TPW Commission Work Session Transcript
January 21, 2026

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

JANUARY 21, 2026

COMMISSION HEARING ROOM

4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744

COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: Good morning, everyone.

Before we begin, I will take roll.

I am Chairman Paul Foster.

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 McCall?

COMMISSIONER DR. JOHN A. McCALL: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?

COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

This meeting is called to order on January 21, 2026, at 9.04 a.m.

And before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement.

DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the Office of the Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as the Open Meetings Act. I would like this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

And Commissioners, as a reminder, please turn on your microphones and announce your name when you speak, and then turn your microphone off.

The first order of business is the Approval of the Minutes from the previous Work Session held November 5, 2025, which have already been distributed.

Do I hear a motion for approval?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And a second?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

So that passes.

Next order of business is the Approval of Minutes from the Regional Public Hearing held November 5, 2025, which have already been approved… distributed. Do I hear a motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERNAN: So moved, Timmerman.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

And a second?

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Second, McCall.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF AYES ]

Any opposed?

Work Session Item No. 1: An Update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Progress in Implementing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan.

It’s kind of a mouthful.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, it is.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We will have an Internal Affairs Update, Staff Recognitions, and Land and Water Conservation and Recreation Update.

Dr. Yoskowitz?

DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman.

Good morning, Chairman.

Good morning, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. I would like to provide you an update germane to the land and water related plan and functions inside the department. As is customary, I will start off with an Internal Affairs Update.

In early December of 2025, Captain Joel Parker attended the annual Use of Force Summit in Connecticut, hosted by the Daigle Law Group.

Summit focused on best practices and national standards related to use of force training, investigation and reporting.

Along with Captain Parker, more than 800 officers from across the nation were in attendance. In mid-December, Captain Johnny Longoria and Assistant Commander Jarrett Barker traveled to the Game Warden Training Center to participate in a defense tactics training update. The update included taser training with virtual reality, current handcuffing techniques, and weapon retention training.

In late September of 2025, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department was honored at the annual Artie Lee Hinds Awards Ceremony, earning a place among the Top 10 state agencies for active contracts and spending with WorkQuest, an organization dedicated to providing employment opportunities for Texans who are blind or have disabilities.

TPWD was represented at the ceremony by Reggie Pegues and Debra Rosas of the Financial Resources Division, along with Phillip Torres and Terry Turner of the Support Resources Division.

This recognition underscores Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s ongoing commitment to supporting programs that enhance lives and strengthen communities across Texas. The award honors the legacy of Artie Lee Hinds, whose lifelong advocacy for people with disabilities helped establish Texas Industries for the blind and handicapped, the organization that later became WorkQuest.  The department is proud to receive this recognition and continue supporting the WorkQuest mission.

Next, I would like to provide an overview of our accomplishments of our Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan for the second fiscal year of this ten-year plan, Fiscal Year 2025. We do this every January, report out on the latest fiscal year accomplishments.

The plan, which is the agency’s strategic and action-oriented guide, covers a period of ten years, which spans from Fiscal Years 2024 through 2033. It consists of three goals, 14 objectives, and 68 action items.

We tract our progress on a quarterly basis.  And of the 68 action items, 37 of those items are on an annual basis and 31 are multiyear-based actions.

These goals that… the three goals that encompass the plan are:

Goal 1: Practice, Encourage and Enable Science-Based Conservation and Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources.

Goal 2: Increase Access to and Participation in the Outdoors.

And Goal 3: Educate, Inform and Engage Texans in the Support of Conservation and Recreation.

For the second year of reporting, Fiscal Year ‘25, and the 37 action items that are annual-based, as you see here, we had 34 of those 37 items at a 90 percent or better, in terms of completion rate. Those accomplishments include providing technical guidance and education in areas such as land and habitat conservation, extensive management in fisheries and wildlife management, and expanding water education and engagement.

Ongoing education engagement is at the core of what the department does, and we have a lasting benefit such as sustainable use of our natural resources, improved public safety, stronger compliance and stewardship, and broader economic and community benefits.

Some examples of the 90 percent or better completion rate actions include: implementing 63 aquatic habitat restoration or enhancement projects; managing almost 16,000 aquatic invasive or nuisance vegetation issues to enhance fish habitat and fishing areas; and supporting public leased fishing access areas and stocked fish in the urban areas through our neighborhood fishing program; and many more activities.

There were three action items, however, that fell below the 90 percent, and I would like to address those with you.

The first is Action Item 1.2: Perform 1,500 project-based consultations annually through state and federal regulatory processes to inform the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. We achieved 88 percent of our annual goal.

Action 1.4: Restored ten acres of degraded and lost oyster habitats annually to contribute to the sustainability of the oyster fishery and resilience of Texas estuaries. We only achieved 58 percent of our goal this past fiscal year.

However, oyster restoration projects, as we know, typically take multiple years to accomplish. They are lumpy.

The full goal of the ten acres was not met in Fiscal Year ’25.

But it’s important to know that last fiscal year, 114 acres of restoration was accomplished.

And then Action 10.2: Providing fishing opportunities and related outreach to 30,000 visitors annually at the Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center.

Well, the Freshwater Fisheries Center closed down in August of 2023 for major facility renovation project, and it reopened this past July, in 2025, which resulted in our ability to only hit about half of our goal.

However, with the reopening and renovation of the facility, we expect to exceed our goal this coming fiscal year.

As mentioned before, the land and water plan includes 31 action items that are multi-year based. We are two years into ten-year program, and for a combined Fiscal Year ‘24 and ‘25, you can see the progress made on the chart in front of you.

While there’s a lot of orange or red, depending on which screen you’re looking at on this chart, which is below the 20 percent accomplishment rate, that is expected since the chart represents two years of a ten-year plan for land and water.

Examples, though, of 100 percent completion rate for multi-year actions are such as contributing to the state water plans and associated regional water plans, where we provided technical input– and this is working with Texas Water Development Board and the regional planning groups.  Also developing a state park land acquisition strategy that prioritizes land acquisition decisions put into full effect as a result of the centennial fund projects and management; and it enhanced the scope and functionality of the land management assistance system.

There are, though, ten items that currently fall below the 20 percent accomplishment rate.  Of those, many are being completed this year, and then also in 2028 and 2033.

However, one item that will be completed this year will be to perform a statewide assessment and prioritization of conservation opportunity areas to identify and focus conservation efforts on landscapes important to species of greatest conservation need.  And as I mentioned just a moment ago, many of the other items will be achieved in 2028 and 2033.

Eight items that are at 100 percent, though, there are more than just the three that I alluded to previously.

Chairman and Commissioners, the land and water plan is meeting its goals through the actions of the department and collaborators.

We are behind on a few of those items, both in the annual actions and the multi-year actions, but we are also ahead on other action items.

I will continue updating the Commission at each of our meetings as we move forward on specific action items.  But I will note that this process has illuminated the need, in some cases, to move annual action goals to multi-year goals, and examine what we may measure, and how, in the future.

We have an opportunity at the halfway point in the five-year mark to make those adjustments.

That concludes my presentation, Chairman. I am available to answer any questions you may have.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE ROWLING arrived at Dais.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Yes, Patton.

On the… so you.. we certainly appreciate the update here.

But does the department provide reporting to anyone at the legislature?

Are there any other reports directed towards the benefit of anybody else, or do we post it on our website?

What other reporting is there other than this?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: The major reporting requirement is to the Sunset Commission.  And that will happen when we come back up for renewal in…  I am looking at Craig when our next time up for…

CRAIG BONDS: Isn’t it…

For the record, Craig Bonds, Chief Operating Officer.

It’s every 12 years. So, we went through that in 2020.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: 2021, yep.

MR. BONDS: So, it would be 2032.

Right

DR. YOSKOWITZ: So the timing of this plan will then help inform that Sunset Commission process. But in addition to your question, Commissioner Patton, the statistics that we gather, the action items that we accomplish, we do share those, especially with our oversight committees as we go into the legislative process. So, House CRT and then the Senate Water and Ag.

MR. BONDS: Commissioner Patton, this is Craig Bonds again.

Just a little bit of extra flavor to that. I will note, for the benefit of the Commission, that many of the metrics that are in our land and water plan align very closely with… or are identical crosswalk with our legislative appropriation request measures.  Those are reported quarterly to the LBB.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Anything else?

All right.

Thank you.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Work Session Item No. 2: Financial Overview.

Mr. Reggie Pegues.

REGGIE PEGUES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Reggie Pegues, Chief Financial Officer, and this morning I will be presenting the Financial Overview.

I will be covering the following topics:

FY24 Revenue Summaries Through August and FY26 Revenue Summaries Through December for hunting/fishing license revenue, state parks revenue and visitation, and boat-related revenues.

And I will conclude with the FY26 budget adjustments through December.

First is a comparison of final FY25 revenues compared to prior years now that FY25 is complete. Beginning with license revenue.  Final revenues for License Year ‘25 were $114 million. This was a 3.6 percent increase over License Year ‘24. This was primarily driven by a $2 million increase in the resident year from purchased all-water package. And this number was also slightly higher than the five-year average of $112.8 million.

Moving on to state parks.

Final revenues for Fiscal Year ‘25 were $63.8 million, a 3.4 percent increase over License Year ‘24. This increase was spread across all lines, and pretty consistent with the five-year performance.

Up next is boat revenue.

As the chart shows, there was a slight decline from market year FY21 through FY24, with a slight uptick of 1.5 percent in FY25, to finish strong at $21.9 million.

Next, I will be covering FY26 activity through December.

Again, beginning with License Revenue, this is a five-year comparison of revenue. Year-to-date revenues of $77.7 million, or slightly ahead of last year at this time, through December.

This next slide is a more detailed two-year comparison by license type.

Overall, License Year ‘26 revenue is exceeding License Year ‘25 by 0.8 percent. The biggest increase was $700,000 in resident fish, and again, this was driven by the resident year from purchase package of $338,000, followed by an increase in non-resident hunt of $400,000.

Moving on to state parks.  This is a five-year comparison of state parks revenue through December.  Year-to-date revenues of $19.6 million, which is slightly higher than last year, and continuing a slight trend upward since Fiscal Year 2023.

Next is a more detailed comparison by fee type. Overall, FY26 revenue is exceeding FY25 by 2 percent.  The biggest increase was $271,000 for activities and concessions.

Moving to the bottom half of the page, we will go over visitation.

Overall, visitation and paid visitation are slightly down by less than 2.5 percent.

Moving on to boat revenues.

This is a five-year comparison of boat revenue through December.  Year-to-date revenues are strong at $4.7 million, and pretty much even with FY25 through this point.

Next is a two-year comparison by fee type.  As mentioned on the prior slide, overall revenues are pretty much consistent with FY25 in total, and also across the three lines for registration titles and retained sales tax.

This next slide is a cumulative summary of the monthly budget adjustments that were detailed in each of the monthly budget reports that you each receive.

Beginning with the budget you approved in August of $659.8 million– which also tied to the General Appropriations Act for 2026– the following adjustments were made.  And these are primarily unexpended balances from prior years.

The first adjustment was $100 million for House Bill 500.

This was the supplemental bill passed at the end of last session.  It was for the ‘24-’25 biennium, but it has UB authority into the current biennium, so we are reflecting it as part of our FY26 budget.

This amount consists of $60 million in directed local park grants, $21 million in headquarter capital repairs, and $9 million for vehicles.

Next is appropriated receipts of $48 million.  The majority of this relates to unexpended donation balances and damage reimbursements.

The next category is unexpended balances for capital and construction of $30 million.

Next is the largest category of adjustments, which is federal funds in the amount of $150 million.  About $90 million of this is related to unexpended balances for local parks, which they are working to obligate this year.

Next, we have fringe adjustments of $12.4 million.  These are adjustments related to retirement insurance and other fringe benefits.

And then we have a small adjustment for operating funds.

To recap, this gives us total adjustments of $342 million, the majority of which were related to the supplemental funding of $100 million and unexpended balances for federal funds brought forward. This gives us an adjusted budget of $1 billion as of December 31.

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

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Hi, Reggie. This is Commissioner Bell.

Just on slide 10 and slide 12, just on where you said the revenue to date was basically even with the previous year. Does that mean that since we’re are at this stage in the fiscal year, are we going to be trending above for the year-end, or are we trending even for the year overall, I guess is the question?

MR. PEGUES: We are trending even. Right now, they are at 4.7, and this is kind of the slow period. And so there will be a pickup in the latter half of the year. If it corresponds to last year, we should be right on target for the same amount.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

MR. PEGUES: And just overall, since you mentioned it, back in 2021, ’22, we had the COVID where there was a record year, and you have noticed kind of a slight decline as we kind of gravitate what we are calling kind of the “new normal.” And so that is just kind of part of just leveling off.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Doggett.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett.

Since we have closed out 2025, were there any trends that you noticed through the year that are of concern, or you think worthy of discussion in either Parks or Hunting and Fishing that we should pay particular attention to?

MR. PEGUES: No, and in fact, there was a slight uptick in– if I can go– yeah, you will notice there is kind of a slight uptick along all lines.

Again, there was a slight dip from the COVID years, right about FY24, and then there is kind of a trending upward.

So, I think revenues are pretty strong. And unless something out of the ordinary happens, we should be pretty strong for the remainder of the year.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So, on a revenue basis, you feel pretty sound and headed in the right direction?

MR. PEGUES: Yeah, both year-to-date through December and the five-year trend, again, we are still pretty strong.  But to answer your question, I don’t see any reason for alarm at this point.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So no category that gives you any concern?

MR. PEGUES: No, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

Kind of following up on Commissioner Doggett’s revenue trend, is there anything alarming about any type of expense trend, you know, correlating to the revenue? I’m guessing it’s going up, but it’s only a guess.

MR. PEGUES: Probably just the normal, I guess, inflationary cost postage, just the regular.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Nothing you see is alarming to you on the expense side?

MR. PEGUES: No, just, again, just the usual, you know. There’s usually… each year there’s usually postage increase, you know, just different type of items, but no one major item that I can think of at this point.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: And then, could you go to your last slide of the presentation on the adjustments, I guess?

Not that one. That one.

And I can’t really remember last year or the year before, the year before. Is that adjusted budget, you know, for 12/31/20…Isn’t that, isn’t that materially higher than the previous year, or is it roughly the same?

MR. PEGUES: Oh, the adjusted budget.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: The billion dollar adjustment.

MR. PEGUES: It’s not…

I’d have to go back, but it’s not materially different.

In fact, it was probably higher… what happens last year is, last year was the second half of a biennium.  And, we typically have authority to carry funds from the first year to the second year.  This is the first year of this biennium.  So, the adjustments are typically lower this first year.

And what’s driving this is the supplemental appropriation of $100 million, which, again, it was for ‘24, ‘25, but it comes so late in session.  We have an additional authority for two years. And then the other adjustment, $150 million of federal funds, they tend to have an extended life. But as far as the regular basic state funds, we’re probably lower than this time last year.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: But just as a general comment, I’m looking maybe for you to assure us that even though that seems like a big number to me for an adjusted budget, nothing alarming? There are nothing unusual or… in your opinion?

MR. PEGUES: No, Sir.

It’s just the way we typically have... at the end of the year, we look at unexpended balances. And so, the great thing is we don’t lose these funds. We carry these funds forward.

So that’s… I’d rather be reporting a UB than “we’ve lapsed” funds.

So, we’re good in that these funds have a longer life.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: On that line, can you explain a little bit how that works with the unexpended federal funds? Unexpended from a previous budget, or what is that?

MR. PEGUES: So yes, Sir.

All those amounts of UB are amounts from the prior Fiscal Year ’25 budget. At the end of the year, so our federal funds, we get an apportionment about midway through the year, February. So, they give us authority to spend funds.

If those funds aren’t obligated by 8/31, we have authority to basically encumber those funds in the subsequent fiscal year.

So, it just extends the life, you know, for two more years. And only because those funds were not obligated at 8/31. And we don’t… and those funds don’t lapse.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, in this case, that same $150 million, that was in our budget last year as well, but we just didn’t spend it?

MR. PEGUES: Yes, Sir.

Those amounts were in the budget last year.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Interesting.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Commissioner Rowling.

Reggie, you mentioned in the supplemental appropriation, some portion, I think you said $21 million was dedicated for HQ building renovation.

MR. PEGUES: Yes, Sir,

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Where does that project stand?

That might not be a question for you.  But I’m just curious, because those funds are allocated, where we are on that project.

ANDREA LOFYE: May I help you?

MR. PEGUES: Yeah.

[ laughter ]

MS. LOFYE: Good morning, Commissioners.

Commissioner Rowling.

The $21 million is broken up into several projects.

So, there are security projects within it. There are ADA accessibility projects both broken up.  And several of them are moving forward right now.

Of the $21 million, there was about $9.3 that is for the renovation and repairs to the overall building. And about six of that would be to develop construction documents for how we determine we are going to move forward with the renovations for the building.

There is another $1 million in there that is for a programming study that will look at the entire building, our staff, how our staff functions, potential consolidation of other facilities we have, the airport commerce parkway lease that we have, which we believe is going to be going away if the Austin Transit Project moves forward with federal funding.

So, there are many pieces of that.  And I’d be happy to break it all down and show you on paper where we are with each of them.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Other questions, comments?

Reggie, thank you.

Next, Work Session Item No. 3: Internal Audit.

Ms. Brandy Meeks.

BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks. I’m the Chief Auditor.

This morning, I would like to update you on last year’s and this year’s Internal Audit Plans, as well as recent external audits and assessments.

So, this and the next slide show the status of last year’s and this year’s Internal Audit Plans. Please make note of the statuses in yellow font to the right. Those are the projects for which we made progress since last we met.

As you can see, we had two carryover projects from last year.  We have now completed the audit of selected fuel transactions, processes and controls, and we are in the reporting phase for the audit of the TPWD Friends Groups.

We have also started five of our assurance projects.  We are in the field work phase for the Fort Richardson State Park Fiscal Control Audit, as well as the Surplus Processes Audit.

We are in the reporting phase for the Abilene and Possum Kingdom State Park Fiscal Control Audits. And we have completed the Law Enforcement and Communications Key Performance Measure Audit. We are also following up on all audit items due during the first two quarters of this fiscal year.

As far as external audits and assessments are concerned, we had no new projects started since last we met. And the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has completed the 2025 Expenditure Verification Program for the Non-Federal Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund, or the Dagger Island Project.

And that completes my presentation.

I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Comments or questions?

I have one general, and that is your staffing. I know that’s sometimes a challenge. Where are you now on staffing, and are you satisfied?

MS. MEEKS: So, I have.. we have put a pause on hiring any new Internal Auditors for the time being.

Yes, Commissioner Timmerman has recommended that we explore outsourcing. So that’s one reason I wanted to call a meeting after, at the end of today, is to discuss that.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, we can discuss that then.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Yes, we had… I’d suggested that we look at the possibility of outsourcing some of our auditing function, as we did over in LCRA. I know it’s been a challenge finding qualified staff for Internal Audit.  And the LCRA has gone to more of an outsourcing model for their audit function, internal audit function, and I thought we should at least take a look at that.

We had a meeting, I guess about a month ago or so, sometime in December, with our Internal Auditor at LCRA, and Brandy and Craig, and we discussed these possibilities. And I think we’re making some progress. I think we even got the template for their RFQ that they used at LCRA for acquiring outside services. So, we’re… I think we’re looking at the possibility of outsourcing some of this internal audit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Questions?

Thank you, Brandy.

MS. MEEKS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Work Session Item No. 4: Designation of Nonprofit Partners– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

James Murphy.

JAMES MURPHY: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.

I’m James Murphy, General Counsel to the Department.

And I’m here today to present an update to the list of designated nonprofit partners of the department.

So, we are statutorily authorized by the Parks and Wildlife Code to select and cooperate with nonprofit partners to serve department goals.  This is a really important statutory authority that we have at the department.

The Code requires the Commission to approve our list of nonprofit partners and establish best practices through your rulemaking power for handling of state funds and assets that are used by those nonprofit partners.

Most of these exist primarily for the purpose of a specific department program, property or facility.  Friends groups are the example that are the majority of our nonprofit partners.

Of course, we have one official nonprofit partner designated to support our overall mission and goals, and that’s the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation, our most important partner.

We do periodically update this list. The last one we had was in 2021, so we do have a number of changes since then.

Those are listed in Exhibit A.

We do have some updated contact information on a number of those.  We’ve added five new nonprofit partners to the list for your consideration today.

We have the Partners at Nail 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’ve also removed some partners from this list who are inactive or have disbanded.

Of note, the Mutual Association addition is contingent upon adoption of the rule package that I’ll present on the next item.

Also, if you have any specific questions about these partners, or really any of the friends groups or designated partners, I do have staff in attendance today to answer any of those questions.

So, comments.  As of this morning, no additional comments.

5 agree, 1 disagrees, specifically citing lack of oversight of nonprofit partners.

As I mentioned previously, we do have Commission rules that provide oversight of our nonprofit partners. Each nonprofit partner is required to enter an agreement with the department within two months of, or 60 days, of becoming a designated nonprofit partner, and that establishes all those protocols for cash handling, things like that.

So, with this, staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

Certainly, happy to answer any questions you have on this item.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Questions or comments?

Thank you, James.

Next is Work Session Item No. 5: Nonprofit Partner Rules– Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

And again, James Murphy.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.

James Murphy, General Counsel for the Department here to present a proposed revision to our rules governing nonprofit partners.

This rule change is related to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association. This is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization established in 1956, with the mission to provide financial assistance to the families of deceased members.  The goal here is to pay the death benefits within 48 hours. They’re guaranteed within 30 days.

These are really to help during that immediate period after the loss of a family member when expenses are coming up.  And this just provides some assurance that there’s a stipend coming to them.  Our membership: our current and former Texas Parks and Wildlife Department employees and their spouses; and, of course, that includes commissioned peace officers as well; our officers and directors of the Mutual Association, they are voluntary, they’re uncompensated, and they’re primarily current and former department employees.  And that’s the crux of the issue today with our rules.

We do have in that prior agenda item a recommendation to designate the association as a nonprofit partner, and that is contingent on this rule change.

The issue here is that our rules do not allow department employees to serve as officers of our designated nonprofit partners. That’s to create an arm’s length relationship with those friends groups and other partnerships.  But in this instance, there’s really no choice of the matter.

There is no other group that is going to be managing this association. There’s no significant income or revenue to pay for permanent officers or anything like that.

And so, what we are asking here today is to create an exception for the Mutual Association on that one specific part of our nonprofit rules so that they can go in with confidence with the ability to use our email accounts, have a web page on our website.  They do have a need for a membership drive to grow our membership here, and they want to do that on stable footing within our rules.

We think that this is an appropriate change. Our legal division has reviewed this. We do not think that there’s any real risk of a conflict of interest because there’s simply no discretion in the payment of death benefits.

It’s automatic, and they’re just there to shepherd that payment along.

As of this morning, no additional comments. 2 agree, no written comment provided.

And again, the request here is to place this on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and commission deliberation. And I’m happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Great.

Comments?

Thank you.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Work Session Item No. 6: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas 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.

Mr. 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 related 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 park stores and gift shops.  These range from small kiosks to larger operations, stocking merchandise, souvenirs, and other essentials like ice, food, drinks, and firewood.

These shops allow our visitors to acquire an item of comfort during their stay, and to take home a lasting memory from their experience.

State procurement rules govern purchases of items for resale at these shops.  And for common items purchased in bulk, these procedures can serve us well.

But for customized items purchased from local vendors in small quantities, often to test market performance at site-specific items, traditional state procurement processes can hamper our ability to efficiently and cost-effectively procure these specialty 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, number one, improve the visitor experience, and number two, enhance our operational efficiencies, all while maintaining effective and ethical accountability measures.

Staff seek Commission approval of 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.

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

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

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 TPWD’s gift shops.

Our main alternative has been to engage with nationwide marketplace vendors selling commonplace, non-site-specific merchandise, and forego that market testing.

TPWD has struggled with an inability to efficiently and cost effectively procure site-specific items or these customized products for resale, which we want to change by using the Concession Payment Card Direct Award methodology.

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.

These items are typically unique to a particular site or program, and lack comparable alternatives.

We would use the Concession Payment Card Direct Award process to engage vendors who offer tailored products or services that deliver the best value to our customers, providing distinctive items that meet customer demand, while also supporting local businesses.

As it currently stands, our typical purchasing process focuses on low bid or cost as the determining factor. In considering a Concession Payment Card Direct Award, an authorized employee making purchases for resale will consider a decision-making matrix through this qualitative assessment of product or service using these listed criteria on the slide.

And I’m not going to read all of them, but I want to point out this process brings better value to the customer by enabling individual gift shops to better customize their merchandise and services to meet site-specific customer needs.

The customer will benefit from this process because it enhances customer experience by enabling more diverse and appealing products tailored to visitor interest and site-specific offerings. It delivers greater value to customers by ensuring quality and appropriate quantity of our inventory.

The local economy will benefit from this 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.

And this slide depicts some images of a few examples of local customized products for resale at our state park stores.

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

The accountability measures will include single transaction and monthly cycle expenditure amount limits. In addition, the Concession Payment Card will be the only payment card used for the procurement of resale items.

And I’d like to point out that Exhibit A of this Commission agenda item provides a summary of internal policy and procedure requirements for procurement of goods and services for resale, which are comparable in rigor and in oversight to requirements for other current procurement methods available to the department.

For the second methodology, TPWD will use contracts with vendors or suppliers once a product’s performance can be verified and larger quantities are needed, and for gift shop staples that sell consistency like those food, drinks, snacks, firewood, et cetera.

The Contract Procurement methodology is an existing, well-established procurement process currently utilized as part of our standard purchasing procedures with established protocols through TPWD policy and purchasing procedures inclusive of employee and supervisor roles and responsibilities and controls to ensure accountability.

So, the take-home message is: this is not a new process for us.

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.

Most importantly, these methodologies would contribute to greater customer satisfaction and department operational efficiency, without sacrificing our accountability safeguards.

Visitors to our state parks and fisheries outreach facilities gain memorable experience connecting with each other and the great outdoors.  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.

As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m. — and we did check first thing this morning, and it still holds true– we’ve received 3 total comments all in agreement.

At this time, staff requests that this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

And that concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Bobby?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

My question may not have to do exactly with what we’re putting on there, but it is an observation at…

All right, well, maybe I need to ask a question.  Which of the little stores at the state parks do you think is the best one?

They’re not all created equal.  And I’m going to one in particular, cause… but what do you think, which one’s the best one, best performed?

MR. BONDS: Well, there’s probably many ways to define “best.”

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Mm-hmm.

MR. BONDS: And certainly, if you look at overall sales…

I’m looking at Rodney…

RODNEY FRANKLIN: Inks Lake.

MR. BONDS: Inks Lake State Park.  Any idea of kind of the overall economic activity there?

MR. FRANKLIN: I’d have to look.

MR. BONDS: Have to look, okay.

That’s certainly a busy one.

Is there…Tyler State Park’s another good example?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: I was thinking that, I mean, it looked to me like when we reopened the… oh, it’s not a state park, I guess.  Is Athens Fishery, is that considered a state park?

MR. BONDS: It’s not considered a state park, but it does have a gift shop.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: No, and I thought it was really nice,

MR. BONDS: It is.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: And it looked to me like Parks are… whoever was in charge put a lot of attention to detail.
I was curious if it performed better than its predecessor, and would that be under this procurement item?

MR. BONDS: It absolutely is. So, our gift shop at Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center, and there’s also a small kiosk at Sea Center Texas.

And I’m looking over at Tim Birdsong, our Inland Fisheries Division Director. We do tract sales and revenue over there. We can certainly get that for you. I would suspect that it’s going to perform better than it has in the past.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, it clipped me for a pretty good credit card bill.

[ laughter ]

But I thought it was fantastic. And, you know, obviously, it was brand new and well stocked and had a lot of interesting stuff in it.  But the more commerce… and I agree, I didn’t need anything that I bought there, but I was happy to have all of it, a coffee mug and Yeti cup and t-shirt.  But I thought it was great, and hopefully, this will help facilitate that.

MR. BONDS: Well, the last time I was in the TFFC gift shop, I purchased an Ethel fishing jersey, And so that was our first share lunker. So yes, I’ve spent a few dollars in the TFFC gift shop, too.

And I will show you… this is for you, Chairman Foster.  But I purchased this Challenge coin at the Franklin Mountains State Park gift shop, one of the last times we were out there. And it’s got a picture of some mountains on one side and a picture of a desert bighorn sheep on the other. I keep this on my desk in my office. And I glance over at it occasionally. It’s just a great reminder.

It takes me back to that moment when that trailer backed up, that door swung open, and those collared bighorn sheep bounded up that mountain. And so, it’s just a good way for people to take those items from those experiences at our facilities and just relive those moments through time.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I agree.

Thank you.

Yeah, that was a great moment, and one that I’ll always remember as well.  So, thank you for the memory.

A couple of questions that just come to mind with this process.  By the way, I think it’s good, I think it’s great, and it’s the right direction to go.  But it also opens us up to a little bit of abuse if we’re not very diligent about it.

It might be something, Brandy, that you want to add to your plan at some point to kind of make sure that it’s going the right direction, but what kind of limits do we have on these, and who manages that, and how do you make sure?

I know most of our employees are exemplary, but somebody out there might decide to bend the rules or benefit, you know, kind of a brother-in-law deal, or whatever.  And it just seems like something we’re going to have to really make sure we keep our arms around so that it doesn’t start getting away from us.

MR. BONDS: Absolutely, Chairman Foster.

We recognize and acknowledge that as well.  And so, one thing I want to remind the Commissioners that in Exhibit A, in this agenda item, we have some key elements from a policy that we have ready to go.

If this were to be granted tomorrow by the Commission, we have a policy that’s ready to be enacted that will help provide these accountability assurances.

We also stepped that down to a procedures document that goes into much greater detail about that. Each division– State Parks, Inland, and Coastal– that have these gift shops at their facilities, they have a credit… a purchasing card coordinator.  And in State Parks, we also have fiscal control specialists.  We have Brandy’s team in our Internal Audit shop.  And so, there are a number of safeguards that we’re putting into place.

As a matter of fact, a lot of the same safeguards that exist for our current purchasing card program exist for a Concession Direct Payment Card, with some slight exceptions that enable some operational efficiencies for direct award. And so, we do have our purchasing and contracting director, Debra Rosas, in the audience today. If you want to take a deeper dive into those safeguards and accountability measures, I’d be happy to bring her up and we can take a deeper dive if you want to.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, I don’t know that that’s necessary at this point, but it’s something that we may want to follow up on at a future meeting just to see how it’s going.

MR. BONDS: Okay.

Sounds good.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

I have one question.

And kind of going to what you’re saying, maybe, and I know that we’ve got some notes in the packet for tomorrow. I don’t know if the presentation tomorrow was going to include any of the kind of safeguard items, or I think that’s what everyone’s referencing. If that presentation includes reference to what’s here, that might be a simple solution. If it doesn’t include it right now, you might need to add two or three slides…

MR. BONDS: Okay.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …for tomorrow just to say here’s the key items that you were referencing.

MR. BONDS: I can certainly do that. I think we generically reference those. I pulled up slide 7 here, and I think these reference to those types of safeguards that we have. But if you would like some greater specificity, we can certainly add a slide to that.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I’m just saying it’s in line with the notes that we have for tomorrow’s packet.

MR. BONDS: Sure.

Okay.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Thank you.

MR. BONDS: All right, thanks.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Work Session Item No. 7: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session– Senate Bill 1245– Relating to the Take of Aoudad Sheep by Helicopter – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. Kory Gann.

KORY GANN: 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 a helicopter as a requirement of Senate Bill 1245 adopted during the 89th Texas Legislative Session.  I will conclude my presentation by requesting permission to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

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.

This bill took effect September 1, 2025. Aoudad, also known as Barbary sheep, are an exotic species introduced into Texas in the 1950’s, 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 helicopter.

Such changes are made throughout the rules, as necessary.

As of January 20, 21 people have provided feedback on this proposal, with 81 percent in agreement and 19 percent disagreeing either completely or on specific items.

The most common reasons for disagreement include:

Hunting aoudad from aircraft is not a humane method for controlling the aoudad populations.  Concern with shooting non-target animals.  Aoudad can be an important economic resource to landowners.  And enforcement and oversight challenges presented by aerial gunning.

At this time, staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

And thank you for your time and consideration. I’m happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

In one of your early slides, you mentioned that both the helicopter and the hunter have to have a specific license for hunting by helicopter, or did I misread that?

MR. GANN: So, the helicopter pilot or owner, that company would require an aerial wildlife management permit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

But the hunter… does the hunter also need an aerial wildlife permit?

MR. GANN: The question would be whether the hunter would need a hunting license.

And they would need a hunting license.

Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Just a regular hunting license?

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. GANN: Yep.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions or comments?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

So aoudad, unlike a hog or a coyote, might have trophy value to, and I hesitate to use the word “hunter,” we’ll say the habitat manager that’s got the rifle in the helicopter.

But certainly, in no way shape or form, is this really a hunting because the recovery of an aoudad as a trophy, for example, is not just precluded by… it is precluded by federal law, and this doesn’t change that.

Is that a fair statement?

MR. GANN: That’s a fair statement.

So, removing wildlife from a helicopter, removing aoudad from a helicopter, is going to be governed by the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, where sport hunting is illegal under that act.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: And are we as an agency, and specifically law enforcement agency, are we going to try and message… I suspect we don’t have a specific, you know, rule that would allow a game warden to write a ticket, but maybe we do.

I don’t know. Do we, to your knowledge? I mean, if a game warden observes, you know, the helicopter landing and they’re going to take the recovery trophy, it’s certainly a federal law. I’m unaware of if we have a state law for that reason.

MR. GANN: I’ll speak to the Wildlife Division.

So, we’re very consistent in our messaging to our permit holders and to phone calls that we get that that technically would be illegal under the Federal Airborne Hunting Act. As far as the enforcement side, I’ll let Kevin speak to that.

KEVIN WINTERS: Good morning, Commissioners.

My name, for the record, is Kevin Winters, Assistant Commander of Law Enforcement. For your question, Commissioner.

So, it is going to pose a difficulty. We currently, right now, do not prohibit them from going out there and collecting that animal. Therefore, it’s going to be up to law enforcement to determine whether or not that animal was done for depredation reasons or if it was done for sport hunting.

And there is not a citation. Any violation of the wildlife aerial management out of the helicopter is either reporting as a Class C citation or it would result in a Class A misdemeanor, which is an arrestable offense.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.

I guess I don’t have another question.

Maybe it’s just more of a comment that, you know, you’d hate to see someone make a mistake and maybe it’d be incumbent upon that helicopter operator. But maybe we should, you know, ignorance is no excuse for the citation.

But I do worry that someone, you know, might shoot an aoudad and they want to go recover it and then, boom, they’re in trouble and everybody’s in trouble. And I know people are aware of this, but it is different than a coyote and a hog.

To my knowledge, no one would go recover… I hope no one would, but maybe they would. But I think the aoudad, you know, might be a little different.

MR. WINTERS: No, Commissioner, I do agree with you.

One of the difficulties that we run into is currently in federal law they do not define sport hunting. And so that’s been one of the challenges that we’ve been faced with, is as game wardens going out there and investigating these cases and utilizing totality of circumstances on how we make a disposition on a case or whether or not we pursue charges.

But that is a challenge that has been brought up, Sir.

Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: All right.

Well, maybe we can start with we shouldn’t call the shooter a “hunter,” you know, which… just that simple messaging.

I don’t know how we characterize someone with a rifle and helicopter as it related to hogs and coyotes.  But I don’t know if we’d ever call them a hunter.  You know, it really is a wildlife management tool, habitat management in particular.

So maybe simple messaging.  This isn’t… this shouldn’t be trophy hunting. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But just to be clear, you did make a comment that it’s not illegal or against department rules to recover an aoudad that’s shot by helicopter, right?

MR. WINTERS: Correct.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: You just can’t do it for the purposes of a trophy.

MR. WINTERS: Yes, Sir, Commissioner, that’s correct.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That is a pretty fine line.

MR. WINTER: And it is a pretty fine line.

And there’s been instances where we’ve had cases where we’ve issued permits to individuals that were going up to supposedly shoot aoudad out of the helicopter for depredating reasons, and through our investigation have determined were doing it for sport purposes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

Just an odd question, maybe. Let’s say that at somebody’s house I walk into their trophy room and there’s an aoudad on the wall. Then what? How’d it get there?  Or what’s the ramifications? Not that it would be there, but if it was?

MR. WINTERS: Well, it would really, Commissioner, boil down to our investigation and determine how that was taken, if it was out of a helicopter, and boil down to our actual interview, speaking to those individuals, how it was done.

Obviously, one of the things that may come up is you went on this helicopter hunt for depredating aoudad, but you paid $6,500 when the guy last week paid $2,000. You know, why did you pay more? Was it a trophy ram that you were out after?

And those are all things that we have to follow up as game wardens on, and try to make that determination and get with, obviously, the courts, our leadership, and how we proceed with those situations.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Commissioner McCall.

I’ve got a couple of questions.

I was pretty clear until right now, and now it’s pretty blurry, but when you do a call…

For example, if you do a call operation over in Africa where there’s too many elephants and the land can’t support it and they’re going to strip the trees and that’s it.   So, you go out there, you don’t shoot a 100 pound elephant.

I mean, if you go over there and you’re doing a calling episode, you know, you call a lot of elephants, you leave the trophies out there.

Is there any kind of guidelines, if you’re truly going out there and calling them and there is a monster out there, to leave that one alone, take the rest of them out. Or is it just pretty haphazard to shoot everything you see?  I mean, what’s the rules there?

MR. WINTERS: There is no rules, Commissioner.

There’s no guidelines that have been set forth on which animals are exempt from being deemed “depredating” when it comes to aoudad.

MR. GANN: So, Commissioner, the removal of the animal would be at the discretion of the landowner. You know, they can give guidance to the pilot and the shooter. You know, we would only like to take these types of aoudad and leave the bigger rams if they want to. Really what we’re looking for is an avenue for them to help control the reproductive side of the population, is important. And so, controlling those ewes that don’t have maybe that same value from the hunting standpoint. And then nothing about this would preclude the traditional hunting from the ground, and the take of that trophy and the keeping of that animal.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Clear now?

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Little better clarity.

Yeah, if the landowner is selling hunts and they have some input in what they would not like taken, then it would make a little more sense.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

They have all control over that at that point.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.

MR. GANN: Thank you, Sir.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: It gets a little more muddy as we talk about this, but so is it permissible to have a paid hunter, or whatever you want to call them. You know, pay a landowner to go up in a helicopter and shoot aoudad? Or is there any regulations on that at all?

Is that permissible?

MR. WINTERS: Commissioner, so I’ve gone back to look at House Bill 716, which was the original pork chopper bill in 2011.

And when that bill was created, prior to that there was landowners that were contracting with pilots to go out there to assist with depredating coyotes and feral hogs, and paying them.

The bill was created in order to try to defray the cost to a landowner by allowing them either go up there or allowing someone to be an agent of the landowner, which would then pay the helicopter company and not come out of the pocket of the landowner.

That’s my understanding of the law, is it’s not intended for the landowner to make money, but to assist with defraying the cost of having to get a helicopter out there to reduce populations.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But in that instance, the shooter’s doing it for fun, right?

Or for sport, if you will. Why else would he pay to help eliminate, in this case aoudad, on somebody else’s land?

MR. WINTERS: I don’t have a really good response for that.

Because obviously, I agree.

It looks like sport hunting from a helicopter.  But that’s the way it was submitted back in 2011, and how it was submitted this past legislative session.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

Maybe just in terms of the way the legislation reads and the rules read, do we need to put language in the rule?  Can we clarify this via the rule, or does it need to go back to the legislature for clarification?

Because sometimes you can clarify things in the implementing regulation.

MR. WINTERS: Commissioner, I agree.

I think there is potential for us to probably make some rules that could limit some of this, and potentially have some sidebars that would prohibit people from sport hunting. But that’s obviously something that we would have to get with our leadership on, and see if it’s something that has to be done at the legislative level or if we can do that here at Commission level.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.

Commissioner McCall.

You might want to think about having them sign a waiver that says, “No matter how much fun I had, I did not enjoy this.”

[ laughter ]

MR. WINTERS: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments or questions?

It seems to me that this is something that even if we enact it now and put it in place, that we’re going to have to evolve with some rules and regulations and…

As we go, so.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, David Yoskowitz for the record. I think the key here is going to be education, education, education to the companies that have the helicopters and are going out for these depredating takings.

And then also, Kevin didn’t mention, but it’s well known here with the Commission is we have discretion also when we’re working with those that are in the helicopter with the pilots, landowners, et cetera.

So, I think as this rolls out over the next couple of years, a lot of education, a lot of discretion, and then maybe tightening up if we see issues happening on the ground.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Are there any rules on what kind of weapons can be used?

MR. WINTERS: No, sir, Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Next, Work Session Item No. 8: Chronic Wasting Disease Detection and Response Rules– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Again, Kory Gann.

MR. MURPHY: Chairman, I apologize.

James Murphy.

Just wanted to confirm that we’re comfortable moving this to Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think we are.

I’m kind of looking across.

So yeah, I believe we are.

MR. MURPHY: Very good.

Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Mr. Gann.

MR. GANN: All right.

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 changes to rules governing chronic wasting disease detection and response.

I will conclude my presentation by requesting permission to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

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 chronic wasting disease and other diseases, including avian influenza and now the New World Screwworm in Texas, despite having distinctly different roles and responsibilities defined in statute.

TPWD operates under the 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 the 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, 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 this 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 rule 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, 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.

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

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

Additionally, the proposed amendment would require persons transporting carcasses 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” 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-tail deer and 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-tail 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 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 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 each transfer are authorized under an approved disease management plan.

TPWD recognizes that there may be a 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 antemortem 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 also 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 in disease management plan standards and example scenarios staff may be faced with.

Report back to the Commission on the status of compliance with disease management rules.

And continue to engage with appropriate advisory committees.

As of January 20, 146 people have provided feedback on this proposal, with 5.5 percent in agreement and 94.5 percent disagreeing either completely or on specific items.

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

The proposed amendments are supported by both the TPWD White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee and the TPWD Private Lands Advisory Committee and the Texas Conservation Alliance.

At this time, staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

And thank you for your time and consideration.

I’m happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Questions or comments?

COMMISSIONER GALO: I have a question.

If you could go back to slide 15.

Oh, I guess maybe it was 14.

I’m sorry.

The one before that.

MR. GANN: The comment slide?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Yes, the comment slide.

Yes.

At the very bottom, it says that this is supported by the TPWD White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee and the TPWD Private Lands Advisory Committee. When was the last time that they met?  Because there’s… I mean, I’ve been told that they haven’t met in a very long time.

MR. GANN: So, we met with the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee and the TPWD Private Lands Advisory Committee in a joint meeting, I believe it was October 15, and actually presented this rules package directly to them.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.

MR. GANN: There was some concern about the transition that we needed to make sure that our authority was covered for CWD management.

So, we presented this package to them, gave them some background on the current transition from Texas Animal Health Commission to TPWD on CWD management, and gave them a few other updates as well.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Was all… were everybody invited to these… to this meeting or…

MR. GANN: So, the full membership of both advisory committees was invited.

Yes, ma’am.

And so, we had members in person.

We held it over at TxDOT.  And then we also had members online.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. GANN: Yes, ma’am.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

I just had one question on the, just, I think it was on slide 11 where it referenced all trace-out facilities set to not-movement qualified.  I know that we went through that big set of rules last year. Is that in line with the rule package that we set out there?  Because it seems… I know we had a lot of discussion over, you know, if this facility is clear, something’s been moved out of here and it’s over here now, you come up with a positive over here.  You don’t necessarily know where that happened depending, because we don’t have a timeline here.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And so, you know, it’s… all of this is kind of, it’s…

We have perfect imperfections here.  We’re trying to do it right, but we don’t know every single thing. So, I’m just trying to, as we just look at that statement.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: One of the issues we were dealing with was how to be cognizant of disease issues, how to be fair, how to be protective, how not to adversely impact commerce, right?

All of those things played in.

So just, if that’s consistent with what we’ve said in that rules packet, then I don’t really have an issue. I just want to make sure we’re not creating a rule contrary to something we passed while we’re just trying to say this. Because we’re really talking about our authority to do this, versus trying to make rules for something right now.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.

So, we’re running those traces as consistent with the rules.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

MR. GANN: We do have instances where obviously when a positive detection comes in, that trace happens immediately because we’re trying to prevent the movement of infected animals from moving elsewhere.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Sure, sure.

MR. GANN: And so, then we’ll work with those facility owners based on the rules because sometimes we’ll need to work through their testing. “Okay, you’re clear here that animal was tested,” all of those things, and get them back up and moving.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Right.

MR. GANN: Yes, Sir. No problem.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And so, when a facility is designated NMQ, what do they have to do to get rid of that designation?

MR. GANN: It’s going to be dependent on a specific facility, but there will be some testing regime that’s going to be required, CWD testing regime in that facility to get them cleared.

So it may be that they need to test, post-mortem test, the individual trace animal that left the positive facility and went to their facility for them to be designated as a trace.

It may be that they need to… that animal is no longer available, and so there’s a certain amount of anti-mortem testing that they’re going to be required to do. But it’s really going to be tailored to that individual facility.

And that’s where these disease management plans are going to come into play because they’re going to be tailored specific to what those requirements are for that facility.

CHRIS CERNY: Commissioner Bell, for the record, Chris Cerny, Branch Chief of Administration and Research for the Wildlife Division. Just want to clarify to your question specifically, that bullet regarding “suspect” versus “positive.”  To Kory’s point, when that initial detection occurs by TVMDL, it’s considered a “suspect” detection.

And that sample has been sent off to the National Lab, the NVSL Lab in Ames, Iowa, for confirmation. And our rules simply referenced that upon detection of a “suspect” positive, that those trace facilities are sent to NMQ. This is simply clarifying that when that “suspect” positive is confirmed at NVSL, that that NMQ designation remains.

It changes nothing about our approach to managing the continuing process of working with those trace facilities after that confirmation.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: That’s fine.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, with 90… I forget what the number was, 95 percent commenters opposed. It kind of draws… it makes you question whether or not we’re getting this right.

Dr. Yoskowitz, would you comment on that.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Some more… do you want this Commission to have some more elaboration on what those… could you go to that slide, Kory? It’s in here.

And we have some, sorry, we have some snippets of what the reasons for disagreement are.  Would you want to see more of that? What those specific disagreements are?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, yeah, I mean, I think…

I mean, out of 146 comments, only eight people agree. It just, it draws to question whether or not we’re getting this right. So yeah, I think we should delve into it more.

MR. CERNY: Chairman, if I could perhaps provide, at least from my perspective, some context for this rule package. It’s being prompted by in response to the fact that Texas Animal Health Commission has moved into a new era, from their perspective, regarding their response to chronic wasting disease management. Nothing in this rule package is intended to change our approach to the management of CWD in positive or trace facilities.

We are continuing to assess and mitigate that risk just as we have in the past, except we need our rules to clarify that it is now going to be Texas Parks and Wildlife doing that from our side alone, not necessarily with the benefit of those quarantines and hold orders that we were able to rely on Texas Animal Health Commission to issue.

So, from at least a very high level, this rule package is simply intended to allow us to continue doing exactly what we’ve been doing, which is prompt response to attempt to mitigate the risk of CWD when it’s detected.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Chairman, if I may.

I agree with you. There’s a lot of people that really do disagree with this plan. And I think that it does change a lot of what we have been doing in the past when we were with Texas Animal Health Commission.

And, as you know, at the last meeting I had some very big concerns.  And I left that meeting and I’ve been thinking about a lot that was said there and a lot about this particular rule package.

And if you may favor me, Chairman, I actually put a statement together because I don’t want to… I felt like I left a lot of things unsaid at the last meeting.

So, if you don’t mind, I’m going to read, and maybe that will clarify some of the reasons that people disagree with this rule package.

Texas A&M studies put the total economic output of white-tailed deer hunting in Texas at around $9.6 billion– $4.6 billion for hunters and $5 billion from landowners, encompassing expenditures on licenses, lodging, feed, management, and more.

Additionally, it generates tens of thousands of jobs across the state.  Chronic wasting disease is a threat to this vital cornerstone of Texas’ outdoor recreation and its economy. Unfortunately, CWD remains an incredibly difficult disease to manage due to the ease of transmission, the elusive detection in infected animals, its extended incubation period, and its tenacious persistence in the environment once it’s introduced.

Because we now know that there are two primary sources of exposure, one, CWD-infected deer, and two, a CWD-contaminated environment, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department must continue a rigorous statewide surveillance program, follow effective protocol for action in the instance of detection, and especially prevent its spread pursuant to TWD [Sic]/CWD management plan.

While the TPWD plan to deal with CWD was meant to be dynamic and evolving, TPWD cannot accept the proposed rule which grants, quote– and I quote– “grants TPWD staff explicit authority to develop disease management plans for trace and positive facilities,” end quote; and especially that which relates to the movement of animals out of an infected location.

The department has determined that allowing breeder deer to be moved from an exposed location represents an unacceptable risk of spreading CWD to native, free-ranging, and captive deer populations unless a determination based on the particulars of a given circumstance indicates the risk is neither nonexistent or acceptable.

The above proposed discretionary approach to management resulted in TWD [Sic] staff electing to release 13 bucks from a CWD-positive facility onto an immediately adjacent uninfected site, something which under the previous rule, and adhering to previous protocol, they would not have had the authority to do.

The release was done in mid-September of 2025. One month later, one of the bucks released under the disease management plan tested positive for CWD on the release site; and a second buck from the same group a month and a few days after that. There were 11 properties that were directly exposed to the department’s action… exposed by the department’s actions– 11 properties.

The recent documented disease spread due to deviation from the previous rule adopted during the period where the Texas Animal Health Commission was managing CWD with TPWD is incontrovertible evidence that we cannot deviate from those previously established safeguards. To date, CWD has persisted, spread, and increased in prevalence in nearly every area where it has been introduced.

Unfortunately, because currently there are no known management strategies to successfully mitigate the risk of indirect transmission once an environment has been contaminated with infectious prions, disease prevention is the only prudent recourse.

The best way to manage CWD is to prevent its introduction into new areas and limit its spread.  Established safeguards cannot be abandoned. Discontinuation or deviation from prior proven protocol exposes the department to potential liability as CWD will certainly spread to neighboring properties unless established CWD containment procedures are followed.

The department cannot revert to methods from the past which we know caused the spread of this ultimately fatal disease.  We must recognize the need for full cooperation and partnership between the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commissioners and the department and its staff, and continue to implement the plans and procedures which were developed and incorporated as the epidemiology and management of this disease became better understood, and until science provides a new and a better plan.

Those are my comments.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That’s impressive, first of all, and I appreciate you doing that.

It does… it’s kind of a wake-up call to us to make sure that we keep our eye on the ball. It causes me to ask the question, gentlemen, that I know we’re being forced to implement new rules because of the Texas Animal Health Commission’s withdrawal from this area.

And I want to make sure that what we’re doing doesn’t dilute our efforts to manage this disease, and that we, by trying to step in and replace Animal Health Commission’s role, that we don’t change our mission.

And I think that’s a lot of what Commissioner Galo was talking about.  And so, I just would ask you to comment, first of all, on her statement because that was quite a statement.

MR. CERNY: Indeed, and much of what you said, Commissioner Galo, we absolutely agree with. Our goal is to mitigate the risk of CWD and prevent its spread. That’s absolutely this agency’s mission.

And so, we have been working diligently since 2015 upon that initial detection of CWD in a captive facility to that end.  It’s a complicated process of working with individual facility owners to come up with the best management strategy that achieves effective management.  And in this specific scenario there were unique instances around that initial detection that led to a number of questions.

And so, we wanted to work with that facility owner to implement as rapidly as possible a response that was responsible, but also provided for confidence in what we had seen in that initial antemortem testing, followed up by some postmortem testing that conflicted. And so, our goal, though, is absolutely to prevent the spread of CWD.

So, we agree with you. And I want to make that very clear, And that is our best effort.

To be able to continue to do that at this point, though, we do not have Texas Animal Health Commission hold order or quarantine authority to fall back on, and we do not have the ability to work with them on the development of herd plans for native cervids in captive facilities at this time.

And so, without this rule package, I worry that our ability to respond effectively could actually be hampered in terms of the ability to rapidly address new detections.  And that we know, without a doubt, is paramount to ensuring that the disease does not get away from us, that ability to rapidly respond.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Chairman, but I feel that these rules do, to use your words, dilute, you know, our efforts, and they are very relaxed compared to what we’ve been doing in the past with the Animal Health Commission.  And I don’t think that we should go forward with this rule package.

I think we should pull it. I think we should get all the stakeholders together.

The CWD Task Force was not briefed on any of this.  And I just really feel like there are a lot of stakeholders out there that feel…

First of all, I am amazed by the knowledge throughout this state of these individuals that are on these different task force, these stakeholders, these different groups.

They have so much knowledge, and they are so willing to share it with us.  And everybody wants to come up with an effective plan. But I really feel like this time around we did not reach out to them and get their opinion.  And I feel like that’s why we have such a high percentage of people that are against this particular rule package.

I agree that we do need to clarify some things in a new rule package.  But this rule package, I mean, I can’t even say that I can pick out here and there things to amend to make it work.

I think we need to kind of go back to the drawing board and come up with something much better than what’s been presented here.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: If I could.

Commissioner Doggett here.

I would say this. The rule package, really, there’s no consensus. What Commissioner Galo was saying is her statement just tells you why there’s 93 percent disagreement, and that’s not the case.

Because the vast majority of the disagreements are the system is overregulated, and we need less regulation or minimum standards, when she’s saying we need more standards, right, or be more regulated.

So, the vast majority of this 95 percent don’t want any regulation. or very minimal regulations is the way I’ve seen it over the years.

I’d say we spent a lot of time and energy this last year and… under Commissioner Hildebrand, Chairman. And I think what we’re doing is sort of codifying that, and then putting the role under the Texas Parks and Wildlife.

My vote would be to let’s see how that plays out and monitor and measure the disease as we do, and see a report on that every month. On the new rules that we implemented last year, see how effective that process is.  I agree with Galo, Commissioner Galo.

I mean, we got to get our arms around this. It’s just we spent so much time and energy trying to accommodate both ends of the spectrum, and that’s tough because everybody’s so passionate about it.

No standards versus very strict standards.  And I think a couple years ago we were at the very strict standard stage, and we tried to pare that back some to accommodate landowners and hunters.

So, in my view, just my view, certainly not the Commission’s view, I suspect, or nobody’s polled that, is it’d be very interesting to see how the measurements we enacted last year take effect, and see what the results of those are, in my view.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Sure.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

What… first, Anna, I appreciate your passion.

I agree with your remarks.

What I was trying to… I was reacting… before you made your comments, I was just reacting to the reasons for disagreement, which, as you point out, Commissioner Doggett, seem to be on both sides of the fence, right?

So, there’s not, we don’t have, it’s like, it’s not 93 percent over here or 93 percent over here.  Because if half the group wants it regulated, half the group doesn’t want it regulated, we’re accumulating and we’re getting to our 93 percent. But the issue, one of the issues here, and I think my proposal might be leading back to, Anna, you and I may have to get back together with those groups again and be out there. But my impression of today’s action was to just get, to kind of keep it simple.

We’re not trying to make new CWD rules. We’re just trying to clarify that TPWD is over CWD right now. That was… that’s where I thought we were trying to go.

So, with the fact that we need to get a rule set that clarifies that we are responsible for this, you know, my suggestion is that we would move forward. If we’re trying to talk about specifics in the rule, no, I think before we get to specifics, you know, the fact that we’re responsible now allows us to say we need to go and reconvene the White-tail Deer Committee.

We need to go and reconvene the Private Lands Advisory Committee and meet other stakeholders and see how this is going to roll, how we might roll this out on the backside.

But if, and I’m not saying that our rule, that our proposal is perfect today, but what it does, it makes sure that somebody is responsible rather than waiting to assign responsibility.

Because Texas Animal Health Care [Sic] is out of it, right, and I think, quite honestly, I think they’re kind of pleased to be out of it.

And they’ve got other things to save grace over, honestly.

They’ve got a full spectrum.

And also, with the New World screwworm piece popping up, they’ve got a lot to do on that side of the fence making sure that they manage how that’s going to be handled.

So, they’ve got a tall order to go after.

But if we have… if the point of clarity here is just saying that we’re trying to establish the fact that TPWD has the reins for CWD management, that’s the way I distill down today’s rule set versus specific steps we’re taking along the way, which the specific steps we’re taking along the way, we need to go back and put those working groups back together, and talking about it, and as many, you know, members of the Commission or other staff that need to be involved with that as possible.

But does that… do I sound, from what you were saying, do I sound far off?  Am I misunder… am I not including or taking into consideration your thought process also or?

COMMISSIONER GALO: You are taking into consideration my thought process, but I want to add that I’ve been told that this entire package was not presented to the committee, just a high level overview.

And a vote was not taken within the committee where they unequivocally said that they agree with this rule package.

And I understand that we have to clarify things because now we’re flying solo without Texas Animal Health Commission on this.

But our first attempt, you know, to do something on our own with this kind of disease management plan went awry, for lack of a better word.

I mean, this department ended up moving infected deer into a release site where there was no disease, and two animals ended up being infected.

And it’s… it has put, what did I say here, 11 properties, surrounding properties, and they were directly, you know, exposed to CWD because it is more lax.

Your approach is more lax.

And I don’t think that, we need to start strong.

And if you want to start getting, you know, as time goes on, you want to make these decisions and be a little bit more flexible, I can understand.  But not at the get-go because it’s… Texas Animal Health Commission are the experts in managing disease, and we are not.  And we are just starting, we’re just starting.  So why are we going to just start off, and let’s be lax and let’s be nimble, and, you know, and let’s make these management plans less regulated?

Hey, I’m… I know that you might think because of this issue that I like regulations.  Actually, I don’t.  But there are specific situations, and specific businesses, that need regulations for the safety of others, and in this case our native deer population and private landowners.

I mean, there are reasons for regulations to protect the public.  And so, I think that we shouldn’t start off automatically just being more relaxed on how we deal with CWD because we’ve only got one shot to do this right.  And I don’t want to be sitting up here, and everybody say, “Wow, they really messed up.  When they were on their own, they really messed up.”

I don’t want to be sitting here, and look back and say we made a huge mistake by trying to be so flexible on these management plans.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Commissioner Rowling.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Go for it.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Said it a little bit differently.

I mean, while I understand we have to change language and add things with managing this ourselves at THC [Sic].

I mean, this rule package still allows for this discretion that would allow for what just happened to happen again, I guess.

And I think everybody received this memo that kind of laid out what happened.  And then this chart that talks about previous examples, what was followed, kind of processes followed. And it’s just a green and red chart. And the processes that were not followed in this most recent situation. So, it was enlightening to me that clearly we’re not following the same processes that were followed before. And as far as I understand it, I get it that we’ve got to change language, we have to…

We’re taking over more responsibility here. And so a lot of that’s clarifying language. But it appears to me, unless I’m missing something, that the discretion is still there to do the same thing again.

I mean, not that… I know we learned lessons, right, maybe we wouldn’t do it again.  But the discretion is still there to do the same thing again that we did in the fall this last year, as far as I understand it.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

Maybe our… by the way, and I’m not married to anything except my wife, so I don’t feel like I have to move anything forward or hold anything up. And by the way, I enjoy being married to my wife, she’s wonderful.

[ laughter ]

So don’t get…

So, for the record, Commissioner Bell, right, I enjoy being married to my wife.

[ laughter ]

But, and maybe, if, because, again, my biggest concern here is just in terms of clarifying where the oversight is, maybe a compromise and thought process overnight could be we would like to move forward with the rules packet, but we’re not going to take any action.

Everything is going to be frozen in place for any actions until we put all those… until we put some group… And that’s something we say in the military, “combat critical,” right? That we could… so we can get together on the other side, start having all the stakeholders come together to see what those ultimate rules might look like, since they’re… since the case in point here seems to be this particular issue that happened back in September.

MR. CERNY: If I could offer. What I’m hearing is concern with, again, the development of the disease management plan itself, and understood that there is concern around the process for input, the discretionary nature of those.

I would offer that that process has been discretionary in nature in terms of the negotiations between the department and previously Texas Animal Health Commission and that facility owner.

We’ve certainly had, and have had, you know, flavors of plans that have adapted over the years, but it’s always a negotiation. And in this case, there were some very unique scenarios.

I would also like to offer that in this same period of time we have moved forward with the management of CWD and several other facilities that led to depopulations.

We’ve continued to attempt to address this disease as best we can, and each scenario which is unique, unique in terms of the specifics of the epidemiology of the disease and its detection in that facility, unique in terms of the interaction with the landowner and that facility owner and what they are or are not willing to do.

And what we’ve learned is that active management of the disease provides our best opportunity to ensure that we don’t allow it to get away from us.

So, what I worry about, if we don’t move forward with this, is that we would lose that ability to rapidly respond to new detections, even if it led to the ability to initiate a depopulation if there was the ability to move forward with that.

And so, what I’m hearing would be that what we need to work on is the process by which we seek input on what the contents of a disease management plan are, or the guardrails around what those look like.

Each of those is an individual negotiation between the department and that facility owner.

Previously, again, with Texas Animal Health Commission and USDA.

But again, this rule package, as far as, again, from my perspective, does not change anything regarding the department’s approach to CWD management.

It simply acknowledges that we no longer have Texas Animal Health Commission to provide quarantines and hold orders and to be a signatory on herd plans.

So, the concern is around, again, our development of those disease management plans.  But our response to trace facilities is unchanged.

Our response to managing the disease within a positive facility on initial detection is unchanged.  We will work to develop a disease management plan with that facility.

The immediate requirements for that facility remain unchanged. It’s simply that process by which we come to agreement on what the contents of that disease management plan should be.

And so, if I would offer, Kory’s put up on screen for us some of the processes that we intend to put in place to address those concerns.

We do intend to seek input about how we will come up with the best science-based approach to ensure that disease management plans mitigate the risk while also leading to active management, not leading to a stalemate where we allow the disease to fester in a facility.

It’s a balance of that best science along with those best available management options that we’re seeking to accomplish here.

And so again, this rule package is very important, and I’m worried that delaying it would put us in a position where we may not have the ability to move forward with quick action and decisive action in the face of new detections within positive facilities.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCall.

I’ve got a few comments.

Being not quite as battle-scarred as the rest of y’all are on this, being the rookie on here, I did spend hours reading about prion disease and exactly how that goes and how it is specific for different species, and how it reacts differently.

And all the way down to, you know, when I first started reading about this, you know, what contaminates land until you realize that the neural protein that gets twisted, number one, the place for that is the brain, number two, is in the intestines because that’s the second area.

So, I had to connect all the dots just to really feel how this thing worked.  Because when I first read it, I said, “None of this makes any sense.”

So, I can imagine how hard it would be for somebody that hadn’t read, you know, medical journals their whole life to understand how this thing works. It does broke up, it does break down into, you know, there’s a lot of difference between a breeding facility and a release facility.  And I think we were a little too strict on some of the release facilities.

If you bought an animal and released it, and then, you know, 12 months later, there was a positive over here at the original facility.  And it was a little draconian to go out there and say, “We’ve got to wipe out all this when we don’t even know it was transferred over there.”  So, I understand there’s got to be some compromise here somewhere.

I do appreciate your passion, Commissioner Galo, and I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I just think that it’s very complicated to put a very strict set of rules down when 95 percent of people don’t go against it. We should be something around 50/50.

We’re never going to get any better than that. But if we got around 50/50, I think we’d be pretty good.

Final comment.

I’m like Commissioner Bell.

I think I’m following your train.

I do think we need a rules package.  Because if we’re sorted with the Texas Animal Health Commission out of it, we’re almost in no man’s land here without some rules that at least recognize the fact that this falls upon our department and our department does take the risk.

And Commissioner Galo has said those risks need to be mitigated, they need to be controlled.  But at the same time, some of the areas can be loosened up with some very strict guidelines to prove that is a sterile population before we overreact to it.  So, I hear everything, but I do think some type of rules package, you know, probably does need to go forward.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I want to make a few comments.

First of all, the issues we’re talking about from the facility in September where there were some questionable releases, or whatever. That doesn’t have anything to do with the new rule package, right?  I mean, the new rule package hasn’t been adopted yet.

So those issues, if mistakes were made or if the rules aren’t working, that was already… that’s just something we’ve already had in place and are dealing with, right?

COMMISSIONER GALO: No.

Oh, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is the first time we’ve done it without consulting.  We did it differently.

COMMISSIONER GALO: We did it differently. And they did not, or correct me if I’m wrong, have the authority. Because under the rules we have presently, they didn’t have the authority to do that, did they?

MR. MURPHY: Commissioner Galo, James Murphy, General Counsel.

So, the rules essentially codify the practice that has been ongoing since Animal Health Commission’s rule package was adopted in August of last year.

And so, the rules, and Chris and Kory can certainly correct me, I think reflect essentially how we’ve operated since Animal Health Commission stood down in the cooperative work.

And so, I think we are… have been in a bit of a gray area for some time since Animal Health Commission withdrew from the Herd Certification Program and changed their rules.

You heard a bit from staff that certainly they’re attuned to the concern of the unfortunate outcome at that one facility.

Up on the slide, what you see here are a series of management actions that are intended to address some of the concerns in that memo that you received from that stakeholder group.

And this would be after adoption of the rule, but an internal process. There was some discussion of a pause.

Certainly, Chairman, you can instruct Director Yoskowitz and staff to wait to issue any disease management plans until there’s been development through the task force, or whatever your directives are; development of some minimum standards perhaps for disease management plans that aren’t currently presented in the rule text.

So, you’re faced with a choice here today, Chairman, of, you know, essentially supporting the rule, adopting it, and then having the process of developing standards that would go into that disease management plan, or postponing this rule and having those standards for a disease management plan get embedded into the rule text.

I think what you hear from staff here today is a concern with waiting that latter option where, you know, there would be question about sort of the quarantine authority.  There would be questions about issuing any disease management plans.

And staff, I think, has, you know, expressed, you know, repeatedly to me and others a concern with letting the disease cook, so to speak, in a facility without the ability to enter a disease management plan. That facility is locked down.  The disease cooks.

And there may be a pathway to, you know, releasing that facility with appropriate safeguards through this disease management plan, which also can release and free up other traced-out facilities and trace-in facilities as well.

So, I think that’s the choice just to condense it down very quickly. I think do you want standards in the rule as proposed, in which case I think we would have to go back to the drawing board, propose you a new rule, or move forward with this one and either follow up with a subsequent rule that has those standards in place or through internal guidance to Director Yoskowitz to accomplish that same result.  Certainly, offer to others to clarify anything I mentioned.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, and I’m personally inclined to do as you suggest, and that is implement the rule package that’s been presented with the clarification that we are going to… this is going to be a continual process, and we’re going to make it better and we’re going to address some of these gray areas.

And the other is, as Commissioner Galo pointed out, we got to be sure we’re following the rules. You know, you can put all the rules out there you want to, and if you’re not following them it doesn’t do a lot of good and you end up with a bad outcome.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Chairman, may I?

I think we didn’t follow the rules back in October that we have in place right now. And I don’t… I just think why would we work backwards, implement something that gives so much discretion, you know, “Oh, but we’re going to go back and meet and do all these things.” Why didn’t we meet?

Why didn’t everybody meet before this rule package was set forward? You know, I just think it’s kind of working backwards. I think, you know, if we pull this rule package and regroup and everybody start meeting, I think everybody wants what’s best.

I think this is kind of working backwards.  And correct me if I’m wrong. If we pull this rule package, it’s not like we don’t have rules to follow right now. I mean, it’s not like you don’t have direction. You have the rules that we already implemented.

And if you’re concerned about CWD cooking in one facility.

I mean, if it does, I think that’s better for the next couple of months than for us to move forward with these discretionary rules and we don’t really have anything in concrete, but we’re going to go back and redefine it in these certain areas.

And it gets spread, you know, to other places and to other facilities, and exposes other non-breeders and other landowners that are not in the business to CWD.  I mean, that’s just my opinion.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Chris, you’ve referenced it a couple of times, but if we didn’t pass the rule package now, what would you guys be prevented from doing?

MR. CERNY: The primary impact would be in our work with epidemiological connected and positive facilities.

So, for example, trace release sites right now. They have requirements to say upon designation as a trace release site that certain rules kick in. And so, they’re required to attempt to remove all trace deer from that location immediately, or as soon as possible.  And if those trace deer aren’t available for removal, then they’re required to continue to test, for example, 100 percent of hunter harvested deer until, and I forget the exact rule language, but it essentially states that, for example, the department has gained confidence that the disease is not on the premise.

And the way that we can gain that confidence is through execution of, in the older rules, a herd plan that was entered into with Animal Health Commission partnership with that site.

We would be prevented now from, without this rule package, signing a disease management plan with that release site that would establish if all of those trace deer were not available for testing, what that testing protocol would look like and those requirements for that release site to satisfactorily assess the presence of the disease on that site, for example.

So that site would basically be stuck with 100 percent hunter harvest testing for an undetermined period of time, and not allow us to enter into any sort of agreement about what that process might look like.

In terms of positive facility management, it would prevent us from signing any disease management plan, including potentially for one that agrees to a depopulation of deer within that facility if we don’t have that authority and we’re told to cease our efforts in that regard until we have a rule package.

When it comes to developing alternative herd plans, certainly that would slow down that process and potentially put us at a stalemate or a hold up in terms of putting active management in place in that facility that attempts to address and mitigate that risk.

So those, Commissioner Rowling, I believe would be our immediate impacts without the benefit of this rule package.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, you made a statement earlier that this new rule package does not change the way we… the rules or the way that we manage CWD, but rather addresses the gaps that now exist because of TAHC’s withdrawal from the process.  Is that accurate?

MR. CERNY: That is correct from my perspective.

Yes, Sir.

What changes is who is involved in the development of that disease management plan. Previously, what changes is that we would be in a process that involved Texas Animal Health Commission signing off on that herd plan.

They are no longer available to sign off on that herd plan. So, I do want to make sure that it’s clear there are differences moving forward in how we will respond to the development of disease management plans.

Those are simply related to the fact that Texas Animal Health Commission has said that they will be removing themselves from the development of those plans in response to native cervids.

And so, nothing changes in our rules regarding how we work or identify and mitigate risk related to trace facilities related to the initial detection of CWD in a positive facility.

The primary change is that we will now be the ones responsible within the department for the development of the standards that go into a disease management plan that we would enter into an agreement with any facility, whether it be a trace-out release site or a positive breeding facility.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And when was the last time the CWD Task Force met?

MR. CERNY: I don’t recall offhand.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I’m told it was 2024.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Fall of ‘24, I think, is the last time.

Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So that, I mean, obviously, we need to move…

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …very quickly.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Absolutely.

That was one of the suggestions in the memo. We’ve incorporated that here as a recommended going forward– to engage often and frequently.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Your example that you just brought up about that trace release site, in my opinion, exactly what I was talking about, there has to be some rules to have some common sense treatment of that.  Because of the… if you release, for example, three doe onto a site, then later they’re clean when they get there.  Later on, there’s a positive where they came from, positive testing.  And without this, I don’t think you need to go in there and exterminate every deer off that property for what may be of an issue.

However, if you start testing, everything that’s cleared and nothing leaves that facility– nothing can get off of there until, I think, what I’ve been talking about was like a three-year period– and every deer and it doesn’t show up, you know, you can move out of that contaminated status and be back to normal again.

We’ve got to have… and one of the reasons, there were three reasons that when Governor Abbott appointed me, he said, I’d like you to look at.”  Number one, he said, “I just feel like we can come up with something that protects the deer herd but adds a little common sense to it.”

And I think this is one of those areas that he’s talking about.  Without the rules package, we don’t have this flexibility. Is that what I’m hearing?

MR. CERNY: Certainly, without this rules package, I believe it complicates our ability to respond to the disease; where it’s identified and where we’re concerned that it may have traced out to. I do want to clarify that there is nothing in our rule, nor has there ever been, that requires the removal of all deer from a trace release site.

We do need to follow up and determine whether, in your example, those three does that came out, even with the benefit of an antemortem not detected test prior to release, may in fact have potentially been carrying the disease but it was not detected.

We certainly have plenty of examples of deer that were antemortem not detected, followed up in short order by a postmortem positive detection.

So, it’s not a 100 percent foolproof test in that regard.

And so, I do believe we need to continue to work with those release sites that have been identified as trace facilities to assess and make sure that there is no risk of CWD spread to that site.

But again, I want to clarify, there’s no requirement that they remove all deer off that premise simply because of identification of a trace. What would be hamstrung in this case, in response to not adopting these rules potentially, would be our ability to enter into an agreement with that facility owner, that release site owner, regarding what would be required to establish confidence that the disease does not exist on that release site.

And in the meantime, that release site owner would be required to continue testing 100 percent of their hunter harvest indefinitely.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.

MR. CERNY: Please let me know if I can clarify anything.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: No, you did.

Again, I think that’s one of the reasons we’ve got to have rules and still protect what the Commissioner was talking about. And a lot of that is for a positive breeding facility that’s got to be tightly controlled.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

Again, I’m just trying to get this boiled down to what I think is the simplest.  Because I hear us on one hand, part of our conversation, and notwithstanding, you know, whatever might have happened in September sounds like it was an error.

But we’re not talking about trying to do that.

And that does have an effect here.  But the first part is we have to establish responsibility.

We talk about, you know, when somebody says, “Who has the authority?”  If we don’t want to have brackish water…

Because we have a THC [Sic] gap, potentially. So, all we’re really saying first is, “TPWD, you’re responsible.”

That’s what I thought this vote was for today, not necessarily how.  How is when we meet with everybody.

But this is… because otherwise if we don’t say we’re responsible, that’s where the questions come up even more because then if you want to go try to do something, if we’re not… This is our opportunity to clarify that so that we don’t have to worry about not being responsible.

Now, once we say we’re responsible, the flip side of that is we’ve got to make sure we do it right. But first, we just need to… I just want to establish this parameter that says, “THC [Sic] is out, TPWD is all in.” That’s what it strikes me as our conversation is about.

And then once we say TPWD is all in, to address other concerns about how we might have done something recently or how we’ve done things in the past, we’re going to, you know…

And the Chairman has this option to handle how he would like.

But if we want to say, “You have free reign,” or if he wants to say, “You are… you don’t make a move without my approval,” right, so to speak. But at least we have established the fact that we’re responsible.

And that way this…

Because the terminology here on the rule, when I think of rules, I think of the implementing rules like we’re talking about how we’re actually going to manage this on a daily basis. This more is, I’d actually call this an overall policy or procedure piece, versus, and I know that, you know, I’m just a simple guy. But that’s what’s… that rule terminology, I don’t see this as the rule for how we’re actually doing something right now.  I just see this as a rule that says, or the policy that says, we’re in charge.

MR. CERNY: I think you did a very good job of addressing what I’ve been doing a pretty poor job of attempting to put out there, which is that, again, we’re trying to establish that the authority for development of these disease management plans lies with this department now, without the benefit of Texas Animal Health Commission’s engagement. The process for how those disease management plans are developed, certainly we can take guidance on. But again, to your point, Commissioner Bell, simply put, this is just establishing that that authority lies here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Well, your first bit of guidance would be if we decided to approve this rules package, is you better get some advisory committees together or Commissioner Galo is going to have your head.

[ laughter ]

All right?

MR. CERNY: Understood.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And by the way, I’ll be right behind her.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Well, thank you, Vice-Chairman.

But I would like to highlight a main concerning change in this package is the addition of language allowing for movement out of positive facilities outside of the research option.

I mean, are you all willing to strike that?

MR. CERNY: That has been the tenets of one of the alternative plans for quite some time. We actually have several facilities operating under a herd plan signed by Texas Animal Health Commission right now that does authorize the release of deer from a positive facility.  I would be concerned in striking that provision because it would negate the potential for that alternative herd plan to exist in the future.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Well, that’s a major concern to a lot of people. And I want to go on the record as saying that, you know, if we pull this, we’re not saying we’re not going to bring back a rule package. I mean, there will be a rule package.

But in the interim, I mean, Senator Perry is on the record saying that THC [Sic] is, and I’m going to quote, “is not going away.” This will be a process, and he expects them to continue to help Texas Parks and Wildlife in this transition.

So, it’s not like, you know, if we pull the rule package today and work on something that includes everybody, you know, that we listen to at least everybody – you know, the CWD Task Force and the other task force and stakeholders– and come up with a better package.  I mean, there are… I mean, I just highlighted one major concern, and that has not been vetted with all our stakeholders.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It seems to me that we really… I think we’re better off moving forward with this rule package just so that we don’t kick the can down the road, and we’re being assured that we’re not changing the rules. We’re not changing how we manage the disease, how we manage deer facilities, with this package. All we’re doing is assuming the responsibilities of TAHC.

Your concerns, Commissioner Galo, are that the rules don’t work and that we need to change them and fix them.

And I agree to the… I agree, but I don’t think adopting this rule package today does anything to deter from that, from that objective.

COMMISSIONER GALO: I just think it gives them a lot of discretion, a lot of discretion to deviate from what we’ve done in the past and to make things way more, I guess, in their words, “flexible.”

And I just think there’s a danger in that. That’s all.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Yeah, So, in my opinion, I agree with you, Chairman, but I think we need to pass the rule package because of what it means that we don’t. That said, you could argue based on precedent set that if THC [Sic] was involved in this last incident that they would not have signed off on that herd plan because of all the differences from the previous that they had signed off on.

So, we operated in a vacuum one time. What has happened, happened. We’ve discussed it.  And I still think we need to pass this, but I think we need to be aware of what the differences were that we agreed to in that herd plan, versus what the herd plans looked like that TAHC was involved in the previous months as we go forward.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Well, and I agree.

And I do think that we need a commitment from the department that we will pause on releases and…

You know, until we meet with the CWD Task Force and get input from not only them, but from other stakeholders, I think we need to be very cautious about moving deer.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: So, Chairman, maybe I can offer this, is in terms of the disease management plans, and definitely moving deer, any of that, would come through the science and technical groups within the department.

Obviously, what you see on this slide here, we want to move forward as soon as possible engaging the CWD Task Force, engaging the other stakeholder advisory committees.

But what I would say is that then you and I have conversations about what moves forward in terms of disease management plans, and what doesn’t, until we wrap all this up with all the stakeholder input.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GALO: And can I just ask one more question?

Because between slide 12 and 13, I believe, did you all talk about who that team is going to be?  Is that going to include, you know, a veterinarian?  Is that going to include an epidemiology? I mean, you talked about it, but it wasn’t on your slide. Kory talked about it, but it wasn’t on any slides.

MR. CERNY: I believe this is the slide you’re referring to, potentially, where we indicate…

COMMISSIONER GALO: Between 12 and 13, or maybe I missed it.

MR. CERNY: I believe you were referring to that first bullet, potentially, where we’ll be vetting the development of disease management plan standards through our internal science and technical team. And perhaps you’re inquiring about who would be on that team?

COMMISSIONER GALO: Yes, who would be that internal science and technical team?

MR. CERNY: Frankly, it has yet to be established, and I think we’re open to input. But it would certainly include everybody who has been involved with this process from the Wildlife Division standpoint, including our epidemiologist and veterinarian.

COMMISSIONER GALO: I see.

And at the last meeting, I asked that it be, you know, at least have a veterinarian or an epidemiologist,  or somebody with that scientific expertise on that team.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Right.

COMMISSIONER GALO: And y’all didn’t define the team, or include them.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Well, I think, yeah, we had defined that the division director, biologists, others, could sign off on it.

After hearing your comments, we removed that. So, it would have to include veterinarian, epidemiologists, in addition to the biologists, et cetera.

COMMISSIONER GALO: But it’s not written here anywhere that it would include them, right?

MR. CERNY: If you’re referring to, well, excuse me, the comments from the November Commission meeting regarding our staff.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Yeah, uh-huh.

Yeah.

MR. CERNY: So that provision has been pulled from this package entirely. There is no more ability for staff beyond whoever was originally named, which I believe was a veterinarian or an epidemiologist, to essentially decide that despite a facility having met the requirements to be returned to movement qualified status as established in rule, that there was still some broader concern that the epidemiologist or vet felt had not been addressed; and therefore, continue to hold that facility to not movement qualified status until those concerns were addressed.

So that provision has been removed. That language had actually extended to additional staff who would have the authority to hold facilities not-movement qualified.

COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.

Yes.

MR. CERNY: So, we’ve removed that. But that provision was not in reference to this type of a team here.

COMMISSIONER GALO: You’re right. I’m sorry.  Thanks for clarifying.

So, this technical team, can you be a little bit more specific who it’s going to be?  Or this internal science and technical team?

MR. GANN: And so, this would be, you know, our division director, our branch chief of research administration, big game program director, white-tail deer program leader, senior wildlife veterinarian, deer breeder program leader.  And then also we’ve got a big game program specialist that would be a part of that team.

COMMISSIONER GALO: But the veterinarian would be…

MR. GANN: Yes, on that part of that team. Yes, Ma’am.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Is there something we need to do administratively, Dave or James, to stand up the CWD Task Force again? Because don’t those have a term on them where they expire and have to be reestablished?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, task force operate differently, but I’m going to turn it over to James.

They operate differently than advisory committees. Advisory committees are updated on a regular basis. They have terms. Task force, as I understand it, don’t have terms, and can continue operating as is.

Now, to your point, Commissioner Rowling, I think we need to absolutely get them reengaged. And we also need to look at adding particular expertise that may not be on there that would be beneficial as we move through this.

I would just add one more thing, is that we… Because Animal Health Commission is still responsible for CWD in exotics, that they should be on that CWD Task Force continuing to move forward, as a partner as they have been in the past. It’s been, you know, us as a co-convener along with Animal Health Commission.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I would say one thing.

Commissioner Doggett.

That clearly there’s a lot to be done on this front. I mean, when you look at it, and as we discussed, that 95 percent of people disagree, although the 95 are split on either end of the spectrum, right? But it’s still a huge percentage, right?

And so, I think this is pretty exciting. So, it all depends on what Chairman Foster elects to do. This could be… 2026 could be the year we finally get our arms, especially since TPWD is taken over from the Animal Health Commission.  And it’s solely in our court, right?

This is a great opportunity for the Commission to put together task force, and for not just leave it up to happenstance or serendipitously figure out who’s going to be on the Commission. We choose who’s going to be on that Commission, along with the Commission and the management of Parks and Wildlife.

And we put great… we have some great… we’ve had them come speak to us up here, some people who are very, very knowledgeable about, and are just as passionate on one end of the spectrum than the other, you know, less regulation to more regulation. And to get those good folks together on a task force.  And I think from what I’ve spoken to Chairman Foster is, man, he’s the man.  He can put together a very robust initiative to 2026, is get our arms around all this.

And I really look forward to it. I mean, there’s so much– from release, to containment, to all the nuances in between involved with all that.

That’s not something we can just figure out here at the bench.

We’ve got to really dive really deep into all that with the people who know, and come up with a common sense solution that not everybody’s going to agree with.  But what you would hope is, at the end of the day, as Chairman said, we come closer to the 50 percent disagreement instead of 90.

And I think there’s a lot of common sense. I think we started off by saying, “Hey, there’s huge swaths of land in the state that are in these control zones.”  And it very negatively impacts the landowner, as you can imagine.  You know, if there’s people looking to buy a ranch, if they say it’s in the control zone that kind of goes off the list. So, the values of the state, property values, were being impacted dramatically by all that. And I think we addressed some of that under Chairman Hildebrand.

But I think this year, again, is pretty exciting. We can get our arms around that.  And I think the whole Commission would like to dive in and be active with the task force to come up with some guidelines and guardrails to… that make the process less complicated, and could really address these issues head on and be something we’d all be proud of.  So, I’m really looking forward to being able to tackle all this.

But that said, I think we need to pass– just me– need to pass the rules package, which is just taking it from Animal Health Commission to us, in effect. And then if there’s parts of it that we see over the next month that we need to change, we can do that, right?

And… but let’s look at… I would think that this could be a great year in really getting out arms around the whole issue.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That’s a…

Thank you for putting a very positive spin on a very, very difficult topic. But that was very well said. And I do agree that this is an opportunity– now that we have the responsibility and the management of this disease solely in our camp– it’s an opportunity for us to get it right.  And it’s, you know, not easy, but hopefully that’ll be the outcome.

With all that being said, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission agenda for public comment and action.

Okay, thank you.

MR. CERNY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Work Session Item No. 9: Implementation Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session– Senate Bill 2801– Relating to a Permit Issued by the Parks and Wildlife Department for Certain Hunting Dog Field Trials Authorizing a Fee– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. Kevin Mote.

KEVIN MOTE: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.  My name is Kevin Mote. I’m the Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Director in the Wildlife Division.

This morning, I will present 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.  I’ll conclude my presentation requesting permission to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and action. The department currently administers two other field trial permits.  One on private lands permitted as private bird hunting areas limited to the pursuit of banded pen-raised birds.  And the other for competitive hunting dog events on numbered units of the 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 lands.

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 for clarity as specified by the bill.

In addition, we recommend a few non-substantive housekeeping changes to the public hunting proclamation to reduce confusion, improve administrative efficiency, and support effective enforcement as it pertains to implementing this bill.

I’ll summarize the changes made since the November Commission meeting that helped clarify permit requirements and add flexibility and other benefits to permit holders on the following three slides.

The initial proposed language presented in November was unclear relating to the need for a separate permit for each property participating in a single field trial event.

To address this, 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 still require separate permits for public versus private lands.

While we were 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 down 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 have 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 existing field trial permits.  Staff supports this reduction, but will address it as part of a comprehensive review with the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office. To clarify, the new hunting dog field trial permit fee will be $50, and the existing field trial permits will remain unchanged until the review is complete.

To date, we have received a total of 10 comments– 2, or 20 percent, agree completely with proposed rule changes, 20 percent disagree completely, And 6, or 60 percent, disagree specifically with portions of the proposed package.

Of those disagreeing specifically, 6 did not agree with requiring an access permit on public lands for competitive hunting dog field trials.

And finally, one commenter disagreed with the department issuing the permit in an individual’s name. They believe that because it is an event held by a field trial association or organization that the permit should be issued in the name of the group.

I want to remind the Commission that by statute we are required to issue permits and licenses to individuals, and we included language to allow the named person on the permit to designate a representative to be on site during the event.

Staff requests that this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

And that concludes my presentation.

I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, one thing that jumps out at me is moving away from requiring a $5,000 performance bond and a $250,000 insurance policy to a $48 permit. I mean, it’s a big, big change. Under the existing rule with the bond and the insurance policy, what did that bond provide?  What assurances did that provide, and the insurance policy, that we’re no longer going to have?

MR. MOTE: The bond provided protection for the department if there was damage to our property, right, that it would be made right. And the insurance policy was the liability protection in case somebody came onto our property and got hurt during the process of whatever activity they were doing on our property.

And so, as part of our annual public hunting permit, it includes a liability waiver that protects us.  And so, everybody else, and that’s why they were included in having to purchase an access permit, everybody else that comes onto our properties are required to have either an APH or an LPU access permit.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Other comments or questions?

Hearing none, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission agenda for public comment and action.

Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 10: 2026 and 2027 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.

Shaun Oldenburger.

SHAUN OLDENBURGER: All right.

Good morning, Chairman Foster and Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Shaun Oldenburger.

I’m the Small Game Program Director for the Wildlife Division.

This morning, myself and Mr. Blaise Korzekwa, our White-tail Deer Program Leader, will be requesting permission to publish proposed changes to the statewide hunting and migratory game bird proclamations in the Texas Register for public comment.

We will begin this presentation by discussing staff proposals for the migratory game bird hunting season for the 2026-2027 season.

As a reminder, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds ultimate federal statutory responsibility for managing migratory bird populations, and has the final authority in setting hunting seasons for migratory game birds in the United States.

However, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, as a member of the Central Flyway Council, works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide input and recommendations that help shape hunting season frameworks for migratory game bird hunting seasons.

Furthermore, just to let you know, the Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee did support all staff proposals at their meeting this last December.

Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave preliminary approval to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to allow dove hunting as early as September 1, in the South Zone.

Dove zone, as a reminder to you, this was the only dove zone in the United States with these federal restrictions.  That is a change from our November Commission meeting, where we did tell you that that was preliminary.

All right, moving on to South Zone dove season.  Over the past 15 years, TPWD staff have consistently advocated for reducing regulatory restrictions on South Zone dove hunting.

In December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service granted TPWD preliminary approval for a change in federal frameworks on a three-year experimental basis.

If the Commission approves proposed changes in March, TPWD biologists will conduct monitoring over the next three years, including harvest surveys and potential wing collections, to ensure that change does not result in any biological impact to mourning dove populations in South Texas.

As a result of the approval by the service, the staff proposal is to eliminate the special white-wing dove season and begin the season on September 1. This change would simplify regulations statewide, and unify daily bag limits across all zones and seasons.

As you can see here with the calendar, based on previous federal restrictions, this would be the proposed staff proposal for this next hunting season.  But thanks to the approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we do not have this. But you can see here there’s differential regulations with the special white-wing dove days, which are highlighted in yellow, and then also with the regular hunting season highlighted in gray.

With the approval, though, we have a much more simplified calendar, as you can see here, with everything in gray.

And so that’ll be the regular season. And so that’ll have just basically 15 birds in the daily bag limit and a combination of white-wing doves and mourning doves.  So, as you can see here, too, with the season structure to dove hunters, we did poll some dove hunters this past fall.

Based on those surveys, the preferred option by dove hunters in South Texas is to actually start the season on September 1.

Lastly, all other migratory game birds hunting seasons will have calendar progression and maintain the daily bag limits from this hunting season, current hunting season.  Moving on to the statewide hunting proclamation.

Last March, this Commission approved changing the quail season to run from November 1 through the last day of February. This change took effect for the current hunting season.

To maintain consistency and simplify regulations statewide, staff recommended adjusting the chachalaca season to match this timeframe, November 1 through the last day of February, restoring alignment that had occurred in previous seasons.

Also, as a reminder, the Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee did approve all the recommendations on upland game birds from staff.

For wild turkey hunting regulations, moving on to that.

Mandatory harvest reporting has been in place for Matagorda and Wharton County since 2022. And one gobbler county’s staff policy has been to close the season if one or fewer turkeys reported harvested over a three-year period.  Both counties now meet that threshold.  No wild turkeys have been reported in Matagorda County.  And only one, a banded bird released under a Triple-T permit, have been reported in Wharton County.

As shown here, recent two-minute wild turkey distribution maps indicate that Matagorda County has no, or minimal, wild turkey populations, and Wharton County only shows presence near a previous Triple-T release site.  These occupancy surveys are regularly conducted by our Wildlife Division biologists.

As we’ve discussed before, estimating wild turkey abundance is challenging, so we rely on multiple data sources, including occupancy surveys, brood sightings, breeding bird surveys, and other available information to monitor wild turkey populations across Texas.

With these closures, staff will explore opportunities to restock wild turkeys in these areas, focusing on private lands where landowners are interested, and suitable habitat exists for additional wild turkey restoration.

As you can see here, this is a graph of USGS bird banding survey– sorry– USGS breeding bird survey data. As you can see here, too, staff have observed a significant decline in wild turkey populations over across the last decade.  As such, the staff proposal is to remove unbearded hens from all legal harvests statewide.

Recent research on wild turkey population dynamics indicates that the number of hens entering the nesting season is the most critical factor for a long-term sustainability.

Based on harvest data, hens made up 41 percent of the total harvest in the fall of 2024 hunting season, but only 9 percent of those hens were bearded.

In the spring of 2024, hens accounted for just 1 percent of the harvest, and half of those hens reported were unbearded.

This proposed change would reduce overall hen harvest in Texas, and ensure more hens make it to the breeding season to better ensure long-term viability for wild turkey populations in Texas.

Here’s a map of those areas that would be impacted. This proposed change would apply to all counties in TPW’s wild turkey North Zone, north of Highway 90 there, during the fall season, as well as the special South Zone fall season, as you can see highlighted there in South Texas, in gray.

Finally, staff are proposing to open Angelina National Forest in Jasper County in the East Zone to hunting wild turkeys for this next hunting season.

This was going to be completed through TPWD’s public hunting program to limit the potential number of gobblers harvested on this portion of Angelina National Forest.

However, based on recent discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service… or U.S. Forest Service staff, staff are now recommending to pull this proposal until a time when TPWD and the U.S. Forest Service have made substantial progress on an MOU to allow for this public hunting opportunity to occur.

We’re hopeful to bring the staff proposal back to you next year, as we make progress on this MOU.

With that, I now conclude my portion of the presentation. I’ll turn over to the mic to Mr. Blaise Korzekwa, unless there are any questions from the Commissioners.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

I have a question.

MR. OLDENBURGER: Yes?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: And really it may be a little bit outside the scope of what would be approved for tomorrow.  But you can call it my informal stakeholder group in the South Texas zone, in particular, where you have a split dove season, right, that you don’t have, I guess, in North Texas still.

MR. OLDENBURGER: We do have two segments. Underneath the staff proposal, we would have two segments in both the North Central and South Zones.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, so it said South Zone on your slide, but that’s going to be for North and South? It’ll be a statewide?

MR. OLDENBURGER: So, there’s differential regulations for the North Central and South Zones. Those do differ a little bit, and we can get you those that are in your package.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.

In any event, I guess I’d like to hear your comment, your advice, if… and we’re not, I know we have a set number, a finite number of hunting days in the South Zone, in particular, where I do think, you know, you get a later migration than, theoretically, the North.  And allocating days, whatever the…

How many days are there in this second?

MR. OLDENBURGER: I’d have to add them up, but we’re allowed 90 total days during the dove season.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.

So where I’m getting long winded on what I’m looking for your advice or your comments on how you would proceed is dividing up those days to incorporate like four days for Thanksgiving hunting, creating a Wednesday/Thursday/Friday/Saturday of Thanksgiving week, which would currently be, and always has been, outside of the second South Zone.

But because of the fact, you know, you really want to try and increase recruitment and hunters and a good opportunity for families that are together during Thanksgiving, and the opportunity to hunt dove, it seems like a really nice time.

You know, people are going to be there. People are going to be together. And again, not trying to get more days, but allocate days. So, you’d almost be creating a split second season.

But I do think there’s support out there from people that get together in South Texas. Obviously, they could hunt quail, and maybe in the past did hunt quail during November.

It does seem to me that November quail hunting maybe isn’t what it used to be.  I don’t want to be an alarmist, you know, global warming person. But, you know, the temperatures and such.  But people still want to get together and they still want to hunt. And I guess I’d like to hear your thoughts on pros and cons of that.

MR. OLDENBURGER: So, what I’m hearing is a proposal in the South Zone to have basically three segments to the hunting season.

So, you’d have an early segment, a Thanksgiving segment, and then a late segment, basically.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Correct.

MR. OLDENBURGER: So, this is going to get a little bit more complicated than maybe you want.  But… so zones were established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1942.

So that’s when zones actually were allowed.

Otherwise, we just previously had statewide regulations for dove hunting prior to that and duck hunting. So, with that, state agencies were able to divvy up basically their individual states into different zones.

So, I will say Texas has requested lots of different changes over the years from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other states as well.

As a result of that, in 1991, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set some rules on how often a state agency can actually ask for changes to their zones.

This last year was the window for us to request changes to our zones. We do have three zones.

Where it gets interesting in this is we’re grandfathered into three zones in Texas.  Other states across the nation only have two zones. And basically, for us to go to three segments we would have to give up a zone and undo that grandfathering. So, we would have to go to two zones to get three segments under current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules.

So, your proposal, as you said, is not allowable underneath current rules unless the department would ask the Fish and Wildlife Service to go down to two zones, and then we could go to three segments in those two zones.

Does that make sense?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: It does.

So maybe, would this be permissible where the second segment in the South Zone would start the Wednesday of Thanksgiving, and then it would not split, it would just run from that point forward.

So, you’d be giving up time at the end, but it would be consecutive days. And that would be permissible?

MR. OLDENBURGER: That would be permissible because then that would be two segments, yes, in each of our three zones.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: All right.

And if someone was really looking to advocate this, do you accomplish that with a petition for rulemaking, something the Chairman could suggest? Where does it come from? How do you proceed?

MR. OLDENBURGER: So, James will correct me if I’m wrong, obviously, as he always does.  But, basically, tomorrow when you guys go to publish this for public comment, you would request that change to the South Zone dove season and that we publish that as the proposal. Is that correct, James?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.

Thank you.

MR. OLDENBURGER: Any other questions?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MR. OLDENBURGER: All right.

Thank you.

Turn it over to Blaise.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Mr. Korzekwa.

BLAISE KORZEKWA: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Blaise Korzekwa.

I’m the White-tailed Deer Program Leader.

And this morning, I will be requesting permission to publish the proposed changes to the statewide hunting regulations in the Texas Register.

We currently have two big game regulation proposals that I’ll go into more detail on the following slides. But those proposals are to expand doe days in 21 counties, and modify the definition of “muzzleloader.”  Both proposals are meant to expand hunting opportunities and have no negative biological impact.

The state of Texas is divided into deer management units, which the department uses to estimate populations and to recommend regulations. Those 21 counties shown in the blue color on the map are located in deer management units number 11 and 12.  And based on the department’s deer surveys, these deer management units have seen an increase in deer density, as well as a skewed sex ratio of around four does per buck.

Staff have also received feedback from hunters, landowners, and farmers that have expressed concern with the increasing deer population, and have requested to increase doe days.

Although doe harvest is permitted throughout most of the state for the entire duration of the general season, there’s currently 89 counties that have some form of doe days.

These counties with doe days have restricted season dates in which does may be harvested with a firearm, which allows for a conservative harvest while still providing hunting opportunity. Those 21 counties, shown in blue on the map, are mostly located in the Post Oak Savanna ecoregion, and currently have a four-day doe season that runs from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday following Thanksgiving.

These 21 counties are the only counties in the state that have a four-day doe season.

And staff are proposing that these counties be expanded to a 16-day doe season. These counties also have a bag limit of two antlerless deer, in which they may be harvested during the special doe days, archery season, youth seasons, as well as muzzleloader seasons.

After harvest, hunters have 24 hours to complete the mandatory reporting requirements in the Texas Hunt and Fish app.

The proposed 16-day doe season would begin the second Saturday of general season and close the Sunday following Thanksgiving.

Although, called a 16-day season, just due to calendar progression and the week that Thanksgiving may actually fall on, some years may have a season length of 23 days.  As mentioned earlier, the bag limit of two antlerless deer, as well as mandatory reporting requirements, would remain in place.

Staff have conducted public scoping meetings in these 21 counties to inform hunters and landowners of these proposed changes. At the end of the presentation, staff provided a survey for attendees to give us feedback in which over 75 percent of attendees supported these proposed changes to doe days.

The final proposal would be to modify the definition of “muzzleloader.” The current definition is shown there on the slide, and is defined as: “Any firearm designed such that the propellant and the bullet or projectile can be loaded only through the muzzle.”

However, there is a new muzzleloader technology in which the propellant is in a self-contained powder charge. The hunter will load this charge into the brief of the rifle and insert a primer.  The projectile is then loaded through the muzzle.

This new technology also allows for the safe unloading of the firearm by simply opening the breech and removing the charge. The use of this new technology during muzzleloader season is currently allowed in the 29 states shown in green on the map.

Those states shown in yellow are also looking at modifying their definition of muzzleloader to include use of this new technology.

Staff are proposing that the definition of muzzleloader be modified to any firearm design such that the bullet or projectile can be loaded only through the muzzle.

Muzzleloaders average only around 1 percent of the statewide harvest each year.

And this modification would expand hunting opportunities during muzzleloader season.

Both of these proposals are supported by the White-tail Deer Advisory Committee.

The staff are requesting permission to publish the proposed changes in the Texas Register.

And that concludes my presentation.

And I’m happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Questions or comments?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

Just one question.

I want to make sure I understood that new definition for muzzleloader. Because you said… does it have to drop down the front of the barrel or… because you showed the cartridge being put in?

MR. KORZEKWA: Sir, let me go back to that slide just so everybody can see.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

MR. KORZEKWA: So, It looks like maybe an empty shotgun shell, like about the size of a .410.

That is the self-contained powder charge. That’s loaded through the breech of the rifle, and then the projectile is still loaded through the muzzle.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And what’s the definition saying?

MR. KORZEKWA: The current definition is that the propellant, which is the powder, as well as the bullet or projectile, must be loaded through the muzzle.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

MR. KORZEKWA: However, with this new technology, the propellant is not loaded through the muzzle. It’s loaded at the breech. But the projectile will still be loaded through the muzzle.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And go to the new definition again.

MR. KORZEKWA: And the new definition will be here.

So, it strikes propellant.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.

I’m straight.

I just misread it.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Anything else?

MR. MURPHY: Chairman, if I could just briefly interject.

I just wanted to clarify a point during Mr. Oldenburger’s presentation.

If the change that Commissioner Patton had discussed, if you’d like to include that in this rule package that direction would need to come here today.  We do not have any consideration of this item for action tomorrow.

Another option, of course, would be to leave the proposal as is, and ultimately seek public comment on the alternative that Commissioner Patton had suggested. But I just want to clarify, there’s no opportunity tomorrow during our consideration, as this item would not be on the agenda.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, I do think it’s a good idea.

I do think the idea of being able to hunt dove over Thanksgiving is attractive to me, and not just me. I know there’s a number of other people in South Texas that think it would be great.  I didn’t know the mechanics of it.

I’m perfectly comfortable sacrificing January, which is what it sounds like it would do if, you know, the math of how many days there are– if you started from Wednesday before Thanksgiving and ran it through, I do think you get December.

Blake and I were counting. Do you get New Year’s Eve and…

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, you get a couple days in January.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’ve tried to count, so I may have missed it on my phone here.  But I think there’s 16 days in that gap.

So, if you pulled the second season back, then it would be ending in January, around January 6, or so instead of the 22nd.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Right.

I think that’s right.

You catch all of… you know, the discussions around the campfire is, you know, you catch a lot of Christmas break.

You catch, you know, January.  You really, you really.

It was appealing to me for, you know, your family, your kids, your recruitment of new hunters. And, you know, in my own experience, I think that sounds nice.

So, if… I know it’s a brief discussion and, you know, we don’t have any science or anything like that.  But from… I think it would be well received and it would be well utilized, particularly down in South Texas. So, I mean, you want to take an informal poll?

That wasn’t really my intent, but I’m kind of excited to see some, maybe some momentum.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Another option would be on September 14, is when it starts in the South Zone. And that’s a Monday.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Yeah, but that’s going to be the first now. We’re not going to talk about the beginning.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: But if you push that from Monday to a Friday, that’d give you five more days.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: That’s a different issue, but…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I was talking about so you could hunt later in January.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: I don’t know if it works that way.

MR. OLDENBURGER: So currently the staff proposal in front of you is for the South Zone of September 1 to October 25, and then restarting December 18, and running out the remainder of the days to January 21.

So, Commissioner Patton is talking about moving…  keeping September 1 to October 25 the same, and then starting season November 25, and running out the remainder of the days.

Is that correct?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: 100 percent, that would be correct.

MR. OLDENBURGER: So, I would also offer up if the Commission does decide to move forward that for public comment. Also, staff can actually bring some information for you to when harvest does occur traditionally during the South Zone. So you can actually see that information as well. Because I will say, as you all know, dove season is very front loaded. September and early October tend to be the majority of the harvest, and in some zones well over 90 percent. The South Zone is the one location we do see in Texas where there is a bump up in that late season harvest.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Right.

Oh, Chairman, I put it to you.

How do you feel about it?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Let me do it this way.

Would anybody on the Commission be opposed to implementing the changes suggested by Commissioner Patton?

If not…

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I’m not opposed to it.

I think it’d be great.

I think we need to hear from people.

I mean, if the harvest is…

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: No, no, no.

Yeah.

And yeah, Shaun, we need to hear from you that that’d be okay from your perspective.

MR. OLDENBURGER: Well, obviously your decision. But one thing we would do is we’d put some information together to show where harvest has occurred historically during the dove season in the South Zone. So that would give you a little bit more background to be able to make a more informed decision.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Right.

And Chairman, I would just say the action isn’t going to be till March.  So, you all will be seeing this again with the updated information.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

All right.

Okay.

I feel better about it now.

[ laughter ]

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

My question is going to be, when James said that we would need to have this kind of change for tomorrow, can we have… could we have two proposals?

Could we have the current one and could we have a second proposal with the new set of dates so that we can get the data and then select between the two?

Is that an option or…

MR. MURPHY: Vice-Chairman?

Yeah, James Murphy, for the record.  Typically, we would propose one, but we can put in the preamble mention of another alternative that we’re looking to seek public comment on.

Having done an initial look at this, I think that, you know, whichever decision you decide on today is what public comment is. The majority of the public comment is going to focus in on what the proposed rule text is going to be.

And so, I think, you know, whichever direction you want to go for what goes in the Register for comment, I think we would then evaluate any changes to season dates that you make in March, and see if that’s a logical outgrowth of the rule proposal. And most likely the answer is yes. I think we’re talking about season date changes.

So I think as long as the public understands that, you know, this proposal, if we move forward with it and what we send to the Texas Register, we think we could revert back to the original proposal in March if, in fact, the data and information that you evaluated on Commissioner Patton’s proposal, you know, didn’t meet the Commission’s desires.

MR. OLDENBURGER: And one thing we could do in public comment is actually put this change in late season out there for public comment to gain get input specifically on this change for your information.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Did you have a comment?

OWEN FITZSIMMONS: For the record, Owen Fitzsimmons.

I’m the Webless Migratory Game Board Program Leader. Just maybe provide some more perspective kind of historical stuff here.

Shaun did a pretty good job of downplaying the proposed change to the South Zone for September 1. That’s something that we’ve never had. That’s a huge, huge change.  A huge win for our South Zone hunters moving from that September 14 opener to September 1. That’s huge.

So, this would be the first year that we’ve ever had that in history in over 100 years.

And so, the proposal that staff brought forth as proposed, you know, like you saw with the second split opening on December 18, I believe, that was our attempt at dealing with this change for the first year.

Because now we’ve got two weeks that we didn’t have in early September move forward. So how do we deal with that second segment?

And so, staff chose to stagger that about a week behind the central segment to open a little bit later in December so that we could extend into January.

We don’t have really, really good data on harvest and hunter participation after the first couple weeks of September, but we do know that in the south zone more people hunt in January in the South Zone than anywhere else.

That’s the one place that we do have really good hunting opportunity in January. And people have more and more utilized that over the years.

You know, a good example would be this cold front coming in.

I know the season is going to be closing, I think, today or tomorrow. But this cold front coming in this weekend, it’s too cold.  It’s going to be frozen up north. It’s going to be pretty cold in Austin. But if you’re in Brownsville, I think the high is 50-something.  You could still potentially hunt in January. So that’s why we’ve always extended that into January. So that’s why we have that.

And Commissioner Patton, the Thanksgiving thing, just to provide perspective, I totally agree with you. That’s something that we have discussed extensively over the years, is how do we figure out how to capture Thanksgiving?

And it just isn’t…

In trying to maximize holidays and weekends from September 1 to middle or late January, it just falls right in between there.

And we could never quite make it work. So that’s why we’ve always utilized the splits that we have.

Just one last thing to keep in mind, I think, with your proposal is, I was running a quick calculation of… We have 55 days in the first segment, as proposed, which leaves us 35 days in the second segment to work with.

I think if we started the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, I think is what you said, that would take us to right about the end of December, I believe. So that would be November 25 to December 25, plus five days, if my math is correct.  Which would mean, in other words, that our South Zone would be ending, under that proposal, would be ending before the North and Central.

And so, we would be losing that January opportunity that people do take advantage of. So, it’s kind of like, do we shoot for Christmas or do we…

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Right, no, it’s definitely a trade-off.

I mean, that’s why I think the public input would be good.

And, you know, again, it’s, yeah, you might have some January hunters.  And to your point, you know, January is going to be closed during the cold front. So, you know, how do you catch it? I just think you catch more.

I know there are some people that think Thanksgiving would be a whole new tradition. It’d be a whole new opportunity, a whole new time to recruit new hunters. When you have kids there that are off school, out of school, certainly during Christmas break, you more or less catch anyway.

So maybe that doesn’t add anything. It’s just… how do you get more hunters? And I think there’s an argument to be made that that family time over Thanksgiving is a lot better than, you know, a weekend or two in the middle of January.

But I’d love to see what the public input is. And that’s why I brought it up. And hopefully, maybe the Commission would like to publish that.  And obviously, we’ll make a decision in March.

MR. OLDENBURGER: And just for the record, Mr. Fitzsimmons spends a lot more time thinking about this than I do.

[ laughter ]

MR. FITZSIMMONS: And hearing from others.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, should we make a motion, Paul?

Is that maybe the best way to do it?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think we should, and I’m going to let you do it.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, well, I’d love to make a motion to… and I want the days to be accurate, but definitely we’d start it in 2026, on Wednesday, March 18, and then run through the… is that right?

Did I get… or is Thanksgiving?

Oh, Thanksgiving’s the 26.

So, it would start on November 25 for my motion, and then run for the 35 days from that point.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Do I hear a second to that?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Doggett.

Any opposed?

Or all in favor, I should ask first.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Any opposed?

All right, that motion passes.

And so, with that, I’ll authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.

MR. OLDENBURGER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

All right, next is Work Session Item No. 11: Party Boat Rules– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

And Mr. Cody Jones.

CODY JONES: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Cody Jones. I’m Assistant Commander in our Law Enforcement Division.  I’m here today to present on proposed changes to Party Boat Rules.

The Party Boat Program was established by House Bill 12 during the 80th Texas Legislative Session in 2007.

The Legislature added Subchapter G to Chapter 31 of the Parks and Wildlife Code, and directed the Commission to regulate commercial party boat operations in inland waters.

The Commission adopted implementing rules in 2008, focused on operator licensing, inspection, capacity limits, safety standards, and insurance.

Since the inception of the program, the program has grown from 31 vessels to 135 vessels today, with 182 licensed operators.

With that growth, we have seen new risk and reoccurring compliance issues that warrant updating to the rules.

Over the past decade, a series of serious incidents, including fatalities, capsizing events, and intoxicated operators have highlighted shortcomings in the existing framework.

To highlight just one of these many instances, in August 2021, the Conroe Queen capsized on Lake Conroe, throwing more than 50 passengers into the water and resulting in one fatality.

These incidents underscore the need for strong state-level safeguards.

Additionally, recent saturation patrols on Lake Austin and Lake Travis identified repetitive violations, including unlicensed operators, expired or missing insurance, unsafe passenger practices, and attempts to operate outside the party boat program altogether. These events prompted a comprehensive review of our rules to ensure they remain effective and enforceable.

As a frame of reference, a party boat is defined as:

A vessel 30 feet or greater in length operated by the owner or an employee of the owner, and rented for a group of more than six passengers, with one exception– the statute 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, and who has completed both minimum observation and operational time on a covered vessel and who has passed a written exam administered by the department.

The proposed clarification definitions for inland waters to avoid overlap with the 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 TPWD party boat licensing for valid U.S. Coast Guard licensed captains whose credentials meet or 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 the requirements of the subchapter, and therefore we are satisfied that they would meet public safety and our public safety would not be compromised.

In addition, the proposed language would increase the 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 from an insurer licensed to do business in Texas.

Nearly 70 percent of all owners are currently carrying liability insurance that exceeds the proposed $500,000 liability coverage.

The increase reflects the fact that the consumer price index has increased significantly since 2007, and the requirement would represent the bare minimum with respect to ability to respond to incidents resulting in damage or injuries.

The proposed language also clearly states that insurance required would be on a per-incident basis rather than a per-vessel basis, which is consistent with insurance industry practices for insuring these types of operations.

The amendment would also require proof of insurance to be carried on board the party boat at all times, and made available upon request by a department employee acting in the scope of their official duties.

The department believes it’s necessary to be able to quickly determine the party boat operators in compliance with minimum insurance requirements at any time the vessel is being used to accommodate paying passengers.

The proposed amendment would also require the retention of all documents required by this subchapter for a period of two years, which is a statute of limitations for violations of this subchapter.

Additionally, the proposed language explicitly established the number and types of personal flotation devices that must be on board a party boat when carrying passengers, including provisions intended to provide adequate water safety for children.

It defines a requirement to carry serviceable U.S. Coast Guard wearable personal flotation devices in a number equivalent to the vessel’s occupancy limit, indicated on the inspection, as well as an additional child size limit, excuse me, child size devices equal to at least 10 percent of the occupancy limit.

If more than 10 percent of the passengers are children on a voyage, they must have an appropriate amount of child size PFDs to cover all the children present. The owner would also be required to articulate and post emergency procedures for all passengers.

These procedures would include instructions for use of the emergency radio, man overboard procedures, response to fires or explosions, leaks or damage control procedures, location of the personal flotation devices, locations of escape routes, abandon ship procedures, and the location of the first aid kit.

The proposed language would require party boats to be inspected on drydock or by underwater inspection at a five-year interval by an accredited naval architect or accredited marine surveyor to determine the suitability of the vessel to continue to be used as a party boat.

Party boats are not pleasure craft. They are working vessels subject to extensive repetitive use that can impact their hold 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 type of regiment is consistent with U.S. Coast Guard practices on similar vessels in which they regulate.

The proposal also prescribes the process for requesting and scheduling and performing annual assessments and inspections required under the subchapter.  Current rules specify only that a party boat may not be operated unless an annual inspection is carried out within the previous 12 months.

The department has determined it’s necessary to provide additional structure and timelines to this process.  Therefore, the proposed language would require the owner to schedule an assessment inspection not more than 60 days, nor less than 30 days, prior to the annual anniversary date of their previous inspection, and would require the department to conduct the inspection not more than 30 days prior to that date.

The proposed language also requires stability testing to be performed following any significant alterations to the vessel structure or equipment, or following reported incidents, as described in Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 31.105, unless that incident did not involve physical damage to the vessel.
The department reasons that any development or occurrence that could fundamentally alter a vessel’s seaworthiness or stability merits the performance of a stability test 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 a stability test under this subsection, it is unlawful to operate the vessel as a party boat until results of the stability test have been submitted to the department, and the department has authorized the resumption of the operation of the party boat.

The proposed language was brought before the Boating and Waterways Advisory Committee on December 17, 2025, and received favorable feedback for all the recommendations.

As of 5:00 p.m. yesterday, the department received 25 comments– with 10 in full agreement with the proposal and 15 in disagreement with the proposal. There is strong repetition in the comments in disagreement.  And while most explicitly state that they have no opposition to the increase to the $500,000 minimum, the main focus of their comments point to an opposition with the term “per incident.”  Many indicated that the policy should be on a “per occurrence” basis.

There is also a misunderstanding by many of the commenters that the language is somehow requiring a separate policy per vessel, which is not the case.

I have spoken with the Senior Vice President of Underwriting for one of the main providers for insurance for 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.

They did encourage us to stick with the “per incident,” as currently proposed, rather than “per occurrence,” as requested by commenters, since “occurrence” term would broaden liability and likely increase premiums.

They also explained that the insurance is structured on a “per accident” basis, which in statutory language is synonymous with incident based on recent changes the legislature has made to the term “accident” to “incident.”  The insurer also mentioned that we would be able to control… or that they… excuse me, they would be able to control policy costs increases through a per person sublimit maximum, which is allowable under the existing structure as presented.

So, with that, staff request this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Thank you.

Questions?

One that occurs to me, are the boats that we regulate, or are responsible for, are they only on inland waterways and rivers?  We don’t do any offshore?

MR. JONES: That’s correct.

The U.S. Coast Guard covers all offshore and federally navigable waters.

So that’s why we’re amending our definition to make it abundantly clear that sole state waters or inland waters of the state are only applicability.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, okay.

Anybody?

Thank you.

MR. JONES: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: If there are no further questions, I’ll place this item on Thursday’s Commission agenda for public comment and action.

Next is Work Session Item No. 12: 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.

Mr. Michael Tennant.

MICHAEL 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.

Today, I’ll provide a brief review of Dotted Duckweed status, and assess the risks and benefits of permitting its aquaculture.  I’ll then review proposed rule changes for commercial cultivation previously discussed at the August and November meetings, and summarize public comments.

On March 14, 2025, the department received a petition for rulemaking requesting a revision of existing regulations to allow issuance of commercial exotic species aquaculture permits for the cultivation of Dotted Duckweed.

Currently designated as a controlled exotic aquatic plant under Texas Parks and Wildlife Department rules, Dotted Duckweed may not be possessed for commercial purposes.

Dotted Duckweed is a non-native aquatic plant with characteristics that promote potential invasiveness.

It grows rapidly and can form dense surface mats that can degrade aquatic habitat and negatively impact aquatic life, as well as recreational potential. Its physical and reproductive characteristics and multiple transport factors, including waterfowl, favor high potential for spread should it escape containment.

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 impact 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.

It has a high potential to thrive in the climate of most of Texas, except that potential is somewhat lower in the Trans-Pecos region.

Although there are past sightings, mainly in largely unsuitable sites in East Texas, currently no duckweed species are known to cause significant problems in Texas public waters.

Although climate is highly suitable for duckweed across much of the United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers its risk uncertain due to frequent misidentification leading to limited ability to assess and understand potential impacts.

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.

Next, we’ll take a broader look at permitting Dotted Duckweed for aquaculture in Texas.  In the upcoming slides, I will summarize a staff-developed risk-benefit analysis that objectively evaluates potential ecological, recreational, and management risks alongside possible benefits such as economic opportunities for businesses.  As this was previously discussed at the November meeting, I will seek to be brief.

However, following the November meeting, staff consulted with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension specialists for feedback on this analysis. Their input will be incorporated and shown on slides as yellow text.  Our goal is to provide balanced, science-based information to support the Commission in determining whether to authorize commercial cultivation of Dotted Duckweed in permitted facilities.

While its ability to form dense surface mats and outcompete other plants raises valid concern, habitat-specific risk varies; higher in small ponds and community fishing lakes, lower in flowing waters and large reservoirs.

Texas A&M AgriLife concurred and noted a high degree of concern for private ponds. Strong climate match for Texas, high reproductive potential, drought-tolerant seeds, and dispersal by many vectors, including waterfowl, increase its likelihood of establishment and spread.

Dense mats of Dotted Duckweed could reduce shoreline angling access and diminish the quality of bank fishing experiences in community fishing lakes and private ponds, which are important local fishing spots.

Texas A&M AgriLife reported that fish kills in private ponds suggest potential recreational impacts, particularly in small, private water bodies.

While watercraft access is unlikely to be significantly affected, dense coverage may impact activities like paddle boarding, swimming, and overall lake aesthetics.

As a point of reference, the red star on the map indicates the location of the petitioner’s facility, and the blue points on the map represent 901 community fishing lakes statewide that are considered potential high-risk public waters.

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.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension specialists noted contact with an average of 8,000 private pond owners annually for advice, and expressed high concern for impacts on these constituents.

Based on these direct contacts, a recent private pond owner survey and constituent visits to their aqua plant website, these Texas A&M AgriLife experts noted that they have found aquatic vegetation, particularly floating species, to be a top problem.

Additionally, they received more reports of problems for mixed duckweeds than for other floating species, with these ranking Top 10 in website visits for management advice and being one of the most significant species of concern in terms of severity, with private ponds often having over 80 percent coverage by the time landowners reach out for control advice.

Although trends in Dotted Duckweed complaints haven’t been officially tracted, and reports remain rare, confirmed cases among pond owners have risen from none to an estimated six to seven annually over the past 14 years.

Texas A&M AgriLife experts expressed concern that if Dotted Duckweed species escapes cultivation, it could pose the greatest risk to private ponds and small farm owners by disrupting irrigation and livestock watering, leaving management costs to landowners and potentially straining their resource.

Additional concerns were expressed about recreational impacts of duckweed implications in fish kills and private ponds, which can occur when coverage exceeds 60 percent of the pond’s surface, blocking oxygen exchange.

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.

However, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension specialists performed a separate literature review that shows comparative protein concentrations of duckweeds ranging from 14 to 45 percent, with Dotted Duckweed containing the lowest protein content on the list.

As of 2024, the U.S. had 15 pilot farms, 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 significantly increase an 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.

Furthermore, Texas A&M AgriLife concurred with department assessment that jobs provided and labor required would be expected to be similar whether native or Dotted Duckweed were cultured.

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 floodplain, approved escapement 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 escape 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.  The proposed rules require full containment of Dotted Duckweed, including enclosed ponds, equipment within greenhouses, and closed doors to prevent waterfowl access.

Before draining ponds, all plants must be killed by application of herbicides, and all discharge water and processing byproducts must pass through a macerator, reducing material to non-viable particles with no drainage allowed to public waters.

All processing must occur on-site and comply with TCEQ water discharge regulations.  Texas A&M AgriLife experts generally concurred that these special provisions were good containment measures.

Additional provisions include a facility site exclusion zone in coastal areas south of State Highway 21 and east of I-35 due to hurricane and flood risks, with staff noting these measures align with the petitioner’s facility plans but could be strengthened through more frequent inspections, stricter floodplain limits, and a larger exclusion zone.

To provide context for the proposed exclusion zone and an alternative option, the blue points on the map show 901 community fishing lakes statewide considered high-risk public waters. The left map shows the proposed zone in yellow, south of State Highway 21 and east of I-35, which includes 208 community fishing lakes, or 23 percent of the total.  The right map shows an alternate zone in yellow, east of I-35 and I-35 West, which includes 620 community fishing lakes, or 69 percent of the total.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension specialists agreed that high winds in hurricane-prone areas pose a risk to greenhouses, but identified hail damage as a far greater threat, especially to soft-sided structures and a risk statewide, year-round.

Tilapia producers in Texas and Louisiana using plastic-wrapped greenhouses working with AgriLife reported hail as the most damaging weather hazard, capable of causing severe losses. It was also noted that exclusion zone maps showing only community fishing lakes overlooked private agricultural ponds west of the zone, where Dotted Duckweed transported by waterfowl would likely impact farmers and ranchers first.

A total of 22 public comments were received– with 16 agreeing and 6 disagreeing with the proposed rules.

13 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 emphasized that the petitioner’s facility offers stable employment and economic growth in a region historically dependent on declining oilfield work.  It is noted that 12 of these public comments were submitted by current Plantible employees.

Three public comments…

COMMISSIONER PATTON: I’m sorry, could you repeat that?

12 of these comments?

MR. TENNANT: It is noted that 12 of these public comments were submitted by current Plantible employees.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.

MR. TENNANT: Three public comments disagreeing with the proposed rules express 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’s 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.

Since the Commission’s approval at the November meeting for staff to seek public comment, we have received a substantial amount of feedback from stakeholders.

This included a request for experts at Texas A&M AgriLife to review the department’s 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, an 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.

Earlier this month, this topic was also presented and discussed with the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee, which unanimously asserted that the risk to public and private waters were too high to prevent 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 acknowledges receiving a letter of support from Ronnie D. Hawkins, Jr., President of Angelo State University, last night, which is not reflected on this slide. 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 detail 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.

In summary, the department staff assembled a risk-benefit analysis, developed special provisions to minimize risk of escapement from permitted facilities, and sought stakeholder input.  We offer this information to help this Commission weigh the potential risks and benefits of this petition, and ultimately decide whether to permit Dotted Duckweed aquaculture.

Staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action.

That concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Mr. Chairman, I know it’ll surprise you, I have some comments.

[ laughter ]

Being the Dotted Duckweed guy here.  I would just point out that I will not be here tomorrow. I’ve got to be in Nashville to chair a meeting up there.  So, I want to point out a couple things.

The support for this comes from the state representative, and I don’t blame him, Sid Miller, a student, and 12 employees of theirs. If you take all of that out, it’s 6-4 against it.

Plus, you’ve got the Freshwater Fisheries of the State of Texas against it, Texas A&M against it, and Texas Wildlife Association against it, all stating the problems that I’ve got.

I will note that Tony Martens wrote a letter in support of this– I thought it was an excellent letter– lining out how he thought this could be safely done.

However, if you look at the hail damage that comes across there, that’s what’s going to come across West Texas. The hurricane… and you can draw a line on any road you want, you can’t stop a migratory bird from flying over that line, which will endanger the lakes and especially the small ponds, which I think is where the Freshwater Fisheries is coming.

So, you’ve probably heard enough from me, but I don’t see where the risk would outweigh any advantage for the State of Texas.

And as I stated once before, that if this were to get out, if this were to devastate the small ponds in Texas, just somehow saying, “I’m sorry” doesn’t seem good enough.  So, I would strongly encourage the Commission to not make any provisions for this.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Mr. Chairman, we just have one entity that’s asked for a permit for this?

MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

One at this time.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Okay.

I agree with Commissioner McCall.

It seemed like there’s probably going to be just very few jobs involved in this. And clearly, it’s going to take a lot of the Commission staff time to permit this and oversee this facility.  It seems to me like the risk would outweigh any benefits that we’re going to get from this industry. And plus, I’ll point out that, you know, west of 35, the water is very scarce to begin with.

And to, you know, pull water out of the ground for this type of entity situation just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So, I think there’s far more risk than benefits from this proposal.  So, I think I’ll be voting against it.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Thank you.

Other comments?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Well, I’ll certainly…

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Doggett?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett.

It’d be interesting to see how successful the state has been with controlling invasive vegetation that we allow to be grown, you know, through, I guess, the permitting process.

That would be of interest.

But on the surface here, I mean, if A&M says, “No,” and Freshwater Fisheries says, “No,” and Texas Wildlife Association says, “No,” and as we said… if there were dozens of applications and we met hundreds of potential jobs and it had a significant impact economically for the state, yeah, let’s look at this really hard. But for one application, it’s minimal the impact, and that’s going to cost the state a lot of money because of the supervision and the extra supervision we have to do. So, absolutely, my vote would be no.  I don’t see a compelling reason to say yes.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Others?

I’ll weigh in.

I’m not in favor of it either.

I think we’ve looked at this for almost a year, I think.

And we’ve heard a lot of information about it, most of which kind of scares me. And, you know, it’s certainly something that we could revisit at some point if there ever is some compelling reason to do so. But for now, I think, you know, joining my fellow Commissioners, unless I hear something to the contrary, I think I’d prefer to go the other way.

Commissioner Bell?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell.

By the way, I’m not necessarily in support of this either.

But I do know that if we push this forward to tomorrow, it would give just, what, people the opportunity for public comment. And we still have the option.  What we’d be doing today is whether we’re… if we’re not moving, yeah, whether we’re even hearing comments.

So, the question would be not so much are we pro or con of it, but do we want to hear any additional comment on it? Because we still have the opportunity to vote tomorrow.  So, I don’t know if that weighs in on anybody’s thought process.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It does.

I think you’re right about that. And I think… I don’t know, maybe the petitioner will be here. We haven’t heard from them ever.  But maybe there will be public comment.

And so, recognizing that Commissioner McCall won’t be here to weigh in, but the rest of us will be. And so probably I’m looking for nods from this table over here.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yes, you have the opportunity to advance it tomorrow so we get public comment, and then the Commission can take a final vote on it.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: So, I’d like to ask our legal.

Can I leave a proxy vote?

MR. MURPHY: Commissioner McCall, James Murphy, for the record.

Proxy votes are not allowed.

Unfortunately, I certainly understand two days is a long commitment, but we do not allow proxy votes here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

If there are no further questions, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

MR. TENNANT: Zach Olsen will now present proposed changes to clarify the definition of “aquatic plant” as it relates to introducing aquatic species into public waters.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, okay.

Did I jump the gun there a little bit?

MR. TENNANT: No, you’re fine.

ZACH OLSEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Zach Olsen.  I’m the Ecosystem Resources Program Director for the Coastal Fisheries Division.

And today, I’ll be presenting a proposed change to the definition of aquatic plants in Texas Administrative Code as it relates more generally to the introduction of aquatic plants into public waters.

The current “aquatic” plant definition is not consistent with the broader ecological understanding of aquatic plants, and only includes plants that produce seeds.  You’ll see the current definition on your screen there.

However, some species reproduce by spores or vegetatively only. As an example, most relevant to the presentation today, most macroalgae reproduces by these other means.

The definition of “aquatic plant” here is used to specify plant species for which an 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 physiological differences exhibited with macroalgae, the current aquatic plant definition does not include this group of organisms.

As I mentioned on the previous slide, macroalgae do not produce seeds, but instead reproduce via spore or vegetatively.

Macroalgae is also nonvascular, and that’s a term I want to introduce here because that will come into play when we talk about the proposed definition. Nonvascular really refers to the internal plumbing of plants used to transport nutrients and water through their systems.  And so nonvascular plants such as macroalgae lack that differentiation of traditional vascular plants.

So, although there are some variations in the physiology between macroalgae and seed producing vascular plants, many of these species still play similar ecological and structural roles on the landscape, and namely the fact that they’re photosynthetic and they have a lot of similar habitat and growth formations.

In other words, they look and perform a lot of the same things on the landscapes that traditional vascular seed bearing plants do.

We’ve seen an increased interest in the introduction of marine macroalgae or, as I’ll call them, “seaweeds.”  The interest in seaweed introduction is primarily in the context of research related to seaweed farming. Interest has been primarily in native species, or there’s been some discussion of non-native species, which is certainly concerning.

And I’ll note that there has been some introduction of non-native macroalgae in certain areas of the country, namely Hawaii, that has shown quite a bit of habitat impact, namely with regards to reef and seagrass smothering.

I also want to highlight two genres of freshwater macroalgae that you see on your screen there, Muskgrass and Stonewort.

These genres represent two specific groups for which there is nuisance potential if introduced into that freshwater system.

All of these genres and species groups are not included in that current definition of aquatic plant in Texas Administrative Code, and therefore, as I stated earlier, we seek to broaden the aquatic plant definition and include these groups; and, as you’ll see, specifically name these groups in that definition to provide some regulatory clarity and precision in the application of that aquatic introduction permit.

We also propose to add a provision to waive the aquatic introduction permit requirements for introductions coordinated with or conducted under the direction of TPWD.

In an effort to avoid any 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 aquatic introduction permit requirements for these situations at the direction of the department.

Some examples of such department coordinated restoration initiatives include: 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 also all associated educational and guidance workshops.

So, what you see on your screen there is the current proposed definition and the proposed provision for aquatic plant.

And that definition reads:

“All 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 (stonewort), and all marine macroalgae (seaweeds).”

The provision then reads:

“The department may waive the permit requirements of the subchapter for restoration and mitigation activities or other beneficial environmental purposes conducted in coordination with or at the direction of the department.”

As of 5:00 p.m. yesterday evening, January 20, we received 4 comments– 3 agree, 1 disagree.

No specific verbiage was associated with that disagree comment. I also want to add that this proposal is supported by the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee.

And that said, the request then is that staff request this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

That concludes my presentation.

I’m happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Comments or questions?

Hearing none…

I don’t know if this is on the same agenda as the one before, but I’ll place this item on Thursday’s Commission agenda for public comment and action.

MR. OLSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 13: Special Take Authorization for Disease Management– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.

Back to Kory Gann.

MR. GANN: 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 Special Take Authorization for Disease Management.

The Parks and Wildlife Code, Section 12.013, authorizes the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules governing the take of wildlife by a person authorized by TPWD as part of a program or event designated by the Executive Director for the purposes of the diagnosis, management, or prevention of a disease in wildlife.

Current rules allow for the issuance of a special take authorization to persons not employed by the department to take native deer as part of TPWD-sponsored research and management activities, such as TPWD efforts to combat chronic wasting disease.

These authorizations have proven valuable to both the department and landowners by enabling the prompt removal of CWD-traced deer from release sites.

Since the adoption of these rules, there has been a need to broaden the scope of the authorization for take to include additional wildlife health and disease-related issues.

This is increasingly evident given the potential re-invasion of the New World screwworm into Texas, which would require a mechanism for landowners to lawfully take wildlife exhibiting symptoms of New World screwworm meiosis.

New World screwworms can infest any warm-blooded animal, and effective management requires removing or isolating infested animals and implementing measures to eliminate larvae.

The proposed amendments stipulate that all provisions and conditions of take, such as the number and type of wildlife, time, means, and methods of take, duration of the authorization, reporting requirements, diagnostic sample collection, carcass disposition, and disease testing requirements, will be addressed in the authorization itself.

These changes are consistent with other permits and authorizations, like scientific research permits, where permit conditions are authorized by staff on a case-by-case basis to best fit the situation at hand.

These changes are essential to provide flexibility in addressing various disease-related issues that warrant the take of wildlife by the landowner, and will formalize the authorization of take process, removing the need for future emergency rule or Commission rule changes each time a new wildlife disease arises that requires the take of wildlife by landowners to manage.

Authorizations for take will still require Law Enforcement Division approval prior to issuance, and then additional amendments make non-substantive and conforming and housekeeping-type changes as appropriate and necessary.

At this time, staff requests permission to publish the proposed changes in the Texas Register for public comment.

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

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Comments or questions?

Hearing none, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.

Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 14: Disposition of Land– San Patricio County– Approximately 8.1 Acres at Corpus Christi, Lake Corpus Christi State Park.

Trey Vick.

TREY VICK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, my name is Trey Vick.

I’m with the Land Conservation Program.  And I’ll be presenting today a disposition of land of approximately 8 acres at Corpus Christi State Park. As you can see here on the map, Corpus Christi State Park is located where the red star is.

Here’s a close-up version of it, approximately 40 miles northwest of Corpus Christi. Corpus Christi Lake, 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, which is a current lease term through 2052.

This park provides various recreational opportunities on Lake Corpus Christi, such as paddling, fishing, birding, and camping.

The city of Corpus Christi approached staff requesting a release of approximately 8 acres from the lease. This would allow the city of Corpus Christi to lease that area to the city of Mathis for the installation of water wells adjacent to an existing city of Mathis water treatment plant.

The 8.1 acres is composed of two tracts. One tract is approximately 5.5 acres, and the second tract is approximately 2.6 acres. The requested tracts of land do not currently provide recreational opportunities to the public.  And disposition of these tracts will not hinder current park operations.

As you can see here, Lake Corpus Christi State Park is outlined in red. The area where the two tracts are located is circled in yellow here. Here’s a close-up of the subject tracts.

As you can see, the middle tract is where the water treatment plants are. The two tracts that I just mentioned are the two outlined in yellow.

As of yesterday at 5:00, we had a total of seven comments– 6 agree, with one disagree.

The reason for disagreement was the commenter wanted the tract being released to stay accessible to the public.

Staff requests decided to be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

And I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Comments or questions?

I guess the question that comes to mind from the commenter that disagreed, is there any benefit to the public to keeping that tract?  I heard you say no, but...

MR. VICK: Well, it’s going to be… operate as a public water source, so I highly doubt that we could allow it to be still accessible to the public.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Okay.

If no further questions, I’ll place this item on Thursday’s Commission agenda for public comment and action.

Thank you.

MR. VICK: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Work Session Item No. 15: Exchange of Land– Bexar County – Approximately 3 Acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area.

Mr. Vick.

MR. VICK: Again, Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, my name is Trey Vick.

I’m with the Land Conservation Program.

I’ll be presenting today an exchange of land in Bexar County of approximately 3 acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area.

Government Canyon State Natural Area is down the road in Bexar County. It sits just on the edge of San Antonio.

Government Canyon State Natural Area consists of approximately 12,000 acres situated along 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 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 Number 7, also known as the ESD 7, has requested an exchange of land with Texas Parks and Wildlife, approximately 3 acres, to construct a new fire station to serve the Kallison Ranch neighborhood and the surrounding community, which also includes the SNA.

Parks and Wildlife and Bexar County ESD 7 have worked in partnership and identified two 3-acre parcels, one from each party, to complete the exchange of land.  We will retain access for a pedestrian and vehicle path for the SNA in this exchange.

As you can see here, Government Canyon SNA is outlined in red.

The two areas where the two 3-acre tracts are located are there in the two yellow circles.

The tract to the north is the tract that’s going to be coming to Parks and Wildlife, where the tract to the south is the one that’s going to be going to the ESD 7 for the fire station.

You can note the development around that area to the south.

Here’s a close-up map of the tract coming to us, and here’s an up-close map of the tract that we will be exchanging for the fire station.  Like I said, this area has had tremendous growth, and the need for a new fire station is pretty excessive.

As of yesterday at 5:00, we’ve received 11 comments– all agree.  And staff requests this item be placed on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Comments or questions?
Hearing none, if there are no further questions I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

Thank you, Mr. Vick.

MR. VICK: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, Work Session Item Nos. 16-25 will be heard in Executive Session.

At this time, I would like to announce that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 551 Government Code referred to as the Open Meetings Act, an Executive Session will be held for the purpose of deliberation of real estate matters under Section 551.072 of the Open Meetings Act, and seeking legal advice under Section 551.071 of the Open Meetings Act, including advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation.

We will now recess for the Executive Session at 1.03 p.m.

Thank you.

[ GAVEL POUNDS ]

BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION

CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: We will now reconvene the Work Session on January 21, 2026, at 2:58 p.m.

Before we begin, I will take roll call.

I, Chairman Paul Foster, am present.

Commissioner Doggett?

COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall?

COMMISSIONER DR. JOHN A. McCALL: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?

COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman,

COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

That’s it.

We are now returning from the Executive Session where we discussed the Work Session Real Estate Item Nos. 16-23, Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects Item No. 24, and Litigation Item

No. 25.

If there are no further questions, I will place Item Nos. 16-20 on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for the public comment and action.

For Items 21-23, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.

Regarding Items 24 and 25, no further action is needed.

Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its Work Session business. And I declare us adjourned at 2:59 p.m.

[ GAVEL POUNDS ]