this grant will enhance access, safety, and recreational opportunities for families, anglers, and visitors from across our region, while having us better preserve the natural resources that make this park special. Trading House Lake Park is more than just a destination. It’s a gathering place that supports quality of life, outdoor recreation, and economic vitality in our community.

We are grateful for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s partnership and for your continued commitment to strengthening local parks across Texas.

Thank you for your consideration and support.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.

Next, Erica Flocke.

ERICA FLOCKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, and Commissioners.

My name is Erica Flocke, and I serve as the Parks and Recreation Director for the City of Wimberley.

Also, here with me supporting this item, I have our Mayor, Mr. Jim Chiles, as well as our City Administrator, Mr. Tim Patek.

Wimberley is a small hill country community about an hour southwest of Austin, if you’re not familiar.

Blue Hole Regional Park is one of the few places in Wimberley where people can swim in a natural spring, can walk beneath old-growth cypress trees, and begin to understand where their water comes from. Blue Hole already serves as a gateway to the outdoors, and this nature center project allows us to deepen that experience by connecting people not only to recreation, but to the ecological story of our waterways, our aquifers, and our native landscapes.

This project expands outdoor recreation through trails, outdoor gathering spaces, and native landscaping, all paired with conservation education focused on water and land stewardship. While the broader site will eventually include an indoor nature center, this application is intentionally focused only on the outdoor recreation.

Your support of this project allows us to deliver outdoor recreation and conservation education that will benefit generations to come, helping people form a lasting connection to the land and water that defines places like Wimberley.

On behalf of the City of Wimberley, thank you for your consideration and for your continued support of Texas communities and public lands.

Y’all, have invested a lot of time and money into Blue Hole Regional Park, and if you’re ever out in that area, please contact me. I would love to give you the grand tour.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Jonah Chang.

JONAH CHANG: Good morning, Chair and Commissioners, and also staff for Texas Parks and Wildlife.

My name is Jonah Chang, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Castroville. I want to express our sincere appreciation to the TPWD for your continued commitment to our local communities across Texas, and specifically for the City of Castroville.

This grant, or the recommendation for the grant, at Lions Park at the City of Castroville would construct an all-inclusive playground, which would be the first for the city.

These investments ensure that the park remains places where communities gather, children play, and where people connect.

Again, on behalf of the city, the little outstates of Texas, thank you all for your consideration and support.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.

Katie Amsler.

KATIE AMSLER: Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Katie Amsler. I’m the Director of Community Engagement and Communications for the City of Liberty Hill. And on behalf of our city, I just want to share how meaningful this moment is for our community.

This is our third year to apply for this grant for our Heart of the Park project.  And each year we’ve slowly crept up the list, and it’s been exciting to watch.  And we’ve worked and tweaked and just really poured our heart and souls into this project.

And I really want to thank the Texas Parks and Wildlife staff.

They’ve been incredible over the last few years offering their guidance and support, answering all of our questions, and just helping us get to this moment.

So, we’re so grateful to be here. And we thank you for believing in our vision and in our community, and for this recommendation that will make a lasting impact for generations to come in Liberty Hill.

So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

George Freas.

GEORGE FREAS:  Chairman Foster and Vice-Chair Bell and members of the Commission, Dr. Yoskowitz, thank you so much for the work that you do. Without your hard work, these things wouldn’t be possible.

I represent the City of Glen Rose. And you may or may not know we have Dinosaur Valley State Park, a little hidden gem of the Parks and Wildlife Department. And we want to thank Warden Davis, who works at the park, and all the work that we’ve done.

We’re here today to ask you to support the Outdoor Urban/Non-Urban grant that we have made an application for. It’s our first opportunity. We’re very proud of the work that we’re doing in the City of Glen Rose. You may or may not know, Somervell County is the second smallest county in the state.

And so we get overlooked in a number of ways. But this is an opportunity for us to really shine.

And we thank your staff, Ms. Park, for the work that they’ve done in helping us kind of guide through the system. And we ask that you would support this motion and move forward with it. And we look forward to seeing you one day in the community.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Joe Boles.

JOE BOLES: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

We’re ganging up on you from Glen Rose.

But I wanted… on behalf of the residents and the tourists that come to our town, thank you for your consideration for this item. And I would ask that you please understand how important it is to us. This park that we’re going to use these funds in is in need of repair, and it’s going to be a wonderful thing.

Also, if you don’t know where Glen Rose is, come see our dinosaur tracks. It’s a sausage biscuit and two cups of coffee from Austin. So, if you would, we’d invite you to come.

And we thank you very much for your consideration.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Katy Connally.

KATY CONNALLY: Good morning.

My name is Katy Connally. I’m here on behalf of the City of Victoria, Texas.

I wanted to tell you thank you for your consideration for recommending funding for our project. We have worked with TPWD Local Parks in the past rehabilitating Duck Pond in our regional park. And I want to say that’s probably the top two places in the city for people to take photos of engagements.

Every year I see dozens and dozens of photos of people standing in front of the pond in the gazebo before homecoming or prom.

Inland Fisheries, also I would like to say thank you.  They helped us get it established. It’s a lot more than just putting water in. And they also have helped us with the fish.

This current project under consideration is a much smaller park, but in an underserved area of the city.

And we’re so excited to make it a bright spot for the neighborhood, to make it beautiful, inviting, safe, and accessible and inclusive for the neighborhood that it serves.

So, I wanted to say, again, thank you so much.

Have a great day.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Jen Basham.

JEN BASHAM: Good morning, Commission.

I wanted to start by saying thank you for being here this morning, and a special thanks to Dan and Marissa who were our assistants on the grant application process.

I’m Jen Basham with the City of Burleson. I’m the Parks and Recreation Director there.

Our project is one that’s been a long time in the making. It was identified in our 2019 Master Plan as a community priority, and then again in our 2025 Master Plan.

Our design is for an inclusive, nature-based play area in a new park that we’re building in a developing part of our community. It’s very, very special to us. It is one of the first projects in our community that is unanimously supported.

So, there’s no division. This is something that our community, our park board, our council, even our local legislators are really, really behind.

Our school district, our special needs community, they’re incredibly grateful and thankful for this. So, we just wanted to take the time to say thank you for this recommendation.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

And Kate Meacham.

KATE MEACHAM: Good morning.

Thank you so much for having me. I’m Kate Meacham.

I’m the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Allen.

We’re so appreciative of the continued support from Texas Parks and Wildlife. We’ve been partnering for over 40 years to build our system. It started with Ford Park and Reed Park, back in 1981. 20 years later was Celebration Park.  And now we’ve come full circle to revitalizing one of our east side parks with Ford Park North.

So, by building this new playground area, it’s situated in an area right next to Ford Middle School, next to some apartments where those individuals don’t have access. And so, we are so excited to be able to build community, build healthy connections for all of our residents, especially in this Ford Park North area.

So, thank you for your continued support. We appreciate support for this recommendation as we move forward in revitalizing our park system.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.

And I think we’re, again, at the end of the list. Is that right?

Okay.

Do we have any more comments or questions from the Commission or staff?

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion for, well, on Motion No. 1.

I’ll read it.

“Funding for projects listed in Exhibits A through C in the amount of $21,206,996.”

Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Oh, Commissioner Galo second.

Okay.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

So, that motion passes. And congratulations to each of you. It’s an honor for us to be able to do this. And it’s great to have reached beyond our amazing state park system to be able to touch individual communities that are separate from all that. And it’s really a treat and an honor for us.

And then Motion No. 2 is”

“Funding for projects listed in Exhibits A through C is approved in the amount of additional funding that is made available in the current fiscal year.

Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo, I move.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Second?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

All right.

So that passes as well.

And Mr. Reece, did you have another comment or…

MR. REECE: I didn’t.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Thank you, and congratulations. Thanks for all your hard work.

All right.

Action Item No. 2: Designation of Nonprofit Partners– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

And Mr. James Murphy will take the lead.

JAMES MURPHY: Very good.

Chairman, Commissioners, I’m James Murphy, General Counsel to the department. And I’m here today to present an update to the list of the department’s designated nonprofit partners.

So, under the Parks and Wildlife Code, we are authorized to select and cooperate with nonprofit partners to serve department goals.

This is really important statutory authority that we have to further the mission of the department. The code also requires the Commission to officially designate these nonprofit partners and establish through your rulemaking power best practices for handling of state funds and assets.

Most of our partners exist for the purpose of a specific department property, program, or facility. Friends groups are the most notable and form the majority of our listed nonprofit partners.

Of course, we have one official nonprofit partner that supports the overall mission and goals of the agency, and that is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation.

We periodically update this list for you. The last time was back in 2021. And we do have a few changes to present here today. Those are shown in Exhibit A in your materials.

We’ve updated the contact information for a number of these groups. Added five new groups. You’ll see them here on the screen.

The Partners at Nails Creek State Park, that’s Lake Somerville State Park. Friends of Seminole Canyon State Park. The Friends of Village Creek State Park. The Friends of the Texas Master Naturalists. And the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association.

We’re also removing a number of partners who unfortunately for one reason or another are either inactive or have disbanded.

Just to note, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association is contingent upon the next item, the rule change that we propose related to that organization.

Public comments at this point: still at 7– 6 that agree, 1 disagreed specifically, suggesting a lack of oversight.

We do have rules in place that provide oversight of our nonprofit partners. They’re required to enter an agreement with the department within 60 days of being designated by you as an official… as a nonprofit partner. And so, we do think we have appropriate oversight in place.

And with that, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves the list attached as Exhibit A, and designates those entities as nonprofit partners of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.”

Thank you, and I’m certainly available for any questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Any comments or questions?

No public speaking?

MS. HALLIBURTON: No speakers.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: No speakers, okay.

So, I would entertain approval of the motion.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move approval.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Second?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That motion passes.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

And you’re up again here.

Action Item No. 3: Nonprofit Partner Rules– Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.

Again, James Murphy, General Counsel of the Department.

And here on this item we present a proposed rule revision to our rules that govern nonprofit partners, those controls we mentioned in the last agenda item.

The Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association is a self-insurance program that was founded back in 1956 as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization with a mission to provide financial assistance to the families of deceased members. The goal here are death benefits paid within 48 hours to address those immediate costs that come when a loved one has passed away.

Those benefits are guaranteed within 30 days.

Our membership is current and former Parks and Wildlife employees, and then their spouses can also become members of that as well. Of course, that includes Commissioned peace officers of the department. Our officers and directors are voluntary and uncompensated, and they are primarily current and retired Parks and Wildlife employees, which is the reason for this rule change proposal today.

As you saw, it was listed in the prior agenda item as being proposed to add to the list contingent on this item being adopted. We do think that it would serve the mission of the department, while also providing assurances that the association can do a membership drive using our email accounts, can have and maintain a web page, and tap into those department resources in a minimal way, as necessary, to further the membership goals.

So, we do propose a change, it’s just one change, to allow current employees to serve as an officer or  director of the association, unlike that more arms-length relationship we have with our other friends groups.

We’ve done a legal review of this, and we do believe that given that these death benefits are paid, there’s no discretion in them. We think there’s very little risk of any sort of conflicts of interest by allowing department employees to serve on that nonprofit’s board.

Public comments for an agreement: no disagreement.

No additional comments this morning.

And with that, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts an amendment to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Section 51.164, as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.”

With that, Chairman, happy to answer any questions?

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Any comments or questions?

I have one quick question, and I’m just curious.

How is this… this is a wonderful benefit and program.

How is it funded?

How does that work?

MR. MURPHY: So, there’s an initial membership fee. It’s very low. That’s primarily for some basic administration of the organization. But upon the death, a notification goes out and each member pays a $20 fee at that time. And it’s a $5,000 benefit at that time.

So, really, it’s a pay as the event arises. And the membership comes at that time. The organization does not maintain a large balance, or anything like that– pretty minimal, just those initial membership fees.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Wow.

Sounds great.

Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: So, moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

A second?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Action Item No. 4: Implementation of Legislation During 89thTexas Legislative Session, House Bill 3088, Relating to the Authority of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to Procure Goods and Services Related to Items for Resale by the Department– Recommended Approval of Procurement Methods.

Craig Bonds.

CRAIG BONDS: Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, I’m Craig Bonds, Chief Operating Officer.

And I’ll be presenting on Implementation of House Bill 3088 from the 89th Legislative Session Relating to the Authority of TPWD to Procure Goods and Services Related to Items for Resale by the Department– Recommended Approval of Procurement Methods.

The public’s experiences at many of our state parks and fisheries outreach centers are enhanced by visits to these gift shops or park stores. They range from small kiosks to larger operations, stocking merchandise, souvenirs, and other essentials like ice, drinks, snacks, and firewood. These shops allow our visitors to acquire an item of comfort during their stay, and also to take home a lasting memory from their experience.

For customized items purchased from local vendors in small quantities, often to test market performance of site-specific items, traditional state procurement processes can hamper our ability to efficiently and cost-effectively procure these items.

House Bill 3088 amended Parks and Wildlife Code to allow the department to procure goods and services related to items for resale by any method approved by the Commission so long as the method provides the best value to the department.

Our goal is to implement this statute in a way that enables us to improve visitor experiences, enhance operational efficiencies, all while maintaining effective and ethical accountability measures.

Staff seek Commission approval for two procurement methodologies related to items for resale. The first is a Concession Payment Card Direct Award. And the second is a Contract Procurement with a vendor/supplier.

And I’ll now dive a little bit deeper into both of those methodologies.

For the first methodology, the Concession Payment Card Direct Award is a dedicated purchasing credit card which would allow flexibility in purchasing directly from local vendors for smaller quantities of customized or seasonal merchandise to test market performance.

And in the absence of this methodology, small and local vendors often found the procurement process cumbersome, and could be reluctant to sell their unique locally made souvenirs to our gift shops.

And so, we want to change this by using the Concession Payment Card Direct Award methodology.

And as proposed for approval, staff would be granted authority to directly award a purchase of items for resale, and pay for it with the concession payment card within the established accountability measures to be outlined in a later slide.

These changes are designed to improve procurement efficiency and cost effectiveness, especially for customized products that are often sourced from local small businesses.

We would use this process to engage vendors who offer tailored products or services that deliver the best value to the customers. As it currently stands, our typical purchasing process focuses on low bid or cost as the determining factor for the purchase.

In considering a Concession Payment Card Direct Award, an authorized employee making purchases for resale will consider a decision-making matrix through a qualitative evaluation of the product or service using these listed criteria on the slide.

This process brings better value to the customer by enabling individual gift shops to better customize their merchandise and services to meet the specific customer needs.

And through this process, the customer will benefit because it enhances the customer experience by enabling more diverse and appealing products tailored to visitor interests and site-specific offerings. And it delivers greater value to customers by ensuring the quality and the appropriate quantity of inventory exists in those stores.

The local economy may benefit from the process because it empowers and supports local small businesses by streamlining access to state park retail channels via flexible purchasing protocols, and it accelerates procurement timelines for resale items, reducing delays and improving operational efficiency.

Staff eligible to utilize the Concession Payment Card Direct Award methodology will be held accountable through the following protocols.

And Exhibit A of this Commission agenda item provides a summary of internal policy and procedure requirements, which are comparable in rigor and oversight to other current procurement methods.

And based on our conversation yesterday, I’ll provide some greater details in the following slides of these accountability measures.

Specific controls for use of the concession payment card for a direct award include eligibility standards.

Only team members who are directly involved with gift shops or park stores will be issued a concession payment card, and the agency will have on record a signed application, conflict of interest form, and acknowledgement of receipt for each employee.

Controls also include training requirements. Employees will be required to earn a passing score of 90 percent or better before being eligible to make purchases. And refresh training will be required every two years to ensure a sustained understanding of purchasing regulations and protocols.

There are multiple levels of supervisory oversight that we have in place. Supervisors and coordinators are responsible for regular reviews of card use and limits.  Division credit card coordinators and the agency credit card administrator oversee compliance, training, and reporting structures.

Furthermore, TPWD has controls relevant to documentation and reconciliation requirements. All transactions must be logged into our e-Portal system within three business days. Receipts, invoices, and order summaries must be attached to the transaction log. Monthly reconciliation must be completed within five business days of receiving the billing statement.

And while yesterday we discussed the internal auditor’s possible oversight role– which if a future risk assessment and our evaluation recommends that we take a closer look on this– and at some point in the future I would suspect that that will probably happen.

But before that step, the state parks team has a business management unit and a fiscal control unit. These units are responsible for fiscal oversight, ensuring that appropriate controls are in place to support fiscally responsible purchasing.

And I will add that the Inland Fisheries team also has a similar organizational structure for oversight.

And additionally, they serve as a resource for employees who have questions regarding implementation, helping to ensure compliance with established rules, policies, and procedures that we’ll have in place.

Single transaction and monthly cycle limits– in other words how many times you can repeat a purchase– are established and must not be exceeded.

Capitalized and controlled items cannot be purchased with this card.

TPWD, as a reminder, is a tax-exempt organization, so sales tax must not be charged. Cardholders are required to adhere to ethical conduct or their purchasing privileges will be revoked.

As you remember from yesterday, the Concession Card Direct Award purchasing methodology will be governed by department policies and procedures. And as is common practice, violation of these purchasing regulations result in appropriate disciplinary action.

And I hope by spending a few more minutes during today’s presentation covering our accountability measures, we’ve given the Commission even greater confidence in our internal control mechanisms. And we offer to check back in with the Commission on our implementation performance in a manner and time interval of your choosing.

In the second methodology, TPWD will use contracts and vendors once a product’s performance can be verified and larger quantities are needed, and for also gift shop staples that sell consistently like food, drinks, snacks, firewood, ice, those types of essential items.

The Contract Procurement methodology is an existing, well-established procurement process currently utilized as part of our standard purchasing procedures. And so, there’s nothing new for this second methodology.

So, in closing, with HB 3088 and the Commission’s approval of the proposed resolution, items purchased for resale would have enhanced direct award procurement options as compared to the standard purchasing practices.

But most importantly, these methodologies would contribute to greater customer satisfaction, enhanced departmental operational efficiencies, all without sacrificing our accountability safeguards.

Visitors to our state parks and fisheries outreach facilities gain memorable experience connecting with each other and to the great outdoors. And we want them to be able to purchase items they can take home with them that provide routine reminders to relive those moments through time.

And the slide shows as of yesterday at 4:00 p.m., we had 3 total comments. But we did get an additional comment this morning.

And so, we’re up to 4 total comments all still in agreement.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves the resolution in Exhibit B approving the Concession Payment Card Direct Award and contract methods of procurement under Parks and Wildlife Code Section 11.0171E for the procurement of goods and services related to items for resale.”

That concludes my presentation.

I’d be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Bonds.

And, yes, you have done a great job of clarifying some of the questions we had yesterday about controls and procedures, so thank you.

MR. BONDS: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any…

Yes, Commissioner Doggett.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: A few questions.

MR. BONDS: Sure, of course.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I think it’s a great idea to buy locally produced items as souvenirs for our guests. Let me ask you, how many stores are involved here?

MR. BONDS: Okay, we have 76 stores total.  Two of those are within our fisheries outreach facilities that we mentioned yesterday. And then we also have one online state park store.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So, how many cards are we talking about issuing?

MR. BONDS: My understanding, and I might turn to our State Parks team and/or our Purchasing and Contracting Director Debra Rosas, or Kimberly McNeeley, our State Parks Chief of Staff, here to provide some...

Go ahead.

MS. McNEELEY: For the record, Kimberly McNeeley, serving as the Chief of Staff for State Parks.

At the last count, the estimate is approximately 93 cards.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

So, my question, just simple, is, and maybe I need a better understanding of the process.

So, we’re going to be giving procurement cards to individuals that are running these 73 stores. Is that right?

So, my question would be are we turning procurement now over to someone who has no experience in procurement?  I mean, it’s not a simple job, right?

MR. BONDS: Right.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: It’s… the more you probably dive into it, the more complicated it is.  For someone that doesn’t have experience to say, “Okay, I’m going to buy this item for what dollar amount, and I’m going to resell it for what dollar amount, and I’m going to buy these quantities of that product.”

I know there’s some controls over quantities, but still you can make mistakes. And to have someone do that who’s just stepped into a job as a clerk at one of these positions.

I mean, it sends up an antenna, you know, how are we going to really control…

You hate to at the end of the day, you know, at the end of the year say, “Ooh, we made some pretty big mistakes, we bought too many, or we paid too much,” or bought too many usually is the problem. So, I guess one of my main concerns is inventories, how we take inventories of those.

Who approves acquisitions above and beyond the cardholder?

MR. BONDS: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: And then how can we audit all of this, say, within some short period of time to make sure that everybody is staying within the guidelines and we’re getting the end result that we want, which is noble. I mean, it’s a great mission to, hey, let’s just don’t have standard knickknacks in the shop.

MR. BONDS: Right.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Let’s have locally procured.

That’s a great idea. But what worries me a little is the control of all of that.

MR. BONDS: Sure.

I think I’ll mention two points and then maybe turn it over to Kimberly to back me up with some more granular detail. But one thing I want to remind the Commission, and I think most of you probably already know this, maybe I’m also reminding the audience, is we already have procurement card program within the agency. It’s very well established. These would be separate procurement cards specifically for gift shops. So, the policy…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Currently those procurement cards are with purchasers, people that that’s their job is to purchase materials.

MR. BONDS: Correct.

That’s a good point.

And so, I would just refer back to our training for those.

First of all, they have to be in an eligible position to be able to be eligible to get a purchasing card. The supervisor obviously has to approve that. There has to be training. They have to pass a test to understand the rules. And they have to be proficient, demonstrated based on their score, to be able to receive a card.

And then as far as our division credit card coordinators.

And we have an agency credit card administrator that will be looking at this very closely.

We also have fiscal control specialists within State Park.

So, lots of folks that are going to be tracking this very, very closely to make sure that we’re purchasing the right items in the right quantities.

We’re also going to track the performance of those items in those shops. So, we’ll be able to track the customer’s purchasing patterns, and then we’ll be able to adjust our subsequent purchases accordingly. And so, I would invite Kimberly to come up and provide some extra comments if warranted.

MS. McNEELEY: So just to add to what Craig has already explained, is that the 93 individuals that I told you about are already doing that job. They’re already in charge of the store. They’re already making the decisions. So, we’re not putting 93 new people into a position, or giving authority to 93 new individuals. They already exist. That’s part of their job is to run those stores.

And I would also add that there is an entire policy and procedure that is associated with the purchasing card that individuals will have to adhere to. And in there we’ll outline the rules and regulations associated with purchasing items for resale, and there will be obviously training associated with that.  But that is going to be a brand new procedure that will be put in place specific to this process, assuming that the Commission allows us the opportunity to move forward with the Concession Card Direct Award.

So, we’ll have that as a guideline on top of the training.

You’ll always have a reference guide and all the other supervisory items that Mr. Bonds provided to you.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So… Commissioner Doggett again.

So, from what I’m hearing, I think what the difference is, currently those 76 folks, they have a card but they probably buy from a catalog.

You say, all right, this is what’s available to you.

So, they buy out of the catalog. So, it’s all priced, you know, the store’s cost and what they’re going to sell it for.

I think what’s different here, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that now they can procure outside of the catalog locally and buy it.

And then who establishes the cost… that says the cost, the procurement cost is okay, and then the retail cost of all that? Who does that?

MS. McNEELEY: So, essentially, what you’ve just stated is correct.

And because we’ll be buying locally, it’s not going to go without research. Right?  So, we’re going to definitely take a look at what’s the market value of a particular item that’s being offered.

So, let’s just say glassware.

What’s a market value of a customized piece of glassware?

Well, we won’t want to purchase something…. if we want to have the best value to our customers, we don’t want to purchase something that’s outside of the market value. So, we’ll certainly do some research before we’ll make those decisions.

And again, that information, there was a slide that helped you understand that it’s going to be uniqueness, it’s going to be quality, it’s going to be appropriately priced.

And so, we’ll be using that as a guideline, all of which will be in that procedure.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

Well, I think what I’d say again is that the idea is great, that you get locally procured, manufactured, built product in to sell.

And so, all I would say is that with 93 cards, 76 stores…

I have a lot of experience with inventories, and I want to tell you they can be a nightmare. And you’ve got to think of all that as cash sitting on the shelf out there. Although it’s a coffee cup, it doesn’t cost much, that’s cash sitting on the shelf, right?

And so, I would say oversight should be pretty excessive here at the beginning of this process. And then, say for the next year, and really have an understanding and monitor and measure all of that, and then… so it doesn’t kind of get away from us.

And I think it’s pretty exciting.  So, thank you.

Thank you for these ideas.

MR. BONDS: Yeah, thank you for your questions, Commissioner Doggett.  And that just reminds me to follow back up with you, Chairman, at some point in time to discuss how y’all would like for us to come back and report on the performance of this opportunity.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

All right.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

If not, I would entertain a motion to approve.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, moved to approve.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Do we have a second?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Action Item No. 5: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session, Senate Bill 1245, Related to the Take of Aoudad Sheep By Using a Helicopter– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. Kory Gann will present.

KORY GANN: All right, thank you.

Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Kory Gann, and I’m the Big Game Program Director in the Wildlife Division.

Today I will present proposed amendments to rules relating to the take of aoudad sheep by using the helicopter as a requirement of Senate Bill 1245, which was adopted during the 89^th Texas Legislative Session.

The 89th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1245 amending Texas Parks and Wildlife Code 41.1075.

This change requires the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules that allow qualified landowners or their agents to contract directly with helicopter owners or pilots holding an aerial wildlife management permit issued by TPWD to act as a hunter or observer to take depredating aoudad sheep.

Previously, this authority applied only to feral hogs and coyotes, and this bill took effect September 1, 2025.

Aoudad, also known as Barbary sheep, are an exotic species introduced into Texas in the 1950s, primarily in areas like Palo Duro Canyon. Since then, they’ve spread across the state with the highest densities in the Trans-Pecos region. At high densities, they are known to severely degrade fragile desert habitats, which creates significant ecological challenges and negatively impact plant and animal communities alike.

Aoudad don’t just impact habitat. They compete directly with native species like desert bighorn sheep and mule deer for food and space. Even more concerning, they transmit Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, or M. ovi, a bacteria that causes pneumonia in bighorn sheep.

This disease has devastated bighorn populations across the western U.S. and has caused major declines here in Texas.

Because of these threats, aoudad are one of the biggest obstacles to restoring desert bighorn sheep. If left unmanaged, they could ultimately lead to the collapse of Texas’ bighorn sheep populations.

Senate Bill 1245 gives landowners a new tool to help control aoudad and potentially relieve some of the costs of managing depredating aoudad on their land.

To implement Senate Bill 1245, the proposed rule change simply adds “aoudad sheep” where necessary to make the provisions of the subchapter functional with respect to the management of depredating aoudad sheep by means of aircraft. Such changes are made throughout the rules as necessary.

I’ll note the slide depicts 21 total comments. We actually had 22, with 18 in agreement and 4 in disagreement.

The most common reasons for disagreement include: hunting aoudad from aircraft is not a humane method for controlling the aoudad population; concern with shooting non-target animals; aoudad can be an important economic resource to landowners; and enforcement and oversight challenges presented by aerial gunning.

The proposed amendments are also supported by the Texas Wildlife Association. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Sections 65.151 and 65.152, as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.”

Thank you. And with that, I’d be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Gann.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I have one question.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Slide 3, is that AI generated or is that an actual photo?

MR. GANN: It’s an actual photo in the Trans-Pecos.

Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Where is that?

MR. GANN: More than likely that’s probably somewhere in Presidio County, is where that was taken.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’ve been all over.

I’ve never seen a crowd like that.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Pretty amazing.

So that’s the problem.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: All right.

Wow.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Comments or questions?

We do have two people signed up to speak.

So, I will do that now, and thank you.

Mr. Matt Wagner from the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society.  I think that’s what it is.

MATT WAGNER: Greetings, Chairman Foster and Commission members.

I’m Matt Wagner, Executive Director of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

At almost 1,000 members, we’re the largest chapter in the nation and of the Wildlife Society, which is an international organization formed in 1937. We’re here today to support your proposal on hunting aoudad from helicopter. Aoudads have become a major threat to bighorn sheep and other native wildlife. And the only way to significantly reduce their population is through aerial gunning. This has already proved effective with feral hogs at the local level.

Our only concern is that as these aerial control operations increase in West Texas, that a perverse incentive does not develop. This could potentially happen when the emphasis on controlling aoudads switches to recreational hunting.

There’s language in the current proposal, though, that prevents aerial gunning on tracts of land where aoudads have been released for the purpose of recreational hunting.

We thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Also, Justin Dreibelbis..

Dreibelbis?

JUSTIN DREIBELBIS: You nailed it.

Appreciate it.

Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners.

Thanks for the opportunity.

My name is Justin Dreibelbis.  I’m the CEO of the Texas Wildlife Association, and we are in support of the proposal.

Commissioner Doggett, that is a real picture.

And we have a bunch of aoudad growing populations in West Texas. There’s obviously M. ovi concern for bighorn sheep.

There’s habitat degradation issues.

But it is complicated because there is a legitimate hunting market in West Texas, and it’s real money for landowners, and it’s helpful. We support this proposal because it creates an opportunity for landowners; another tool to make it more affordable and recoup those costs and to be selective in the process if they choose to do that.

We feel like the very simple approach to the wording in the proposal meets legislative intent. It creates a tool for landowners, and ultimately, it’s a good thing for our Texas wildlife habitat. It’s cost-effective for landowners. So, thanks for the opportunity.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

As far as I know, that’s all the speakers that have signed up.
We appreciate your comments.  Any other questions or comments from the Commission or staff? If not, I will recommend… or seek a motion for approval.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Second?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Timmerman, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

Thank you.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, just if I could pause for a second.

Just a reminder to the Commissioners, even if you turn on your mics, if you could lean into them just so this is getting picked up. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Action Item No. 6: Chronic Wasting Disease Detection and Response Rules– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. Kory Gann is still with us.

MR. GANN: Good morning again, Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Kory Gann. I’m the Big Game Program Director in the Wildlife Division.

Today I will present proposed changes to rules governing chronic wasting disease detection and response.

For more than two decades, both the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Animal Health Commission have worked together to monitor and manage CWD or other diseases, including avian influenza and New World screwworm in Texas, despite having distinctly different roles and responsibilities defined in statute.

TPWD operates under Parks and Wildlife Code and is charged with managing and protecting native wildlife, their habitats, and ensuring sustainable wildlife populations by means of regulating hunting and permits.

This includes monitoring and mitigating wildlife diseases and native wildlife species in both captive and free-ranging populations.

TAHC under Agriculture Code is charged with protecting animal agriculture.

Its responsibilities include preventing and controlling livestock diseases, regulating animal movement and testing, and ensuring Texas’ livestock remain marketable.

In August of 2025, TAHC adopted rules that repealed Texas’ participation in the Voluntary USDA Herd Certification Program, or HCP, and introduced new CWD management provisions, including discretionary rather than mandatory hold orders.

The withdrawal from HCP provides flexibility for both agencies to incorporate new technologies and develop tailored disease management plans that reflect the unique risk of each facility. These changes, supported by legislative guidance, clearly define agency roles. TAHC will oversee exotic CWD-susceptible species, while TPWD will manage native species.

To maintain effective CWD management under this new structure, TPWD must amend its rules accordingly to ensure continuity and integrity of CWD management.

The proposed amendments in the rule package include changes to disease detection and response and deer breeder permit rules, and can be grouped into four general categories, including: carcass disposal changes; removal and cleanup of references to TAHC; definition modifications; and rule language clarifications. The remaining slides describe the proposed changes associated with each of these categories.

The proposed amendment concerning deer carcass movement restrictions would apply current carcass disposal rules to all dead deer, or parts of deer, in a person’s possession, and not just deer killed by hunting; and address the disposal of deer that die within breeding facilities.

Current statewide carcass disposal rules require burial, disposal in a landfill, or returning unused carcass parts to the property where the animal was harvested.

The improper disposal of carcasses of deer that died within a CWD-exposed or positive breeding facility are of concern for potential spread of CWD, and had been managed through TAHC hold orders and quarantines.

Because TAHC will no longer be applying hold orders or quarantines for native white-tail or mule deer– exposed or positive facilities– staff are also proposing carcass disposal to address this risk. The proposal would require that deer that die in these facilities be buried or disposed of in a landfill.

Additionally, the proposed amendment would require persons transporting carcasses of dead deer… of dead breeder deer to a landfill to possess a completed disposition document on a form approved or supplied by the department, which would be required to accompany deer carcasses during transport and until the carcasses are accepted at the landfill.

The proposed amendment is necessary for law enforcement, should the need arise, to document the identification of deer that no longer bear permanent identification due to that permanent identification being submitted along with tissue samples as part of post-mortem CWD testing requirements.

The proposed amendment updates definitions to reflect the withdrawal of TAHC from participation in CWD management in wildlife context, and to promote clarity and consistency across rule language. The proposed amendment would also make several changes affecting terminology related to administrative mechanisms for authorizing the movement of breeder deer.

The term “exposed facility” is defined as a facility that has received and exposed deer, and extend existing rules to all facility types, not just deer breeding facilities.

The term “disease management plan” is defined as a set of requirements for disease testing and management developed by the department.

The term “transfer” is defined as the movement of breeder deer under a transfer permit executed as provided in Subchapter T of this chapter: from or to another breeding facility; or from a breeding facility to another facility type.

A central component of the joint strategy for CWD management was the department’s reference to TAHC hold orders and quarantines and TPWD rules as a regulatory mechanism for isolating and restricting the movement of infected or potentially infected animals.

Because TAHC will no longer be implementing hold orders or quarantines on facilities with respect to white-tailed deer or mule deer, the proposed amendments would remove references to TAHC where appropriate, and replace references to hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans with rules that prohibit movement or apply movement status for traces, suspect, or positive detections.

References to hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans will be replaced as appropriate with references to disease management plan, which is necessary to create and implement a similar mechanism administered solely by TPWD and applicable only to white-tailed deer and mule deer.

Although the term “facility” has long been defined by rule to apply to any location required to be registered in TWIMS, the term has become synonymous with deer breeding facility.

To promote clarity and consistency across rule language, the proposed amendments would remove all references to “release sites” and replace them with references to “release facility.”

Similarly, under current rules, “movement qualified” and “non-movement qualified” apply only to breeding facilities.

However, in practice, these terms have been used for other facility types.

Originally intended to reflect compliance with disease testing for deer transfers involving breeders, the terms are now so widely used for release sites that the department proposes formally expanding their use to all facility types for clarity and consistency.

Current rule prohibits the transfer of deer to or from a facility with a CWD test result of “suspect” or “positive,” but does not reference NMQ status.

The proposed amendments seek to clarify rule language by automatically setting each facility to NMQ status, unless authorized by a disease management plan.

Staff propose additional amendments that prohibit the movement of deer from breeder facilities located on a property subject to a TAHC hold order or TAHC quarantine for exotic CWD-susceptible species, such as elk or red deer, unless authorized under a disease testing plan or based on a department epidemiological assessment. This would address unique scenarios of traces on a property due to exotic CWD-susceptible species.

An additional amendment introduces an exception that would permit the transfer of deer to or from a facility designated as non-movement qualified, provided such transfers are authorized under an approved disease management plan.

TPWD recognizes that there may be unique or unforeseen circumstances in which adherence to a disease management plan offers sufficient epidemiological assurance. In such cases, allowing the movement of deer from a facility that would otherwise be restricted may be justified to support broader disease control and management objectives.

The next proposed amendment clarifies that when a facility receives a CWD test result of “suspect” or “positive,” all trace facilities will be set to NMQ.

This prevents the transfer or movement of deer by automatically applying NMQ status to a facility that receives a “suspect” or “positive” test result, unless authorized by a disease management plan.

Currently, the rule does not reference NMQ status, only the test result, as preventing movement, and specifically references a CWD suspect test result, but not a CWD positive test result.

Additionally, staff seek to clarify that a facility is automatically designated NMQ upon notification that CWD is suspected or confirmed as a result of any mortem testing.

Current rule language only references “suspect” test results, not “confirmed” test results.

The proposed amendment concerning movement of breeder deer clarifies that a trace-out release facility remains a trace-out release facility unless that release facility has satisfied requirements of a disease management plan for that property.

In addition, the proposed changes would stipulate, in rule, that changes in land ownership do not affect the status of a property as a trace-out release facility.

Additional amendments make non-substantive, conforming, and housekeeping-type changes as appropriate and necessary.

I would also like to note that staff made the changes discussed at the November Commission meeting regarding staff authorized to remove movement-qualified status by removing language that allowed department biologists, in addition to veterinarians and epidemiologists, to retain not-movement-qualified status and require additional testing for certain deer breeding facilities.

I will note that staff are also incorporating additional measures that complement the proposed rule changes to ensure TPWD CWD management strategies evolve and adapt as we fully embrace sole responsibility for CWD management of native cervids.

To that end, staff intend to develop an internal operational process for the development and approval of disease management plans that will be vetted through the Internal Science and Technical team, engage the CWD Task Force to receive input on disease management plan standards and example scenarios staff may be faced with, report back to the Commission on status of compliance with disease management rules, and continue to engage with appropriate advisory committees.

As of January 21, 481 people have provided feedback on this proposal– with 2.3 percent in agreement and 97.7 percent disagreeing either completely or on specific items.

The most common reasons for disagreement include: the rules are not science-based; CWD is over-regulated; the proposal does not sufficiently protect native deer or the Texas hunting traditions; stakeholders should be engaged to develop minimum standards for disease management plans.

Based on the written comments, those that disagree can be broken down into two primary categories: those wanting less regulation; and those wanting stronger regulation regarding CWD management.

Of 168 written comments, 89.9 percent of those were from people wanting less regulation, while 10.1 percent want stronger regulations.

I will also note that the proposed amendments were presented to the Texas Parks and Wildlife White-Tailed Deer Advisory Committee and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Private Lands Advisory Committee on October 16, during which time members were presented with the proposal and asked for feedback and comments.

Those presented provided support for the proposal as documented in a letter sent to the Commission by Chairman Emeritus and White-Tailed Deer Advisory Committee Chair Lee Bass.

The proposed amendments were also supported by the Texas Conservation Alliance. And the proposed amendments are opposed by the Texas Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and the Texas Deer Association.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Sections 65.81, 65.88, 65.90, 65.91, 65.92, 65.94, 65.95, 65.97, 65.99, 65.100, and 65.610, as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.”

Thank you, and I’d be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Gann.

Do we have any questions?

A couple of things I want to mention before we move forward too much.  One is, I’d like to direct the staff… is this the right time to do this?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, anytime you feel comfortable doing that.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I’d like to direct the staff to move with all due haste in reconvening the CWD Task Force and the stakeholder committees in order to get input on the development of minimum standards for disease management plans, and continually report back to me on the progress of those efforts.

I’d also like you to consider as part of the disease management plan approval process that if there’s any noteworthy departure from minimum standards, that approval of the plan would have to come back through the Executive Director.

And then one final thing I’ll mention.

I’m sure Commissioner Galo is going to speak for herself, but she’s expressed concerns about the language and the rules relating to movement of deer out of positive facilities.

And I would suggest a self-imposed pause on our part on movement of deer out of positive facilities outside of the research option until we can gain consensus on language related to that.

So, with that, I’ll open it up for other questions or comments from the Commissioner staff.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.

Chairman, thank you very much for your directive to leadership and staff, and especially for my main concern, pointing that out.

I don’t think I need to reiterate it. I think Chairman described it exactly what my concern was. I’m not sure which amendment pertains to it, but I’m sure you all can find it, right?

Because I know that the rules… you specify which amendments we are altering, and I’m not sure the number of the amendment that that particular...

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Well, we’ll be looking at it.  I’m having Craig look at it right now.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Bell?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, just as also a point of clarification for today.  The information that’s being conveyed right now, and I think there’s some terminology, we talk about rule set. This is not a new rule set. It’s not a change in rule set. This is to clarify the transition of management of the process exclusively over to TPWD, versus kind of jointly between TAHC and TPWD.

So, if someone is under the impression, so to speak, that this is a new rule set or a modification from the last rule set change we did, that is not intended to be the case.

This is intended to be a clarification that basically Parks and Wildlife is now responsible because Animal Health Care [Sic] has stepped away from this because they have other things they’re going to be doing.

And that’s an important distinction.  So that when we do talk about development of rules and procedures for how this will be administered, that’s another meeting.

That’s a next set of meetings.  And especially when we’re talking about the advisory committees, the CWD Task Force, that’s where those items are going to be discussed.

So, this is really more procedural than procedural for administration purposes, rather than rulemaking and regulation implementation purposes for the administration of disease control protocols.  That’s the clarity I wanted to put out there. Is that fair?

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

So essentially what we’re doing is everywhere where we would have been relying on a TAHC hold order or quarantine, we’re taking the items that were outlined in those hold orders and quarantine and basically codifying them in our rules since we can no longer depend on those hold orders or quarantines.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Any other questions from the Commission?

We have a number of public speakers signed up to talk on this subject.

Thank you, Mr. Gann.

So, I’m going to go ahead with public speakers.  And what I’m going to do is… we have a number of you. I’ll call the names not only of the person that’s coming up, but the two or three to follow so that they can kind of be waiting in line to speak.  But we are anxious to hear from each of you.

First will be Walter Martin, followed by Roy Leslie and Alice Oehmig.

Mr. Martin.

WALTER MARTIN: Chairman Foster, Vice-Chairman Bell, Commissioners, good morning.

For the record, my name is Walter Martin, and I’m representing my family’s West Wind Ranch in Zavala County.

Our ranch is located three miles from last year’s CWD positive release site deer in Zavala County.

For the past 30 years, 20,000 of our acres have participated in MLD program’s conservation option, working closely with our state biologists– name redacted– and game warden– name redacted. We’ve strictly complied with and followed changes to the department’s MLD program rules, regulations, and requirements.

As a program participant, we understand the department can deny/end MLD program enrollment for anyone who fails to report as required, exceed harvest limits, and does not implement three specified habitat practices or submits falsified data.

We had zero infractions in 30 years.

Last year, Texas Animal Health Commission stopped overseeing CWD management and its partnership with Texas Parks and Wildlife.

In the first case, Texas Parks and Wildlife allowed deer to be moved from a CWD-positive facility without Texas Animal Health’s involvement, violating regulations, protocols, and possibly overstepping authority.

This exposed 11 nearby properties to CWD unknowingly, highlighting a serious issue that should prompt caution in future policy decisions. I ask this Commission to authorize Texas Parks and Wildlife to enforce all deer breeder CWD regulations, and hold any noncompliant participants, including those violating Texas Animal Health CWD requirements now managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife, accountable.

A week ago or so, Texas Deer Association’s president, Nash Murray, sent a letter to members strongly disagreeing with the subject matter we’re speaking of today.

One of their strongest supporters and national advocates, Ted Nugent, posted on social media the letter that was sent to the members.

And in his post, and I quote, “Dear God in heaven, Texas Parks and Wildlife punks are the worst anti-hunting group in America.

Treasonous jackboot thug, drag queen story art, Barack Obama fan club, San Francisco rejects.”

This is what all the proponents are dealing with, proponents of the Commission, proponents of the Texas Parks and Wildlife, and proponents against CWD.

This is why I redacted the names of our biologists and game wardens. This has gotten out of hand. And it’s gotten out of hand by only one side.

I appreciate your time and consideration because this has become much larger than CWD, as I had mentioned in this statement.

Again, I appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Roy Leslie.

ROY LESLIE: Thank you.

My name’s Roy Leslie.

I’m a low-fence, no lease landowner in far northwest Kendall County representing only myself.

As a winner of your Lone Star Land Steward Award and the Texas Wildlife Association, I’m sorry, the Texas Wildlife Society Land Steward Award, I’m against the passage of these rules today.

You all have all received a written copy of my testimony. But I believe I’m going to go through it anyway. Because I very much appreciate your comments at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, about a pause and about reengaging with the interested stakeholders.

But I have to say, I’m just incredibly distressed by the first herd plan that was instituted by Parks and Wildlife since Animal Health Commission abandoned their CWD responsibilities.

The plan doesn’t approach recommended best practices, and it violates state law. You received a memorandum from a group of concerned Texans explaining the legal and epidemiological problems with this plan and with the proposed rules.

Please take it to heart.

We’ve really, I feel… I’ve been doing this for over ten years, and I feel that we’re going through the same thing almost every six months. I don’t really think we’ve gotten anywhere.

In fact, I believe we’re moving in the wrong direction.

Considering recent enforcement violations and herd plan developments, how can you not justify complete cessation of any and all movement of breeder deer?

I’ve asked the Commissioners many times how your mission statement can be so cavalierly disregarded.

It’s plainly evident that the health and well-being of our native free-range white-tail deer is taking a back seat.

Have we reached the point where success of a livestock-type business can override your public mission?

That’s to manage and conserve the natural and cultural resources of Texas. Please keep those 11 words in your front pocket.

I think we’ve spent millions of our wildlife dollars trying to pacify deer breeders. How can you, as Commissioners, be faulted for carefully following your published mission statement? I just feel like you should follow it or change it.

Herd plan approvals and releases must stop until you address the concerns of legitimate representatives of our vast non-breeder community. All unnatural movements of whitetails must end until then. Catering to feedlot operators who threaten our wild herd cannot be an option.

Thank you again.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Next, Alice Oehmig, followed by Matt Wagner and Kristen Saylors.

ALICE OEHMIG: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.

I want to thank you for an opportunity to come before you today. Wow, that’s a lot to follow. I’m Allison Oehmig with Blue Creek Whitetails.

From the overwhelming public comments, and also from the votes from all stakeholders, for the first time both parties were in complete agreement.

What your staff presented to their Commissioners and to the public was unsatisfactory.  The lack of definition and details leaves so much for your staff’s interpretation of what the public is screaming right now, “Whoa.”

Giving your staff unfettered powers so they may, without any oversight, cause grave emotional and financial harm is more than just kicking a can down the road. It’s telling our governor and the legislators that Parks and Wildlife rulemaking can intentionally disregard the standards set by elected officials.

What should have been prepared and presented to all the committees and to the public for discussion, and to each one of you that are serving here today, need to be concise and completely detailed instructions and guidelines to be followed.

This is not asking your staff to build a better mousetrap.

It’s holding them accountable for not completing the job that they were asked to do, and that was over a year ago.

When an agency understands and follows best disease management practices along with proper risk quantifications, and when they’re considered, there are ample assurances that good businesses may exist and coexist with their neighbors all without fear.

As written, what is to restrain your staff from acting without the Commissioner’s wishes?  We urge you to instruct your staff to do better, ask them to work alongside those of us who understand what a disease management plan really means. It would be beneficial to all the stakeholders, and even more importantly to all Texas deer.

Respectfully, Alice Oehmig.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Matt Wagner.

MATT WAGNER: Good morning, Chairman Foster and Commissioners.

I’m Matt Wagner, Executive Director of Texas Chapter Wildlife Society.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment today regarding the proposed chronic wasting disease rules.

With the Texas Animal Health Commission discontinuing oversight of the deer breeding industry, Texas Parks and Wildlife is now the sole agency responsible for managing CWD within this business.

That shift represents a major consolidation of authority, and with that authority comes an increased responsibility for clarity, transparency, stakeholder engagement, and increased liability for staff without clear direction.

We have significant concerns about the proposed rules specifically regarding the disease management plan.

The disease management plan is described as a key component of the proposed rules, yet it is largely undefined.  There is little detail on how these plans will be developed, what standards will be used, who will have input, and how spread of the disease will not be allowed across facilities and release sites. Without clear definitions, timelines and criteria, regulated parties and other stakeholders are left uncertain about compliance expectations and potential consequences.

Effective disease management depends on cooperation and trust between the regulators and the regulated parties. That trust cannot exist when a central regulatory tool is left vague and subject to interpretation after adoption.

We respectfully request the department revise these rules to include clear standards and procedures for disease management plans, defined rules for stakeholder engagement, transparent approval processes, and assurances that these plans will be grounded in science, consistency and due process.

By doing so, the department can strengthen disease control efforts while also maintaining fairness, credibility, and collaboration with the regulated community, as well as other landowners, hunters and other stakeholders.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Wagner.

Kristen Saylors, followed by Grahame Jones and John Cappadona.

KRISTEN SAYLORS: Hi, Chairman, Commissioners.

I’m sure some of you may remember me, or perhaps my husband or even my young daughter. All three of us have stood before you time and time again asking to be heard as responsible Texas deer breeders who are trying to survive under an ever-growing list of regulations.

Today you only get me. My husband and my daughter are touring college in anticipation of her upcoming high school graduation. And that should tell you how important this is to us that I chose to stand here today instead of sharing a pivotal moment in my daughter’s life and her college decision process.

Because what you decide in this room directly affects whether we can continue our breeding business and afford to support our family, including that upcoming college expenses.

I almost didn’t make this drive, to be honest.

Every time we come here, it feels like our voices are on… fall on deaf ears.

After the last set of breeder rules passed unanimously, despite more than 80 percent of the public comments opposing them, I left this building feeling defeated.

But a Commissioner encouraged me in the restroom that day to keep coming back and to keep making our voices heard, so here I am again.

To be honest… sorry.  I take chronic wasting disease seriously, but I oppose these rules because they represent a massive expansion of agency power with real financial consequences and virtually no due process for responsible breeders and landowners.

These rules don’t just manage disease, they concentrate all authority into one agency, eliminate shared oversight and replace clear enforceable standards with vague disease management plans that can change at any time.

That puts our business, our land and our deer at risk based on discretionary decisions, not objective rules.

The claim that there is no adverse economic impact is simply not true. A single trace determination sometimes tied to deer movements from years ago can destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars in breeder deer value overnight.

Movement bans eliminate sales, testing, fencing, euthanasia.

And disposal costs fall entirely on families like mine.  And under these rules, trace-out status follows the land forever unless they follow that disease management plan that is not defined, even when the ownership changes.  And that affects land value financing, resale and inheritance. That’s a real lasting harm.

As a hunter, I see the broader consequences.  These rules discourage participation, push landowners out of voluntary programs, and erode trust.  When people disengage, disease surveillance suffers and everyone loses.

No one here is asking you to ignore CWD. We’re asking you for limits, accountability, and fairness. Texas has always managed wildlife through partnership, not through policies that punish the very people who fund that conservation.

If these rules move forward as written, the message to Texas landowners is clear: your corporation is optional; your investment is expendable; and your property rights are negotiable.  And that is not how Texas should manage wildlife.

In closing, I’ll leave you with this.  Testing, labels and identifications do not eradicate CWD. If regulations were a solution, this problem would have already been solved. So, when will this Commission take responsibility and actually become part of a solution?

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Grahame Jones.

GRAHAME JONES: Chairman Foster, Vice-Chairman Bell, Commissioners, Director Yoskowitz.

My name is Graham Jones. I’m the Executive Director for the Texas Conservation Alliance.  Thank you for the opportunity to provide public testimony today.

First, I want to sincerely thank the Texas Parks and Wildlife staff for their tremendous amount of work that has really gone into addressing CWD over the past decade.  The time, the science, the field work, the public outreach, and the consideration reflected in this effort is clear.

I also want to thank the members of the Commission for your service and dedication. The decisions before you are often complex and controversial, and rarely perfect. But they are made in the best interest of the resource and the people of Texas.  Your willingness to engage, listen, and move forward responsibly is critical and does not go unnoticed.

I would also like to recognize the many conservation partners, the landowners, hunters, scientists, stakeholders and members of the public who are here or listening online. It is clear that everyone involved cares deeply about the health of Texas wildlife and our hunting heritage, and the long-term stewardship of our natural resources.

At the heart of today’s discussion is a shared goal to control and minimize the spread of chronic wasting disease as much as possible.

There is no perfect solution for CWD, and no management framework will ever be flawless. One of the most important lessons, a lesson that I learned many, many times in conservation, is the ability and the responsibility to learn from the past as we move forward, adapt over time and improve our responses as conditions change and knowledge grows.

Moving ahead with continued efforts, gaining meaningful input from stakeholders, and keeping the process as transparent as possible are all key to shaping the effective and durable response to CWD. Managing this disease is not a single decision, but an ongoing process that requires monitoring, evaluation and the willingness to adjust when needed. It also requires trust– trust between the department, the Commission, landowners, hunters and the broader conservation community.

We all want healthy deer. We all want healthy deer herds. We want thriving ecosystems. And we all want to ensure that the future generations inherit the same opportunity to hunt, observe wildlife and enjoy what we have today.

I know I want that for my girls, personally.

Thank you again to the staff, to the Commission, and to our conservation partners for your continued commitment to Texas wildlife.

We look forward to collaboration and constructive dialogue as we work together to address CWD and safeguard the resources we all care so deeply about.

With that said, I support the proposed changes and agree with Chairman Foster’s directive.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Next, John Cappadona, followed by Nicholas Allen and Nyle Maxwell.

JOHN CAPPADONA: Hello.

First off, when you said that there was no changes.

I mean, when he was speaking at the beginning there were several amendments that he added. Those are changes.

You know, junior college, that’s all I know.  I mean, amendment’s a change.

But I digress. I never thought I’d have to come to Austin every year to fight to stay in business. But here I am again.

I’m John Cappadona.

I’m nervous.

I’m a deer breeder from Galveston County, Texas. And I’m opposed to these rules as proposed. Mostly because I just, like a lot of my fellow breeders, just found out about them about two days ago through an email and haven’t had time to look at them, let alone understand and process the effects that they undoubtedly will have on my business.

If there are anything like the rules from last year where the public comment was opposed, 1,904-302, yet miraculously passed, then these new rules were just tightening the handcuffs that TPWD has placed on me and other breeders, and will shift even more of the CWD blame on our heads when nothing could be farther from the truth.

I’m still trying to understand the current rules that keep changing and the goalposts that keep moving for me to stay compliant. I’ve seen relief for release sites mostly because of the influential folks that get caught up in those cast nets.

But every year more and more obstacles are put in front of me.

And we’re the ones trying to find a solution.

I heard yesterday, you know, let’s pass it then we can find out what’s in it and then work on it. I think I’ve heard that before. I’m tired of being the bad guy.

I’m tired of being blamed for the spread of CWD when we’re the ones paying out of our own pockets looking for solutions to end the disease in our pens and in the pasture. Deer breeders are basically the only ones testing for the disease.

I’m fairly certain I’ve tested more deer, again, out of my own pocket for CWD on my five acres in Galveston County this past year, than the state-funded Chaparral Wildlife Area did on over 15,000 acres.

All indications are TPWD is not looking to truly find the disease where it may be, but simply find it in my pens and, again, at my cost, to stop me from operating my honest business and to satisfy outside interests.

I’m tired of being blamed for CWD wherever it pops up, whether it be within five miles of my pens.  And now I’m mandated to do more testing and erect another fence and more testing.

And after a year or so, my benevolent state may let me sell the deer. It’s crazy.

You know, CWD is found in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and South Korea. I don’t believe I’ve ever sold a deer to anybody in South Korea, and I don’t think my fellow deer breeders have either.

Using science, deer breeders are the ones helping to grow CWD-resistant deer.

We’re also the ones who may have any deer left if the New World screwworm is as bad as they say it may be. We can treat our deer while in the pens.

If the screwworm wipes out the wild herd, where is the state going to restock from, Colorado, South Dakota, the same places that CWD originated from?

The state won’t be able to get the deer from the Kerr Wildlife Management Area anymore thanks to a fumbled false positive and a rush to kill all of those animals.

The state may want to quit kicking deer breeders in the teeth.

They might just need us one day.

In closing, I’m not saying CWD doesn’t need to be addressed.

I’m optimistic that in 2026 with the new Commission; and then all stakeholders can take a new look at CWD and how to best manage it using all the scientific tools available to us, not just new rules and bullets.

Because what we’ve been doing for 60 years is barbaric, unconstitutional, and borderline insane. We need common sense approaches that don’t kill small businesses and deer along the way.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Nicholas Allen, followed by Nyle Maxwell and Jenny Sanders, please.

NICHOLAS ALLEN: My name is Nicholas Allen and I serve as General Counsel and Legislative Director to Senator Bob Hall.

I’m delivering his comments because he is not able to be here today.

The proposed changes to section 65.91C reduce clear communication and create uncertainty for Texas deer breeders.

The current rule states that no person shall transfer deer to or from any facility where CWD has been detected.

Currently, the transfer prohibition takes effect when the agency notifies the breeder about the PRP suspect or positive test result.

The proposed rule eliminates TPWD’s duty to notify the person about a positive test result, and instead declares that the facility is automatically NMQ.

Eliminating the notification requirement raises procedural and due process concerns. It is entirely possible that a deer breeder could move, sell, or release deer without knowing about the test results in violation of the rules.

The preamble doesn’t say why the agency wants to change section 65.91C. Is this omission an accident or is the agency trying to hide an elephant in a mouse hill?

The state of Texas has tested hundreds of thousands of deer over the past decade ,and less than two-tenths of 1 percent have come back as suspect or positive. This all for a disease whose incubation time is so long that it does not kill the deer it infects. The disease has been used to justify millions of dollars in agency funding, hollowed out an entire industry, brought devastation to families that relied on their breeding businesses, and impacted surrounding property values.

If the state is concerned with deer dying, then taxpayers would be better served using the funding elsewhere.

A hundred times more deer are killed on the highway than have died from CWD. So, at this point, hiring crossing guards to ensure deer can cross the road safely would be a better return on investment for Texas taxpayers.

It is obvious that TPWD is applying the term “existential threat” in the proposal preamble in an attempt to justify their plan to destroy the deer breeding industry in Texas.

By enforcing live tonsil testing requirements and disregarding its own rules, TPWD has spread more CWD than all the breeders combined. It is an exceptionally disingenuous tactic for a state agency.

Commissioners acting responsibly would not allow this kind of misbehavior and overreach at any other agency. Each TPWD Commissioner has sacrificed a lot to get their position on this Commission.

Your position is more than a title. It is a responsibility to serve the people of Texas first, and not turn a blind eye to a rogue agency. It is time that the Commission began exercising its responsibility to serve the people of Texas and stop letting TPWD act as their lord and master.

The agency currently operates under a system of “rules for thee, not for me,” instead of preserving Texas wildlife.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Nyle Maxwell.

NYLE MAXWELL: Chairman Foster, Vice-Chairman Bell, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

My name is Nyle Maxwell, and I’m President of the Texas Wildlife Association. Thank you for the robust conversation yesterday on this topic, for your staff’s continued work to maintain the health of our state’s deer herd.

CWD remains a complex issue, and one that has been made more difficult for the department after the Texas Animal Health Commission’s recent exit from CWD management activities related to native species.

TWA is neutral on the rule proposal up for your consideration today. However, we have two asks:

Activate and engage your stakeholder committees, including the defunct CWD Task Force. And do not release deer from positive facilities until you are able to closely examine existing protocols and develop uniform minimum standards for disease management plans.

Quite simply, those two asks.

TWA sincerely appreciates the department’s work on this difficult issue, made more difficult by the Texas Animal Health Commission’s exit. And we’re ready, and we stand ready, as always, to help you work towards a viable solution.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.

Jenny Sanders, followed by Trent Barley and Rodney Parrish.

JENNY SANDERS: Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Jenny Sanders.  I wanted to say that, Chairman, I appreciate your comments before this. And honestly, I probably should throw out my prepared statements because you covered pretty much what I was going to say. But to quote my favorite U.S. Senator, Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, “God gave me the right to remain silent, but not the ability. “

So, I’m going to say just a few things. Thank you for your conversation yesterday.  Having that discussion in a transparent way, your thoughtfulness reflects the seriousness that you apply to this issue. And I appreciate that.

I would just echo what others have said, what Chairman Foster you have said, that engaging that CWD Task Force is critical.

They have worked really hard with staff over the years to develop protocols and plans, and provide the expertise to make sure mistakes aren’t made and that we have as much backing as possible for prudent protocols and rules. And that’s key.

Secondly, I was going to ask to consider striking that provision about positive movement out of positive facilities. I think your proposal is great to just put an internal pause on that until those minimum standards, clear minimum standards, red lines in the rule that everyone agrees will not be crossed is a great idea.

And it really protects the resource, it protects the agency, it protects the neighbors. And so, I endorse that wholeheartedly.

One final consideration that has come to mind, and the folks I talked to, is potentially considering adding two signatures since we’ve just one agency now making these decisions. Perhaps two signatures from the staff representing the biological side and the veterinary side would be advisable.

And again, out of protection for the resource, protection for the neighbors, the department, and the staff that are having to sign those and put their name out there.

My final challenge is this. Please continue seeking creative solutions, but don’t just focus those solutions on propping up business models. But keep clear eyed on the department’s first duty, and that’s protecting our public trust resources and our hunting heritage.

So, let’s get these rules right, and then let’s move to the issues that are more fun and more productive, right?

Like adding Dove Days to Thanksgiving.

I look forward to a day when we get to spend these times that we have in these rooms talking about stuff like that, not just CWD.

So, thank you so much for your service, your stewardship, and for the opportunity to interact with y’all.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Trent Barley, followed by Rodney Parrish and Bobby Schmidt.

TRENT BARLEY: Good morning, Commissioners, Commissioner Foster, Bill [Sic], Dr. Yoskowitz, and other members of this board. Thank you all for having us here today.

My name is Trent Barley. I’m a registered deer breeder in McCulloch County. I’m firmly against this rules package.

It’s quite encumber some. I’m only going to pick out one thing necessarily right here for you. I do own and manage rural property, and these rules directly affect me–tremendously, actually– on all accounts. The most troubling provision is permanently attaching a trace-out status to land status regardless of ownership.

Basically, if I sold my property, the next property inherits that trace-out status issue. That’s a very long-lasting regulation, and it’s not necessarily going to be managed by the disease, right?

As an operator, as a landowner, I help manage the disease given specific parameters that, you know, Wildlife is going to give us. We ask that movement-qualified and not-movement-qualified designations remain premise-specific and not follow the land in perpetuity, in specific. That is a reasonable, balanced approach to one aspect of this encumber some rule.

Thank you for your consideration and having us here today.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Rodney Parrish?

RODNEY PARRISH: Yes, Sir.

Been here several times.

Might be here some more.

Deer breeder for 27 years.

Do y’all know what’s on the back tailgate of a bunch of y’all’s Parks and Wildlife vehicles? Any of you?

“Law enforcement.”

You’re not legislators.

You don’t make laws.

Legislation does.

You are not rule-makers, lawmakers.

Legislation is.

So, follow the rules on the back of your trucks.

“Law enforcement.”

Y’all heard a lot today.

You’ve heard a lot in the past.

The people have spoke, both sides.

It’s time to listen to them, people.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Parrish.

Bobby Schmidt, followed by Nash Murray.

BOBBY SCHMIDT: Commissioners, here we are again.

Thank you for letting us…

Pretty well everything’s been said. I think, about the rules changing. We’ve got 23 pages again that come out.  We, what, five or six months ago when they had the last amendments come out and there’s some things changed and there’s a…

You know, there’s a reason why Animal Health Commission is not doing this anymore, but nobody looks into that. They don’t see it as a problem as Parks and Wildlife, some of the staff do. I don’t see it as a problem that much myself, but I’m just a deer breeder.

And when they changed the rules last time, I mean, it’s kind of kind of funny when we test every deer we turn out, every deer in the pen, and then if one’s found five miles from my place, I’m shut down and nothing happens over there five miles from my place where that deer is.

But has anybody looked lately at the numbers that are out there with the Commission, excuse me, with the Parks and Wildlife had on deer that are tested outside breeder pens?

There’s been by far more deer tested in the pens and the positives that are there. The percentage is like 0.25 percent.

Of the deer they found on the side of the road, the deer they tested, found one in Panhandle the other day again and all….

Well, no deer tested and the percentage there is greater than it is in the deer pens.

And I may be wrong, but that came from Parks and Wildlife numbers that I saw here a couple of weeks ago. So, yes, we’ve got it in our pens, we kill every deer that’s got it, but what happens outside?

We have an opportunity with our MLD permits, which came up before.  Why not take the MLD permits and test some of those deer off of those places and get a true reading of what is out there?

But that came up before, and that, I’m sorry to put it this way, but it touches the wrong people. So that probably will never happen. I mean, it’s just another thought that it could be done, you know.

These rules today, TDA- Mr. Nash Murray would speak in a minute about the one. But about the one about the rural communities and small business, and all about what Mr. Macdonald puts out about the economic problem. I mean, to sit there and say it’s all taped and pasted and copied and pasted in here.

Every one of them is the same thing, it says, but it’s not an economic problem. Well, it’s a hell of an economic problem.

For a deer breeder, what you do if you have a problem, you get out of business, it affects the community, it affects the family, and it affects everything.

So, that’s always in there the same way, and I just am concerned why. I mean, it needs to be relooked at.

So, that’s all. I’ll leave you all alone.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Nash Murray?

NASH MURRAY: Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Nash Murray, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Texas Deer Association and its members, Texas deer breeders, landowners, and rural business directly regulated by these proposed rules.

We support science-based efforts to detect, contain chronic wasting disease. Our concern is that the rules before you go well beyond disease management, and create permanent economic and property consequences without sufficient clarity or safeguards.

TPWD has stated these rules are necessary because the Texas Animal Health Commission stepped away from cooperative involvement.

We understand the need to clarify authority, but we respectfully question the urgency being claimed. What specifically cannot be done today under existing authority?

TPWD already has tools such as movement qualification and non-movement qualification status to manage premise-specific movement and disease risk.

Those tools existed before Texas Animal Health Commission’s withdrawal, and still exist now. If continuity is the concern, there is no clear reason this Commission cannot take additional time to get this right. If this was necessary and urgent, I would have expected a prior emergency rule.

A central issue is discretion without structure. These rules give TPWD broad authority to develop disease management plans that are not defined in rule, unlike past herd plans that were based off of USDA standards. Both sides of this debate have expressed concern about that discretion.

Some fear staff may be too lenient. Regulated stakeholders’ fear of decisions may exceed what is fair, transparent, and defensible. That shared concern should lead to clearer standards, not unchecked authority.

Equally troubling is the lack of an implementation plan. The proposal does not identify who will administer disease management plans, what veterinarian or epidemiological capacity exists, how decisions will be reviewed, and how consistency will be ensured statewide.

Commissioners are being asked to approve permanent rules affecting land and livelihoods without knowing how they will be carried out. That is a governance risk.

We also urge caution regarding legislative intent.  During the last session, disease management legislation responding to Texas Animal Health Commission’s change was heavily negotiated.

It was clear that the movement restrictions were intended to remain premise specific. If the legislation intended to expand TPWD’s authority beyond licensed breeding facilities and registered release sites, it would have done so, and it did not.

Finally, the provision permanently attaching trace-out status to land regardless of ownership is a bright-line problem.

That is not caused by the disease itself, it is caused by the rule. It creates permanent stigma, reduced land value, and de facto land use restrictions without compensation.

Commissioners, CWD management must be effective, but it must also be fair, transparent and defensible.

We respectfully ask the Commission to slow this process, require a defined implementation framework, limit these rules to licensed premise, and ensure independent scientific oversight before adoption.

We stand ready to work with TPWD to achieve disease control without sacrificing property rights or rural economies.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

I believe that is everyone who has signed up to speak on this topic. So, I’ll turn it back to the Commission, and Mr. Gann is available if we have any questions or comments.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I have a comment.

Doggett, Commissioner.

I’ve been asked to repeat some of what we discussed yesterday.

I think it’s meaningful.

First, for you good folks that took the time and effort to come here, there’s no hidden agenda on this Commission at all.

The people you see on this Commission grew up, mostly, grew up in Texas. We grew up hunting, watching deer. I mean, we love the deer population. I mean, I’ve gotten to my age, I really don’t hunt anymore, but I love watching deer. Watching it, in fact, on my text. I have four photos of friends I’ve sent of great-looking deer in south Texas this morning.  And so, we love deer, turkey, quail, dove hunting. All that’s very, very meaningful to us.

Otherwise, we really wouldn’t be on the Commission. So, there’s no hidden agenda. We need to get this right.

And I want to tell you, I’m very excited.  I think this is going to be a great time for the Commission and for the people in the state that love all these things that we love in wildlife.

I’m excited because it’s a new year. We got a new chairman.  We’re going to reestablish, so let’s call it a new task force.

And we’re going to get the very best folks that really understand the biology of all of this, and participants from the deer-raising community, the landowners and hunters, and dive really hard and come up with a roadmap that we can all get our arms around and completely understand.

So, it’s going to be crystal clear what our approach is going to be. And it’s not going to make everybody happy.  This situation is so complex. I’ve sat through this for a couple of years. If it wasn’t, it’d be fixed right now.

So, it’s not easy. It’s complex.

And you’ve got people on either end of the spectrum that, you know, want a lot more control, and those that don’t want any more control.

And so, to come up with a solution is not going to please everybody, but I’m going to tell you, I think with our Chairman here, Paul, that we’re going to come up with a roadmap that’s exciting.

Anyway, I know it’s exciting for me to finally tackle this head-on and come up with a solution that we’re all comfortable with. I think there’s bits and pieces all of us are comfortable with.

But the mission here this year is to come up with a whole… that is a new approach that gets this right. We did in the last session, one of the big missions was we looked at maps that just had swaths of Texas real estate in the control zones. And it was really having a negative effect on a lot of property values.

And so, we tackled that head-on. And so, we’ve been able to adjust it. So, it’s not so overbearing now, the zones, and I think we can even do better at that this year. But that was a big, big step forward, in my view.

So, there’s a lot of dissension here, obviously, and there’s going to be with the solution. But I have really a lot of confidence that we’re going to have a new approach that’s going to, under Chairman Foster’s leadership here, that’s going to answer a lot of questions.

So, I think this year, 2026, that’s the year!

Get it fixed so we can talk about dove hunting at Thanksgiving more often here than CWD.

[ laughter ]

So, thank you.

Thank you for that.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Other… Chairman Bell?

Or Vice-Chairman Bell?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Just one thought process, and I will tell you, it’s like Commissioner Doggett said, it really is a good opportunity to listen to everybody.

And just so you know, personally, the kind of the personal anxiety level I have just over knowing that, so to speak, people have these disparate views on this topic.  And by nature, so to speak, of being a fixer, wanting to solve the problem and going like, “Why can’t we get to a clear end to this?”

I think that… and I thought I heard some great comments.

One that struck me in particular, because when we talk about how we might adjust something in the context, was really, again, my comment originally that this is to clarify the authority to make sure there’s no gaps between the transition from the Health Commission over here.

You don’t necessarily have to have that many other things in there. We’re trying to clarify that first. We’re coming back to work on the other piece. There’s rules in place.

And as Leslie said, one of the big changes, we had over 12 million acres that were boxed out and being devalued because of the way we were doing containment zones, and we fixed that last year, right?

And made that much less onerous and created opportunities.

And so, we do have to be careful that we’re not, you know, this is our own kind of set of rules.

We don’t have to tie our own hands. You know, when Grandma told me to get a switch when I was little, I didn’t always get a green one. Sometimes I got a brown one so I didn’t have to take such a beating, right?

So, we don’t always have to go out and get a green switch for ourselves, so to speak, when Grandma says, “Go get the switch so I can take care of you.”

By the way, I don’t know if that’s politically correct these days, but when I grew up, we got switched on by Grandma if you weren’t careful, okay?

[ laughter ]

But I do see where we… you know, one thing in particular, because we talked about the not movement-qualified status comment, I don’t know, and also going to the Chairman’s comments about basically he’s pretty much freezing everything anyway, right?  I don’t know that… we don’t need a rule.

We’re trying not to have these legacy rules that obligate you for a generation down the road.

So that little comment we had about, like, the trace-out rule connecting back. Once you’re not movement-qualified, you can’t move anyway. So, the trace-out rule kind of becomes immaterial until we can go ahead and implement.

So, the idea here is… the key, I think, is moving forward successfully to make sure that we have the single agency control now that it’s kind of understood that that’s what’s going to happen, and we put together all these working groups.

Because we did spend a lot of time listening. We actually had… I remember this time last year, we were talking about a seminal event when we had the deer breeders and the Wildlife Association on the same page, right?

And it was… and Anna and I worked in particularly hard on that, at the direction of Chairman Hildebrand, trying to hear as many people as we possibly could to see where we… and to interact with the staff to say, “Look, you know, the Chairman has said what he would like to do.”

And I think this is now just a logical offshoot of the opportunities that we’re presenting to our new Chairman,” right?

So, we are in it to win it. We’re not trying to mess anyone over. We’re not trying to advantage one side over another. There’s a lot of information that has to be conveyed.

If you think our intentions, so to speak, are less than pure, I’ll say I have to leave you to your opinion.

But we are in this trying to help everyone in the room.

And sometimes, with the way that the different opinions are on this particular issue, if we’ve got everybody mad, we might be in the right place, believe it or not, because that means half the people that wanted it said, “You didn’t go far enough.”

Half the people that didn’t want it said, “You didn’t go far enough.”

That’s where we may end up having to settle.

So, when I look at the 90 percent comments there, you do realize that of that 90 percent comments against, about half of them say we’re too hard on you and the other half say we’re too soft on you, right, on this issue?

So, we have to make sure that we understand that we don’t get beat up by our own numbers.  And we are trying to help.

And staff, just make sure as we implement this, my encouragement would be we don’t go overboard initially, we go in moderately, but we make sure we have the authority to do what we say we’re doing.  And that’s the goal today, from my perspective.

Sorry if I said too much.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well, being the gray hair on this bunch, I’ve been here since those first three damn deer came across from New Mexico.

I don’t know why somebody didn’t shoot them at the border.

But anyway, after 15 years, I can assure you I agree with Commissioner Doggett, Oliver, Paul. I mean, I know everybody on this Commission wants this issue resolved as amicably as can be done.

It’s all been said.  I’m not going to repeat it, but it’s not an easy issue. But it can be accomplished.

And I am feeling more optimistic now than I have for 15 years, that with this group, that if everybody will sit down and take a deep breath I believe we can get to a point that we need to be at. And we need to kill this subject and be done with it so that we can talk about dove hunting.

[laughs ]

Bobby, you did the best thing ever on that.

I’m all on board.

But anyway, I just repeat what everybody else has said. And I believe Oliver’s statements are very true. We’re just trying to get to a good point.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments?

Commissioner Galo.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.

You know, I think we all here do have some reservations about the discretion, the discretionary part of implementing these management plans. But I think you’ve heard we have a commitment from the Commissioners here to go back and define the criteria for these management plans so that they work as they’re intended to.

And I reiterate that the Chairman’s directives are on point for getting this done the right way, and reengaging the task force, the Chronic Wasting Task Force, and the other stakeholder groups.

And the provision, I found it, that I would like to strike is 65.91, General Provisions, lowercase “e,” capital “B,” just to be clear.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Got that, James?

MR. MURPHY: Chairman James Murphy, for the record.

I just want to clarify from you, Chairman, if your directive earlier was to pause on using this authority, or whether the change was to remove it from the rule package.

I understood your initial comment to be a direction to staff to simply pause and not implement that until we’ve come back to you. I just want to clarify if you want us to remove this Sub B from this current rule package.

  

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I don’t think so.

I think my preference is just to pause it right now, give us a chance to digest it, and we can address it later.

MR. MURPHY: I hear that.

And I think Director Yaskowitz has made clear we will not move on implementation of that B until we’ve had an opportunity to communicate back to the Commission and you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Anybody else?

Commissioner Timmerman?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Quick comment.

Anyway, I agree with my fellow Commissioners here, and the issues that are at hand.

I do believe we can make big progress on this, hopefully solve it once and for all, like Commissioner Scott said.

And I certainly agree with your directives as moving forward.

I guess my question is more, do we need to amend what’s on the table here, or is this just directives that the staff will take and implement? Or is there specific amendments that we need to make to our motion here?

MR. MURPHY: It is the latter of your… it would be no changes to the rules as proposed, but directives to pause implementation of certain portions of those rules until those criteria can be developed and those stakeholder groups can weigh in on that.

So, I don’t see any change to the motions related to the approvals, but certainly we’ve heard the directive coming from the Commission on implementation.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, I do have a question.

Senator Hall questioned… his question about eliminating the notification requirements.

Is that accurate?

Do you interpret that?

MR. GANN: I can tell our standard procedures, if you’d like.

And so, when we get that suspect notification, we immediately go into TWIMS and we make that facility non-movement qualified.

And so that’s to ensure that there is no transfer permit that would allow an animal to move out of that.

We then go through our trace process to the other trace breeding facilities and make them in NMQ to ensure no animals move out of there.

Then we start with the breeder and provide them with notification on the exact issues, animal ID, everything that is going on.

So, there’s never been an instance that we didn’t contact somebody. We have no intention to not contact anybody.  I mean, we’re actively trying to work with these facilities at that point on managing the disease.

So, I’m not sure if I need to respond differently to that, but that’s our standard protocol, and it won’t change.  But it is extremely important that that facility get made in NMQ immediately to prevent the transfer of animals out of it.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

I just… when a senator speaks, we listen.

And he’s very concerned that we’ve taken something out of the rule that requires notification of facilities.  And I just want to be sure that we’re all notified.

NASH MURRAY: One thing I would like to point out about this issue, if it’s okay if I speak.

Okay.

One of the reasons, Kory, I think that that’s important is because there’s instances where a transfer permit would be open, and that person would already be approved to move those deer in the time that this would come back.

So, the importance of notifying that facility owner is so as breeders we can be informed and not accidentally move a deer.

Because we’re not looking at TWIMS to see our movement qualification status because that transfer permit’s already been approved and activated. It doesn’t automatically close those permits. So that’s a very important step in there, to notify that facility owner immediately so that we don’t do that.

And I’ve found to be in a situation like that before with Mr. Lockwood. And he said, he was like, “Technically you could deliver those deer, but I’m asking you please to return back to your premise and not to do that.” And that’s what we did.

We turned the trailer around. So just something to put in there, the importance aspect.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Chris?

CHRIS CERNY: Yes, Sir.

Chris Cerny, Business Analyst for the Wildlife… I’m sorry, recent title change. And so now Branch Chief of Administration Research for Wildlife Division.

Thank you.

Just want to reiterate what Nash just said. It is correct that at times when a CWD suspect is found that there may already be an activated transfer permit, we are going to immediately, as Kory described, switch that facility to non-movement qualified.

As soon as all of those updates have been made in TWIMS, though.

It is our practice, and will remain our practice, to immediately make contact with all those impacted facility owners.  And especially if there is an activated transfer permit, we prioritize contacting those folks to have that discussion and let them know that we’ve got this suspect detection. Is it possible to return those deer back to the facility prior to release?

There’s lots of reasons for that.  It prevents an additional trace from being created. It’s in everybody’s best interest to stop that movement at that time.

So, while the language does remove that notification, it is absolutely our practice, and will remain our practice.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: James, you’re going to say something?

MR, MURPHY: Chris is correct.

And James Murphy for the record.

So, the rule change is related to the trigger point for when non-movement qualified status begins.

And under current rule, that would be upon the notification that occurs. And I think what staff is trying to do is to close that gap. It’s not the notification that’s the relevant step for purposes of non-movement qualified. It’s when we know that there’s a suspect positive at that time.

And so just trying to close that temporal gap, as Mr. Cerny said, there’s no intent to cease providing notification to those facility points of contact. That’s not the intent of the rule, nor would it change the practice of making that. It’s just to keep there from being a gap in time between the positive test result and the ultimate non-movement qualified status.

And I think I certainly would offer that law enforcement may have thoughts on that as well. But that’s the purpose of the rule change.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, and I’m completely in agreement with that. Let’s just make sure we don’t have any unintended consequences from the change in language.  Okay.  Other comments or questions?

SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE [Alice Oehmig]: Can we ask who is going to be on these new… are you appointing a new task force?

Because some of these task force people have sat on the same positions as the people that started them 20 years or so.

I mean, maybe there needs to be a look at who sits on those positions.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, just a point of order here.

To take questions from the audience without them having signed up is not appropriate.

However, Chairman, in speaking with you and talking about what we discussed yesterday– and thank you to Commissioner Rowling for identifying the language around “task force” — yes, we will be looking at the task force, who’s on the task force, and getting the best expertise to engage all stakeholders on the science, policy side, landowner side, et cetera.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Back to you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.

And, yeah, Commission rules and point of order, yeah, we can’t take questions from the audience. However, we heard you, so.

Other questions or comments?  If not, I will put this up for approval.

I will say that I do think we need to move forward with this despite the fact that it may not be perfect.  I think it helps to fill the gaps and gets us along the road to getting to the right solution for this very difficult problem that we face, so.

I would entertain a motion to approve.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell. I would like to make the motion, as proposed, subject to the comments and directives of the Chairman from the dais in terms of items we should pay attention to and make sure are considered.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Do I have a second?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, I’ll second it.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

It passes.

Thank you all for your comments and for your interest in this very difficult topic.

I think we’re going to have some people clearing the room.

Action Item No. 7: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Legislative Session– Senate Bill 2801– Related to a Permit Issued by the Parks and Wildlife Department for Certain Hunting Dog Field Trials; Authorizing a Fee– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

And Mr. Kevin Mote is going to present.

MR. MOTE: Good morning again, Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Kevin Mote, and I’m the Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Director in the Wildlife Division.

This morning I’ll seek adoption of the proposed changes to rules required to implement Senate Bill 2801 relating to a permit that authorizes certain hunting dog field trials where dogs chase squirrels, furbearers, or non-game animals under natural conditions.

The department currently administers two other field trial permits. One on private lands permitted as private bird hunting areas and limited to the pursuit of banded pen-raised birds. And the other for competitive hunting dog events on numbered units of public hunting lands with no restrictions on the type of species pursued.

Senate Bill 2801 requires the department to create a new permit type for hunting dog field trials that allows for the pursuit of squirrels, furbearers, and non-game animals on private lands and on designated units of public land.

In order to implement Senate Bill 2801, staff proposed new rules under Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 65, that define how to apply for and receive the new field trial permit, set requirements for on-site supervision and event documentation, identifies public hunting lands where these permits may be issued, and adds the $50 permit fee to the fee schedule in Chapter 53.

In addition, we recommend a few non-substantive housekeeping changes to the public hunting proclamation.

I’ll summarize the additional changes made since November on the following three slides.

In order to clarify language presented in November relating to the need for a separate permit for each property participating in a single field trial event, we added language that would allow for a single permit to cover multiple properties for one event, either multiple private or multiple public properties, but that still requires separate permits for public versus private.

While we are required by statute to issue permits in the name of an individual, we added the option for the permit holder to designate an on-site representative in writing, as requested by stakeholders.

We also expanded opportunities by adding two public properties to the eligible list of public lands available for permitted activities, and we reduced the lead time for applications from 90 days to 30 days.

Previously, events held on public land required a $5,000 performance bond and a $250,000 insurance policy. Under the new rules, we’ve removed the bond and insurance requirement for the new permit. Participants only need to purchase either an annual public hunting permit for $48 or a limited public use permit for $12, both of which are valid for the license year and grant access to all public hunting lands.

Finally, we removed the proposed across-the-board fee reduction for other field trial permits, while staff supports this reduction but will address it as part of a comprehensive review with the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office.

To be clear, the new fur barrel field trial permit will be $50, and the existing permits will remain unchanged.

To date, we have received a total of 11 comments– 2, or 18 percent, agree completely with proposed rule changes, 18 percent disagree completely, and 7, or 64 percent, disagree specifically with portions of the proposed package.

Reasons for disagreement include:

Requiring an access permit on public lands for competitive hunting dog field trial events. Reasons are due to lack of time between hunt site selection and the start of the event.

Doesn’t leave enough time to purchase the access permit.

And also, some commenters stated that the $50 event permit should be the only cost associated with these events.  One commenter disagreed with the department issuing the permit in an individual’s name. And one commenter believes one permit should cover both private and public properties.

With that, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Section 65.908, and amendments to Sections 53.15, 65.191 and 65.194, as listed in Exhibits A-C with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.”

And that concludes my presentation.

I’d be happy to field any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, one quick one that just comes to mind.

Why wouldn’t one permit work for both public and private?

What’s the thought process behind having separate permits?

MR. MOTE: So, on private lands, those permits are issued through our licensing department.  And it’s just a matter of them sending their money in, and sending the application in. And if the application is filled out, all the information’s there, their money’s there, we issue them the permit, they’re good to go.

On our wildlife management areas, it requires a little bit more coordination. Because depending on when they want to have it, where they want to have it, we may have research going on.

We may already have a public draw hunt going on.

And so, we need a separate application process to make sure that we have the information that we need available to be able to coordinate allowing those field trial events to happen on our public land, whereas we don’t really need that type of information on private land. And so, it just helps the private land side of it speed up, I guess.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And it makes sense that you want to be able to coordinate more when it’s on a WMA, or wherever it is.

MR. MOTE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I guess… but if the question is whether they ought to have to pay $50 again.

Or I don’t know if that was the reason for the question, or if it’s more of the administrative part of it.

But anyway, that’s the question.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, I was just getting up to speed on your question.

So, it sounds like Kevin answered it.

MR. MOTE: Maybe I didn’t understand your question.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, it’s one thing to make them… to have more control and be able to manage around parkland, or WMA land, or whatever. And I understand that.

But should we make them pay another $50 just to have the permit for both, or is that necessary? And I guess maybe the $50 is to compensate us for the administrative part of it, I don’t know.

MR. MOTE: It’s to cover the administration of issuing the permit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right,

MR. MOTE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That’s good.

Other questions or comments?

Anybody on the Commission?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Mr. Chairman, Timmerman makes the motion for approval.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. BONDS: Hey, Chairman, we have some public comments.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, we do have a few speakers signed up.

I think we have… where is it?

I think we have three speakers signed up.

So, we’ll go ahead and do that.

First, we have Kella Stanley.

KELLA STANLEY: Hello, I’m Kella Stanley.

I live in Rusk County.

I am a public school administrator.

I left the campus just to…

They’re so excited about snow and closing down tomorrow, but I need to be here today because Senate Bill 2801 was initiated by me.

We hunt a lot in East Texas, and all over the state.

My husband and I, my family, travel all over the United States.

And I have a Grand Nite Champion black Stephens cur that I compete in multiple states.

And we hunt in those states without having to obtain a license in those states. And my husband is the president of the Stephens Breeders Association and the original Mountain Cur Association based out of Jamestown, Tennessee, and Indiana.

So, we get permits in different states to host field trial events.

So, what initiated this is we were having some field trial events. And I want everyone to know, we’re not harvesting any animals.  We’re not capturing or harvesting any animals. But we were having some field trial events.

We’ve been having field trial events since my great-great-grandpa back in the days. And all of a sudden, your law enforcement started stopping some of our casts coming out of the woods, and wanting to give citations for those people not having a hunting license.

So, when I was told by the agency that we can’t make this happen, “This will never happen,” “You will never get anything passed for us to be able to hold these hunts in your state without a hunting license,”

I’m the Vice President of the Rusk County Republican Women’s Group, and I had senators and representatives telling me, “We need to talk about this.”

So, I went to Senator Brian Hughes, and he sat down and they jumped right on it. And then I went to JoAnn Schaffner, and she said, ”Hey, I’ll carry it in the house if it passes the Senate.”

I went to committee meetings to go through the legislative process with this, and every committee, whether it be the Senate or the House, they were all on board for us to have field trial events in the state of Texas with one $50 permit.

And it covers lands, private forest service lands or wildlife management areas.

I had plenty of time to talk to them. I spoke for three minutes in every committee, but I was called back multiple times. So, I’m hoping that’s what you will do here today.

I can tell you how… why you need just one permit.  I can tell you how you can cover the liability pieces to that.

Task Force, Mr. Doggett, I’m right there. I want to be on that committee.

Ms. Galo, I hope we didn’t meet in the bathroom before this, because you and I would have had a lot of conversation about it.

I have tried to reach out to you, Mr. Foster. Y’all’s fax numbers that are on the website. I have sent all of you faxes for the last couple of times we’ve been going through this.

Check your fax numbers that are on the website because I don’t know that you’re getting my information.

But I don’t know how to get to your ear, but I have so longed for this day. I’ve talked to just about everybody here at the Texas Parks and Wildlife. Started out with Alan Cain. Mr. Winters is the one that said we might not be able to do this.

But we can. We can do this. Other states are doing it, and we’re the Lone Star State I don’t know why we’re not carrying the torch for this. But we only need one permit, $50.

And I’m done. Call me back up when they…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I don’t think I have a fax.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I don’t have a fax number either.

I don’t know.

MS. STANLEY: It’s on the web site.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, yeah, and we will follow up on that.

But that’s a separate issue, I guess.

MS. HALLIBURTON Chairman, this is Dee.

You can always e-mail me, and I can make sure that they get your information.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Right.

Any… not related to Ms. Stanley specifically, but anybody that needs to get information to any of the Commission can come through the department, and we will get the information.

MR. MURPHY: This is James Murphy, General Counsel.

I also just mentioned that all public comment is delivered to the Commissioners. And so, you do receive all of those comments.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Right.

MR. MURPHY: Nothing is filtered out from the comments.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Speaker number two is Joni Moore.

And next will be Dale Stanley.

JONI MOORE: Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing us today.

My name is Joni Moore. I live in Panola County. Nobody really special. I just love to hunt my little squirrel dogs. I’m a fox breeder.

I travel all over the United States to hunt these dogs.

Indiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio. We have just been all over the state. None of these states that we have been in, we have had to purchase a hunting license to do these field trials.

Again, like Kella said, we are not harvesting animals. We’re out there. Our goal is to see the animal. We move on.

I’m not sure how much Texas Parks and Wildlife or the Commission understands how these field trials work. They’re very fun, and we would enjoy having you out there. And come walk through the woods with us as a spectator. We would love to have you join us.

The restrictions that are being put on this from when Senate Bill 2801 was originally approved is still hindering us from having these events.

People are not going to come from out of state. And if we’re in the state, we’re most likely already purchasing our license here. But people are not going to come from out of state and purchase a license that they cannot harvest an animal. I believe there is a solution to this without the participants incurring more cost.

Also, as far as the two permits, one for private and one for public. I have been to where we’re at one hunt, and there’s 12 dogs. You split up into three dogs per cast. So, you have to send one cast here, one cast here. So, part of the cast may go on public land. Part of the cast may go on private land.

So that’s going to instill that you buy here.

You’re going to have to buy two permits, one for public land, one for private land. I believe that’s where the double costs come from on that.

Like I said, we’re not out here destroying the woods. We’re not out here killing all the game. We’re just out here enjoying our dogs and watching them work. And we want to share that with other states and other participants, just like they share with us when we go to their state.

Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

And Dale Stanley.

DALE STANLEY: Good afternoon.

My name is Dale Stanley, born and raised in East Texas, Rusk County.

I’m currently the Stephen Breeder Association President, which is based out of Mount Washington, Kentucky.

And I also serve on the Board of Directors of the original Mountain Cur Association that’s based out of Jamestown, Tennessee.

I’ve owned and hunted squirrel and raccoon dogs all my life.

I’ve had the opportunity to go to several different states to compete in competition field trial hunts.

Like Joni said, and Kella, we’ve been all over the country and never had to purchase an out-of-state license for that state.

We’ve always been covered. The whole event has always been covered under one permit. Seems like a simple process to do that. I’m all for the way the bill is written, 2801. I am opposed to any additional permits that an out-of-state person would have to purchase to come and participate in a field trial here in Texas.

So, I hope you guys can consider working this out.  I know we have a lot of people in different states that have a lot of interest to come here to East Texas. We have great resources, especially in the part of the country where I’m from, to host and have some very nice field trials.

We’ve got good private land, we’ve got good WMAs. And we need to make it to where a person from out-of-state can come and enjoy their field trial without any additional cost.

I’m pretty sure that Texas Parks and Wildlife, the state of Texas, can get together and make that under one permit with all the verbiage. I understand that you have to have liability insurance, all that stuff.  I understand that totally.

But I think it can be written in that one permit, that $50 fee, to cover everything that we need. I appreciate y’all’s time.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MR. STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, comments or questions?

What occurs to me, I guess I don’t… I’m just not at all familiar with this legislation. Senate Bill 2801, what did it change?

MR. MOTE: It directs us to create a new permit for private and public land for participants to chase squirrels, furbearers, and non-game animals.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. MOTE: And it tells us to charge $50 for that permit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

And does that permit, does every participant have to have a permit?

MR. MOTE: No, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Or it’s just the organizer?

MR. MOTE: The event is permitted, one $50 permit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

And then every participant has to have a hunting license?

MR. MOTE: No, Sir.

They are exempt from a hunting license. In-state, out-of-state, do not have to buy a hunting license if they are listed as one of the participants of that event.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Because all three of our speakers brought that up.

MR. MOTE: I know.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, hopefully that’s…

MR. MOTE: Yes, Sir.

I agree.

I wanted to clarify that.

That’s specifically what 2801 does…

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah

MR. MOTE: …is exempt participants from having to buy a license, a hunting license. So, I think where the confusion is coming in, is there is an event fee, the $50 for the event.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. MOTE: Okay?

But to come on to a WMA, think of it as a park entrance fee.

Well, for WMAs we charge $48 if you’re hunting on a WMA, or $12 if you’re, you know, participating in non-consumptive type activities like bird watching, hiking, biking.

And so that’s to cover our staff time, the maintenance of the roads, the habitat management, the litter pickup, all those things that keep a wildlife management area going. That’s what those access fees are for.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, but the participants in these field trials, would they each have to pay…

MR. MOTE: An access fee.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: An access fee?

MR. MOTE: $12 or $48, which is good for a whole year.

You buy it one time. And they can be bought online on your phone.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

And that’s consistent with the senate bill?

MR. MOTE: Everybody that comes on to our WMAs and utilizes our areas have to have either an LPU, a $12 Limited Public Use permit, or an Annual Public Hunting permit, which is $48.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett.

I apologize. I’m with Chairman Foster. I think they call them the “field trials.”  This is all new to me, and I’d sure like to learn about it. So, I’ve heard different things. So, the organizers have dogs, is that correct, typically?

MR. MOTE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: And then they go into the brush and they’re… squirrels?

What other…

MR. MOTE: Squirrels, furbearers, like raccoons, possums, and non-game animals.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay, so basically squirrels, coons, and possums. So, they’re out…

And then I heard one said that they’re not hunting. They’re not killing the animal.

MR. MOTE: Correct.

That’s why they’re not required to have a hunting license.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

So, you get the permit for the event, right?

MR. MOTE: $50.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So, how many folks can you have at an event?

MR. MOTE: As many as they want.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So, you can have two dozen if you want.

MR. MOTE: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

And then they go and they go chase down the squirrels, coons, and possums, and the dogs round them up and they watch all that, and that’s… They just chase them.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Chase them.

MR. MOTE: They don’t catch, they don’t…the intention is that they’re not trying to kill the animal or harvest the animal.

In fact, that’s prohibited. And they agree with that.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay, so the rub here, the contention is they may have to buy two permits if one’s public and one’s private.

MR. MOTE: So, if one event has multiple properties…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Right.

MR. MOTE: …that they’re wanting to include in the field trial, and some of them are private and some of the properties are public, then that’s where the rub comes in, is they don’t want to buy the $50 permit for private and $50 for the public.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Well, it sounds like it’s an activity we want to encourage. I mean, what’s wrong with that?  It sounds like it’s pretty exciting.

MR. MOTE: Absolutely not. We’re not trying to deter it. We’re just trying to administer it according to the statute and according to our policies and procedures that we have to follow in order to maintain and operate our wildlife management areas.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I mean, I like to take my dog. He’d have a big time chasing squirrels and coons.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And it sounds like maybe the bigger issue was the hunting license thing, and maybe that’s not an issue. It just is… hopefully it’s been clarified.

MR. CERNY: If I could, Chris Cerny, Wildlife Division. The $50 fee, and the reason for two separate $50 fees, one for private lands, one for public lands, is to cover, as Kevin has mentioned, the administrative costs.

We have two different systems that we have to use to issue these permits. One is through the license sale system. We have costs associated with the maintenance and operation of that system and the staff that operate that.

We then have a separate application and permit processing process, or I should say a permitting process, for wildlife management areas. And that goes through a separate set of staff. That is not managed through that license sale system.

So those $50 fees are simply to recover department time and costs associated with the administration of this permit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. CERNY: And then that $12 per participant access fee also provides that liability coverage, and indemnifies the department and waives any liability requirements that we removed that insurance and bond requirement for.

So that’s how we’re covering that part of it as well.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Anything else?

If not, I will put this up for approval.

Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, for approval.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

COMMISSION TIMMERMAN. I’ll second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Second by Timmerman.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

It passes.

Thank you all for your participation and your comments.

Action Item No. 8 is Party Boat Rules– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.  And Mr. Cody Jones is going to brief us on this.

CODY JAMES: Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, I’m Cody Jones, Assistant Commander on the Law Enforcement Division. I’m here to present the proposed changes to the party boat rules.

The Party Boat Program was established by House Bill 12 during the 80th Texas Legislative Session in 2007.

The Commission adopted implementing rules in 2008, focused on operator licensing, inspection, passenger limits, safety standards, and insurance. Since inception, the program has grown from 31 vessels to 135 vessels today. With the growth, we’ve seen new risk and reoccurring compliance issues that warrant updating of the rules.

A party boat is defined as a vessel 30 feet or greater in length, operated by the owner or operator or an employee of the owner, and rented for a group of more than six passengers, with one exception in the statute, which excludes sailboats from being defined or regulated as party boats.

Additionally, a licensed party boat operator is someone who is at least 21 years of age, or who has completed both minimal observation and operational time on a covered vessel and who has passed or in an exam administered by the Department.

The proposal clarifies the definition of “inland waters” to avoid overlap with U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction. It adds definitions for Owner’s Agent, Accredited Marine Surveyor, Accredited Naval Architect, and Stability Letter.

These changes address attempts to evade compliance through contractual arrangements, and ensure inspections and stability determinations are conducted by qualified professionals.

The proposed language also creates an exception to the TPWD Party Boat Operator’s License for a valid U.S. Coast Guard licensed captain whose credentials meet and exceed state requirements.

Additionally, U.S. Coast Guard K and T class certified vessels would be exempt from state inspection and stability letter requirements. U.S. Coast Guard requirements meet and exceed requirements of the subchapter, and therefore we are satisfied that the public safety is not being compromised. In addition, the proposed language would increase the required minimum liability insurance to be carried by an owner to $500,000.

Current rules require a party boat operator to maintain a minimum of $300,000 in liability insurance. Nearly 70 percent of all owners are currently carrying liability insurance that exceeds the proposed $500,000 liability coverage.

The requirement would represent the bare minimum with respect to the ability to respond to incidents resulting in damage or injuries.

The proposed language also clearly states that the insurance required would be on a “per incident” basis rather than a “per vessel” basis, which is consistent with insurance industry practices for insurers of these types of operations.

The amendments would also require proof of insurance to be kept on board the party boat at all times, and made available upon request by department employees acting within the scope of their duties.

The proposed amendments would require the retention of all documents required by the subchapter for a period of two years, which is a statute of limitations for violations of this subchapter.

Additional, proposed language would explicitly establish the number and types of personal flotation devices that must be on board a party boat, including provisions intended to provide adequate water safety for children.

It defines the requirement to carry serviceable U.S. Coast Guard-approved PFDs in a number equivalent to the vessel’s occupancy limit indicated on the vessel’s inspection, as well as additional child-sized devices equivalent to at least 10 percent of the occupancy limit.

If more than 10 percent of the passengers are children onboard any voyage they must have the appropriate amount of child-sized PFDs to cover all children present. The owner would also be required to articulate and post emergency procedures for all passengers.

The proposed language would require party boats to be inspected in drydock or by an underwater inspection at a five-year interval by an accredited naval architect or accredited marine surveyor to determine the suitability of the vessel for continued use as a party boat.

We all know party boats are not pleasure craft. They are working vessels subject to extensive and repetitive use, which can impact their whole integrity, their power, and their steering systems particularly when made fast to the shore, which they often are. The department believes it’s prudent and appropriate to require party boats to be inspected in drydock or via underwater assessment at least once every five years to ensure the integrity of such systems.  This regimen is consistent with U.S. Coast Guard practices on similar vessels that they regulate.

The proposal would also require owners to schedule an inspection not more than 60 days, nor less than 30 days, prior to the annual anniversary date of inspection, and would require the department to conduct the inspection not more than 30 days prior to that date.

The proposed language would also require a stability test to be performed following any significant alterations to the vessel’s structure or equipment, or following reported incidents as described in the Parks and Wildlife Code 31.105, unless such incident does not involve physical damage to the vessel.

The department reasons the development or occurrence that would fundamentally alter the vessel’s seaworthiness or stability merits the performance of such stability tests to determine the vessel’s ability to operate safely.

Finally, the proposed new section would stipulate that when a vessel is required to be subject of stability test under this subchapter, it is unlawful to operate the vessel as a party boat until the results of the stability test have been submitted to the department, and the department has authorized resumption of operation as a party boat.

The proposed language was brought before the Boating and Waterways Advisory Committee on December 17, 2025, and received positive support on all recommended changes.

As of 5:00 p.m. on… yesterday, the department actually received 26 comments– with 10 in full agreement with the proposal and 16 in disagreement with the proposal.

Those in disagreement had strong repetitive nature to the comments.  And while most explicitly stated they had no opposition to the increase of 500,000 minimum, the main focus was comments associated with the “per-incident” language.

Many indicated the policy should be on a “per-occurrence” basis.

There was also a misunderstanding from many of the commenters about the language as somehow requiring a separate policy per vessel, which is not the case.

As stated yesterday, I’ve spoken with the Senior Vice President of Underwriting for one of the main insurance providers in this industry, and they expressed their agreement with the language of the rule as presented, and saw no issue with providing continuing coverage based on what was currently proposed.

But one additional comment was received yesterday; spoke to a lack of desire to have a five-year reoccurring inspection of the vessel, although the Coast Guard does require that on all similar vessels.

With that said, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt the repeal of 31 TAC 55.406 and amendments to 55.401-55.403, and 55.405, and the new 55.406, 55.408, 55.410 concerning party boats located in Exhibit A with changes as necessary to proposed TACS published in December 19, 2025, issued in the Texas Register.

With that, I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Let me turn on my mic.

Questions or comments?

I think we got most of our questions answered yesterday.

And so, we’re probably ready to move forward with it.

MR. JAMES: Great.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?
Motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Next is Action Item No. 9: Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants– Special Provisions for Dotted Duckweed and Introduction of Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants– Update to Aquatic Plant Definition–Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

And we’ll hear from Michael Tennant and Zach Olsen.

Michael?

MR. TENNANT: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Michael Tennant, and I’m the Regulations and Policy Manager in the Inland Fisheries Division.

On March 14, 2025, the Department received a petition for rulemaking requesting a revision of existing regulations to allow the issuance of commercial exotic species aquaculture permits for the cultivation of Dotted Duckweed.

Dotted Duckweed is a non-native aquatic plant with characteristics that promote potential invasiveness.

Dotted Duckweed has been regulated as a controlled exotic aquatic plant in Texas since the 1990’s, due to its rapid growth and potential to form dense mats that overwhelm small water bodies.

Concerns about its impacts on wildlife habitat and aquatic life, livestock watering, recreation, and angling contributed to this designation.

Dotted Duckweed thrives in small, nutrient-rich still waters like ponds and swamps, but does poorly in flowing waters, reservoirs, or underground systems.

Even though introduced in a number of U.S. sites with no major issues reported in public waters, historical cases of dense duckweed mats in Florida canals and reports of problematic infestations in private ponds suggest potential for overgrowth under favorable conditions.

Staff developed a risk-benefit analysis that objectively evaluates potential ecological, recreational, and management risks alongside possible benefits such as economic opportunities for businesses.

The analysis outlined ecological risks. It also summarized recreational risks associated with introduction of Dotted Duckweed into public waters. And it emphasized concerns regarding potential risks to community fishing lakes.

No major control efforts for Dotted Duckweed have been reported in Texas or other southeastern states aside from a few small-scale, mostly aesthetic, attempts for unspecified duckweed species. If control becomes necessary, its small size and potential herbicide resistance could lead to long-term costs, though risks are limited because affected waters are typically small and contained.

As discussed in yesterday’s presentation, we received supplemental content from Texas A&M AgriLife outlining risks to private waters.

Permitting Dotted Duckweed aquaculture would significantly increase inspection workload due to stringent containment requirements, added complexity, and high potential need for follow-up inspections. As the industry grows and facilities expand or increase in number, ongoing oversight, including spot inspections, will be critical and could create a substantial long-term burden.

Duckweed species contain as much as 35 to 45 percent protein, making them a promising source for plant-based foods and animal feed, but the industry is still in early commercialization.

As of 2024, the United States had 15 pilot farms and five industrial facilities, with 2025 data showing 60 percent of output used in plant-based foods, 30 percent in animal feed, and 10 percent in biofuel research.

The petitioner reports that Dotted Duckweed is appealing for aquaculture because of its 25 percent higher protein yield, not due to faster growth, but because of the higher dry matter content measured as solids or biomass and protein density per plant, which could boost production and profitability as well as significant increase in economic investment in the facility as a major Schleicher County employer.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension specialists reported that comparative biomass values across duckweed species were unavailable in the scientific literature. A direct comparative independent study would be needed to fully evaluate petitioner claims of Dotted Duckweed potential as it relates to protein content and product yield.

Globally, the duckweed protein market is growing, valued at $84 million in 2025, and projected to reach $221 million by 2034, with North America holding 20 percent of the market.

Exotic species aquaculture facility permits require strict containment measures, including location above the 100-year flood plain, approved escape prevention methods, and access limitations, along with an emergency plan submitted with application.

Facilities are inspected before permit issuance, after modifications, at least once every five years, and may be subject to discretionary spot inspections at any time.

Native duckweed species can be cultured for protein supplements, but Dotted Duckweed’s production potential make it attractive for commercial use. and prompted the petition.

After analysis and a site visit, the department concluded that feasible facility requirements and biosecurity measures could keep the risk and potential impacts acceptably low.

The proposed rules would therefore allow issuance of commercial aquaculture facility permits for Dotted Duckweed, and establish special provisions to ensure aquaculture biosecurity. Those special provisions are summarized here, and can be revisited if you have questions.

The special provisions included proposed exclusion zones that would further reduce risk of impacts to public waters.

A total of 28 public comments were received– with 18 agreeing, and 10 disagreeing, with the proposed rules.

14 public comments agreeing with the proposed rules strongly support a permit to cultivate Dotted Duckweed in Texas, citing its higher protein yield and the petitioner’s strict containment protocols that minimize environmental risk. They also emphasize that the petitioner’s facility offers stable employment and economic growth in a region historically dependent on declining oil field work.

It is noted that 12 of these public comments were submitted by current Plantible employees.

Five public comments disagreeing with the proposed rules expressed concern that allowing commercial cultivation of Dotted Duckweed poses a high risk of invasive species escaping containment, causing ecological harm, and shifting management costs to the state and landowners. They cited Texas’ history of invasive species problems, inadequate flood planning, and weak regulatory enforcement as reasons to maintain strict regulations.

As you are aware, prior to the November Commission meeting, the department received letters of support for permitting commercial cultivation of Dotted Duckweed in a regulated and enclosed facility. These letters were submitted by Mr. Wes Virdell, State Representative for House District 53, and Mr. Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner.

The department received a letter of support from Ronnie D. Hawkins, Jr., President of Angelo State University.  He emphasized that the partnership with Plantible aligns with the university’s mission by offering internships and real-world experience, and urged the Commission to support a regulated permit pathway that protects ecological integrity while fostering economic development and career opportunities for students.

The petitioner also provided clarifying details on their product and the anticipated economic impact to the local community in the form of presentation slides, which were included in your Commission book.

Experts at Texas A&M AgriLife reviewed the department risk-benefit analysis and special provisions developed for containment of Dotted Duckweed should it be permitted for cultivation.

Texas A&M AgriLife brought forward significant concerns about potential escapement and unauthorized introduction into private waters from aquaculture facilities and the likelihood of negative impacts to agricultural and recreational uses.

Although Texas A&M AgriLife concurred with the special provisions developed by the department for containment, their overall opinion is the risks outweigh the benefits, and disagreed with the proposed rule changes.

On January 5, this topic was presented and discussed with the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee, which unanimously asserted that the risks to public and private waters were too high to permit cultivation of Dotted Duckweed in aquaculture facilities. The proposed rules are not supported by the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee.

The department received a letter of opposition from the Texas Wildlife Association, opposing proposed changes to authorize commercial cultivation of Dotted Duckweed in Texas.

They noted that despite the well-intentioned biosecurity protocols, the risks to Texas aquatic ecosystems outweigh any potential economic benefit to the state.

The department received a letter of opposition from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. They urged the department to maintain the ban on commercial cultivation and possession of Dotted Duckweed and invasive species. Allowing cultivation, they warned, would likely lead to escapes into natural ecosystems.  They stressed that safeguarding shared natural resources must take precedence over the interests of a single business.

In summary, the department staff assembled a risk-benefit analysis, developed special provisions to minimize risk of escapement for permitted facilities, and sought stakeholder input.

We offer this information to help the Commission weigh the potential risks and benefits of this petition, and ultimately decide whether to permit Dotted Duckweed aquaculture.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code Section 57.114 and new Section 57.129 as listed in Exhibit A with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.

That concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Tennant.

MR. TENNANT. Thank you.

We have four people signed up from the public to speak.

But before we do, I wanted to see if the Commission has any comment or question specifically for Mr. Tennant or…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I would… Commissioner Doggett.

I would just say, and I’m anxious to listen to the four public speakers.

But with A&M– and certainly know more about all this than I probably ever will– Texas Wildlife Association, the Freshwater Fishery, and the lack of success the state has had with invasive species and containing invasive species.

For me, it’s just what’s the economic benefit?

Is there a risk/reward?

I see the risk, but I don’t see the reward.

I mean, it’s one permit.

The economic benefit of the state is very small. We’re not putting a lot of people to work.  If, on the other hand, there are potentially hundreds of people we’re putting to work and we’ve limited the risk substantially to where there’s almost no risk, well, sure.  But I just don’t see it in this case.

So, I think the risk outweighs the reward, which is essentially nothing, the reward, the economic benefit to the state.

And so, I’ll be… I’m anxious to hear what the speakers have to say on this front.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Anybody else?

If not, I will…

Thank you, Michael.

I will go ahead and call the four speakers.

First, we have Stan Meador, followed by Tony Martens and Danny Hicks.

STAN MEADOR: I was going to say, “Good morning,” but I think we’ve tripped over to the afternoon at this point.

So, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for your time.

And I want to speak just a little bit to your comment, Commissioner Doggett.

My name is Stan Meador.

I live in San Angelo. I was born and raised in Eldorado.

I’m a fifth-generation land steward of the X-Bar Ranch in southwest Schleicher County, where my family has been rooted since 1903. 30 years ago, I moved home to start the X-Bar Ranch Nature Retreat, which still operates today.

Like many people in West Texas, and from small towns out there, we care deeply about our land, our water, and whether our kids and grandkids will have a reason to stay or come back home. My family has a long history of community involvement.

And like many ranching families, we’ve had to diversify to keep things together over the years.

For decades, oilfield work provided decent jobs around Eldorado, but those opportunities have steadily declined and become more volatile. 25 years ago, Eldorado had one oil major, several regional, and a handful of family-owned oilfield services companies. Today only a couple of those locally-owned businesses remain.

When Plantible Foods came to Eldorado in 2023, it brought something we hadn’t seen in a long, long time, which was real, sustained, private investment that created local jobs.

Putting that into perspective, Plantible employs 35 local workers at its Ranchito facility. And while that might not sound like a big splash in Texas for a little community of about 1,800 people, that’s significant.

It has supported hundreds of construction jobs and services jobs through contracts to local service providers. It has invested over $30 million in Schleicher County. And since its arrival, median household income in the county has increased by more than 60 percent, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

I’ve seen the impact firsthand. Plantible regularly uses our lodging facilities for staff and contractors. In 2025 alone, they booked over 450 room nights at our facility. Because of that demand, I am now considering to expand my operation, an investment that wouldn’t otherwise happen.

I’m here today because this decision affects whether that progress can continue. Plantible is requesting a permit to grow a specific strain of Lemma, or duckweed, under strictly enclosed conditions. I understand and respect the Commission’s responsibility to protect Texas’ natural resources, including waterways.

Plantible has been growing other Lemma strains in this facility since 2023, and we have not seen any contamination or escape.

From my conversations with the company, one thing is clear: without a pathway to grow this strain in Texas, future expansion will almost certainly occur elsewhere.  That would mean fewer stable jobs, less rural investment, and fewer reasons for younger families to stay in Eldorado.

There are no comparable economic opportunities available in our community today. Options like wind, solar, and data centers bring very few local long-term jobs, and come with their own tradeoffs.  We care deeply about our land and water.

This is our home. I believe the safeguards proposed by Texas Parks and Wildlife staff provide a responsible way to protect our waterways, while allowing much-needed rural economic development to continue.

In closing, I respectfully urge the Commission to consider a regulated permit process that reflects TPWD’s safeguards and supports the real measurable economic benefits already taking place in our community today.

Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people and natural resources of Texas.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Meador.

MR. MEADOR: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Tony Martens.

TONY MARTENS: Sorry, I’ve been told to bend over because it’s not made for my height.

Dear Chairman Foster, Vice-Chairman Bell, and all Commissioners, thank you so much for taking the time today, and for being so rigorous in your thought process about this request.

I’m Tony Martens, Co-founder and CEO of Plantible Foods in Eldorado. And this is our first opportunity to address you directly, and I thank you for the opportunity.

We respect your responsibility to manage the natural resources in Texas for present and future generations.

I started this company to build a controlled, reliable, and resource-efficient agricultural supply chain that strengthens rural communities.

We do this by growing duckweed in safely controlled and constrained greenhouses, and extract proteins from the plant that we then sell to food companies and animal feed companies.

I’ve been building this company for eight years. And during that time, we’ve been growing various duckweed strains and have had zero outbreaks.  We have operated through hail, heavy winds, and significant frosts in rural West Texas with zero escapes and zero offsite detections.

We maintain strict containment of our operations to protect our surroundings, and because damage hurts us, too.  We depend on contained environments because it allows us to control the environment and optimize for quality and yield.

We came to Schleicher County in 2022 because a local landowner, Len Mertz, asked us to help transform his agricultural operation. Farmers across Texas face increasing volatility driven by droughts, and duckweed is an exceptionally water-efficient plant that can be grown year-round and harvested every day.

Since we arrived in Eldorado, we’ve invested over $30 million and created 35 direct jobs. As Mr. Meador already explained, median household income grew 68 percent, lifting the community above the poverty line in the United States. We’re planning to invest up to $200 million more in the coming years, and creating an additional 150 direct jobs.

We’re currently actively preparing to deploy the first $40 million this year.  And all of these investments directly generate more property tax income for the local county.

In addition, we’ve recently also been approached by one of the largest private landowners in the state of Texas, the Enright family, to explore building a second facility for the same reason– to restore and ensure agricultural liability on their land.

However, all of these expansion plans depend on the specific strain on the docker today, Dotted Duckweed.

This is why we want to share some additional scientific context on two points that came up yesterday. First, it was stated that Dotted Duckweed has amongst the lowest protein levels of all duckweed strains. However, our data and peer-reviewed literature show the opposite.

Dotted Duckweed yields, actually, 25 percent more protein per ton of biomass than any of the strains we’ve screened today.

This is noteworthy because that extra yield is critical for us to stay in business and continue supporting the local ecosystems. That is why I stand here today.

Second, yesterday’s presentation expressed concern about aggressive competition with native species.

However, the U.S. Geological Survey found that Dotted Duckweed doesn’t outcompete any of the native Texas strains when it’s grown in a polyculture. We obviously acknowledge that the climate in Texas is ideal for duckweed cultivation, creating both an opportunity but also a responsibility.

Yesterday’s presentations outlined these specific risks.

But the risks that were highlighted in the presentation apply to all duckweed strains, and not Dotted Duckweed specifically.

Fortunately, all of these risks are manageable, as we’ve shown in our eight years of safe operation. That being said…

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I have to ask you to wrap up.

MR. MARTENS: …we’ve heard the concerns...

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I have to ask you to wrap up.

TONY MARTENS: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I’m almost done.

Thank you.

Yeah.

We’ve heard the concerns about workload and stakeholder input.

We love to continue to do our work with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas A&M, the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee, and the Wildlife Association.

Because in the end, we want to make Texas a leader when it comes to cultivating aquatic plants and duckweed strains so that we can help farmers grow duckweed responsibly, and ensure that the future generations can survive in a great natural environment.

Thank you so much for your time.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Can we ask questions?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: No.

I don’t think so.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Are we allowed to ask questions?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Vice-Chairman.

The Commissioners can ask questions of commenters.

Yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Just...

You know, I don’t know that I was focusing enough on the enclosed environment aspect of this.

So, because if people are worried about release, you’re not just...

You don’t have, like, say...

What am I thinking about?

Crawfish Festival.

They have their ponds out, and they’re doing things out in nature. All of your stuff is under roof?

MR. MARTENS: Exactly.

Everything is in an enclosed greenhouse.  And everything from cultivation to harvesting to processing all happens on the same site, and nothing leaves our site.

And that means that we have full control over the process, and ensure that all of the biomass gets, let’s say, for lack of a better term, “killed” in our process to make sure that it doesn’t survive outside of our property.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’d just like to say quickly.

Commissioner Doggett.

Tony, I want to thank you for coming here and speaking to the Commission.  Tony Martens, that’s your name, right?

MR. MARTENS: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: And you own Plantible?

MR. MARTENS: Yeah, I’m one of the co-founders, correct.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Can you tell us about Plantible?

MR. MARTENS: Yeah, we started this company back in 2018.

So, as you might hear from the accent, I’m not a native Texan.

[ laughter ]

I’m originally from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, but moved to San Diego back in 2018 to start this company with the idea that– my background is in agricultural commodity trading and processing– that we’ve seen an increase in volatility in the livelihood of farmers around the world, and also in the United States.

And tapping into novel plans that are, let’s say, more resource efficient and can create next-generation food ingredients for both food and feed is something that we aspire to build. And then we built out a small pilot facility in San Diego. And when we wanted to build out our first commercial site, we actually got approached by a landowner in Eldorado, Texas, to build out a facility on his land in order to help him stabilize his agricultural operation.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Well, one, I really want to thank you for coming.

You instill a lot of confidence, and so I appreciate that.

And it really adds some clarity of what’s happening in Eldorado, which…I mean, there are so many small towns in East Texas, all over the state, actually, that could use a source of income like this.

And I know that the landowner previously who did a great job, as well, says 35 folks are employed now.

And you said with some luck, and if done properly, maybe we go up to 150 or so.

MR. MARTENS: Yeah, in addition, yeah.

Plus, all of the construction jobs that will come with the expansion of our greenhouse facility on the land.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Right, right.

And although I’m a beef guy… [laughter ] ...I’m still…

I still supportive of your mission here. So, thank you very much for coming and talking to us.

MR. MARTENS: Yeah.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.

I have one additional question.

I know, so we’re kind of at odds on some of the information we’ve got.

I think that even Commissioner Doggett had expressed earlier some of the Texas A&M findings. Have you had, and I don’t know how many facilities you have, but have you had an incident at any of your facilities where you’ve had a spill, or any of the materials have escaped the facility? And if so, what happened in that case?

MR. MARTENS: No, we’ve never had an escape outside of our facility.

And there’s one point that I want to clarify.

There are currently no guidelines in the state of Texas to grow even native strains that have the same characteristics as Dotted Duckweed.

So, there’s no difference between what native strains can do and Dotted Duckweed does. What we’re suggesting here, together with the staff, is actually develop the golden standards on how to grow Duckweed, whether those are native strains or novel strains in the state of Texas. And we have never had an escape or an outbreak.

We have swapped strains. So, we have, let’s say, had a greenhouse where we grew one strain and then wanted to grow another strain. And in order to do that effectively, you need to make sure that all of the strains that grow in a greenhouse are killed.

And so, we’ve developed our own safety measures and emergency response plans to make sure that we can kill every living strain once we want to swap it out for another strain.

Because, once again, if you have pollution or, let’s say, multiple strains growing in the same greenhouse, you don’t get the desired end results of what you’re trying to achieve in your business.

So, it’s in our best interest to make sure that we have full control over the strains in our production facility.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And one other question.

So, what are you growing there now?

MR. MARTENS: We’re now growing a native Texas strain in our greenhouses.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Of Duckweed?

MR. MARTENS: Of Duckweed, correct.

Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

So, the difference is the Dotted Duckweed is just a different product.

MR. MARTENS: Yeah, the difference is, like, you have to think about it as a fresh vegetable, right?

So, if you buy spinach or another leafy green, the majority is moisture and there’s a certain amount of solids in there.

Dotted Duckweed has more solids per ton of fresh biomass than any other duckweed strain. So, it doesn’t grow faster, It’s more that when we harvest it and extract the protein we can extract more protein from the biomass.

And if the cost per ton of biomass stays the same, you can imagine that your cost of goods sold per unit of protein that you extract goes down because you extract more protein out of it. And that’s why it’s so crucial to our business, because we can reduce our unit economics, and therefore become a profitable operation.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And are you familiar with the issues around Dotted Duckweed, the reason that there’s concern?

MR. MARTENS: I’m very much in understanding of the risks that were listed on the slide.

When I first contacted the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which is about two years ago, to discuss this issue, these were brought up. However, if you go to that Texas A&M AgriLife website, you can see that the same issues are also listed amongst every native strain of Duckweed in the state of Texas. So, they are not unique to Dotted Duckweed.

The only difference is that Dotted Duckweed hasn’t been cited in the United States before the 1930’s, and therefore is not considered a native strain to the state of Texas.

But the growth parameters and the forming of a mat or a layer on the water is identical for every duckweed strain, and technically every duckweed strain is considered an invasive species.

So, the thing that we’re proposing today is, given that there are currently no guardrails on how to safely commercially grow any duckweed strain, is to set those guidelines so that we can do that safely in the state of Texas going forward.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Thank you. Very helpful.  We still have two more speakers, and then the Commission can come in.

MR. MARTENS: Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MR. MARTENS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Danny Hicks.

DANNY HICKS: How ya’ll doing.

Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Danny Hicks, and I live in Eldorado, Texas.

I’m a downstream process supervisor at the Plantible Foods at Ranchito, the Ranchito facility in Eldorado, where I’ve worked the past two and a half years.

Before Plantible came to Eldorado, stable work opportunities in Schleicher County were limited. I was commuting more than two hours each way to work in the oil fields. The conditions were dangerous, the hours were unpredictable, and there was no guarantee that I’d have work from one week to the next.

I was doing whatever I could to get by, including cutting grass on the side, but it was nearly impossible to balance work, family, and financial stability.

When I joined Plantible in 2023, that changed. Today I have steady year-round employment with benefits, safer work conditions, a ten-minute commute, and I no longer worry about whether I have a paycheck next week.

Plantible gave me stability, something I didn’t have before.

But this impact goes far beyond me. Plantible has brought reliable, well-paying jobs to Eldorado and surrounding communities. Many people I know work directly or indirectly because of this facility. Local contractors have steady work.

Families are able to stay in town instead of moving away.

And you can see the difference in local businesses and the pride people take in having good jobs close to home.

Plantible also creates opportunity.  The company provides paid on-the-job training and real paths for advancement, even for people without college degrees or prior experience.

Since joining, I’ve gained new skills in equipment operation, construction, lab testing, data tracking, team leadership, and management. I’ve received professional training I never would have had access to before, along with benefits and a 401k.  This is how people build long-term careers in rural communities.

I understand today’s discussion includes environmental considerations, and I respect that deeply. I live here.

This land and water are my home, too.

Plantible operates in fully enclosed facilities with strict safeguards, and I’m a part of the team that helps ensure those rules are followed every day.  We support responsible oversight because we want to grow in the right way.

What I want the Commission to understand is that this permanent decision directly affects whether Plantible can continue growing here in Eldorado, or whether that growth will happen somewhere else.

If Plantible is unable to expand in Texas, it would limit long-term job growth, advancement opportunities, and the chance for new families to move into our community.  And for a small rural town like ours, losing that momentum would be devastating.

This permit represents more than regulatory decisions.  It represents whether communities like Eldorado can attract innovative businesses, provide stable jobs, and grow economically without sacrificing environmental responsibility.

I’m here today because I believe this permit gives small Texas towns a real chance to thrive.

Thank you for listening and considering how your decision affects the people who live and work in rural Texas.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Hicks.

And then we have Mary Pearl Mooth or Meuth?

MARY PEARL MEUTH: Moyt.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Meuth.
Wow.

Wow, I never would have gotten there.

Okay, thank you.

MS. MEUTH: Yeah, no problem.

Good afternoon, Chairman Foster and Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz.

My name is Mary Pearl Meuth.

I’m speaking today as a representative for Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

We respectfully oppose the proposed special provision to allow the commercial aquaculture production of Dotted Duckweed in Texas.

While the proposal does include the specific biosecurity measures that you’ve heard, the critical ecological and long-term risk factors still remain.  Based on the information presented, our chapter stands opposed to permitting this cultivation. Dotted Duckweed is fast-growing, easily transported, and capable of forming dense surface mats, as you’ve heard.

The stakes for Texas waters, our fisheries, our habitat, and our recreational resources are simply too high. It’s too high to risk this introduction of another exotic species.

While the potential for aquaculture production has been described in the economic terms that you’ve heard, both for the company itself and for the community, it’s important to remember that the Commission’s mission is to protect and prioritize the natural resources of the state, and not to advance commerce when it may come at the cost of ecosystem health.

Approving a species with known invasive potential, even under the controlled conditions that you’ve heard, sets a precedent that could undermine the long-term conservation status.  The economic and the ecological risk to Texas landowners, private ponds, and downstream ecosystems is local, real, and long-term.

And more often than not, those costs are then borne by landowners, their neighbors, and our public agencies, not by the industries that benefit from their production.

We also see, and I hope you see here, the parallel to chronic wasting disease.  In both cases, the uncertainty is real; the consequences of escape are significant.

Just as you as a Commission have today taken that promise for a precautionary approach with CWD, we urge a similar commitment here, prioritizing ecosystem integrity over economic advancement.  This is not a statement against innovation or aquaculture, or even the growth of local communities, local rural communities, in which I live and work and play.

It is a call to stay focused on the Commission’s core mission: to conserve and protect Texas natural resources.

For all of those reasons, we respectfully urge you to not adopt the Dotted Duckweed special provision today.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

And so now…

You have something, David?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: So, Chairman, just in terms of a point of order, we also then have Zach Olsen’s presentation.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, I saw that.

It’s kind of… do we need to do that?

Because the motion is separate.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Well, you can continue to discuss on this topic, and then also then discuss on what Zach’s going to present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Right.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think it makes more sense to go ahead and kind of finish the duckweed discussion, and then get back to the aquatic, whatever that is.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Definition, yes.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

So.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett.

Commissioner Doggett.

I will say if, one thing I will do, if I hear a very compelling argument against what I believe is right, I’m certainly eager to adjust my stance on the issue.

And I would say, as you all heard before, I couldn’t understand the risk-benefit of this. And for me, in East Texas, 35 jobs is a big deal. And 150 potential jobs.

I mean, if you don’t do it, if you don’t start, you’re never going to get to the 150.  150 would be huge for that community, for Texas. And then the ancillary, everything around that, the commerce, would be a big benefit for that part of the world.

And so, I think A&M said they approve of the security protocols of it, and this is all enclosed.

I mean, everything we do is dangerous.

Storing fuel.  Just the gas station down the road, that’s dangerous as it can be. But I think we have the security protocols to feel okay with it.

And since A&M has approved those protocols, and I’m sure that the department will watch this very, very carefully.

And, you know, for me, when I’m approaching something.

People are everything, right?

You can have the greatest idea, but if you don’t have the right people it never comes to fruition.

And I just want to tell you that the landowner and Mr. Martens instilled a lot of confidence in me.  And I think that’s a great route for new jobs in the state.  And, again, I want to thank Mr. Martens for coming and speaking to the Commission, because he did instill some confidence.

So, I think the risk-benefit is in favor of doing it, personally, because of the jobs.  The jobs are a really big deal. And so, I’ve kind of turned 180 degrees here.  And so, I’m a proponent at this point.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: A couple of comments.

First of all, it’s not in East Texas.

It’s kind of more West Texas.

It’s like south of San Angelo.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Not that it matters that much.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: East Texas needs job, too.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It’s east of…

From El Paso’s perspective, it’s East Texas.

[ laughter ]

The other thing is, I don’t know that Texas A&M approved it.

I thought Texas A&M actually wrote in opposition.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: What I read is they approved the security protocols, but didn’t agree with going forward.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, yeah.

MR. TENNANT: They did concur with our special provisions.

However, even in light of concurring with that, they still believe that the risks outweigh the benefits. That was their final conclusion.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. TENNANT: While they said we did a good job, our staff did a good job of developing those special provisions, they still, in their final opinion, was the risks outweigh the benefits.

All right?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Hang on.

I actually have a question.

For me, this is a narrow single issue that regular duckweed is fine, and they’ve been doing it and they’ve done it without a problem for several years now.

But Dotted Duckweed is…

Who did put it on the “no-go” list?

I mean, it’s on a prohibited list for a reason. I haven’t heard a good reason it shouldn’t be on there. And if really all this money is at stake, I mean, my advice would be go get it off the list. But who put it on there in the first place?

Why is it on there, and regular duckweed didn’t?

MR. TENNANT: Well, the Commission did at the time in the ‘90s.

I don’t recall the specific. It was in the 1990’s when it was placed on the Controlled Exotic Species List.

And there is… multiple people have pointed, myself, there is… the native strains are native to the state. The Dotted Duckweed is a non-native species, non-native to Texas and the United States, and it has significant invasive potential. That’s the distinct difference between the species that they’re using.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Mr. Martens mentioned that they behave very similarly.

Is that not the case, the native versus the Dotted?

MR. TENNANT: Well, the difference is being a non-native exotic species, it was never on this landscape prior to somebody bringing it. It’s native to another continent and country. And so, it was never here.  While a lot of our native species, I think is better to describe, a lot of our native species can become nuisance in private public waters.  But non-native exotic species tend to be more problematic when they are in a non-native system.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I guess I understand.  But if they behave very similarly or the exact same, I’m not sure I do understand.

MR. TENNANT: Well, one thing, maybe the behavior is similar in a greenhouse in a closed environment, versus being out in the natural landscape. That’s a big distinction, too.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Could we ask if Mr. Martens could answer that question?

MR. MARTENS: Yeah.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

Actually, as it was pointed out in prior hearings, this Dotted Duckweed strain has been in the state of Texas since the ‘80s, but has never caused any ecological damage or any reported damage. And studies have shown that have been peer-reviewed that Dotted Duckweed actually gets out-competed by the native Texas strains when it all meets together in a water environment.

And we have seen that as well with our own experiment.

And we’re happy to relay that data to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and work with Texas A&M, to show that Dotted Duckweed doesn’t out-compete the native Texas strains.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett here.

So, the only reason that it’s on the “no-go” list is it’s not indigenous to the state of Texas?

MR. MARTENS: Correct, as far as I know.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: But as Blake was referencing, it really acts the same as native duckweed?

MR. MARTENS: Yeah, so the way the plant grows is you have to think about like… we’ve all seen it.  I’ve heard from you today that you’re all outdoor people, so you’ve seen probably duckweed in ponds. So, the way you have to think about it is you have a tiny leaf, two daughter leaves grow attached to it, they split, and that’s how they continue to propagate.

And so, it forms a mat on the water because it’s a two-dimensional crop, and that is common for every duckweed strain. And the reason why it would thrive or propagate in natural waterways is because it’s a very nutrient-rich waterways. But that’s irrespective of the strain or the species of duckweed.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: All right.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

You know, I will tell you, it’s always interesting to listen to folks talk. If you’d asked me last night, I’d have told you it was a slam-dunk “no,” okay; that I wouldn’t have supported.

But what I’ve gotten clarity on, at least from one perspective, was this whole idea of the enclosed environment and the safety protocols that are there, and not necessarily… it’s a… I’ll say maybe it’s more than a “no” from A&M. I also hear, I’ll say, it’s not an endorsement. I would maybe put it more that way, as opposed to “don’t do this.”

But I thought that your conversation was informative today.

And I’m kind of like you there, Commissioner Doggett. I always like to try to keep an open mind. And it’s kind of shifted where I stand on the issue because I was thinking open facilities in the water, going to… anything that gets loose in Texas grows. Right?

So that’s where I was. And so maybe I hadn’t paid close enough attention to that.

But you make a good argument.

It’s compelling. I’ll just put it to you that way.

MR. MARTENS: I appreciate that very much.

And thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify some of the questions.

CHAIRMAN DOGGETT: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Galo.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Yes, Commissioner Galo.
It’s all very interesting and informative. But I live in a community where an invasive species has gone out of control, and how hard it is and what a strain it is on the local community and the local municipality and county. And I just do not see… I just think the risks outweigh the benefits. And, you know, we all want to support commerce, but that is not our primary mission here at the Commission.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Timmerman here.

Would it make sense, and I’m kind of like you, Commissioner Doggett. I was a “no,” and now I’m kind of leaning towards a “yes,” but I’m still not quite there yet.

Would it make sense for us to table this and hear from A&M a little bit more, and just see a little bit more about… You know, because I think we’ve heard a few conflicting issues, and I would really want to know if they think these are robust enough protocols and safety measures to protect this resource.

So, I thought maybe rather than voting on it today maybe… and I hate kicking the can down the road, but in this case, it may be worthwhile kicking the can down the road just to get a little bit more information from some of our authorities that really are experts in this field.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I appreciate your comments.

I was actually going to suggest the exact same thing.

I feel like I came in today, I didn’t realize that this was completely enclosed, first of all.  There was discussion about spreading it with birds, and this and that.  And I think that’s probably not an issue.  But I would like to know.

I think we need more information before we can vote “yes,” because Mr. Martens is talking about investing $200 million based on this.  And so, I don’t think we can change our mind later. It’s like, you know, once we give him the green light he’s going to invest money and then we’re kind of stuck with our decision.

On the other hand, I don’t want to kill it because I don’t think we have enough information to do that either.

So, I guess I would ask the staff, David and Craig, to maybe come back at our next meeting and with some more information both from probably A&M, but kind of just a more robust summary.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay.

So, Chairman, I guess…

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: A summary?

DR. YOSKOWTIZ: Yes, I think picking up from the conversation at the podium and then on the dais, it sounds like more information from A&M AgriLife.  Maybe there’s research out there that Mr. Martens can provide the department, as well as AgriLife.  And then have them look at that and, once again, weigh the costs and benefits.  Am I capturing what you’re thinking here?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Right.

And the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee, it would be interesting to see, kind of hear what information they’re working with. I just think we… even though we’ve looked at this for a long time.

DR. YOSKOWTIZ: Yes, we have.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …I think now that we’re sitting here ready to vote on it, I don’t think that we probably have enough data to make the right informed decision.  And I don’t think it’s fair either way for us to make a decision on it without having all the information. So, with that...

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Anything else, as I’m writing this down, anything else that any of the Commissioners would want, in terms of information, to be brought back?

You can also get… as you think about something after this Commission meeting.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, I wouldn’t mind having a little bit more information from Mr. Martens about the facility itself.

What if it gets hit by a tornado?

I mean, what are the risks?  I know it’s sealed and I know it’s probably very secure, but what are the risks?

And I’m not asking for an answer today. But before we address it again, what would happen in the event that that facility is damaged somehow? And then, you know, what happens?

You know, you’re in Eldorado, Texas.

I don’t know, not a lot of big active rivers there, or anything else.  But it could get into a waterway.  And if it did, what would that look like?

So just a little more information, I think. So, I think we’re better off tabling it.  I think that’s more in Mr. Marten’s interest than killing it at this point.  And so that’s what I would suggest.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay, if we could get a motion from you then to table.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Dave, I’d also like to say specifically if we could ask A&M.

What is the risk difference between native duckweed plant and the Dotted Duckweed? If there is, and if there is, what is that difference, additional risk?

I think what we’re saying… because Mr. Marten said really there’s no difference. And if it’s being, if it’s on the “no-go” list simply because it’s not indigenous to the state, well, that’s a lot to think about there.

All right?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

So, I would entertain a motion.

COMMISSIONER GALO: So moved to table.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: To table until our next Commission meeting.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: She motioned.

I’ll second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

Thank you.

We’re not through with this section. Now Zach Olsen is going to present on the aquatic plant definition.

ZACH OLSEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Zach Olsen, and I’m the Ecosystem Resources Program Director for the Coastal Fisheries Division.

Today I’ll be presenting a proposed change to the definition of “aquatic plant” in Texas Administrative Code as it relates to the more general introduction of aquatic plants into public waters, specifically.

The current “aquatic plant” definition is not consistent with the broader ecological understanding of aquatic plants, and only includes plants that produce seeds.

However, some species reproduce by spores or vegetatively only. As an example, most relevant to the presentation today, most macroalgae reproduce by these other means.

The definition for “aquatic plant” is used to specifically… is used to specify plant species for which the aquatic introduction permit is required to give the department oversight of that introduction activity in public waters.

We propose to clarify and broaden this definition to ensure that it includes certain groups of macroalgae.

Due to the physiological differences exhibited in macroalgae, the current aquatic plant definition does not include this group of organisms.

As I mentioned on the previous slide, macroalgae don’t produce by seed, but instead reproduce via spores or vegetative growth. Macroalgae is also non-vascular, and that’s a term I want to introduce here because that will be relevant in the proposed definition. Vascular and non-vascular refers to the internal plumbing that plants use for transporting nutrients and water through their systems.  Non-vascular plants such as macroalgae lack the differentiation in these tissues that traditional plants possess.

So, although there are some variation in the physiology between macroalgae and seed-producing vascular plants, many of these species and species groups play similar ecological and structural roles in their respective ecosystems. In other words, they’re photosynthetic. They have similar growth forms and habitat. In other words, they do and act in the same way that traditional vascular plants do on the landscape.

We’ve seen an increased interest in the introduction of marine macroalgae, or seaweed, into public waters.   The interest in seaweed introductions is primarily in the context of research related to seaweed farming.  Interest has been primarily in native species.

There has been some discussion of non-native species, which is certainly concerning. I’ll note that there have been introductions of non-native seaweeds in other parts of the country, namely Hawaii, that have led to habitat impacts such as reef and seagrass smothering.

I also want to highlight two genres of freshwater macroalgae, Muskgrass and Stonewort. These genres represent two specific groups for which there is nuisance potential if introduced into freshwater ecosystems.

So, all these genres and species groups are not currently included in that definition of aquatic plant in Texas Administrative Code.  And so, therefore, introductions could occur without department oversight.

Therefore, as stated earlier, we seek to broaden the aquatic plant definition to include these groups.  And, as you’ll see, specifically name these groups in that definition to provide regulatory clarity and precision in the application of that aquatic introduction permit.  We also propose an added provision to waive the aquatic introduction permit requirement for introductions coordinated with or conducted under the direction of TPWD.

In an effort to avoid de-incentivizing large-scale restoration efforts that could require a permit for certain species and encourage participation in TPWD-coordinated restoration events, we propose this provision to provide a mechanism for waiving the aquatic introduction permit requirement for these situations at the discretion of the department.

Some examples of such department-coordinated restoration initiatives include: the TPWD-coordinated plant giveaways for restoration; and current replanting efforts with partners along the banks and edges of the Guadalupe River in the wake of flooding-related habitat impacts and associated guidance workshops.

So, you’ll see on your screen here the proposed definition for “aquatic plant” and that proposed provision.

I’ll read it.

“Aquatic plants– vascular and non-vascular– that grow either partially or totally submerged in water or in substrates of a body of water, including freshwater macroalgae of the genus Chara (muskgrass) or Nitella (stoneworts), and all marine macroalgae (seaweeds).”

And then the provision:

“The department may waive the permit requirements of the subchapter for restoration or mitigation activities or other beneficial environmental purposes conducted in coordination with or at the discretion of the department.”

As of 5:00 p.m. yesterday, January 21, we had 4 comments– 3 agree, 1 disagree. I also want to add overnight we had two additional comments, both in agreement, which brings the total up to 5 agree and 1 disagree. I’ll also note that this is supported by the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee.

So, our recommendation then, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department adopts the amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code 57.251 and 57.252 as listed in Exhibit B with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.”

That concludes my presentation.

I’m happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, one question.

I should know this.

But does this have anything… any impact on our discussion about Dotted Duckweed?

MR. OLSEN: No, no.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: No relation?

MR. OLSEN: The Dotted Duckweed, as listed, is a controlled exotic species. This really, if anything, is not listed as a controlled exotic species.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. OLSEN: That introduction is overseen by the Aquatic Environment Commission.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, I just wanted to be sure.

MR. OLSEN: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Anybody have any questions or comments?

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Commissioner Timmerman, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Second by…

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Bell.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

All right.

Mr. Olsen, thank you.

Next, Action Item No. 10: Disposition of Land in San Patricio County– Approximately 8.1 acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park.

Trey Vick.

TREY VICK: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners,

For the record, my name is Trey Vick. I’m with the Land Conservation Program.

And I’ll be discussing today a disposition of land in San Patricio County of approximately 8 acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park.

As you can see here, Lake Corpus Christi State Park is identified on the map with the red star. It’s located approximately 40 miles northwest of Corpus Christi.

Lake Corpus Christi State Park is a leased park consisting of about 350 acres from the City of Corpus Christi. The park provides access to the 18,000-acre Lake Corpus Christi, with a current lease term through 2052.  This park provides various recreational opportunities such as paddling, fishing, birding, and camping.

The City of Corpus Christi approached staff requesting the release of 8.1 acres from the current lease. This would allow the City of Corpus Christi to lease that area to the City of Mathis for the installation and maintenance of water wells adjacent to the City of Mathis water treatment plant.

The 8 acres is composed of two tracts, one approximately 5.5 acres, the other approximately 2.5 acres. The requested tracts of land do not currently provide recreational opportunities to the public, and disposition of these tracts will not hinder park operations.

As you can see here, Lake Corpus Christi State Park is outlined in red. The area of the two tracts is circled in yellow. Here’s a close-up of the two subject tracts, as you can see both on the left and the right of the water plant.

As of yesterday afternoon, we’ve received 7 total comments– six agree, one disagree. The reason for disagreement is that the City of Mathis should keep this land accessible to the public.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A and authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to dispose of two tracts totaling approximately 8.1 acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park.

And I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Comments or questions?

Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We have a second down here.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That passes.

Action Item No. 11: Exchange of Land in Bexar County, Approximately 3 Acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area.

Trey?

MR. VICK: Again, for the record, my name’s Trey Vick.

I’m with the Land Conservation Program.

And I’ll be presenting an exchange of land in Bexar County, approximately 3 acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area.

Government Canyon State Natural Area is located in Bexar County, indicated here with the red star. It’s just on the edge of San Antonio.

Government Canyon State Natural Area consists of approximately 12,000 acres situated on the edge of the Balcones Escarpment on the northwest side of San Antonio.

The SNA is a karst preserve protecting the quality and supply of fresh water to the Edwards Aquifer. The SNA protects hundreds… protects thousands of acres of aquifer recharge zone, as well as portions of the contributing artesian zones.

The SNA is home to several endangered species found nowhere else in the world.

The Bexar County Emergency Services District, also known as ESD 7, has requested an exchange of land with Texas Parks and Wildlife of approximately 3 acres to construct a new fire station to serve the Kallison Ranch neighborhood and the surrounding areas, including the SNA.

TPWD and ESD 7 have worked in partnership and have identified two 3-acre parcels to complete the exchange of land. TPWD will retain access for a pedestrian and vehicle path for the SNA.

As you can see here, the SNA is outlined in red. The two areas that we’re discussing is circled in yellow. The ESD tract is the tract to the north, number 1. The TPWD tract is the tract to the south, indicative of the number 2.

Here’s a close-up of the ESD 7 tract that will be coming to TPWD. And here is an outline in yellow of the TPWD tract that will be going to the ESD 7 for a future fire station to protect, as you can see, the development around the SNA.

As of yesterday afternoon, we’ve received 11 comments– all 11 agree.

And staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A and authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to exchange one approximately 3-acre tract for another approximately 3-acre tract at Government Canyon State Natural Area.”

And I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Questions?

We do have…

Oh… Commissioner Galo, were you going to..

We do have one speaker who has signed up.

Kevin Clarkson, who is a District 7 Fire Rescue.

Welcome.

KEVIN CLARKSON: Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevin Clarkson.

I’m the Fire Chief for District 7 Fire Rescue. We service the area that surrounds Government Canyon State Natural Area.

First off, I’d just like to say I really appreciate your staff and all the hard work that everybody has put into seemingly a small project 3 acres is not a big deal to what you guys are dealing with on a daily basis, but the staff really put in the work and helped us get through this process. We service about 65,000 residents around that area of Government Canyon State Natural Area.

And this fire station is very much needed. It takes us about 15 minutes to respond into that neighborhood where we’re going to be directly placed in a fire station because of this action.

So, I really want to thank the staff.

This has taken a lot of work to be able to make this happen.  We met with the Conservation Advisory Board in San Antonio to get agreements to transfer these restrictions that are placed on this land to that new piece of property.  And staff has been very helpful throughout this process. Just everybody that we’ve interacted with at Texas Parks and Wildlife has been so helpful.  And I think it says a lot to the leadership of Texas Parks and Wildlife.

So, thank you guys for your time and effort.

I appreciate you volunteering your time to be here and to coordinate such a big organization, and something that’s so important to the state of Texas.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.

We appreciate your comments.

And very, very well received.

All right.

Any concerns, questions?

If not, I will entertain a motion to approve.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo, I so move.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That motion passes.

And thank you, Trey.

MR. VICK: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, you’re still up.

MR. VICK: I got one more.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Action Item No. 12: Land Acquisition– Edwards County– Approximately 1,200 Acres at Devil’s Sinkhole State Natural Area.

MR. VICK: For the record, again, my name is Trey Vick.

I’m with the Land Conservation Program.

I’ll be presenting a land acquisition in Edwards County of approximately 1,200 acres at Devil’s Sinkhole SNA.

Devil’s Sinkhole State Natural Area is in Edwards County, located here with the red star. It sits right outside of Rocksprings, Texas. The Devil’s Sinkhole SNA consists of approximately 1,860 acres in Edwards County.

The SNA is particularly known for the sinkhole, which is a national natural landmark that is approximately 50 feet wide and over 300 feet deep. The sinkhole is also known for being one of the largest homes… home of the largest colonies of Mexican free-tailed bats in Texas.

The SNA provides several recreational opportunities as one of the more unique state natural areas in Texas.

Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings and adjacent properties from willing sellers to minimize operational and management conflicts, and ensures the conservation of Texas State Park and Wildlife Department lands.

Staff has identified this tract adjacent to Devil’s Sinkhole SNA totaling approximately 1,200 acres. Acquisition of this tract will allow for future expansion of facilities and expand recreational opportunities on the SNA.

As you can see here, Devil’s Sinkhole SNA is outlined in red.

The subject tract proposed acquisition is outlined in yellow.

And as of yesterday afternoon, we’ve received 127 total comments– 126 agree, with one disagree.

The reason for the disagreement is they believe state natural areas should be converted to state parks to generate more revenue.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 1,200 acres at Devil’s Sinkhole State Natural Area.”

I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions?

If not, I would entertain a motion to approve.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, moved to approve.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Second?

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That passes.

MR. VICK: Thank you, y’all.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Action Item No. 13 is Land Acquisition– Brazoria County– Approximately 2,500 acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point).

STAN DAVID: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, Stan David with the Land Conservation Program.

This presentation is a land acquisition, Brazoria County, approximately 2,500 acres at the Justin Hurst WMA. The red star there shows the Brazoria County area where the Wildlife Management Area is located.  It’s approximately 60 miles south of Houston, close to the coast there. You can see the WMA listed with a small red star.

The Justin Hurst WMA is located within a league of land deeded to Stephen F. Austin in 1830, which was known as Peach Point Plantation.

The WMA consists of approximately 15,000 acres of coastal prairies, bottomland hardwoods, and marshes, and provides significant habitat for a number of resident and migratory species, including waterfowl and wading birds.

It’s bordered on the north by the Village of Jones Creek, on the east by Port of Freeport lands, and south by the Intercoastal Waterway.

One of our good conservation partners, the Coastal Prairie Conservancy, has identified a 2,500-acre tract adjacent to the WMA that is available from a willing seller. The current plan is for CPC to purchase the property and then donate it to TPWD subject to a conservation easement held by CPC.

Outlined in red is the WMA.  Outlined in yellow is the subject tract. As of yesterday, we had 166 total comments– 160 agree, 6 disagree.

Some of the reasons for disagreement: should be added to the hunting part of the WMA; and then also money should be spent on leased lands like Monahans and Hill State Park.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing donor approximately 2,500 acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area.

I’d be happy to answer any questions you guys might have.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Comments or questions?

I think we’re ready to vote on it.

Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I’m so moved, Scott.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Second, Galo.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That passes.

Thank you.

And Stan, you have the next one as well.

Land acquisition…

Oh, Action Item No. 14: Land acquisition– Marion County– Approximately 78 acres at Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area

MR. DAVID: Again, Stan David with the Land Conservation Program.

This presentation is to acquire approximately 78 acres at the Caddo Lake WMA.

You see the red star locating the Caddo Lake WMA.

It’s right on the Louisiana border. Zoomed in, you can see the Caddo Lake WMA and the Caddo Lake State Park are adjacent to each other, and at 20 miles northeast of Marshall.

Caddo Lake State Park was established in the 1930’s on the south shore of Caddo Lake in Harrison County. In the 1990’s, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department used North American Waterfowl Conservation Act, which we call NAWCA in-house, funding for expansion to state parks and wildlife management areas.

In ‘97, TPWD land holdings on the north side of the lake in Marion County were redesignated as a WMA, and their management assigned to the Wildlife Division.

Today, the WMA consists of roughly 8,100 acres that protect much of the lake and adjacent swamps, floodplain slopes, and upland forests that exemplify the habitats of northeast Texas.

Prior Commission approval in March of ‘21 allowed for the disposal of surplus lots in the Caddo Village subdivision. The disposal of these lots had federal funding attached to them; required a conversion or replacement acreage. Approximately 7 acres of surplus lots were sold, and the land sales proceeds can now be used to purchase a replacement property. Staff has identified approximately 78 acres in holding at the Caddo Lake WMA that is available from a willing seller.

The acquisition will provide greater continuity of ownership within the WMA and prevent future ownership of an in-holding. This acquisition also helps to further protect native habitat and provides additional recreational opportunities.

Outlined in red is the WMA, and you can see the in-holding outlined in yellow. It’s the shape of a flag. We call it the “flag tract,” in-house.

22 total comments– 22 in total agreement.

Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 78 acres of the Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area.

And I’d be happy to answer any questions you guys might have.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Questions?

Okay.

I’ll entertain a motion.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I’ll second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

That passes.

MR. VICK: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Action Item No. 15: Land acquisition– Limestone County– Approximately 6 Acres at Fort Parker State Park.

Jacob Aston.

JACOB ASTON: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners.

My name is Jacob Aston. I’m a project manager for the Land Conservation Program.

And today I’ll be presenting a 6-acre acquisition at Fort Parker State Park in Limestone County.

Here’s a county map showing Limestone County, indicated with a red star.  Here’s a zoomed-in map of Limestone County showing Fort Parker State Park, approximately 40 miles east of Waco.

Fort Parker State Park sits along the Navasota River and totals approximately 1,500 acres constructed by the CCC in 1935.  The CCC also created Fort Parker Dam, which created Fort Parker Lake, a 750-acre lake. The park then opened in 1941, and provides a wide array of recreational opportunities to the public to this day.

Staff have identified a 6-acre acquisition tract adjacent to Fort Parker State Park that is available from a willing seller. Currently, because access to the tract is through the park on Park Road 28, the tract is functionally a private inholding.

Acquisition of the subject tract would help eliminate potential access issues with future owners, prevent further development, and add operational utility to the park.

Looking at the proposed acquisition of land, Fort Parker State Park is outlined in red.  And on the northern portion of the park, the subject tract is outlined in yellow.

As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m., there have been 17 total comments– all in agreement. And staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 6 acres at Fort Parker State Park.”

That concludes my presentation, and I’d be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Comments, questions?

If not, I will entertain a motion.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Second…

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …by Patton.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

Thank you.

MR. ASTON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Action Item No. 16: Request for Utility Easement in Jefferson County– Approximately 2.4 acres at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area.

Ms. Whitney Gann.

WHITNEY GANN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chairman.

For the record, my name is Whitney Gann in the Wildlife Division. I’m the WMA Facilities Coordinator, and I’m going to present a request for utility easement at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area.

The J.D. Murphree WMA is located just along the Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson County, as indicated by the red star on the map. It is also positioned just southwest of Port Arthur proper. The J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area consists of approximately 25,500 acres of coastal marsh and open water within the Texas Chenier Plain, and is adjacent to the Sabine Neches Waterway. This WMA is divided into three units: the Hillebrandt, the Big Hill, and the Salt Bayou.

Entergy Texas requests an easement for a 500 kilovolt single-circuit overhead electric transmission line within the proposed varying 90-foot wide to 225-foot wide transmission line right away. The easement would be approximately 520 feet in length, and occupy approximately 2.5 acres. The proposed easement crosses the property adjacent to the Wildlife Management Area offices and storage space, and does not cross the recreational portion of the WMA.

You can see on the map here, outlined in red, is the boundary of the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area. And you can also see those three units, the Hillebrandt, the Big Hill, and the Salt Bayou. If we zoom into the very top of the slide next to the highway, you can see the yellow line indicates the point of crossing for this line.

We’ve received 5 comments for this proposal– three in agreement and two in disagreement. Those in disagreement cite a general aversion to industry on state lands, and one cited previous experience with a utility easement that was not positive.

Staff recommend the Commission adopt the following motion:

“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A and authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to grant an approximately 2.4 acre easement to Entergy Texas at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area.

And I’ll take any further questions.”

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Ms. Gann.

Questions, comments?

Do I hear a motion?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Galo, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

All in favor?

[CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

All right.

You’ll be disappointed to know that that is the end of the agenda.

[ laughter ]

Dr. Yoskowitz, the Commission has completed its business.

And I declare us adjourned at 2.11 p.m.

Thank you.

[ GAVEL POUNDS ]

In official recognition of the acceptance of these donations in a lawfully called public meeting of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, we hereby affix our signatures on this day of              .

_______________________________________

Paul L. Foster, Chairman

_______________________________________

Oliver J. Bell, Vice-Chairman

_______________________________________

William "Leslie" Doggett, Member

_______________________________________

Anna B. Galo, Member

_______________________________________

John A. McCall, Jr., Member

_______________________________________

Robert L. "Bobby" Patton, Jr., Member

_______________________________________

Travis B. Rowling, Member

_______________________________________

Dick Scott, Member

_______________________________________

Timothy "Tim" Timmerman, Member